Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae: Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research [1 ed.] 9783666552021, 9783525552025

Citation preview

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in Co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie Anne McKee, Richard Muller, Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman

Volume 39

Herman J. Selderhuis / Arnold Huijgen (ed.)

Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de.

ISSN 2198-8226 ISBN 978-3-525-55202-5 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de © 2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound by Hubert & Co GmbH & Co. KG, Robert-Bosch-Breite 6, D-37079 Göttingen Printed on aging-resistant paper.

Contents

Preface

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Part I. Plenary Papers Peter Opitz Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation. Detecting the Traces . . .

13

Christian Grosse La ‘réparation publique’ réformée: ritualisation et dé-ritualisation de la pénitence dans les Eglises calvinistes (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle) . . . . . . . . .

29

Jung-Sook Lee ‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva and Its Relevance to the Korean Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

Elsie Anne McKee Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

. . . .

65

Johanna Rahner New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin? The Present Status and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

Herman J. Selderhuis ‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’ John Calvin on Death and Dying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 John L. Thompson Second Thoughts about Conscience. Nature, the Law, and the Law of Nature in Calvin’s Pentateuchal Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

6

Contents

Piotr Wilczek The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works. In the Context of the History of Christianity in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Part II. Seminars Max Engammare Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Anthony N.S. Lane Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Petr Sˇkubal Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Part III. Short Papers Forrest Buckner Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology. A Corrective to Billings and Muller on Calvin’s Divine Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Amy Nelson Burnett Exegesis and Eucharist. Unexplored Connections Between Calvin and Oecolampadius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Esther Chung-Kim John Calvin on Poverty and Wealth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Patrizio Foresta ‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7). Substitutionstheologische Elemente in Calvins Institutio religionis christianae (1559). . . . . . . . . 273 Aurelio Garcia A Reformer’s Twilight. Character and Crisis in Calvin’s Dedicatory Preface to his Commentary on Genesis (1563), and in Beza’s Preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Ezekiel (1565). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Pierrick Hildebrand Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17. The Covenant Conditions

. . . . . . 297

Contents

7

R. Ward Holder Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture. John Calvin’s Antidote to the Council of Trent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Luka Ilic´ Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography . . . . . . . . . . 319 Sun-kwon Kim L’union mystique chez Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Jeannette Kreijkes The Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias as an Indication that Calvin Read Chrysostom in Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 Jonathan Lett ‘God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!’ Pneumatology and Participation in the Theology of John Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 Karin Maag Calvin’s Impact in Elizabethan England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 Balázs Dávid Magyar ‘The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light’ Portraits of Genevan Family Life in John Calvin’s Sermons on Ephesians . 375 Joe Mock Justification, Sanctification, and Participation in Christ. A Comparison between Calvin and Bullinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Wim Moehn ‘Repos’ Focus on a Neglected Lemma in Calvin’s Sermons . . . . . . . . . 399 Jeannine Olson A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches. Beza and Nicolas Des Gallars Collaborate against John Morély . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 György Papp Aspects of Calvin’s Use of Chrysostom-Quotations Concerning the Free Will. How Did Calvin Quote Chrysostom in the Chapters Concerning the ‘Free Will’ of His Institutes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

8

Contents

Herman A. Speelman Calvin on Confession. His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline and our Struggle to Understand his View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 David M. Whitford The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde. Preaching the Maudlin . . . . . . 449 About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

Preface

Whereas there may have been some fear that after the 2009 Calvin-year, interest in the study of Calvin would diminish or even fade away, the eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research, held August 24–28, 2014 in Zurich, proved the exact opposite. The papers presented in the plenary sessions, the seminars and shortpaper sessions demonstrated that the interest in Calvin research is even growing and that there is still much to be discovered. In fact, we as editors had the unpleasant task to refuse some of the presented manuscripts, not for lack of quality, but to keep the size of this volume acceptable. We wish to thank Wouter Beinema and Jaco van Rossum for their assistance in preparing the manuscript, and the Theological University Apeldoorn for financial support. Once again it was a pleasure to work with publishing house Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, for which we express our appreciation. Like the titles of all previous congress volumes, the present title has been taken from one of the letters to John Calvin, though not from a single letter in particular, since Calvin was addressed as ‘pastor ecclesiae’ very often and by many colleagues. This is also the position in which he passed away, 450 years before this congress in Zurich took place. Herman Selderhuis Arnold Huijgen

Part I. Plenary Papers

Peter Opitz

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation Detecting the Traces

Introduction It is traditional for the first lecture at the International Calvin Congress to be given by the host institution. Research at the Institute for Swiss Reformation History at the University of Zurich focuses on the Swiss Reformation, and with our common interests in sources and perspectives in mind, it seems only right to launch the Calvin Congress here in Zurich by looking at our subject through that particular lens. To do so means considering Calvin as a Reformer and pastor who lived and worked in the political and intellectual field of the Swiss Reformation. This approach is not entirely new. Yet many studies of Calvin start with the Genevan Reformer or limit their view to the city of Geneva, failing to acknowledge the immediate communication context into which Calvin was immediately adopted when he entered the political arena of the Protestant part of the Swiss Confederation. When it comes to Zurich and especially to Zwingli and the ‘Zwinglians’, Calvin is often presented as if he were dealing and negotiating with a distant and foreign communication partner, as remote as, if not even more remote than, Saxony. Calvin could be very critical of the Zwinglians, and indeed of Zwingli himself. When the overzealous Zwinglian André Zébédée (who was from the Low Countries, not from Zurich) wrote that to expect a greater figure than Zwingli in the present century would be a sin, Calvin’s polemical repost placed Luther much higher than the Swiss Reformer (Blanke: 1960, 21). Influenced by Luther’s polemics, Calvin held that Zwingli, while a pioneer in the fight against superstition in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, went too far and thereby also denied a positive effect by the Eucharist. As a consequence, Calvin scholar Francois Wendel (1963, 36f.) concluded, ‘that one cannot under these conditions speak of any dependency of Calvin upon Zwingli is clear enough.’ Wendel continued, however, in the next sentence, ‘It is

14

Peter Opitz

indeed quite incomprehensible how certain contemporaries such as Bolsec and Westphal could have been so blinded (…) as to present Calvin as a successor of Zwingli, especially in what had to do with the doctrines of predestination and the Eucharist.’ What if Calvins enemies knew him better than a historian centuries later does? Therefore, I would like to take you with me on four forays into some Zurich sources, asking what they can tell us about Calvin. While the exchanges between Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger that resulted in the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549 are well known, here our attention will be turned in particular to the early Calvin and his hidden relationship with Zwingli, the ‘pioneer’ of the Swiss Reformation (and of the global Reformed Reformation), whom Calvin never had the chance to meet.

1. First Foray: Guillaume Farel and His Network Our first foray begins at the Reformation memorial in Geneva. We spy the great Reformer John Calvin, and to his right we find the beginnings of Calvin’s posthistory: Theodore Beza, his successor, and next to Beza John Knox, who symbolizes the transition of the Genevan Reformation into the Anglo world. But the Reformation narrative does not begin with Calvin. Looking to Calvin’s prehistory, we see his best friend, Guillaume Farel, standing on his left. On a dramatic July night in 1536 Farel had famously adjured Calvin to risk the curse of God or stay and serve as Geneva’s reformer. Yet, Farel’s significance should not be limited to this historical act alone. For decades Farel wrestled through any number of struggles alongside Calvin and stood in solidarity with his friend his entire life long. In 1549, he travelled with Calvin to Zurich to put his name to the Consensus Tigurinus; in 1553 he was present when Servetus was executed. Calvin addressed Farel as his ‘très chère frère et singulier ami’ (very dear brother and singular friend),1 and in his dedication of his commentary on Titus to Farel and Viret, recorded on 3 December 1549, he wrote of a ‘holy connection’ between Farel, Viret and himself. In a letter written one week later Farel added the Zurich Reformer as a fourth member of that sacred union (CO 13.477f; CO 13.496). That addition is highly revealing. Hidden in the gestalt of Farel lies the Swiss Reformation and a sense of its influence on Calvin’s works and thought.

1 CO 11.42. See: Lange van Ravenswaay: 1983, 63–72. Due to the limited space, it is not possible to list all the important secondary literature on the topics to which I will refer. The works listed will give the reader access, however, to particular points of interests.

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation

15

When Calvin met Farel, the latter was Zwingli’s missionary to the Frenchspeaking regions of Switzerland. As a reformer Farel bore the deep imprint of Zwingli and that mark never entirely left him, even as he agreed with Calvin on eucharistic discipline and adopted Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper. That Farel’s Sommaire (Hofer: 1980) is no more than a French summary of Zwingli’s Commentarius should come as no surprise. Let us visit some of the stations of the influences upon Farel. In December 1523, after he had turned to the Reformation, Farel travelled to Basel. From there, Farel, who thought of himself as a ‘jeune néophyte’ (see Farel: 1930, 106), visited Zwingli in Zurich (see Pfister: 1947) to ask him for advice and direction. Despite the language barrier, a friendship between the two men was launched and with it a relationship between the Zurich Reformer and the French. On 23 February 1524 we find Farel back in Basel, where he employed thirteen theses in a disputation with the Catholic clergy of the city2 in consort with Oecolampadius, who had been in Basel since autumn 1522 and who completed the translation of the theses into German. Oecolampadius presented the thirteen theses to the city council of Basel, and, finally, sent them to Zwingli, writing in an accompanying letter that he wanted to let his ‘spiritual father’ know of their content.3 The erection of these theses on foundations provided by Zwingli’s theology was the work of not only Farel but also Oecolampadius. The latter had begun to correspond with Zwingli on 10 December 1522, shortly after he arrived in Basel. ‘Whoever loves Christ’, he had written, ‘cannot do other than to also love Zwingli because he carries forth the things of Christ with such zeal and accuracy’.4 A close association and friendship soon sprang up between the Basel and Zurich Reformers. Oecolampadius appears to have requested Zwingli’s opinion on all topics, writing to Zwingli, ‘I consider everything that comes from you good, even when you are tough on me, because I am sure that you belong to Christ, and he is working though you.’5 The two men attended the Colloquy of Marburg 2 First thesis: ‘Absolutissimam nobis praescripsit Christus vivendi regulam, cui nec addere licet, nec detrahere.’ Second thesis: ‘Sola nobis a deo praecepta ex fide fieri possunt, ut impium sit alicui factioni se adigere, aut sub aliis quam Christi praeceptis degere …’. Herminjard: 1866, 91. 3 ‘Hulricho Zvinglio, ecclesiasto Tigurino, Oecolampadius et Bonifacius [Bonifacius Wolfhart, ca. 1490–1543] gratiam optant et pacem in Christo. En tibi schedam conclusionum a Gallo illo latine apud nos disputatam et ab Oeclampadio in maxima christianorum in vernacula interpretatam.’ Egli: 1879, 218 f. 4 ‘Nam dum mihi de te tot praedicantur bona, quae absque singulari voluptate audire non possum, agnosco ego meam ignaviam. Et velim nolim animo trahor, me tibi commendem et insinuem, ut tua fragrantia refociller uberius … aut quis non amaret eum, qui Christi negocium tanta diligentia agit? Qui oves suas tanta fide pascit? Qui lupis tam metuendus est, qui se murum opponit pro domo Israel, qui nobis priscos illos religionis cultores verbo et moribus exprimit? …’, Z 7.635. 5 ‘Omnia enim tua boni consulo, etiamsi severiter mecum ageres; persuasum enim mihi est, quod Christi sis et ille per te operetur.’ Z 8.345.

16

Peter Opitz

together. Differences of theological opinion did not disturb this friendship; such disagreement was rather an essential part of their relationship. Let us return to Farel’s travels. After his time in Basel, from April 1525 until October 1526 he stayed in Strasbourg, where he interacted closely with Wolfgang Capito and Martin Bucer. At that time, both Capito and Bucer were also in intense contact with Zwingli, whom they sought out on their own initiative. Just how close Capito’s theological development and perspective were to Zwingli’s approach can be discerned even from 1516 on and is obvious in Capito’s commentary on Habakkuk and Hosea.6 As a preacher in Basel, Capito launched his own lectio continua, the consecutive interpretation of a single biblical book, a few months before Zwingli did so in Zurich (Stierle: 1974, 55, 176f). Capito also convinced Bucer of Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Kittelson: 1975, 147), and as a result Bucer stood at Zwingli’s side in Marburg in 1529. Their common ground did not end with eucharistic teaching, however, for Capito and Zwingli held foundational theological accents in common, accents that they did not share with Luther. Martin Bucer, too, perhaps the deepest and most direct influence on Calvin, carried clear traces of Zwingli in his fundamental theology. Both Capito and Bucer described the Zurich Reformer as the ‘apostle’ of the Strasbourg church,7 and Bucer would subsequently request Zwingli’s opinion on all of his actions and writings (Lang: 1972, 99). The index of the Huldrych Zwingli Werke tells of fiftynine letters written by Bucer to Zwingli, in addition to seventy-three letters written together with Capito to Zwingli before Zwingli’s early death (Locher: 1979, 458). The Reformers whom Farel visited in Basel, Zurich and Strasbourg convened several times. Bucer, Capito and Zwingli also all took part in the Reformation disputation held in Berne in January 1528. After Zwingli’s death, in 1531, Capito travelled through the Swiss Confederation, a journey that in January 1532 enabled him to compose the Berner Synodus. Capito had been entrusted with producing not simply a church ordinance for Berne, but also a key feature of the architecture of the Reformed Church after the defeat of Kappel (Locher: 1988). Geneva would never have been reformed without the Reformation in Berne. Farel, who had also been present at the Berne Disputation, translated into French the theses debated at Berne. Subsequently, he served as Reformer of the region we now call Western Switzerland and reported in his letters to Zwingli on the 6 See: Heimbucher: 2008; for Bucer: ‘Certus enim sum: qui evangelium tam doces fortiter et vivis adeo syncere, citra delectum nulloque personarum respectu quemlibet proximum non verbo tantum et lingua, sed opere et veritate diligis, quantumvis sit terrae filius nulloque nobilius merito.’ Z 7.454. 7 ‘(…) nostrae ecclesiae velut apostolus es’ Capito in a letter to Zwingli, Z 11.772. Bucer: 1960, 237. See also Z 8.279.

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation

17

progress of the Reformation in these lands. On 1 October 1531, shortly before Zwingli’s death, Farel wrote to Zwingli, ‘I would like you to partake in my work and its fruit: I hear from Geneva that they are seriously considering Christ, and people say that they, if Fribourg allows it, will quickly accept the Gospel.’8 Not only was Farel significantly involved in the Geneva Reformation by May 1536, but he also called Calvin to be his co-worker in the most westerly city within the Swiss Reformation’s direct sphere of influence. Even though necessarily brief, this first foray enables us to note that the reformations in the cities in which Calvin spent time—Basle, Geneva and Strasbourg—were all decisively shaped from the beginning by the reformation that originated in Zurich. Calvin entered this network of communication when he fled from France. Therefore, it is not surprising that the names Farel, Viret, Bullinger and Bucer so often appear as Calvin’s correspondents. We know of 115 letters from Calvin to Bullinger and of 162 from Bullinger to Calvin between 1538 and Calvin’s death. After Farel and Viret, Bullinger is in third place in terms of surviving correspondence with Calvin, and in first place among Reformers who were not Calvin’s immediate colleagues in Geneva. The thoughts and actions of almost all of Calvin’s allies and of his important partners in dialogue were deeply shaped by the Swiss Reformation. These individuals certainly had their personal opinions, and, yes, they could quarrel. That Bucer and Bullinger argued about how to deal with the question of the Lord’s Supper in relation to Luther as he aged and the Wittenberg Reformation is well known. Their difference of opinion was as much concerned with how to deal with Luther in light of the political context as with theological formulations. Their differing stances did not change the fact that they understood themselves to be bound together and to belong to the Swiss and southwest German Reformation, and not to the Wittenberg Reformation. The political prerequisites for their sense of common purpose were shaped by the confederation known as the ‘Christliches Burgrecht’, created on Zwingli’s initiative. One final example of this interconnectedness and common purpose will suffice: in 1536, the year in which Calvin’s Institutio first appeared, a large volume with the correspondence between Oecolampadius and Zwingli was also published. The book contained, among other things, a description of Zwingli’s life written by his old friend Oswald Myconius and a life of Oecolampadius written by Wolfgang Capito and Simon Grynaeus.9 Calvin had attended Grynaeus’ lectures on Romans and would dedicate his own commentary on Romans published in 8 ‘Apud Gebennenses non nihil audio de Christo meditari, et, si per Friburgenses liceret, aiunt excipiendum prompte evangelium.’ Z 11.631. 9 Ioannis Oecolampadii et Huldrichi Zvingli epostolarum libri quatuor (…) Basel 1536 [ZBZ 5.29].

18

Peter Opitz

1539 to the theologian (CO 10b.402–406). Martin Bucer wrote a foreword to this volume and therein defended Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The book documents that this circle of authors was conscious of a bond and a common theological basis. It speaks from within the communication network formed by Reformers who were influenced by Zwingli and Oecolampadius after 1531.

2. A Second Foray: The Expulsion from Geneva and Its Context How did the network that Calvin entered in 1536 function? How did Calvin act within that network? What was the role of Zurich? Our second and third forays will seek to respond to these questions by engaging a range of examples. In this case, I have chosen themes for which research often focuses on Calvin alone: church discipline and philological biblical exegesis. We begin with a letter that Calvin sent from Geneva to Heinrich Bullinger in Zurich on 21 February 1538. Together with his friend Farel, Calvin had tried to introduce reformed church ordinances to Geneva but had encountered both obstacles and resistance, and the Genevan city council eventually decided to expel both Reformers from the city. In this hopeless situation, Calvin poured out his heart to the Zurich Antistes and asked Bullinger for a meeting in order that they might discuss excommunication from the Lord’s Supper as a necessary means of church discipline: ‘If we would just be given the gift of one day to talk! (…) in my opinion, we will not have a solid church, in any case, if we do not implement Apostolic church discipline again.’10 Why did Calvin choose to write such a letter to Bullinger in particular? He would certainly have known that Bullinger was no proponent of excommunication in Zurich. To answer that question, we need first to take a step back. When Farel and Calvin proposed in their articles on the church ordinances for the Genevan Church that excommunication from the Lord’s Supper be employed, they were not the first in the Swiss Confederation to voice support for such a measure. Fourteen years earlier, in his theses of 1523, Zwingli had emphasized the importance of the practice of excommunication according to the Bible: as a means for the Christian community to exclude intractable sinners, and not, as had previously been the case, as a civil punishment for financial debts (Z 2.277– 288). But he had provided no detailed or concrete notion of how such ex10 ‘Utinam vero dies unus ad liberam commentationem nobis daretur (…) Hoc tamen obiter indicabo, mihi videri, nos diuturnam ecclesiam non habituros, nisi restituta in integrum antiqua illa, hoc est, apostolica disciplina, quae apud nos in multis partibus desideratur. Nondum extorquere potuimus, ut pura sanctaque reduceretur excommunicationis observatio.’ CO 6.154.

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation

19

communication should be implemented. Zwingli held it crucial that the local Christian church community have the final word.11 Zwingli seems to have sought, unsuccessfully, to introduce the practice of excommunication to the new Zurich church order drawn up very soon after (Z 4.31–34; Egli: 1973, 451–453, no. 944). Accepting the decision of the Zurich council, he then changed his mind. Now he was convinced that circumstances in Zurich were comparable not with the experiences of the first Christians in Jerusalem but with the situation of Israel. Like Old Testament prophets, the Reformers were not tasked to gather a small circle of real Christians and exclude all others, but rather were responsible for preaching God’s word to the whole nation, allowing the Spirit to do what is alone the work of the Spirit. But the matter was far from settled. The question of excommunication was inevitably posed again in each newly reformed municipality of the Swiss Confederation (Egli: 1899, 99–121). At the so-called ‘Burgtag’ held in Aarau in September 1530, with delegations from the Reformed municipalities of Zurich, Berne, Basel, Schaffhausen, St Gall, Mühlhausen, Biel, and Constance, Oecolampadius proposed excommunication be adopted as a communal practice.12 The decision was postponed several times, until finally, at the assembly known as the ‘Christliches Burgrecht’, held on 16 November 1530 in Basel, the delegates decided that each city could introduce excommunication as appropriate to its own circumstances (see Z 11.131; and Kessler: 1902, 355). Here, then, was a typically Swiss solution. That method corresponded with the form of decision making in church affairs that Zwingli had championed with the concept of the synod. While the Reformed cities were to remain in contact and meet regularly, they also had the right to go their own way, following their own understanding of God’s Word. From the start the Swiss Reformation had been characterized by an acknowledged and accepted degree of pluralism. Disagreement about the praxis of excommunication was therefore no obstacle to continued mutual support and solidarity among the Swiss Reformers. When Oecolampadius wrote to Zwingli on 26 October 1530, after Zurich had rejected the use of excommunication, he voiced no resentment, writing instead, ‘our love is holier than to let this create the slightest distance between us.’13 When we return to Calvin’s letter to Zurich of February 1538 but now set that text against this Swiss background, an explanation for Calvin’s writing to Bullinger seems obvious: like Oecolampadius before him, Calvin also sought Zur11 ‘Haec, inquam, excommunicationis potestas non est magistratus; nam totius ecclesiae est’, Z 3.879. See also Z 3.807. 12 ‘Oratio de reducenda excommunicatione’, Staehelin: 1939, 507. Strickler: 1876, 787. See: Staehelin: 1939, 506–527. See: Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk Oekolampads, 506–527. 13 ‘charitas nobis sanctior est, ut propterea vel tantillum ab eis alienemur’ Oekolampadius, letter to Zwingli, 7 November 1530, Z 11.227 (no. 1130).

20

Peter Opitz

ich’s support and backing, even for a measure that Zurich did not adopt. Calvin thus demonstrated that he did not consider his reformation in Geneva an isolated ministry and that it was not his intention to build a church according to his personal ideas and precepts alone; rather, he sought to act within the framework of the Swiss Reformation. He not only wanted Zurich’s approval; he also needed that endorsement for political reasons. And he had good reason to expect that Zurich would support him even for a cause that did not follow official practice in Zurich. A comment by Beza in his Latin life of Calvin is in accord with this interpretation: Beza noted that when facing criticism of the Genevan ordinance on excommunication, Calvin had cited the support for his position found in the writings of ‘the most learned men of the age’, namely Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Zwick, Melanchthon, Bucer, Capito and Myconius.14 It is thus hardly surprising that after they were expelled from Geneva, Calvin and Farel immediately went to Zurich, where a synod of the Swiss Reformed cites was taking place. In all, Calvin travelled five times to Zurich for conversation with Bullinger. That Bullinger was never in Geneva is not a sign of Calvin’s greater ecumenical effort, but simply a consequence of contemporary political and intellectual power structures. On the occasion of the Reformers’ stay in Zurich following their expulsion from Geneva, Bullinger took the opportunity to reprimand the two eager-minded Genevan Reformers, warning them to have rather more patience with the population (Stam: 2003). And fifteen years later, in the midst of the critical situation he faced in Geneva in 1553, Calvin was able to gain the support of Zurich for his position on discipline in relation to the Lord’s Supper, even though such sanctions were not practiced in Zurich (CO 14.696–703).

3. A Third Foray: The ‘hebraica veritas’ and Its Experts Our third foray brings us to an older Calvin and to the subject of exegesis. Calvin is known as one of the first exegetes of his time to have resolutely rejected allegorical interpretation of scripture as a method. Calvin’s approach was founded on the idea of the ‘Hebrew truth’ (hebraica veritas). In the 1550s Calvin worked on exegetical lectures on the Psalms, from which his commentary on the Psalms finally emerged in 1557 (Opitz: 2008a). In his preface, Calvin praised Martin Bucer as an exemplary exegete. Bucer’s comprehensive commentary on the Psalms lay on Calvin’s desk, but what else would have been found there? Calvin gives us little specific information, for he was always very reluctant to reveal the sources that had helped him to formulate his ideas, but we have clues in 14 CO 21.133. The French version states that Calvin has ‘always estimated and honoured’ (‘toujours estimee et honorée’) the Zurich church (CO 21.25).

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation

21

his repeated references to rabbinic commentators, particularly David Kimchi and Abraham Ibn Ezra. But we might well wonder whether Calvin’s command of Hebrew was sufficient to allow him to read the Bomberg Bible and Jewish commentaries on the Psalms. Calvin had, however, the ideal colleague in the printer Robert Estienne (Robertus Stephanus), who had come to Geneva from Paris and had proven skills in printing Greek and Hebrew Bible texts. Estienne’s Protestant leanings had made his position in France precarious—the Biblia sacrosancta, which he printed in Paris in 1545, was prohibited in France the following year—and he determined to flee to Geneva. Once there, he placed himself in the service of the Reformation—and in the service of Calvin. In Geneva he printed a range of resources that included the Lexicon hebraicum of 1548 that drew on David Kimchi’s Book of Roots (Opitz: 2008b). While still in Paris, Robert Estienne had already had contact with leading figures in the Zurich church. His Biblia sacrosancta, which he brought with him to Geneva, was translated and adapted by Leo Jud, Theodor Bibliander and Konrad Pellikan, all of whom had worked directly alongside Zwingli (see Gordon: 2014). A decade later, the large Biblia sacra latina of 1556/57 appeared simultaneously with Calvin’s commentary on the Psalms. The Bible contained a detailed index, annotations for the Old Testament with different translations, variants in the Hebrew verbalisms, and theological comments. Estienne wrote in his preface that he had used a transcript of a lecture by François Vatable as one source, but noted that he had drawn also on comments in another scholarly translation.15 Which might that have been? Konrad Pellikan (1478–1556), whom we have just met, was amongst the best and most renowned Hebraists in all of Europe. Present at the beginnings of the reformation in Basel, in 1525 Pellikan was called to the Lectorium in Zurich. He was a friend and associate of Zwingli who had taught Old Testament before him (see: Z 14.871–899; Migsch: 2009), but he was also acquainted with Calvin as part of the network of Swiss Reformers. In February 1538, Farel passed on personal greetings to him.16 Pellikan also translated into Latin rabbinic commentaries on the Old Testament books, including works by David Kimchi and Abraham Ibn Ezra (Zürcher: 1975; Hobbs: 1999). Pellikan wrote in his diary, published as the Chronicon, that Robert Estienne from Geneva had visited him for eight days at the beginning of December 1549, and that Estienne had urgently requested his

15 Biblia sacra latina, juxta veterem et S. Pagnini Veteris Testamenti, Theod. Bezae Novi Tralationem cum notis Fr. Vatabli, etc, Geneva 1556/1557; in the preface (Ad lectorem): ‘Adiectae sunt annotationes cum ex aliorum tralatione, tum vero ex Commentariis Hebraeorum ab ipso Vatablo diligenter excusis: quae commentarii vice lectoribus esse poterunt.’ 16 ‘Salutant te fratres omnes, Calvinus praecipue’, CO 6.156 (no. 94).

22

Peter Opitz

translation of the rabbinic texts. Pellikan agreed and Estienne finally sent his assistant Thomas Courtean to Zurich to bring Pellikan’s texts to Geneva.17 It would be surprising if these texts had not found their way onto Calvin’s desk. And precisely during this period, Calvin was writing his commentary on the Psalms and citing rabbinic scholars—without mentioning who had helped him to read them. As our example suggests, the communication network of the Swiss Reformation greatly aided the interaction of humanist education and Reformed Bible exegesis. Without this network, Calvin’s exegesis is simply unthinkable. In his interpretation of the Letter to the Romans, Calvin wrote in his famous preface, he had gone his own way only after learning from Simon Grynaeus of Basel and from Bullinger of Zurich. It seems clear that he had profited from the Old Testament scholarship undertaken in Zurich as well. In an article on the ‘Ecole Rhénane’ (Roussel: 1988), the ‘Rhine school of exegesis’, Bernard Roussel has pointed to the exegetical network formed by Upper Rhine theologians. The Swiss sources remind us, however, that the River Rhine is fed by the Lake of Zurich (e.g: Opitz: 2008c).

4. A Fourth Foray: Calvin’s Institutio of 1536 How did Calvin, with his roots in France, gain access to the Swiss Reformation communication network? Every Calvin biography tells us that Farel convinced Calvin to stay in Geneva to help build up the Genevan Reformed church. However, Farel alone did not have the competence to appoint Calvin to that position. Calvin was only called to Geneva because not just Farel but also other Swiss Reformers with authority and status, and above all Heinrich Bullinger, saw Calvin as suitable for the task in hand. It was above all essential that Calvin’s teaching fit within the framework established by the First Helvetic Confession, the Confessio Helvetica prior (Saxer: 2006), the common confession adopted by the Swiss and southwest German Reformers in Basel in January 1536. That theological statement was indebted to Zwingli’s basic insights and bore the imprint of Oecolampadius and, above all, Bullinger. Simon Grynaeus, already encountered here as professor of Greek in Basel, was one of the authors of the confession, and Strasbourg Reformers Wolfgang Capito and Martin Bucer were also involved in

17 ‘totus sum in iudaicis stoliditatibus nunc talmudicis, postquam transtuli integre tres eorum celebres Rabbinos in toto Biblia, rogatu Roberti Stephani, cui omnia Genevam misi, apud quem utilius resident quam meum, quibus usurus sit suo tempore ad studiosorum profectum.’ Riggenbach: 1877, 180.

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation

23

its drafting—here, then, we find the entire circle of theologians who had stood at Zwingli’s side in Marburg. The background to the confession was made up of the Swiss Reformers’ wellknown rejection of Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, Luther’s refusal to accept the Swiss as ‘brothers’, and the internal disagreement among Swiss and southwest German Reformers as to how to deal with this situation and its political consequences. While texts with varying interpretations of the Lord’s Supper had been generated within the circle of Swiss and southwest German theologians, the common foundations of the ‘Reformed’ community were so strong that its members would not have considered its integrity threatened by differences of opinion on this issue, just as that community could also withstand differences over the practice of excommunication (Saxer: 2006, 52f). The First Helvetic Confession’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper clearly goes beyond that of Zwingli’s Commentarius. It builds on the later Zwingli, e.g. his Fidei expositio (1531) and was strongly influenced by Bullinger and Zwingli’s younger colleagues. Bullinger always defended Zwingli, and he had to. Nevertheless, while evidently he did not feel the Commentarius’s doctrine on the Lord’s Supper essentially wrong, he did view it as insufficient, as did also both Zwingli himself and, later, Calvin. Calvin’s criticism of Zwingli’s doctrine of the Eucharist did not apply to what the First Helvetic Confession of 1536 teaches. Calvin himself said that he had read only Zwingli’s early writings on the subject, and he criticized those ‘Zwinglians’ who wanted to stand by that early account at any price (Blanke: 1960, 31). While such Zwinglians existed, even Zwingli himself was not among them. On first holding Calvin’s Institutio in their hands—the first edition appeared in March 1536, two months after the First Helvetic Confession—Swiss Reformers Leo Jud and Konrad Pellikan would have been surprised and elated. This unknown French theologian was presenting Swiss doctrine precisely and succinctly.18 Leo Jud, for one, may well have been struck by the similarities between the pattern of reasoning in the Institutio of 1536 and that in his own Zurich Catechism of 1534, a German text that had not been translated into Latin. We have a clear indication that Calvin immediately sent a copy of his work to Bullinger, and the only imaginable reason for him to do so was surely to introduce himself into the circle of Swiss and southwest German Reformers. While we do not know specifically of Bullinger’s reaction, we can surmise that he would have been somewhat reserved, for he was in the midst of his conflict with Bucer, and Calvin seemed to side with the Strasbourg Reformer. Calvin’s proximity to

18 Conrad Pellikan to Vadian: ‘tam apertam et solidam veritatem ut contemni nequeat’, Arbenz/ Wartmann: 1903, 326; Leo Jud: CO 11.358–360.

24

Peter Opitz

Bucer was not reason, however, for the Zurich Reformer to prevent Calvin becoming a pastor in Geneva. Which elements of Swiss doctrine did Calvin present in his Institutio of 1536? That question deserves a detailed answer, but we can list at least some of those points here.19 Unlike Luther, Calvin placed at the centre of his doctrine neither individual salvation nor comfort for the conscience when facing the wrath of God and struggling with the devil. Instead, he started in a typical humanist manner, with the place of man in creation and the range of human knowledge, as had Zwingli before him (OS 1.37; Z 3.638–640). The Institutio of 1536 was already mainly concerned with the honouring of God (OS 1.38; Z 3.911,30) and with God’s rightful claim for his creation, including humankind. Man is defined as created in God’s image, which in turn defines the purposes of human life, where true and false religion are encountered and true worship is a spiritual act and can encompass the struggle against idols and the veneration of images (OS 1.37f; 42– 49). Calvin’s text focuses on the church on earth, which is chosen by God and lives according to God’s will (OS 1.42; 86–89). He talks of Christ not only as a personal redeemer but also as the Lord and ‘captain’ (dux) (Z 3.696) of the church and the world, who makes a ‘covenant’ with humankind (OS 1.40, 81, 84). The Institutio points to the Holy Spirit, who draws humankind to God, creates faith and awakes love towards God and humankind, indicating the close connection between what later would be termed justification and sanctification, as well as the doctrine of the ‘internal testimony of the Holy Spirit’ (OS 1.85.86f.; see Z 3.252; 265). As a consequence, faith is not only an act of trust in God’s ‘promissio’; it is also an inchoate movement towards God and God’s holiness, an action that implies and gives birth to true repentance and the ‘mortification’ of the body. Such accents were particularly strong in the Swiss Reformation and part of Zwingli’s teaching (OS 1.172; Z 2.480,6–11; 630, 3–11). And in some respects their presentation in Calvin’s Institutio is more precise than in the writings of the Zurich Reformers. In his discussion of the doctrine of the sacraments in the Institutio of 1536, Calvin uses terms also employed by the Swiss Reformers, speaking of the ‘Lord’s Meal’, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ and the ‘Eucharist’ (OS 1.136). He does not write of the ‘Sacrament of the Altar’, the standard expression for Luther. According to the Institutio, the Lord’s Supper celebration is a symbolic act, with the sacraments ‘external signs’ and ‘exercises’,20 and that celebration provides an analogy between a human action and a spiritual thing (OS 1.138; 150; Z 6.5, 157f). The 19 Unfortunately, the editors of Calvin’s Opera selecta were not at all familiar with the writings of the Zurich reformers, as every glance at the footnotes reveals all too clearly; Calvin: 1936. 20 ‘signum externum’, OS 1.118; ‘exercitia’, OS 1.119, ‘quae putat sacramenta talia esse signa, ut, cum exerceantur in homine, simul intus fiat, quod sacramentis significetur.’ Z 3.761,2f.

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation

25

formulation in the Institutio of 1536 is quite similar to that in Zwingli’s Fidei expositio, the First Helvetic Confession, and the much-later Heidelberg Catechism.21 The Institutio further stressed that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial meal in commemoration of the death of Christ, which happened once and for all times (OS 1.137; 145; see Z 3.804f). The sacrament ‘does not bring about that Christ becomes the bread of life for us, but rather it calls us to remember that he became the bread of life for us’.22 The sacrament is a ‘spiritual’ communion with Christ by faith, as described in John 6 and by Augustine.23 The Lord’s Supper is at the same time a confession, in which we are bound as a community and made one body (OS 1.145, Z 3.807; 4.5, 161). All of the points included by Zwingli in his doctrine of the Eucharist were gathered together in the Institutio of 1536. Similar thoughts and formulations can also be found in Luther’s writings, particularly in his early works. Calvin’s theological proximity to the Swiss Reformation becomes very clear, however, when we compare the key aspects of his Institutio of 1536 with the quite different foci of Luther’s thought at that time, as manifest in Luther’s personal ‘confession’, the Schmalkald Articles of 1537 (strikingly consistent with ideas at the heart of Luther’s earliest writings as a reformer, for example De virtute indulgentiarum of 1518) with its climax in individual confession and absolution. We should not then be at all surprised to learn that the Swiss Reformers counted Calvin as one of their own. Certainly the Institutio of 1536 judges Zwingli’s doctrine of the Eucharist to be inadequate. Like Luther, Bucer and Bullinger, Calvin put much more weight on the faith-strengthening aspect of the Lord’s Supper than did Zwingli’s Commentarius (OS 1.122; but: Z 6.5, 158f). Yet, at the same time Calvin clearly maintained that the body of the resurrected Christ sits at the right hand of God, just as Zwingli always claimed (OS 1.140, 142). In addition, Calvin labelled proponents of the ubiquity of the body of Christ ‘pigheaded’ and ‘obstinate sophists’ and proposed that they tended to lapse into the Marcionite heresy (OS 1.140f). Even without mentioning Luther’s name, Calvin passed judgment on the Wittenberg Reformer that was notably more harsh than any judgment he made of Zwingli. An obvious question remains: how had Calvin come by all these ideas before 1536? We must not underestimate the size of Calvin’s library even prior to 1536. 21 On the Heidelberg Catechism see: Opitz: 2013. 22 ‘Sacramentum ergo non panem vitae Christum esse facit, sed quatenus in memoriam nobis revocat panem esse factum (…) eius panis gustum et saporem nobis praebet’, OS 1.138; ‘ut mortem Christi, quam pro nobis pertulit, in memoriam revocemus’, Z 3.345,37; ‘Gustus olefactusque et ipsi huc advocator’, Z 6.5, 160,16; cp. Z 5.584f; 681; Z 6.5, 156–160. 23 OS 1.138f; see Z 3.782–786; Calvin agrees with Zwingli that John 6 can be applied to the Lord’s Supper.

26

Peter Opitz

In 1536, Luther’s early works had already been famous for fifteen years, and Zwingli’s Commentarius for eleven years. And Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Bucer, and Capito had all written significant works in Latin that had also reached France years earlier. In addition, the Swiss Reformers had a special bond with France. They were able to fall back on their communication network. Swiss humanists studied in Paris, including Pierre Viret, Conrad Gessner, Heinrich Glarean, and Conrad Grebel, the first Anabaptist. And the Swiss Reformers corresponded with French scholars. Not by chance did Zwingli dedicate his Commentarius to the French king. Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples wrote to Zwingli because he wanted to acquire the Zurich Reformer’s latest work as quickly as possible (see: Herminjard: 1866, 206– 209). Calvin’s remark that Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper had many adherents in France is an indication that the works of the Zurich Reformer were read in Calvin’s native land. What connected Calvin, Farel and the Swiss Reformers from the start was the influence of a biblical, Christocentric humanism promoted by figures like Erasmus and Lefèvre d’Étaples. Even if Luther’s writings had helped the Swiss Reformers to interpret fully Paul’s letters in light of the distinction between justification by works and justification by faith, these Reformers read their Bible as independent intellectuals. Sometimes they arrived at conclusions that were not those of Luther but were close to the ideas of others with whom they shared a common humanistic background. Zwingli seems to have been the first humanistic intellectual to take the path from Erasmus to his own understanding of the Reformation, but he was immediately followed by others. The older Calvin grew, the more explicitly he avowed his allegiance to Zwingli. Calvin mentions Zwingli fourteen times in his works by name, and his remarks become increasingly positive. In his dispute with the Lutheran polemicist Westphal, he explicitly sided with the Swiss Reformer: ‘Zwingli and I have made some pretty good progress in Christ’s school in that we have learnt to surrender all of our wits in obedience to faith’ (CO 9.93f). None of Calvin’s theological insights had not already been discussed among the Swiss Reformers in the years before Calvin started to write his Institutio. After fleeing France, Calvin entered into that existing network and took up a position in these existing discussions that was shaped by his experiences in France and his personal insights. Not without reason, ‘Calvinism’ has been called Switzerland’s most successful export. And there are good grounds for labelling that product ‘Made in Switzerland.’

Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation

27

Bibliography Z = Huldreich Zwingli: Sämtliche Werke 1905–2013, Corpus Reformatorum 88–108; Berlin/ Leipzig/Zürich. Arbenz, Emil/Wartmann, Hermann (eds) (1903), Die Vadianische Briefsammlung der Stadtbibliothek St. Gallen, vol. 5/2, St. Gallen: Fehr. Blanke, Fritz (1960), Calvins Urteile über Zwingli, in: Fritz Blanke, Aus der Welt der Reformation, Zurich: Zwingli Verlag. Bucer, Martin (1960), Grund und ursach auß gotlicher schrifft der neüwerungen an dem nachtmal des herren…, in: Robbert Stupperich (ed.) Martin Bucer Deutsche Schriften, vol. 1, Frühschriften 1520–1524, Gütersloh/Paris: Gu¨ tersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn. Calvin, Johannes (1936), Institutio 1536. Calvini opera selecta, vol. 1, ed. Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel, Munich: Kaiser. Egli, Emil (1879), Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519–1533 Zurich: Schabelitz 1879, rept. Darmstadt 1973. — (ed.) (1899), Analecta Reformatoria. Dokumente und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Zwinglis und seiner Zeit, vol. 1, Zurich: Zu¨ rcher & Furrer. Gordon, Bruce (2014), Remembering Jerome and Forgetting Zwingli. The Zurich Latin Bible of 1543 and the Establishment of Heinrich Bullinger’s Church, in: Zwingliana 41, 1–33. Farel, Guillaume (1930), Guillaume Farel (1489–1565) écrite par un groupe d’historiens …, Neuchâtel/Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé. Heimbucher, Martin (2008), Prophetische Auslegung. Das reformatorische Profil des Wolfgang Fabricius Capito ausgehend von seinen Kommentaren zu Habakuk und Hosea, Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Herminjard, A.-L. (1866), Correspondance des Réformateurs dans les pays de langue française, vol. 1, 1512–1526, recueillie et publiée par A.-L. Herminjard, Geneva: Georg. Hobbs, R. Gerald (1999), Conrad Pellican and the Psalms. The Ambivalent Legacy of a Pioneer Hebraist, in: Reformation and Renaissance Review I, 72–99. Hofer, Arthur-Louis (ed.) (1980), Guillaume Farel, Sommaire et brève déclaration (1525), Neuchâtel: Éditions “Belle Rivière”. Kessler, Johannes (1902), Sabbata, ed. Hist. Verein des Kts. St. Gallen, St. Gallen: Fehr. Kittelson, James M. (1975), Wolfgang Capito. From Humanist to Reformer, Leiden: Brill. Lang, August (ed.) (1972), Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers, Aalen: Scientia. Lange van Ravenswaay, M.J. (1983), Calvin und Farel—Aspekte ihres Verhältnisses, in: P. Barthel (ed.), Actes du Colloque Guillaume Farel. Neuchâtel, 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980, vol. 1, Geneva: Revue de théologie et de philosophie. Locher, Gottfried W. (1979), Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. — (ed.) (1988), Der Berner Synodus von 1532. Ed. u. Abh. zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, vol. 2, Studien und Abhandlungen, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Migsch, Herbert (2009), Noch einmal: Huldreich Zwinglis hebräische Bibel, in: Zwingliana 36, 41–48.

28

Peter Opitz

Opitz, Peter (2008a), Calvin als Ausleger der Psalmen, in: E. Busch (ed.), Calvin-Studienausgabe, vol. 6, Der Psalmenkommentar. Eine Auswahl, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1–16. — (2008b), Calvin as Bible Translator. From the Model of the Hebrew Psalter, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research Emden 2006, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9–26. — (2008c), The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, in: Magne Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation (HBOT), vol. 2, From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Reformation (M. Fishbane, J.L. Ska), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 407– 451. — (2013), Der Heidelberger Katechismus im Licht der ‘Schweizer’ Katechismustradition(en), in: Matthias Freudenberg/Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay (eds), Geschichte und Wirkung des Heidelberger Katechismus. Vorträge der 9. Internationalen Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 9–35. Pfister, Rudolf (1947), Die Freundschaft zwischen Guillaume Farel und Huldrych Zwingli, in: Zwingliana 8/7, 372–389. Riggenbach, Bernhard (ed.) (1877), Das Chronikon des Konrad Pellikan, ed. Bernhard Riggenbach, Basel: Bahnmaier. Roussel, Bernard (1988), De Strasbourg à Bâle et Zurich: une école rhénane d’exégèse (ca 1525–ca 1540), in: Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 68, 19–39. — (2008), The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, in: Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation (HBOT), vol. 2, From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Reformation (M. Fishbane, J.L. Ska), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 407–451. Saxer, Ernst (ed.) (2006), Die Confessio Helvetica prior, in: Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 1/2, ed. im Auftrag des Rates der EKD von Heiner Faulenbach und Eberhard Busch, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 44–68. Staehelin, Ernst (1939), Das theologische Lebenswerk Oekolampads, Leipzig: M. Heinsius nachfolger. Stam, Frans P. van (2003), Das Verhältnis zwischen Bullinger und Calvin während Calvins erstem Aufenthalt in Genf, in: Peter Opitz (ed.), Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 25–40. Stierle, Beate (1974), Capito als Humanist, Heidelberg: Gu¨ tersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Strickler, Johannes (1876), Die Eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraume von 1529 bis 1532, bearbeitet von Johannes Strickler (Der amtlichen Abschiedesammlung vol. 4, part 1b), Lucern: Meyer. Wendel, François (1963), Calvin. Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, New York: Harper & Row. Zürcher, Christoph (1975), Konrad Pellikans Wirken in Zürich, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.

Christian Grosse

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée: ritualisation et dé-ritualisation de la pénitence dans les Eglises calvinistes (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle)

La question de la pénitence et de son inscription dans un processus ritualisé incluant non seulement la confession des péchés, mais également l’expression de la repentance et un pardon prononcé individuellement ou collectivement, de manière privée ou publique, a depuis longtemps retenu l’attention non seulement des historiens, mais aussi des anthropologues, sociologues et philosophes. En consacrant sa thèse, interrompue par sa mort au combat en 1915, au péché et à l’expiation dans les ‘sociétés primitives’, le sociologue Robert Hertz avait déjà abordé la question dans le cadre d’une réflexion plus générale sur l’interdit (tabou), en se demandant dans quelle mesure les notions de péché et d’expiation devaient être envisagées comme des ‘institutions sociales’ partagées par toutes les sociétés humaines ou plutôt comme des créations récentes de l’histoire humaine, spécifiquement attribuables au christianisme.1 Cette question est également venue se placer au cœur des préoccupations de Michel Foucault, qui, dès L’histoire de la folie à l’âge classique (1972), mais bien plus nettement à partir de Surveiller et Punir (1975) et de L’histoire de la sexualité (1976) a fait de ‘l’acte verbal’ de l’aveu, précisément tel qu’il a été réinterprété par le christianisme, un élément central de la dynamique de subjectivation individuelle propre à l’histoire occidentale.2 Les historiens ont de leur côté très largement documenté l’évolution de la pénitence, de l’examen de conscience et de la confession des péchés dans leurs dimensions doctrinales, rituelles et sociales.3 En ce qui concerne les Eglises réformées du XVIe siècle, on dispose certes d’éclairages importants au sujet de la polémique contre le sacrement de pénitence 1 Hertz: 1988; sur les retouches effectuées par Mauss dans ce texte à partir du manuscrit laissé par Hertz, voir: Bert: 2012, 224–229. 2 La question a été développée par Michel Foucault notamment dans ses conférences et ses enseignements; voir notamment: Foucault: 2012; Foucault: 2013; sur la question voir également: Chevallier: 2011. 3 La littérature est par conséquent très abondante sur le sujet; voir en particulier: Lea: 1968; Delumeau: 1992; Delumeau: 1983; Vogel: 1969; Tentler: 1977; Groupe: 1983; Jackson Lualdi/ Thayer: 2000; Boer: 2001; Thayer: 2002; Rittgers: 2004; Firey: 2008.

30

Christian Grosse

et la confession auriculaire (Droz: 1970), des travaux sur la reconstitution d’une théologie réformée positive sur la question4 ainsi qu’un certain nombre d’excellentes études locales sur les formes et les fonctions des rites, notamment en Ecosse (Todd: 2002), en Hollande (voir en particulier: Parker: 2000; Parker: 2001), et en France (voir en particulier Mentzer: 2000). Nous sommes en revanche moins bien renseignés sur la manière dont des rites pénitentiels se sont introduits dans la culture réformée. C’est cette question que ce texte voudrait contribuer à mettre davantage en lumière, en insistant sur une phase initiale, comprise grosso modo entre 1540 et 1570. On peut en effet observer à cet égard, durant cette période, à la fois des tâtonnements, des hésitations, voire des réticences au sujet de la confession des péchés et de la pénitence. Dans une première phase domine clairement une remise en cause polémique de la confession auriculaire et du caractère sacramental de la pénitence. L’obligation faite aux Chrétiens de procéder à un aveu systématique des péchés au prêtre est dénoncée comme une tyrannie morale et psychologique et comme une tâche impossible à réaliser, aussi bien par Luther que par Œcolampade et de manière plus forte encore par Zwingli, qui développent les critiques émises précédemment par Erasme. Cette phase essentiellement critique, ouverte par la protestation véhémente de Luther dans ses 95 Thèses contre le système de l’indulgence qui trahit l’esprit de la pénitence (Kaufmann: 2014, 135–138), laisse en héritage aux Protestants une limite vis-à-vis des possibilités de reconstruction d’une conception positive de la question et de l’élaboration de formes rituelles nouvelles: le caractère exhaustif et sacramental de l’aveu des péchés demeurera par exemple toujours exclu. En même temps cependant, le principe de la confession des péchés est loin d’être rejeté, ni par Luther, ni par ses émules, et une tendance s’observe, nette mais peu perceptible du fait même de cette critique, vers la construction d’un rite relativement cohérent, souvent liturgiquement encadré, d’aveu et de pénitence publique. Cette tendance s’affirme à cette époque simultanément au sein de plusieurs Eglises réformées locales (en particulier à Genève, en Angleterre, en Ecosse et en France), de sorte qu’il paraît possible de conclure que le rite de pénitence publique a joué à ce moment-là un rôle sans doute plus central que ce que l’on a admis jusqu’à présent dans la formation de ces Eglises. Ces processus contemporains et localisés de construction d’un nouveau rite s’enracinent à l’origine tous dans une matrice commune, que l’on trouve dans les réflexions sur la discipline ecclésiastique, l’excommunication et l’usage de la pénitence et de la réconciliation publique des excommuniés, entamées dans un premier temps par Œcolampade à Bâle, puis adoptées, approfondies et élargies 4 Pitkin: 2004; Denis: 1983; sur les sources bucériennes de cette théologie, voir: Burnett: 1991; Burnett: 1994.

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

31

par Martin Bucer à Strasbourg. Tandis que ce dernier étend progressivement ses conceptions de la discipline ecclésiastique, le thème de la pénitence publique se place au cœur de ses écrits sur le sujet. Il passe ainsi, entre 1520 et les années 1530, d’une position essentiellement critique à une justification théologique puis à une réflexion plus pratique sur la confession des péchés et la pénitence. Dans le même temps, il approfondit les fondements scripturaires de ces pratiques. Bucer apparaît à cet égard comme un médiateur qui a rendu possible le passage collectif d’une posture avant tout polémique à une approche plus positive et constructive de la question. Cette évolution lui permet de réintroduire dans les pratiques des Eglises qui sont en train de se séparer du christianisme médiéval, des usages qui restent souvent contestés et dont les sources scripturaires apparaissent encore pour beaucoup comme incertaines (VanderSchaaf: 1977; Burnett: 1991; Brunett: 1994; Spijker: 1996, 182–185, 309–313, 450–451; Graham: 1996). S’il en réclame la réintroduction, c’est donc au prix d’un travail de réinterprétation de cette pratique, au terme de laquelle la pénitence ne constitue plus un instrument de salut et de compensation des fautes dans l’économie des rapports avec le divin, mais vise plutôt à restaurer l’unité de l’Eglise, en particulier dans la perspective de la célébration de la communion.5 On sait que ni Œcolompade, ni Bucer n’ont été en mesure de mettre en œuvre dans toute son étendue le programme de discipline ecclésiastique qu’ils avaient imaginé. En revanche, il est aussi certain que leurs réflexions ont exercé une influence tout-à-fait importante et celles de Bucer plus directement. En effet, le processus réformé de reconstruction d’un rituel de pénitence publique se développe dans un premier temps, dans deux directions, à Genève, d’une part, et au sein des Églises de réfugiés à Londres, d’autre part. Or ces deux traditions trouvent leur point d’origine à Strasbourg: d’un côté, dans l’influence qu’exerce Bucer sur Calvin durant le séjour de ce dernier dans la ville alsacienne, et d’un autre côté, dans l’influence de Bucer sur Jan Laski, après son départ pour l’Angleterre en août 1549. Après avoir subi à Bâle, alors qu’il rédigeait l’Institution de la religion chrétienne, l’influence des idées d’Œcolampade et de Mélanchthon, en particulier sur la question de la discipline ecclésiastique et de l’excommunication,6 Calvin fait en 1537–1538 une première expérience de mise en application de ses idées à Genève, qui échoue précisément sur le terrain de la discipline. C’est alors qu’il se rend à Strasbourg, où il mûrit ses doctrines au contact de Bucer. A son retour à Genève, il négocie avec les magistrats de la cité le texte des ordonnances ecclésiastiques qui entrent en vigueur à la fin de l’année 1541 et jettent ainsi les fondements non 5 Pour ceci plus spécifiquement: Burnett: 1991, 451; Burnett: 1994, 76, 126, 195. 6 A Bâle, la pensée de Calvin sur la question de la repentance est influencée en particulier par Melanchthon: Pitkin: 2004.

32

Christian Grosse

seulement de l’Eglise calviniste genevoise, mais aussi, plus spécifiquement, de l’exercice de la discipline ecclésiastique au sein de cette Eglise. Cependant, malgré la proximité des idées de Bucer et de Calvin, en particulier sur le thème de la discipline ecclésiastique, ces ordonnances ne contiennent aucune disposition faisant écho aux formes rituelles de pénitence publique sur lesquelles Bucer travaillait au même moment.7 Il est vraisemblable que cette absence s’explique par l’extrême prudence avec laquelle Calvin avance à Genève après son retour. La mise en place des institutions et des procédures disciplinaires prévues par les ordonnances ecclésiastiques n’apparaît-elle pas déjà parfois, aux yeux des Genevois si sourcilleux au sujet des prérogatives du magistrat, comme une manière de restaurer les anciennes pratiques de l’Eglise papiste? Le parallèle entre l’examen des consciences et des conduites auquel se livre le Consistoire avant les célébrations de la cène et la confession auriculaire en usage à l’époque où Genève était soumise aux prêtres vient ainsi immédiatement à l’esprit du chroniqueur et ancien magistrat François Bonivard: ‘Au lieu que les Papistes devant que recevoir leur Sacrement sont astraincts à confesser entierement leurs pechez à un Prebstre auriculairement’, écrit-il, les ministres genevois ‘ne attendent pas que l’on se presente à eux, ains sçavent un chascun sa regie à luy commise par le public, laquelle est partie en diverses dixaines; se font accompaigner par les Dixeniers de mayson en mayson, demandant à tous ceux d’un mesnage rayson de leur foy et apres s’ils sentent qu’il il haie quelque desroy en la mayson, ou en general ou en particulier les admonestent à resispiscence afin qu’ils ne reçoivent le Sacrement indignement’ (Bonivard: 1865, 115). Si Calvin ne se précipite donc pas pour imposer aux Genevois incorrigibles (Grosse: 2006) une pénitence publique, un rituel de ce type voit pourtant progressivement le jour. Le processus a été très laborieux.8 Sa particularité réside dans le fait qu’à Genève, le rite religieux de pénitence se constitue à partir d’une transformation de l’amende honorable judiciaire, elle-même issue, au Moyen Âge, d’une mutation des pratiques monastiques de pénitence (voir à ce sujet: Koziol: 1992; Mansfield: 2005; Moeglin: 1997). A partir de l’amende honorable s’élabore ainsi à Genève une peine spécifiquement ecclésiastique appliquée dans les cas de péchés ‘scandaleux’, en particulier la rébellion à l’encontre d’un ministre, le blasphème, la paillardise et, surtout, l’infidélité confessionnelle, c’est-àdire la participation à des cultes ‘papistes’. A partir de la deuxième moitié des années 1540, on commence par transférer simplement l’amende honorable, qui conserve initialement la même forme rituelle, des espaces civils où elle est ordinairement accomplie, aux espaces religieux. L’amende honorable passe donc 7 Pour le texte des ordonnances ecclésiastiques, voir: Bergier: Registres, I, 1–13. 8 Je reprends et résume ici les éléments exposés dans Grosse: 2008, 452–466.

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

33

d’abord sous sa forme habituelle de l’Hôtel de ville à l’église. Elle perd cependant ensuite l’un de ses traits caractéristiques: les fidèles auxquels elle est imposée cessent peu à peu de porter la torche allumée, comme ils le font lorsqu’ils sanctionnés par la justice. Le nouvel usage fait l’objet d’une formalisation officielle en deux étapes. Calvin obtient d’abord, en 1558, l’approbation par les magistrats d’un édit qui oblige les ‘renonciateurs’, c’est-à-dire ceux qui ont abjuré ou participé à un culte papiste, à faire ‘au sortir du temple’ une ‘réparation publique pour donner exemple aux autres’. Avec l’expression de ‘réparation publique’, cette décision officialise la terminologie qui va s’imposer à Genève pour désigner la pénitence publique (AEG: 54. f. 272v–273 1er septembre 1558). Dans un deuxième temps, un édit approuvé le 9 février 1560 et dont les dispositions seront ensuite intégrées textuellement aux ordonnances ecclésiastiques, précise à la fois l’usage et la rupture qu’elle implique avec les formes de peines judiciaires puisqu’elle ordonne, qu’’au lieu qu’il estoit commandé [aux renonciateurs] de faire amende honorable, qu’ils se viennent presenter au temple, pour recognoistre et confesseur leur faute et en demander pardon à Dieu et à son Eglise’ (CO 123–124). Tandis que disparaît dans le texte de cet édit toute référence à la justice—les formulations précédentes maintenaient que le pénitent était astreint à crier merci ‘à Dieu et à la justice’—le rituel est désormais bien décrit à la fois comme une ‘confession’ et comme une demande de ‘pardon’. Tous les éléments de la pénitence y sont donc réunis. De plus, à partir de 1560, le partage des compétences entre magistrats et consistoire est beaucoup plus clairement établi en ce qui concerne la condamnation à la réparation publique: cette compétence appartient dès lors exclusivement au Consistoire, qui prend seulement soin d’en informer le magistrat. La réparation publique prend alors définitivement le caractère d’un rituel ecclésiastique et vient compléter l’éventail des corrections disciplinaires à disposition du Consistoire. Pour achever le processus de mise en place de la pénitence publique, telle qu’elle se constitue à Genève, il ne manque plus qu’à lui donner une forme liturgique. C’est chose faite dès 1560, puisqu’on trouve, dans le recueil des Soixante cinq sermons de Jean Calvin sur l’harmonie ou concordance des trois Evangélistes, publié en 1562, mais réunissant des prédications prononcées deux ans plus tôt, des indications tout à fait précises sur la manière dont le rite de la réparation publique se déroule, du moins lorsqu’il s’impose à des ‘renonciateurs’. A la fin du 33e sermon, on lit en effet une description détaillée de ‘la protestation solennelle de la repentance que devoyent faire deux hommes pour avoir faict abjuration de la verité de Dieu’. La cérémonie comporte, dans le prolongement du sermon, une exhortation qui a valeur d’instruction adressée à toute l’Eglise, une admonestation spécifiquement adressée aux pénitents et une demande de pardon avec ‘protestation publique de (…) repentance’ que ces derniers font à

34

Christian Grosse

genoux.9 Selon ces indications, la cérémonie ne les contraint pas à confesser explicitement leur faute, celle-ci ayant été décrite dans la remontrance prononcée par l’officiant, mais l’édit du 9 février 1560 stipulait expressément que les pénitents doivent ‘recognoistre et confesser leur faute’. Quoi qu’il en soit, le culte se poursuit ensuite normalement avec les prières qui succèdent ordinairement au sermon. La deuxième tradition prend forme en Angleterre, et, plus précisément, au sein des Eglises d’exilés français et hollandais, placées sous la direction du superintendant Jean Laski, à l’époque du règne d’Edouard VI. Dans ce contexte, on voit en effet émerger, en quelques années seulement, une liturgie de pénitence publique, plus élaborée que celle qui s’était constituée à Genève. Selon toute vraisemblance, c’est Laski lui-même qui en est l’auteur. La chronologie peut cependant prêter sur ce point à confusion, puisque le texte de cette liturgie paraît avant la première édition de la Forma ac ratio de Laski, publiée à Francfort en 1555 (sur ce texte: Becker: 2007, 27–39; Springer: 2007). Nous verrons comment ce formulaire liturgique s’est construit, mais il faut d’abord insister sur le fait que sa rédaction par Laski indique que cette tradition se rattache aussi à l’influence de Bucer. On conserve du formulaire liturgique de la pénitence publique une première trace écrite en 1551. Or Bucer est en Angleterre depuis l’été 1549 et il a été directement impliqué dans le recrutement de Laski pour diriger les Eglises d’exilés en Angleterre. Au moment où, investi de la fonction de superintendant de ces Eglises, Laski s’attelle à préparer les documents qui vont permettre d’organiser ces Eglises, dont ceux qui vont y régler l’exercice de la discipline ecclésiastique, il s’adresse directement à Bucer en lui demandant de lui envoyer un projet de discipline (Van ‘t Spijker: 1996, 457). On sait de plus qu’en matière de discipline ecclésiastique, Laski partage beaucoup des idées de Bucer, avec lesquelles il était entré en contact dès 1544–1545 (Springer: 2007, 96). La distance qu’il a prise avec certaines positions adoptées par le réformateur strasbourgeois en Angleterre sur d’autres questions n’a modifié ni son admiration pour le savoir de Bucer, ni leur proximité de vue sur la discipline ecclésiastique (Pettegree: 1986, 46–76). Cette connivence théologique se vérifie aussi sur le terrain de la pénitence. Bucer avait encore accompli des progrès sur la forme rituelle de la pénitence, peu avant son départ forcé de Strasbourg, qui l’a empêché de les mettre en œuvre.10 C’est donc à Laski que reviendra de poursuivre l’effort. Il y a ainsi une filiation forte entre Bucer et cette deuxième tradition qui se concrétise en Angleterre. 9 Soixante cinq Sermons de Jean Calvin sur l’harmonie ou concordance des trois Evangelistes, Genève: Conrad Badius, 1562; cf. CO 46.410–412. 10 Burnett: 1994, 195. Sur l’influence de Bucer en Angleterre et notamment sur Laski, voir aussi Vanderschaaf: 1977.

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

35

Lorsqu’on regarde les textes dans lesquels s’opère l’élaboration liturgique du rituel pénitentiel en Angleterre, on constate que les premières traces s’en repèrent dans des textes du ministre de la communauté des réformés français de Glastonbury, Valérand Poullain (sur ce ministre, voir: Bauer: 1927), et en particulier dans sa Liturgia sacra, publiée en 1551.11 Cette Liturgia sacra se présente comme un document assez composite. Les formulaires liturgiques qu’il contient sont pour la plupart repris de la liturgie utilisée par la communauté des réfugiés français à Strasbourg, dirigée un temps par Calvin (Bauer: 1927, 159; Springer: 2007, 50), comme Poullain le reconnaît lui-même très explicitement dans sa préface (Martin: 1915, 12–13). Cela ne pouvait en revanche pas être le cas de la liturgie pénitentielle, qui ne figurait ni parmi les actes codifiés par un formulaire dans les documents de la communauté des réfugiés français de Strasbourg, ni parmi les formulaires liturgiques genevois. La cérémonie pénitentielle que décrit la Liturgia Sacra de 1551 reflète donc un usage local adopté par les Eglises d’exilés à Londres et à Glastonbury. Comme cette description se retrouve dans les formulaires liturgiques et disciplinaires de l’Eglise des exilés hollandais,12 puis, dans les différentes versions de la Forma ac ratio de Laski, notamment la version latine (Lasco: 1555, 368–395) et la version française (Lasco: 1556, 170–183), on peut conclure que ce dernier est l’auteur de cette liturgie pénitentielle et que Valérand Poullain l’a intégrée dans un formulaire qui contenait, pour le reste, des textes d’origine essentiellement strasbourgeoise. Cette attribution est confirmée par la première traduction française de la Liturgia sacra qui ajoute en effet sous le titre ‘De la pénitence publique des pecheurs repentans avant qu’ilz ayent esté excommunié’, ‘Par monsieur Ian à Lasco Superintendent des Eglises estrangieres à Londres’.13 Ce qu’il y a cependant d’intéressant dans l’histoire de la mise au point de cette cérémonie pénitentielle en Angleterre, c’est que les documents portent la trace d’une élaboration difficile, qui s’est sans doute heurtée à des résistances. On peut observer cette évolution dans trois publications, qui paraissent dans un délai assez bref: 11 Liturgia sacra, seu ritus ministerii in ecclesia peregrinorum profugorum propter Evangelium Christi Argentinae, Londini: per Stephanum Mierdmannu, 1551, f. 12v°–16v° et Pollanus: 1970, 241–263. 12 De Christlicke ordinancie der Nederlatscher ghemeynten Christi die vanden Christelicken Prince Co. Edewaerdt van VJ. in’t iaer 1550. te Londen inghestelt was. De welcke met de bewillinghe der Dienaren ende ouderlinghen der feluer, te trooste ende nutte aller ghelooueghen, ghetrauwelick met alder nersticheit t’samen gheuoecht ende wtghestelt sijn. Doer Marten Microen (1554), Ghedruckt buyten Londen: Doer Collinus Volckwinner, 158– 176. 13 L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique, avec la forme de penitence pub. & certaines prieres de l’eglise de Londres, et la confession de foy de l’eglise de Glastonbury en Somerset (1552), Londres, s.n., 43.

36

Christian Grosse

1. L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique, avec la forme de penitence pub. & certaines prieres de l’eglise de Londres, et la confession de foy de l’eglise de Glastonbury en Somerset, A Londres: [S. Mierdman?], 1552 2. Doctrine de la penitence publique. Et la forme d’icelle ainsi comme elle se practique en l’Eglise des estrangiers à Londres, devant qu’on vienne à l’excommunication. Ensemble aussi la forme d’administrer la saincte Cene, [Londres, s.n. (Thomas Gaultier)], 155214 3. Jean Laski, Toute la forme et maniere du Ministere Ecclesiastique, en l’Eglise des estrangers, dressee à Londres en Angleterre, par le Prince tresfidele dudit pays, le Roy Edouard VI. de ce nom, l’an apres l’incarnation de Christ. 1550, traduit de Latin en François, [Emden], Gilles Crematius, 1556 [traduction française de la Forma ac ratio] Dans toutes ces éditions, il est prévu que la cérémonie pénitentielle s’inscrive dans le prolongement du sermon et que, lorsqu’il y a pénitence publique, la prédication soit en partie consacrée à la question de ‘la repentance de ceux qui choyent en l’Eglise de Jesus Christ’. De plus, d’une édition à l’autre, la justification de la cérémonie pénitentielle prend de l’ampleur, comme si son introduction avait effectivement suscité des réticences, voire des résistances. Dans la Doctrine de la pénitence publique apparaît ainsi, à la fin de la liturgie pénitentielle, un paragraphe, absent de L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique, qui défend cette pratique, non seulement en regard des objectifs de la discipline ecclésiastique en général, mais aussi par rapport aux usages catholiques. Il insiste ainsi sur le fait que ‘l’usage legitime de la penitence et discipline ecclesiastique’ est non seulement utile à l’ ‘édification’ de l’Eglise et à la ‘consolation de tout frere delinquant’, mais qu’il se distingue aussi de ‘ces marques exterieures, qu’on a de coustume de mesler avec la penitence publique [et qui] ne sont point du tout sans superstition’.15 Dans la version française de la Forma ac ratio, ce paragraphe est repris et complété pour souligner de manière plus forte ce qui sépare le rite pénitentiel réformé des pratiques catholiques de la pénitence. Mais, de manière plus nette encore, cette justification est, dans cette traduction, intégrée à la liturgie pénitentielle elle-même. Toute la forme et maniere du Ministere Ecclesiastique prévoit 14 Il faut noter que ce document, long de moins de trente folios, et dont Honders n’a pas tenu compte, ne comprend que la description de la liturgie pénitentielle et celle de la cène; la jonction de ces deux éléments indique cependant assez clairement que la pratique pénitentielle était envisagée avant tout dans la perspective de la préparation du rituel eucharistique. Philippe Denis (1984, 187–189) attribue ces deux derniers documents à François Pérussel, un autre ministre des exilés français en Angleterre, sans toutefois indiquer sur quelles informations il se fonde. 15 Doctrine de la penitence publique, f. Biv°.

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

37

en effet que le sermon qui précède la cérémonie soit raccourci, ‘afin qu’on puisse faire devant l’Eglise quelque petit tractation de la discipline publique’ (Lasco: 1556, f. 171v). Cette intervention prend la forme d’une instruction dans laquelle, selon la liturgie, ‘le ministre traicte un peu de la penitence publique de l’Eglise de Christ. Et en peu de parolles, il monstre la source d’ycelle aux sainctes escritures’ (Lasco: 1556, f. 171v–172). L’une des questions qui fait débat et qui mérite justification est donc celle des autorités scripturaires qui légitiment le rétablissement, au sein des Églises d’obédience réformée, d’un rite de pénitence publique. Comme l’admettait déjà Bucer, ces fondements scripturaires paraissent en effet incertains. D’une édition à l’autre, le dispositif rituel de la pénitence se précise aussi. Si la structure liturgique n’est pas modifiée—à part l’ajout de l’instruction dont il vient d’être question—un ensemble de détails ajoutés vient cependant accentuer progressivement le caractère dramatique de la cérémonie. La Doctrine de la penitence publique insistait déjà davantage que L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique, sur la dimension ‘publique’ du rite. Le texte de 1556 décrit quant à lui de manière plus minutieuse la scène de la pénitence. Il souligne ainsi que, ‘Le frere denoncé est mis au regard de toute l’Eglise. Et les Ministres et Anciens de l’Eglise sont autour de luy, la face tournée vers l’Eglise’ ( je souligne) (Lasco: 1556, f. 174). Plus loin, il indique aussi que la scène pénitentielle constitue à ce momentlà le cœur de l’assemblée cultuelle, puisque le pénitent, est, selon le texte, ‘mis au mylieu de vostre assemblee’ (Lasco: 1556, f. 174). Placé dans cette position, celui qui est amené à confesser ses péchés adopte, comme le soulignent les différentes exhortations qui émaillent cette cérémonie, une posture pénitente, qui est en réalité celle de tout chrétien, et qui doit par conséquent être assumée par l’assemblée cultuelle dans son ensemble. Si la Forma ac ratio, dans ses éditions latine et française de 1555 et 1556, achève donc, en ce qui concerne la première période de l’histoire des Eglises de réfugiés français et hollandais à Londres, le processus de formation d’une liturgie pénitentielle, il est vraisemblable que l’essentiel de ce processus et des débats qu’il a provoqués, s’est concentré sur l’année 1552. La Forma ac ratio témoigne donc, à cet égard comme sur d’autres plans, a posteriori des pratiques des Eglises d’exilés, une fois ces Eglises dispersées après la mort d’Edouard VI et l’accession de Mary Tudor au trône d’Angleterre (sur ces pratiques, voir Becker: 2007, 344–507). Il est à cet égard frappant de constater qu’au même moment, les mêmes questions se posent aux ministres de Neuchâtel en Suisse romande. Ces derniers consultent en effet, en 1552 justement, ceux de Genève pour savoir si la pénitence publique est ‘conforme à la Parole du Seigneur’ (‘an haec disciplinae ratio consentanea sit verbo Domini’). Les mêmes doutes qui avaient conduit les responsables des Eglises exilés à renforcer la justification des nouveaux usages pénitentiels à l’intérieur même du rite traversaient donc les esprits de leurs confrères

38

Christian Grosse

neuchâtelois. La réponse collective des pasteurs genevois, reportée dans le registre de la Compagnie alors même qu’à Genève un rituel pénitentiel n’est pas définitivement instauré, consiste à soutenir la conformité de la pénitence ‘publique devant l’assemblée’ avec les évangiles, en particulier avec les épitres de Paul (I. Tim. 5:20; II Cor. 2:7, 12:21) et avec les usages des Chrétiens des premiers siècles. Les ministres genevois considèrent même cet usage comme constituant un aspect central de la discipline et ils sont ici en phase avec les positions de Bucer. Ils marquent cependant aussi leur préoccupation, présente dans les textes des réfugiés en Angleterre, mais sur laquelle ils appuient avec davantage d’insistance, que la ‘modération’ gouverne l’emploi de cette pratique, pour éviter de plonger le pénitent dans le désespoir (Bergier: Registres, 142–143; CO 14.345–346). Des deux traditions que l’on vient d’identifier et de décrire, on peut trouver deux prolongements qui se situent dans un temps relativement court. D’une part, il apparaît clairement que la description assez détaillée du rite, tel qu’il s’est fixé à Genève en 1560, dans les Soixante cinq sermons de Jean Calvin sur l’harmonie ou concordance des trois Evangélistes, publiés en 1562, était destinée aux lecteurs français, puisque les Eglises réformées du royaume de France mettent au point, en ces mêmes années, leur propre rite de pénitence publique. Dès le premier synode, réuni en 1559, un article disciplinaire est adopté qui indique que la ‘satisfaction publique’—terme utilisé dans les arrêts des synodes pour désigner ce qu’à Genève on appelle la ‘réparation publique’ et en Angleterre la ‘pénitence publique’—est effet en usage dans ces Eglises.16 Plusieurs décisions prises au cours des synodes tenus dans les années 1560 en règlent l’usage, définissant plus précisément les types de péchés pour lesquels le délinquant peut être contraint à effectuer une telle ‘satisfaction’.17 Ces décisions ne mentionnent cependant jamais la façon dont le rite se déroule et il est dans ces conditions très probable que la pratique française se cale en la matière assez directement sur celle qui a été édifiée à Genève (sur le rite de pénitence publique en France, voir Mentzer: 2000). D’autre part, l’élaboration parallèle d’un rite pénitentiel à Genève et en Angleterre, dans les Eglises de réfugiés, a eu sans doute une influence directe sur la rédaction par John Knox et d’autres ministres écossais du Order of Excommunication and of Public Repentance, adopté par l’assemblée générale de l’Eglise réformée d’Ecosse en 1569. John Knox avait pu observer les pratiques genevoises durant son séjour dans la ville entre 1554 et 1556, c’est-à-dire à l’époque où la formation d’un rite religieux de pénitence publique, autonome par rapport au rite 16 Article XXXII: ‘Ceux qui auront été excommuniés viendront au Consistoire demander d’être réconciliés à l’Eglise, laquelle jugera alors de leur pénitence; et s’ils ont été publiquement déclarés excommuniés, ils feront aussi pénitence publique. S’ils n’ont été publiquement excommuniés, ils la feront seulement devant le Consistoire’ (Aymon: 1710, I.2 6). 17 Aymon: 1710, I.2 18, 21, 25–26, 28–29, 33–35, 40, 60, 75 (Synodes de Poitiers, 1560, d’Orléans, 1562, Lyon, 1563, Paris, 1565, Vertueil, 1567).

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

39

judiciaire de l’amende honorable, y était engagée. L’Eglise des réfugiés anglais établis à Genève entre 1555 et 1560, s’est dotée d’une confession de foi, d’une liturgie et d’une discipline. Ces textes, rassemblés dans The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments et imprimés en 1556 à Genève,18 ont cependant été rédigés au début de l’année précédente, à Francfort (Martin: 1915, 86), c’est-à-dire précisément là où était imprimée au même moment la Forma ac ratio de Jean Laski et la deuxième édition de la Liturgia Sacra de Valérand Poullain, toutes deux munies, comme on l’a vu, d’une liturgie pénitentielle. Marquant une certaine indépendance tant vis-à-vis de Calvin que par rapport à Laski, The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments prévoit certes l’exercice d’une ‘discipline publique’ (‘publike Discipline’) au sein de l’Eglise anglaise de Genève, mais ne comporte pourtant pas de liturgie pénitentielle (Laing: 1846–1864, 4.204). L’expérience des divisions que les Eglises d’exilés avaient connues à Francfort, entre autres sur des questions de discipline, et l’absence à Genève d’un rite de pénitence définitivement constitué et officiellement approuvé, a vraisemblablement incité à une certaine prudence, indication supplémentaire au sujet du fait que l’introduction de cette cérémonie était partout délicate (sur les communautés d’exilés à Francfort, voir notamment Denis: 1984, 305–378 et Pettegree: 1996, 55– 85). Les choses se sont cependant passées autrement en Ecosse à partir de la création de l’Eglise réformée en 1560. C’est en effet dans ce contexte, que le rite pénitentiel réformé a été appelé à connaître son développement le plus significatif. Le processus se déroule en deux étapes. Dans un premier temps, le First Book of Discipline, rédigé notamment par Knox et publié en 1560, comporte un ‘Ordoure for Publict Offendaris’ dans lequel une cérémonie de pénitence publique est brièvement décrite (Laing: 1846–1864, 2.231–233, 228). Dans un second temps, en 1569, l’assemblée générale de l’Eglise adopte et fait publier, le ‘Ordoure of Excommunication and of Publict Repentance’, qui contient une justification et une description beaucoup plus détaillée de cette pratique, déclinée sous la forme précise d’une liturgie (Laing: 1846–1864, 6.447–470 et plus particulièrement 455– 460; sur ce document, voir: Graham: 1996, 44–45). Dans sa structure, la forme de cette liturgie pénitentielle apparaît comme étant si proche de celles qu’utilisaient les réfugiés français et hollandais de Londres, que l’on peut, comme l’affirme Michael S. Springer, parler d’une influence directe (Springer: 2007, 144–145). C’est cependant en Ecosse que le rite pénitentiel a été appelé, comme l’ont montré Margo Todd et Jane Dawson, à connaître à la fois la forme la plus dramatique et l’application la plus systématique et la plus durable. C’est dans le cadre de cette 18 The forme of prayers and ministration of the sacraments, etc. used in the Englishe Congregation at Geneva: and approved, by the famous and godly learned man, John Calvyn, Geneva, John Crespin, 1556.

40

Christian Grosse

Eglise, que la retenue concernant la ritualisation de cette pratique, que l’on a observée partout, et qui était spécifiquement mentionnée dans La doctrine de la pénitence publique de Valérand Poullain comme signe distinguant l’usage réformé de ses antécédents catholiques, a le plus nettement cédé: si les usages liturgiquement codifiés en Ecosse ressemblent beaucoup à ceux des exilés français et hollandais en Angleterre au début des années 1550, la réalité des pratiques y a connu une amplification sans précédent, avec la création par exemple d’un ‘stool of repentance’ et l’obligation faite aux pénitents de revêtir un costume spécial, de porter sur un écriteau le nom de son péché ou de demander à ceux qu’il croise sur le chemin le menant au temple de prier pour lui (Todd: 2002, 95–181; Dawson: 2009, 123–136, en particulier 125–131). Par le biais des deux traditions que l’on vient de décrire, avec leurs avatars français et écossais, se dessine un rite, qui, dans l’ensemble, présente effectivement, comme on peut le constater par le tableau comparatif (cf. Appendix), une remarquable cohérence. Dans tous les cas, ce rite prend place à l’intérieur de la liturgie ordinaire puisqu’il intervient toujours à la suite du sermon. Toutes les Eglises réformées concernées ont donc refusé de constituer ce rite en une cérémonie autonome, séparée du contexte cultuel. On retrouve donc partout le souci de lui conserver un caractère communautaire, qui indique que dans la pénitence publique, conformément aux idées de Bucer, c’est en réalité moins le destin spirituel d’un individu qui se joue, que la capacité de l’Eglise à fonctionner comme communauté de sanctification et à se représenter à elle-même en tant que telle. Le rite doit donner la démonstration d’une efficacité collective à remettre le pécheur, c’est-à-dire tout un chacun, dans la voie de la conversion, du retour en grâce et donc de la réintégration dans la communauté de sanctification. Célébré dans le cadre de l’assemblée, et non en dehors d’elle, le rite montre que cette assemblée constitue un espace sacré dans le sens où c’est en son sein que s’opère le travail de la grâce divine, qui rend l’accomplissement du cheminement pénitentiel possible (Grosse: 2005). La nécessité d’instruire les fidèles est aussi largement partagée. Si les différents textes qui règlent cette cérémonie réservent tous à cette instruction une place spécifique—dans le sermon qui précède la pénitence ou dans une partie de la liturgie pénitentielle—cette explication se déploie également dans tous les cas tout au long de cette cérémonie, aussi bien dans les prières que dans les exhortations qui la scandent. Elle porte de plus partout sur deux points principaux: une justification de la pratique appuyée sur les Ecritures et une exposition de la doctrine du péché et de la gratuité de la grâce divine, à propos de laquelle les textes des liturgies de la pénitence se montrent très insistants. La faute qui est avouée par le pénitent ne constitue, selon ces textes, que l’expression individuelle d’une nature pécheresse qui concerne l’humanité toute entière; l’individu pénitent, certes isolé par le rite, représente en réalité cette nature dans son ensemble: ‘sans

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

41

exception de personne, nous sommes tous enclos soubz péché’, dit ainsi très fortement la Doctrine de la pénitence publique;19 dans le péché du pénitent, nous ‘contemplerons (…) nostre péché et propre nature’, souligne pour sa part L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique.20 C’est à cet égard que la dimension communautaire du rite prend tout son sens. Mais les textes liturgiques ne se contentent pas de relever ainsi la portée générale du péché confessé par le pénitent. Ils invitent également l’assemblée cultuelle à s’associer activement à sa confession: ‘puis que nous sommes tous enclos soubz peché’, poursuit ainsi L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique, ‘il fault bien que nous confessons aussi que nous eussions faict les mesmes faultes que nous voyons és autres’ (Pollanus: 1970, 249). Cette participation collective à l’aveu individuel ne prend d’ailleurs pas seulement une forme verbale: en prescrivant que l’assemblée s’agenouille (cf. Appendix) pendant la cérémonie, les formulaires liturgiques de Poullain et Laski contraignent la communauté des fidèles à adopter elle-même la posture du pénitent. Il faut à ce sujet se souvenir encore que l’aveu auquel se livre le pénitent fait directement écho à la confession collective des péchés—’nous confessons et recognoissons sans feintise, devant ta saincte Majesté, que nous sommes paovres pecheurs, conceuz et nez en iniquité et corruption, enclins à mal faire, inutiles à tout bien…’—prononcée par le ministre en ouverture de chacun des cultes dans toutes les communautés réformées qui sont ici étudiées. La dynamique liturgique elle-même, dans laquelle la pénitence publique est inscrite, fait ainsi coïncider la confession individuelle du pénitent et la confession collective. Tout cela indique donc clairement qu’à l’époque où les réformés forgent en divers lieux leurs pratiques pénitentielles, l’aveu ne constitue pas encore un mécanisme de subjectivation individuelle au sens où l’entendait Michel Foucault: la faute avouée définit moins le pénitent lui-même, que l’humanité en général. S’il existe une réelle unité rituelle entre les différentes liturgies étudiées, un certain nombre de nuances se laissent cependant aussi découvrir entre la version genevoise et les déclinaisons anglaises. Notons à ce propos que ces écarts ne sont pas perçus par les auteurs des liturgiques comme problématiques: ‘la Foy de l’Eglise n’est point violée par diversité de ceremonies (supposé qu’elles ne soyent telles, qu’elles engendrent superstition)’, rappelle en effet Poullain dans la préface de L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique.21 A Genève, la cérémonie exprime une retenue dans le déploiement rituel conforme à ce que les ministres de la ville recommandaient dans leur réponse aux pasteurs neuchâtelois en 1552. La liturgie genevoise est en effet nettement plus sobre et plus ramassée. Autre différence importante: la pénitence intervient dans ce cas entre le sermon et la prière 19 Doctrine de la pénitence publique, 1552, f.*4r°. 20 L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique (1552), f. 46r°; Pollanus: 1970, 249. 21 L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique (1552), f. iiiiv°; Pollanus: 1970, 45.

42

Christian Grosse

d’intercession qui lui succède d’ordinaire immédiatement. A Genève, où aucune formule d’absolution n’est prononcée, c’est donc cette prière qui signifie la réintégration du pénitent dans la communauté de sanctification: elle a en effet pour fonction, en l’occurrence, d’insérer le parcours particulier de ce dernier parmi l’ensemble de ceux dont la foi est mise à l’épreuve et pour lesquels le ministre officiant prie à ce moment-là. Le rite de pénitence y est ainsi davantage inséré au mouvement que la liturgie dessine dans son ensemble. Sur ce point, il semble que l’usage genevois ait inspiré la pratique écossaise, qui suit le même ordre.22 En terre anglaise, la dernière partie du rite, considérablement développée, se distingue de la pratique genevoise. La confession des péchés qu’effectue le pénitent y est directement articulée à un serment d’obéissance, c’est-à-dire un engagement solennel à se soumettre à l’avenir à l’action correctrice de l’Eglise. A la suite de ce serment, la cérémonie de réconciliation est très ritualisée: les formulaires liturgiques prévoient en effet que les pasteurs et les anciens, ou l’entourage du pénitent, lui serrent la main et l’embrassent et, ainsi, selon la version française de la Forma ac ratio, qu’ils ‘tesmoignent leur reconciliation avecques luy et de toute l’Eglise’ (Lasco: 1556, f. 183r°). Il faut dire que, comme à Genève, cette ritualisation très marquée est conditionnée par la structure liturgique puisqu’elle en épouse également la dynamique. La réconciliation intervient en effet après une formule d’absolution qui reproduit en réalité celle qui, selon les liturgies des communautés d’exilés en Angleterre, est prononcée en début de culte. Même s’ils prennent donc des formes différentes, l’ensemble des rites de pénitence qui sont analysés ici mettent en œuvre le même principe selon lequel la réintégration du pénitent passe par une cérémonie qui l’amène à se réinscrire individuellement dans le cheminement spirituel que toute l’assemblée accomplit dans le déroulement même de la liturgie. Quoi qu’il en soit des différences que l’on peut constater entre ces liturgies pénitentielles, on ne peut manquer d’être frappé par la concordance chronologique de leur mise en place. Celle-ci correspond dans tous les cas à une période d’installation des Eglises concernées. Tout se passe comme si le rite pénitentiel avait servi, de manière particulièrement critique durant cette phase, à la fois à mettre en scène l’efficacité spirituelle des Eglises réformées, c’est-à-dire à fournir la démonstration visible que c’est en leur sein que se joue véritablement la conversion des fidèles comme fruit de l’action de la providence divine, et à dessiner les limites doctrinales et morales de la communauté: les deux grands ‘scandales’ que répare la pénitence publique sont effectivement, d’une part, toutes les formes d’infidélité, que ce soit la propagation d’hérésie ou la participation à des actes rituels papistes, et, d’autre part, les crimes de mœurs, et en particulier les 22 Selon ‘l’Ordoure of Excommunication and of Publict Repentance’, la pénitence publique intervient ‘after the sermon, and before the Prayeris and Psalme’ (Laing: 1846–1864, 6.455).

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

43

crimes sexuels. Mieux que par les procédures disciplinaires conduites par les consistoires, avec les techniques administratives de contrôle et les sanctions qui sont à leur disposition, c’est peut-être par le biais de la ritualisation publique de la pénitence que s’est forgée, au cours de cette phase d’installation, la cohérence idéologique et morale des communautés réformées. L’importance de l’enjeu se mesure en tout cas à l’intensité du travail de justification de ce rite et à la ténacité dont les ministres ont dû, dans différents contextes, faire preuve pour obtenir la mise en place de ce rite. Cependant, si l’on considère la situation en France et en Suisse romande, on observe que des signes d’érosion du rituel pénitentiel se manifestent dès les guerres de Religions et en particulier aux lendemains de la Saint-Barthélémy. Les Eglises de France et de Genève commencent alors à atténuer la rigueur de la pénitence publique en envisageant des exceptions à son application dans les cas d’infidélité religieuse. Ceux qui n’assument pas de charge dans l’Eglise sont ainsi autorisés par le synode de Nîmes, en mai 1572, à se repentir de leur infidélité, ‘seulement dans le Consistoire, et cela encore sans les nommer et sans qu’ils se tinssent debout’ (Aymon: 1710, I.2 120). On craignait alors que l’humiliation publique de ceux qui avaient abjuré leur foi alors qu’ils étaient exposés à une forte contrainte n’empêche leur retour dans l’Eglise réformée. A Genève, dans les mêmes circonstances, les magistrats remettent également en cause l’application stricte du rite, en particulier dans sa dimension publique, mais les ministres parviennent à défendre l’usage établi (Fazy: 1879, 59–60). Si les pasteurs genevois parviennent à ce moment-là à maintenir la pratique dans toute sa rigueur, à plus long terme, il apparaît que l’on admet de plus en plus souvent que les fidèles ne fassent plus réparation au temple, en présence de toute l’assemblée, mais seulement devant le Consistoire, voire seulement face à un ou plusieurs pasteurs. Au XVIIe siècle, la pratique devient par conséquent variable. La pénitence publique continue à être en usage au début du siècle, mais assez tôt, se dessine, à Genève comme en France, une tendance à la privatisation du rite et cette tendance se renforce durant la deuxième moitié du siècle. En 1670, Pierre Bayle abjure le catholicisme devant quelques personnes seulement, dont des ministres. Elisabeth Labrousse signale que cet usage est alors courant (Labrousse: 1985, 77–78). Dès l’année suivante, le Consistoire de Genève constate lui-même que la pratique s’est finalement imposée de faire faire les réparations publiques en son sein seulement et non plus publiquement au temple (Registre du Consistoire, 12 janvier 1671, cité par Ritter: 1916–1917, 11.78). Quelques années plus tard, dans les circonstances de la Révocation de l’Edit de Nantes qui attire à Genève beaucoup de réfugiés, dont un certain nombre ont apostasié pour se protéger (voir à ce sujet: Reverdin: 1985), cette évolution est progressivement entérinée. Dès 1685, la Compagnie des pasteurs autorise, ‘pour des raisons d’Etat’, les réfugiés s’établissant dans la ville et qui ‘ont changé de religion’, à ne faire

44

Christian Grosse

réparation de leur abjuration qu’auprès d’un pasteur (AEG, C Past. R. 15, 175, 25 décembre 1685). Discutée à nouveau dix ans plus tard (AEG, R. Consist 68, f. 155, 16 janvier 1696), cette décision est finalement avalisée, en 1708, par le Consistoire qui permet à ceux qui désirent faire réparation à être ‘reçus par les Pasteurs des quartiers en particuliers’ ( je souligne).23 Par la suite, la pratique continue à varier et les réparations s’effectuent soit devant le Consistoire, soit en la seule présence de ministres. La dérogation dont Jean-Jacques Rousseau, autorisé à revenir à la foi réformée devant seulement ‘cinq ou six membres’ du Consistoire, s’est vanté dans ses Confessions d’avoir bénéficié de manière exceptionnelle, était en fait entrée dans l’usage depuis longtemps déjà (Rousseau: 1959, 392–393). Dans tous les cas, la réparation n’a plus lieu en public: une privatisation de la pratique s’est donc inscrite peu à peu dans les mœurs. L’évolution du rite de pénitence publique dans l’Eglise de Neuchâtel, est particulièrement révélatrice de ce qui se joue sur un plan plus général. Le maintien de cette pratique est pour Jean-Frédéric Ostervald, le rénovateur de cette Eglise au début du siècle des Lumières, un véritable cheval de bataille. S’exprimant en 1705, il note pourtant que le rite n’est plus en usage à Neuchâtel depuis 80 ans.24 Malgré cela, il parvient à inscrire dans la liturgie révisée qu’il publie en 1713 un formulaire spécifique décrivant ‘La manière de recevoir à la Paix de l’Eglise ceux qui font Pénitence Publique’.25 Ostervald y suit plutôt le modèle des liturgies mises au point dans les communautés d’exilés en Angleterre des années 1550, puisque la cérémonie qu’il définit intervient après la prière d’intercession et qu’elle comprend surtout une formule d’absolution. Mais cette entreprise ressemble décidément à une tentative désespérée. Le rite rencontre en effet, depuis le début du siècle, une large opposition qui mobilise aussi bien la population que les magistrats. Moins de deux ans après la publication de la liturgie révisée, Ostervald continue cependant à batailler pour défendre la pénitence publique. Dans une lettre adressée à Jean-Alphonse Turrettini, il se livre à cette fin à un intéressant état des lieux de la pratique dans les Eglises réformées qui établit que ces cérémonies, ‘sont en usage en Ecosse, dans les Vallées [du Piémont], dans les Eglises valonnes des Pays-Bas, dans quelques Eglises d’Allemagne, et (…), dans celles de Pologne et de Hongrie’. En revanche, elles sont supprimées à ‘Genève, Berne, Zurich et [dans] toute la Suisse protestante’ (Budé: 1887, II.132–133, 6 avril 1715). 23 AEG, R. Consist. Ann. 1, 171. Pour tout ceci, voir aussi: Grosse: 2010. 24 ‘Pour la pénitence publique, on la pratiqua, il y a quatre vingt ans, envers un nommé Raymond d’Anonai, qui avoit blasphémé d’une manière atroce jouant à la paume. Mais depuis, elle n’est plus esté en usage, pour quel crime que ce soit’ (Bibliothèque de Genève, Archives Tronchin, vol. 52, 192, lettre à L. Tronchin, 25 juillet 1705). 25 La liturgie ou la maniere de celebrer le Service Divin, qui est établie dans les Eglises de la Principauté de Neufchatel et Vallangin (1713), A Basle, chez Jean Pistorius, 119–120 (pour une brève présentation de ce document: Grosse: 2013).

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

45

Dans cette même lettre, il rapporte que les magistrats neuchâtelois, ‘ont bien parlé entre eux d’abolir les Penitences publiques; ils en parlent même assez ouvertement’. Même s’ils ‘n’ont pas encore fait la demande’ explicitement, ils travailleraient, craint Ostervald, ‘sourdement à l’avancer’ (Budé: 1887, II.133–134, 6 avril 1715). Il faut croire que la résistance d’Ostervald, qui avoue que ce projet d’abolition du rite lui ‘perce le cœur plus qu’aucune chose l’ait jamais fait’ (Budé: 1887, II.132, 6 avril 1715), a été suffisamment virulente pour permettre à la pratique de se maintenir un certain temps. En 1737, il s’évertue encore à défendre dans De l’exercice du ministère sacré, cet usage comme étant ‘ce qu’il y a de meilleur et de plus conforme à l’Ordre Ancien dans notre Discipline’ (Ostervald: 1737, 207). Huit ans après sa mort, et malgré une ultime protestation de la part des pasteurs, la pénitence publique est toutefois définitivement rejetée et remplacée par une cérémonie de repentance effectuée à huit clos, au sein du Consistoire (Clerc: 1959, 14; Allmen: 1947, 98; Robert: 2014, 449–453). Cette décision, imposée contre la résistance de l’Eglise, a manifestement une dimension politique. En renfermant le rituel de pénitence dans le cadre des institutions ecclésiastiques, les magistrats contribuent à reléguer la vie religieuse dans le domaine privé, et affirment au contraire leur souveraineté sur la sphère publique et sur l’ensemble des sanctions qui ont un effet sur le statut public de leur sujet. L’humiliation ‘devant la face de l’Eglise’26 n’est à ce titre plus acceptée. Le retrait de la pénitence à l’intérieur de l’espace clos et confidentiel du Consistoire participe du processus de distinction de l’identité religieuse et de l’identité civique des contemporains (voir, récemment: Binoche: 2012). Mais la pénitence publique est aussi rejetée pour des raisons plus anthropologiques. Ce rituel appartenait à une époque où la représentation de l’homme était essentiellement déterminée par l’idée de péché, comme l’exprime si fortement la confession qui ouvre tous les cultes réformés et qui a été citée plus haut. Son rejet appartient en revanche à une période où émerge une conception plus optimiste de l’humanité et de sa dignité, notamment dans la relation au divin. L’homme est alors davantage conçu comme capable de contribuer également à son salut, moins nettement dépendant de la grâce divine. Les versions révisées des liturgies réformées qui paraissent au début du siècle des Lumières enregistrent d’ailleurs cette évolution en atténuant la radicalité des formulations adoptées par Calvin lorsqu’il avait rédigé la confession des péchés introduisant les cultes réformés (Grosse: 2013). Dans ce contexte, l’humiliation publique heurte toujours plus les sensibilités. Cette évolution se traduit avec éclat à Genève, dans les années 1760, par une violente polémique à laquelle, non plus Rousseau, mais Voltaire est mêlé, contre l’obligation qui est faite aux fidèles de s’agenouiller en Consistoire pour réparer

26 La liturgie ou la maniere de celebrer le Service Divin (1713), 119.

46

Christian Grosse

leurs fautes.27 Le philosophe de Ferney exprime dans ces circonstances, sur un ton polémique et de sa plume la plus piquante, les convictions qui animent désormais une partie importante de ses contemporains, lorsqu’il écrit, à propos de l’affaire déclenchée par le refus du citoyen Robert Covelle de s’humilier devant le Consistoire en s’agenouillant: ‘C’est en ces lieux que maître Jean Calvin / Savant Picard, opiniâtre et vain, / De Paul apôtre impudent interprète / Disait aux gens que la vertu parfaite / Est inutile au salut du chrétien, / Que Dieu fait tout, et l’honnête homme rien. / Ses successeurs en foule s’attachèrent / A ce grand dogme et très mal le préchêrent. / Robert Covelle était d’un autre avis; / Il prétendait que Dieu nous laisse faire, / Qu’il va donnant châtiment ou salaire / Aux actions sans gêner les esprits. / Ses sentiments étaient assez suivis / Par la jeunesse aux nouveautés encline’ (Voltaire: 1990, 80–81).

Bibliographie AEG = Archives d’Etat de Genève Allmen, Jean-Jacques von (1947), L’Eglise et ses fonctions d’après Jean-Frédéric Ostervald, Neuchâtel: Imprimerie Delachaux et Niestlé Aymon, Jean (1710), Tous les synodes nationaux des Eglises réformées de France… (2 vol.), La Haye: chez Charles Delo Bauer, Karl (1927), Valérand Poullain: ein kirchengeschichtliches Zeitbild aus der Mitte des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Elberfeld: Chr. Buyer Becker, Judith (2007), Gemeindeordnung und Kirchenzucht: Johannes a Lascos Kirchenordnung für London (1555) und die reformierte Konfessionsbildung, Leiden: Brill Bergier, Jean-François (ed.), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève (1962– 2001), 13 t., Genève: Droz Bert, Jean-François (2012), L’atelier de Marcel Mauss. Un anthropologue paradoxal, Paris: CNRS Editions Binoche, Bertrand (2012), Religion privée, opinion publique, Paris: Vrin Boer, Wietse de (2001), The conquest of the soul: confession, discipline, and public order in Counter-Reformation Milan, Leiden: Brill Bonivard, François (1865), Advis et devis de l’ancienne et nouvelle Police de Genève et source d’icelle, publ. par Gustave Revilliod, Genève: Jules-Guillaume Fick Budé, E. de (1887), Lettres inédites adressées de 1686 à 1737 à J.-A. Turrettini, théologien genevois, publiées et annotées par E. de Budé, Paris: Librairie de la Suisse française; Genève: J. Carey Burnett, Amy Nelson (1991), Church Discipline and Moral Reformation in the Thought of Martin Bucer, in: Sixteenth Century Journal, 22/3, 438–456 — (1994), The yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian discipline, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers 27 Ferrier: 1945–1946, 8.217–225; voir aussi Grosse: (à paraître), Y a-t-il une raison réformée des gestes de piété?

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

47

Chevallier, Philippe (2011), Michel Foucault et le christianisme, Lyon: ENS Clerc, François (1959), La discipline des Eglises de la souveraineté de Neuchâtel et Valangin (1712), Neuchâtel: secrétariat de l’Université Dawson, Jane E.A. (2009), Discipline and the Making of Protestant Scotland, in: Duncan B. Forrester/Doug Gay (ed.), Worship and Liturgy in Context: Studies and Case Studies in Theology and Practice, London: SCM Press Delumeau, Jean (1983), Le péché et la peur. La culpabilisation en Occident. XIIIe–XVIIIe siècles, Paris: Fayard — (1992), L’aveu et le pardon. Les difficultés de la confession, XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle (1964), Paris: Fayard Denis, Philippe (1983), Remplacer la confession: absolutions collectives et discipline ecclésiastique dans les Eglises de la Réforme au XVIe siècle, in: Groupe de la Bussière (ed.), Pratiques de la confession. Des Pères du désert à Vatican II. Quinze études d’histoire, Paris: Cerf, 165–176 — (1984), Les églises d’étrangers en pays rhénans (1538–1564), Paris: Les Belles Lettres Droz, Eugénie (1970), Quatre manières de se confesser, in Eugénie Droz, Chemins de l’hérésie. Textes et documents, t. premier, Genève: Slatkine reprints, 1–86 Fazy, Henri (1879), La Saint-Barthélemy et Genève. Etude historique, Genève: Mémoires de l’Institut national genevois Ferrier, Jean-P. (1945–1946), Covelle, Voltaire et l’affaire de la génuflexion, in Bulletin de Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Genève, t. 8, 217–225 Firey, Abigail (ed.) (2008), A new history of penance, Brill: Leiden Foucault, Michel (2012), Mal faire, dire vrai: fonction de l’aveu en justice. Cours de Louvain, 1981, édition établie par Fabienne Brion et Bernard E. Harcourt Bruxelles: Presses universitaires de Louvain — (2013), L’origine de l’herméneutique de soi: conférences prononcées à Dartmouth College, 1980, édition établie par Henri-Paul Fruchaud et Daniele Lorenzini; introduction et apparat critique par Laura Cremonesi et al., Paris: Vrin Graham, Michael F. (1996), The uses of reform. Godly discipline’ and popular behavior in Scotland and beyond, 1560–1610, Leiden: Brill Grosse, Christian (2005), Places of Sanctification: the Liturgical Sacrality of Genevan Reformed Churches, 1535–1566, in: Will Coster/Andrew Spicer (ed.), Sacred space in early modern Europe, Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge University Press, 60–80 — (2006), Obstinés et incorrigibles. L’impénitence devant le Consistoire de l’Eglise de Genève (XVIe siècle), in: Le criminel endurci. Récidive et récidivistes du Moyen Âge au XXe siècle, Genève: Droz, 81–91 — (2008), Les rituels de la cène. Le culte eucharistique réformé à Genève (XVIe–XVIIe siècles), Genève: Droz — (2010), Exhortation, rituel, instruction: les trois temps de l’administration de l’infidélité à Genève (XVIe–XVIIIe siècles), in: Cristina Pitassi/Daniela Solfaroli-Camillocci (eds), Les modes de la conversion confessionnelle à l’âge moderne. Autobiographie, altérité et construction de l’identité religieuse (XVIe–XVIIIe siècles), Florence: Léo Olschki, 233– 252 — (2013), La liturgie de Neuchâtel (1713) et La liturgie de la Cène, Genève (1724), in: La théologie. Une anthologie, sous la dir. de Bernard Lauret, t. IV: Les temps modernes, Daniel Odon Hurel/Maria-Cristina Pitassi (eds), Paris: Cerf, 497–501, 502–506

48

Christian Grosse

— (à paraître), Y a-t-il une raison réformée des gestes de piété? Interprétations conflictuelles de l’agenouillement, in: Olivier Christin/Yves Krumenacker (eds), Anthropologie historique du protestantisme moderne Groupe de la Bussière (1983), Pratiques de la confession. Des pères du désert à Vatican II. Quinze études d’histoire, Paris: Cerf Hertz, Robert (1988), Le péché et l’expiation dans les sociétés primitives (1922), Réimpression de l’édition établie par Marcel Mauss dans la Revue de l’histoire des religions, Paris: Éditions Jean-Michel Place Jackson Lualdi, Katharine/Thayer, Anne T. (ed.) (2000), Penitence in the Age of Reformations, Aldershot: Ashgate Kaufmann, Thomas (2014), Histoire de la Réformation. Mentalités, religion, société, trad. de l’all. par J.-M. Tétaz, Genève: Labor et Fides Koziol, Geoffrey (1992), Begging pardon and favor: ritual and political order in early medieval France, Ithaca N.Y., London: Cornell Univ. Press Labrousse, Elisabeth (1985), Pierre Bayle, t. I: Du pays de Foix à la cité d’Erasme, seconde édition, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Laing, David (ed.) (1846–1864), The Works of John Knox, Edinburgh: James Thin Lasco, Joanne á (1555), Forma a ratio tota ecclesiastici Ministerii, in peregrinorum, potissimum vero Germanorum Ecclesia: instituta Londini in Anglia, per Pientissi mum Principem Angliae etc. Regem EDVARDVM, eius nominis Sextu: Anno post Christum natum 1550. Addito ad calcem libelli Priuilegio suae Maiestatis, Francfort — (1556), Toute la forme et maniere du Ministere Ecclesiastique, en l’Eglise des estrangers, dressee à Londres en Angleterre, par le Prince tresfidele dudit pays, le Roy Edouard. VI. de ce nom, l’an apres l’incarnation de Christ. 1550…, traduit de Latin en François, Emden: Gilles Crematius Lea, Henry Charles (1968), A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church (1886), 3 vol., New York: Greenwood Press Mansfield, Mary C. (2005), The Humiliation of Sinners: Public Penance in ThirteenthCentury France, Ithaca N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press Martin, Charles (1915), Les protestants anglais réfugiés à Genève au temps de Calvin 1555– 1560, Genève: Jullien Mentzer, Raymond A. (2000), Notions of Sin and Penitence within the French Reformed Communities, in: Katharine Jackson Lualdi/Anne T. Thayer (eds), Penitence in the Age of Reformations, Aldershot: Ashgate, 84–100 Moeglin, Jean-Marie (1997), Pénitence publique et amende honorable au Moyen Âge, in: Revue historique, 604, 225–269. Ostervald, Jean-Frédéric (1737), De l’exercice du ministère sacré, Amsterdam: chez J.F. Bernard Parker, Charles (2000), The Rituals of Reconciliation: Admonition, Confession and Community in the Dutch Reformed Church, in: Katharine Jackson Lualdi/Anne T. Thayer (eds), Penitence in the age of reformations, Aldershot: Ashgate, 101–115 — (2001), Pilgrim’s Progress: Narratives of Penitence and Reconciliation in the Dutch Reformed Church, in Journal of Early Modern History, 5/3, 222–240 Pettegree, Andrew (1986), Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London, Oxford: Clarendon Press — (1996), Marian Protestantism. Six Studies, Aldershot Hants; Brookfield Vt.: Scolar press

La ‘réparation publique’ réformée

49

Pitkin, Barbara (2004), Redefining Repentance: Calvin and Melanchthon, in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20–24, 2002, Genève: Droz, 275–285 Pollanus, Valerandus (1970), Liturgia Sacra (1551–1555). Opnieuw uitgegeven en van een inleiding voorzien door dr. A.C. Honders, Leiden: Brill Reverdin, Olivier (ed.) (1985), Genève et la Révocation de l’Edit de Nantes 1680–1750, Genève/Paris: Droz, Champion Ritter, Eugène (1916–1917), La rentrée de Jean-Jacques Rousseau dans l’Eglise de Genève, in Annales de la Société Jean-Jacques Rousseau, t. XI, 71–105 Rittgers, Ronald K. (2004), The Reformation of the Keys. Confession, Conscience, and Authority in Sixteenth-Centruy Germany, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press Robert, Michèle (2014), Réforme et contrôle des mœurs: la justice consistoriale dans le Pays de Neuchâtel (1547–1848), Thèse présentée à la Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines de l’Université de Neuchâtel, sous la dir. du Prof. Philippe Henry Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1959), Œuvres complètes, t. I: Les Confessions. Autres Textes autobiographiques, Bernard Gagnebin et Marcel Raymond (dir.), Paris: Gallimard Spijker, Willem van’t (1996), The Ecclesiastical Offices in the Thought of Martin Bucer, transl. by John Vriend et Lyle D. Bierma, Leiden: Brill Springer, Michael S. (2007), Restoring Christ’s Church. John a Lasco and the Forma ac ratio, Aldershot, Hants; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Tentler, Thomas N. (1977), Sin and Confessin on the Eve of the Reformation, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press Thayer, Anne T. (2002), Penitence, preaching and the coming of Reformation, Aldershot: Ashgate Todd, Margo (2002), The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland, New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press VanderSchaaf, Mark E. (1977), Archbishop Parker’s Efforts Toward a Bucerian Discipline in the Church of England, in Sixteenth Century Journal, 8/1, 85–103 Vogel, Cyrille (1969), Le pécheur et la pénitence au Moyen-Âge, Paris: Cerf Voltaire (1990), La Guerre civile de Genève, édition critique par John Renwick, in: The complete works of Voltaire, vol. 63 A (1767), Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation

50

Christian Grosse

Appendix Liturgies réformées de pénitence publique 1545–1569 Genève 15601 Sermon

Poullain/Laski 1551–15522 Sermon (sur la pénitence) Prières liturgiques

Laski 1552–15553 Knox 15694 Sermon (abrégé)

Prières liturgiques Instruction Instruction (sur la pénitence) Admonition à Admonition à Admonition à l’Eglise l’Eglise l’Eglise Prière pour le Prière pour le pénitent pénitent Admonition Admonition au Admonition au au pénitent pénitent pénitent Confession Confession des Confession des des péchés péchés péchés (résumée par le ministre) Admonition au Admonition au pénitent pénitent Admonition à Admonition à l’Eglise l’Eglise (agenouillement (agenouillement collectif) collectif) Action de grâces Action de grâces Serment Serment d’obéissance d’obéissance Absolution Absolution Prières Réconciliation Réconciliation liturgiques (de fin de Psaume Psaume (103) sermon) Bénédiction Bénédiction

Sermon

Instruction (sur la pénitence) Admonition à l’Eglise Prière Admonition au pénitent Confession des péchés (résumée par le ministre et approuvée par l’assemblée) Admonition au pénitent Admonition à l’Eglise

Action de grâces Serment d’obéissance Absolution Réconciliation Psaume (103) Bénédiction

1 Soixante cinq Sermons de Jean Calvin sur l’harmonie ou concordance des trois Evangelistes, Genève, Conrad Badius, 1562; CO, t. XLVI, 410–412. 2 Liturgia sacra, seu ritus ministerii in ecclesia peregrinorum profugorum propter Evangelium Christi Argentinae, 1551; L’ordre des prieres et ministere ecclesiastique, avec la forme de penitence pub. & certaines prieres de l’eglise de Londres, et la confession de foy de l’eglise de Glastonbury en Somerset, Londres, [S. Mierdman?], 1552; Doctrine de la penitence publique. Et la forme d’icelle ainsi comme elle se practique en l’Eglise des estrangiers à Londres, devant qu’on vienne à l’excommunication. Ensemble aussi la forme d’administrer la saincte Cene, [Londres, Thomas Gaultier], 1552. 3 Lasco: 1556. 4 Laing: 1846–1864, 2.455–460.

Jung-Sook Lee

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva and Its Relevance to the Korean Church

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva The success of a Korean Movie ‘Milyang Secret sunshine’ (2007) was phenomenal. Directed by Chang-Dong Lee, a former minister of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, it was nominated for a Palm d’Or and won the best actress award at the Cannes Film Festival 2007. This movie interestingly invited theological discussion because the movie ‘shines a spotlight on an important phenomenon that is transforming the Korean society—the phenomenal rise of evangelical Christianity.’1 Milyang features religious satires in many scenes and effectively deals with superficial understanding of grace and common misunderstandings of ‘forgiveness’ among evangelical Christians. A widowed woman, whose son had been kidnapped and brutally killed by a man in the neighborhood, joined a local church after many months of evangelistic efforts by another neighbor. After some time of serious engagement in Bible studies and revival meetings, she decided to forgive the imprisoned abductor as her response to the biblical command to forgive one’s enemy. However, when this widowed and bereaved mother visited the criminal, she was devastated to learn that the man was not only claiming to have converted to Christianity in prison, but was failing to show any remorseful emotion toward her who was experiencing the irrevocable loss. He firmly believed that he was forgiven by God for what he did. She became deeply furious and confused, and ended up denouncing her faith. She further openly criticized the church and the Christians for being untruthful and hypocritical. Whether intended or not, this movie became a catalyst for reflecting on whether or not evangelical Christians, perhaps out of competitive spirit for evangelism and church growth, introduced the Christian gospel as a package of cheap grace and forgiveness which guarantees every kind of blessing in this life, instead of the proper understanding of grace and discipleship. The history of 130 years of Protestant Christianity in Korea and its remarkable expansion made many indelible marks such as proactive lay participation in 1 http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=17426, accessed February 8, 2014.

52

Jung-Sook Lee

church life, high literacy of the Bible, fervent prayer movement, mission mobilization, and high percentage of theological degree holders, not to mention of the high number of mega-churches. Korean Protestant Christians in general have also been observed positively for their achievements and advances in various vocational fields and businesses in many sectors of society.2 These Christians are maintaining economically better and educationally higher levels than people with other religions. Nonetheless, recently more and more criticism is being piled up against the Korean Church and Christians (Protestant Christianity in this case), that they are selfish and inconsistent between their words and deeds, and that they are spiritually arrogant and intolerant toward other differing views and religions.3 It is possible that Protestant Churches and Christians are more criticized for their being much more evangelism-oriented, outspoken and expressive than any other religious groups. To top it off, the media is keen to expose different types of scandalous problems especially in the Protestant church—whether among lay or clergy. In addition, it is also a public fact that these people in the church are not significantly different from irreligious people when it comes to moral or ethical issues such as lies, abortion, bribery, embezzlement, and breach of trust, litigation among believers, pornography, and sexual behaviors. For this reason, many question whether Calvin or the Calvinist tradition is prepared to answer this unfortunate situation when Presbyterianism and the likes compose the vast majority of Korean Christianity.4 2 According to the latest National Census in 2005, Protestant population is 18.3 % and Catholic is 10.9 % of the whole population. Christian population combining both Protestants and Catholics together can take up higher percentage than Buddhist population alone which covers 22.8 %. However, more Christians are found in national congress and other professional vocations. For example, among national congress men and women of its 18th term (2008– 2012), Protestants are 40.1 %, Catholics, 26.8 % and Buddhists 15.7 %. This marks remarkable numbers because about 83 % of congress men and women are religious while 53 % of total population has religion. Among congress men and women Christians are 66.9 % which is way higher than Buddhist colleagues. http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=ecustomer&logNo=120055952638, accessed on August 10, 2014. 3 A Korea based NGO, Trust Initiative Church and Society in Korea, conducted an annual survey since 2008 to measure up social trust of Korean Church: The survey result has been annually publicized and audited by various interest groups. It was the first kind of attempts for Korean Church and Christians and hence initially criticized by evangelical Christians as a self-destructive behavior. However, as years go by, it is more and more accepted as the barometer to assess Korean Church and also as the means of securing feedback from people either Christians or non-Christians, to understand the images of Protestant Church, pastors, and laity in comparison to Roman Catholic Church and Buddhism in general. http://cemk.org/2008/bbs/board.php?bo_table=2007_data_cemk&wr_id=348, accessed on August 10, 2014. 4 Regardless of denominational distinction Korean churches prefer to adopt Presbyterian polity so that they have elders in the church. This has to do with ever-powerful Confucian culture within churches (hierarchical understanding of church office: elders first, then deacon). It also

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva

53

The movie, Milyang, poses questions like ‘Does God forgive when we cannot or do not forgive?’ ‘If so, what is required for a sinner to be forgiven when he or she caused great damage to another person?’ These questions may lead to one genuine and fundamental question: ‘What is truly acceptable repentance according to the Calvinist church discipline?’ What does Calvin teach and practice about true repentance and forgiveness, considered crucial in church discipline? Did he (or was he able to) apply and implement his theology in the manner he believed and taught? Furthermore, is Calvinist theology and practice regarding church discipline relevant to churches today around the world?

1. True Repentance in Geneva Discipline There is no doubt that Calvin’s Geneva and Calvinist Church discipline has been a focus of Calvin research in the last decades. Earlier, E.W. Monter had made a monumental beginning, but it was the late Robert M. Kingdon and his students who made church discipline more readable for historians of the world. They took up an enormous task of transcribing the minutes of the Geneva Consistory during Calvin’s time and produced dissertations and books pertinent to Calvin’s and Calvinist church discipline in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. No one would leave out the significant contribution which the H. Meeter Center made in this regard by offering regular paleography classes and by facilitating scholars from all over the world to do their respective research pertaining to Calvin’s theology and ministry. Kingdon’s work and his social history approach certainly instigated church historians to come out of their own library full of theological books to enter into the archive replete with minutes and municipal documents. In due time Calvin was finally and fairly portrayed as a reformed immigrant pastor who had ministered in Geneva on the day-to-day basis fighting against native leaders over religious and legal issues and yet yearning for his home country and for his own people who were being persecuted for their reformed faith. Calvin’s church discipline through the consistory has been first understood as an ‘effective means of social control.’5 Although it is true in terms of its consequence, it does not necessarily encompass the width and depth of Calvin’s theological exposition to has to do with lay participation in ecumenical movements: When they gather to work, they do not want to be belittled for not being elders to represent their own churches when Presbyterian delegates are usually all elders. Cf. Lee: 2009. 5 Robert M. Kingdon said that the consistory of Geneva was ‘an effective tool for social and political control in Geneva.’ Echoing E.W. Monter’s observation, he also believed that the consistory of Geneva played a critical role in the transformation of Geneva into a socially ordered and morally advanced city within a relatively short time (Kingdon: 1993, 523).

54

Jung-Sook Lee

evaluate his church discipline measures against the hostile environment in Geneva. The more the scholars became interested in church discipline, the more diverse research was becoming available to understand Calvin’s discipline. A fuller picture of Calvin’s ministry of teaching, preaching, and correcting has been explored, thanks to many who are members of this Congress. It is also delightful to see similar and yet modified forms of church discipline among Calvinist churches around Europe: Raymond Mentzer delved into the disciplinary cases of Calvinist French churches, Charles Parker of the Dutch Reformed churches, Jeoffrey Parker of Scottish Kirk Sessions.6 They unanimously demonstrated that Calvinist discipline and its stringent application has helped to show the positive side of indoctrination of Christian values, moral supervision and self-discipline, and further contributed toward building a more godly Christian community.7 It is well-known that church discipline through the consistory was Calvin’s precondition to come back to Geneva: After his return he made every effort to ensure the authority of consistorial discipline so that it would function to create the community of order, a godly community according to the word of God preached and taught. Calvin believed that church discipline purports to safeguard the glory of God, to induce repentance of sinners and to protect the purity of a community (Inst. 4.12.5). For sinners consistorial discipline through admonition and temporary sacramental exclusion (i. e., excommunication) becomes a reminder or a warning signal to acknowledge that their salvation is at stake and thus includes even a possibility of the future damnation when they do not repent. Therefore, excommunication is designed to be pastoral care and support to correct and further cure sinful souls, for which Calvin was assured that the church should have control of it, not the state. Calvin’s untiring struggle for the power of church discipline against the city council, namely, exercising excommunication and restoration, effectively reflects what he had believed about the primary purpose of church discipline. Discipline should be corrective before becoming punitive: Correction like ‘father’s rod’ and remedy like ‘medicine’ become a part and parcel of church discipline, although shame and punishment may overshadow these qualities in its beginning. Out of this conviction those who were excommunicated in Geneva 6 Mentzer and Parker both emphasized moral control as the most important function of the consistory. According to them, Calvinist discipline has made believers agitated with shame and alienation from the community when they were excommunicated. As a result, those excommunicated sought their restoration ardently and immediately in order to regain their honor in the society, which eventually served to create a cohesive Christian community (Mentzer: 1991; 2000; Parker: 1997; 2000; Tracy: 1992, Parker: 1988). 7 Parker says of the effect of strict church discipline in the sixteenth century in the Dutch Reformed church, ‘While the instrument of spiritual punishment waned over the course of the seventeenth century, there is great consensus that they largely achieved the aim of instilling of greater self-discipline among the Reformed.’ (Parker: 2000, 115)

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva

55

were required to ‘frequent the sermons more’ as the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of 1541 indicate. As such, consistorial discipline in Geneva fits into the reformation of pastoral ministry of the ‘true church’ where the word must be rightly preached and the sacraments properly administered. Calvin’s own and his colleagues’ assurance in the curing power of the word of God extends to sinners who were being disciplined and excluded from the sacraments, but strongly recommended to the exposition of the Word so that they would repent and change their unworthy lifestyle. Calvin shows his clear position on the power of the Word in many different places. As he comments on Hebrews 4:12, he says, The sum of the whole then is this,—that as soon as God opens his sacred mouth, all our faculties ought to be open to receive his Word; for he would not have his Word scattered in vain, so as to disappear or to fall neglected on the ground, but he would have it effectually to constrain the consciences of men, so as to bring them under his authority; and that he has put power in his word for this purpose, that it may scrutinize all the parts of the soul, search the thoughts, discern the affections, and in a word show itself to be the judge (Comm. Hebr. 4:12).

He further says, ‘For God, as he speaks not by himself, but by men, dwells carefully on this point, so that his truth may not be objected to in contempt, because men are its ministers’ (Comm. Hebr. 4:12). While excommunication functions as a beginning of correction and remedy to sinners through humiliation and inconvenience, restoration completes its purpose because the intention of excommunication is ‘not to drive men from the Lord’s flock, but rather bring them back again when they have wandered and gone astray’ (Comm. 2 Thess. 5:15; CO 52.216). Those who were excommunicated should come back to their faith and to the community with a clean heart and hands through restoration in the consistory. In this sense the role of the local church as a Christian community is more than ever crucial to help them wholeheartedly repent their wrongdoings and sins to the Lord, and when deemed necessary also to their community—small or large. How did restoration take place in Geneva? Of course it was individual responsibility to change and correct his or her life according to consistorial admonition. In principle, however, consistorial restoration implies communal responsibility to ‘take care not to lose what God wishes to save’ (Comm. Matth. 18:12; CO 45.505) and to look after someone weaker than us as the Bible encourages. Supposedly, ‘the stronger any one is, the more bound he is to bear with the weak’ (Comm. Rom. 15:1). In Geneva there is little evidence how the community initiated any offer helping the weak and the sinful other than reporting their faults to the consistory. However, elders were assigned to watch over appropriateness and orderliness of believers in their daily life as mandated in the Ecclesiastical Ordinance in 1541, and also to execute general visitations to country churches

56

Jung-Sook Lee

from 1548 and to Geneva from 15568 in addition to already practiced particular visitations to the sick and the imprisoned. General visitation requested by pastors and elders had a twofold purpose, supervision of pastors and of laity. Regarding pastors, the consistory wanted to ensure that the whole of the churches—whether in city or country churches—enjoy a uniformity and quality assurance of the doctrine through preaching. Further the visitation made it possible to examine if pastors might live an honorable life and fulfill their pastoral duties. For laity it was intended to promote regular attendance at public worship and the Christian way of life so that they may receive the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner. Obviously when the visitation was extended to the city in 1556, it was more for the laity to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a proper manner, to fulfill their duty towards God and also to hear the holy Word regularly as the Register of the Company of the Pastors reported (Bergier/Kingdon: 1962, 66). Therefore the effect of visitations should be taken into more serious account as a sign of communal help or pastoral care rather than invasion of privacy, as some may unfairly criticize. Again, as long as church discipline is meant to be remedial to sinners, restoration is to be properly observed. For Calvin restoration is the reconciliation with God and the church (community) after enduring a limited period of sacramental and social exclusion. Let us quickly summarize the process of restoration: First, in order to be restored from excommunication the individual in question should display his/her repentant heart in explicit words and demonstrate changes in his/her life in front of the church authority, namely the consistory. Then members of the consistory evaluate the genuineness of repentance and its fitting fruits, and make a decision based on their observation and discernment. As such, restoration is composed of basically two parts, the repentance of sinners and the declaration of absolution by the consistory. Before the enactment of the new law regarding the Lord’s Supper in November 1557, it seems true that a low percentage of excommunicated people came to the consistory for restoration.9 Then, what was the consistorial review and evaluation interview 8 In 1546 a law concerning the visitation of country churches was drafted, but was approved by the first syndic until 1548. Only on Sunday 15 July, 1548 the visitations to the inhabitants of country churches were commenced and then it was March 12, 1556 when visitation was extended throughout the city for the elders and ministers to better oversee people of Geneva. Six ministers, twenty-five dizeniers and at least twelve assistants were available for visitation. During visitations four dizeniers and two assistants were assigned to each minister. Bergier/ Kingdon: 1962, 66. Christian Grosse said that visitation was begun in 1550 without any reference to the Registers of the Company of Pastors. Grosse: 2008, 400–403. 9 A new law enacted in 1557 required all to take the Lord’s Supper regularly. It could have been a direct result of low rate of restoration request I observed in 1555–1556. Unlike Monter’s or Kingdon’s argument, Geneva people were rather indifferent, ignorant or even careless about the necessity of restoration by simply not coming back to the Consistory for restoration.

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva

57

prerequisite for restoration like? A ‘good repentance,’ a display of remorseful penitence and change of life were always critical matters to pursue. Whenever the consistory denied the request for restoration, it would say one of the following: 1. ‘Because he does not know repentance at all, the Lord’s Supper will be defended even more’; 2. ‘The Lord’s Supper has been forbidden to him until we see other repentance in him’; 3. ‘The Lord’s Supper would be forbidden to him until he recognizes his fault’; 4. ‘The Lord’s Supper is forbidden to him until he has better repentance’; 5. ‘The Lord’s Supper will be forbidden until he is better instructed’; or 6. ‘One cannot receive the Lord’s Supper because he continues to have no sign of repentance.’ It is observed that if anyone is guilty and excommunicated for something other than educational reasons, the explicit recognition of their faults and visible sign of penitence are necessary. Many of restoration requests made to the Geneva Consistory were examined accompanied by a certain show of repentance, whether true or unfeigned. The consistory occasionally denied the requests of restoration on the ground of lack of remorse or the absence of real sign of repentance. In such cases the consistory told them to have a ‘good repentance’ (bonne repentance) or ‘better repentance’ (meilleur repentance). When repentance seemed to be the conclusive factor for restoration in consistorial discipline, one may question how the consistory made such judgment to distinguish genuine repentance from fake repentance. What signs did they look for to validate a good repentance? Are they tears or a humble attitude, or even kneeling? What was in comparison better repentance? Then, what expressions did the consistory use in permitting restoration? The consistory said, 1. ‘Because he has the sign of repentance’; or 2. ‘He is absolved because of the word that she would live more godly’; or 3. ‘He has good repentance of his faults (…) and will not frequent with so-and-so whom he used to have a problem with’; or 4. ‘He is repentant of his fault. He is absolved with good admonition.’ As we can see, they do not necessarily reveal any systematic form or standards by which the consistory would have judged a case of good repentance. However, at least two things are obviously taken as standards for the consistory to distinguish the ‘good’ or ‘better’ repentance from the ‘bad’ or ‘fake’ repentance. First, it was essential to acknowledge one’s faults with a deep sense of responsibility and sorrow. Second, a certain sign of repentance was necessary, such as evidence of reconciliation with a conflicting party or a third person’s favorable testimony regarding changes in attitude and life. What the consistory looked for was whether or not the offender carried out the particular orders meted out by the consistory. The consistory also observed the changes in the person’s attitude and lifestyle through its regular house visitations which has been in practice since 1548 and 1556. Since the consistory as a corporate body made a collective adjudication regarding either excommunication or restoration, it made use of various observations and reports of its members and other reliable sources like

58

Jung-Sook Lee

witnesses. Therefore, it is not difficult to conjecture that elders and ministers in Geneva could have observed the excommunicant’s life rather easily and closely through visitations, as was true in later Calvinist communities. Therefore, the possibility of pretending sorrow or lying in the consistory might not have been as easy as it would be today. Repentance required in Geneva Consistory created a Protestant form of confession, more or less in the form of public confessions. In the wake of other reformers, especially Bucer, Calvin believed in the constructive usage of confessions. Repentance as ‘true turning of our life to God’ through ‘mortification of our flesh and of the old man, and the vivification of the spirit (Inst. 3.3.5; OS 4.60) involves primarily personal and private confessions to God. However, it has been encouraged by Bucer and Calvin to make active use of a pastor’s help in confessing grave sins and in seeking consolation and advice.10 Along this line, public confessions in addition to private confessions to God were recognized and further recommended as long as their voluntary practice was safeguarded, and their constructive outcome was warranted for both individual and community level. Calvin seemed to suggest two possible types of public confessions: first, individual public confessions as David had done before his own subjects and Nathan after he was rebuked for his dreadful sins; second, liturgical public confessions as had been practiced in Jewish temple in the Old Testament. With the latter one, he applied it without any scruple in his Sunday worship liturgy. A Congregational confession during Sunday worship in Geneva came after the minister’s solemn declaration of God’s glory and human frailty as invocation: ‘Our help is in the name of the Lord.’ Then, the minister recites the confession of sins using a revised form of Bucer’s second Confiteor, (Thomson: 1985, 190, 197– 210) as he expects his congregation to confess their faults and sins to God by reciting the prayer of confession albeit in their heart. In addition, the public confession and reparation was also adopted to practice as a part of the ceremonial restoration in the later years of Calvin’s life in Geneva. The City Council adopted the public ceremony of confession and repentance as a part of the restoration procedure in 1560 (Monter: 1967, 139). However, seeing that the Consistory occasionally told the excommunicants to reconcile with the people against whom they had offended ‘after the sermon (apres le sermon),’ it seems that a certain degree of public ceremony of restoration had already begun in Geneva before 1560 (cf. Kingdon, ‘Transcription’ 13.37–38, 14.3). The phrase, 10 Bucer: 1550, 244–245. Inst. 3.4.12; OS 4.99. Calvin said, ‘For while the duty of mutual admonition and rebuke is entrusted to all Christians, it is especially enjoined upon ministers. Thus, although all of us ought to console one another and confirm one another in assurance of divine mercy, we see that the ministers themselves have been ordained witnesses and sponsors of it to assure our consciences of forgiveness of sins, to the extent that they are said to forgive sins and to loose souls.’

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva

59

‘after sermon’ could have meant ‘after preaching during the worship,’ but also ‘after the whole worship,’ since the word ‘sermon’ was also used as an equivalent to the Protestant worship. Calvin said that repentance would be basically ‘an inward matter, which has its seat in the heart and soul,’ but it should be expressed outwardly by yielding appropriate fruits (Comm. Harmony of Gospels, 1.190). The fruits of repentance are essentially changes of hearts and life. Considering the contagious nature of sin, it was incumbent on the consistory to make sinners truly repentant of their infractions, thus ensuring both the consistory and the sinner from having pretentious or sham repentance. Public confession and restoration could have been considered to be a useful and furthermore possibly biblically sound option for Calvin, since his ministry as a whole can be viewed as his struggle about ‘biblical church discipline’ (Cammenga: 2010, 63).

2. Historical and Practical Relevance to the Korean Church Today As much as historical reconstruction of church discipline in Calvin’s Geneva and Calvinist churches around Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is important, its relevance to today’s church is as significant for someone who studied Christian history in the West and now teaches it in the East where Christianity is considered to be one of the foreign religions, if not the religion of colonialism. If Calvin’s theology and practice of church discipline is grounded in his conviction and high regard for the Scriptures, it should have the universal resonance and appeal. When I was strongly inclined and encouraged to write about church discipline for my dissertation, I was in a dilemma with church discipline in a Korean-American church which I served as a pastor. Once I came back to Korea and shared that I studied church discipline, the very first question I was asked was not so much of the details of the Geneva discipline, but rather its relevance for today: ‘Do you think it would be something that we, Presbyterians, should do today?’ Unfortunately my answer was negative for a long time. There are obvious obstacles for the modern church to imitate anything similar to the system of church discipline which Calvin had constructed, the Geneva church had implemented, and Calvinist churches in Europe had advanced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in order to create a ‘church of order’, or ‘godly community.’ Anonymity and fluidity become marks of the modern church more particularly in the urban context. No one would be interested in a church which would interfere with his or her private life. However, there were a few interesting examples in the history of the Korean Protestant Church that might test out the viability of a modified form of church discipline.

60

Jung-Sook Lee

Voluntary public penance in 1903 and again in 1907 had triggered the Great Revival in the Korean Church history, later recorded as an extraordinary mark of true repentance. In consideration of the Confucian culture prevalent in Korean society (especially among males) at the time, public confession was an unthinkable practice. However, it was practiced without any training or encouragement during the great revivals in Wonsan (1903) and in Pyongyang (1907) respectively. In each case there were voluntary public confessions, first in 1903 by Hardy, a western missionary, about his hatred of native Koreans, and later by Korean native leaders and believers in 1907. The list of sins publicly confessed in a series of revival meetings was a lengthy one including speaking lies, swearing and indecent languages, envy, hatred of natives or missionaries, habitual drunkenness, heavy smoking, use of opium, gambling, theft, robbery, trafficking of girls and women, concubinage, abandoning wife, owning slaves, idol-worship, and so forth. What was remarkable about this phenomenon was that public confession led directly to actual reparation, restitution, and compensation for offenses such as returning stolen goods to the owners, self-reporting of robbery that resulted in imprisonment, letting go of concubines, freeing slaves and so on.11 These revivals lasted for a year and spread to different parts of the country, although intensity of public confession waned over time. Some of the sins confessed were not even considered evil at the time in Korean society, but these early Christians were feeling convicted out of the sheer sense of responsibility to the truth revealed through the preaching and teaching ministry of the church. Christianity certainly changed the culture including the concept of sin. There is no sign that voluntary public confession remained as a part of any type of meetings or worship after 1907, but church discipline was adopted as independent presbyteries were established in due time since the fall of 1907. Despite a strong need for church discipline, there has been little research conducted on church discipline in Korea. As far as I am aware, there is only one study available on this issue to date. It is about the Kimpo-Op Presbyterian Church, one of the churches which Horace Grant Underwood, the first Presbyterian pastor missionary dispatched to Korea, has planted through his Korean assistant. The minutes of the church session meetings during the years of 1913–1929 demonstrate well how arduously the church made efforts to maintain the purity of Christian life by allocating more than 40 % of its pages on disciplinary issues and practices alone. Along the lines of church discipline, baptism was administered after careful examination, and transfer of membership to other church was permitted in writing only when 11 Many of these cases had been reported by American missionaries in their letters or reports to their respective mission board. It is also found in Korea Mission Filed, an English magazine which was published in Korea since 1905. Most Korean Christians refer to the repentance of 1903 and 1907 as the model of true repentance for which they have to emulate as possible as one can.

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva

61

provided by a reasonable explanation. The list of faults and sins which called for admonition and excommunication was similar to the list of sins confessed during the Great Revival: Habitual drinking or selling alcohol, divorce, abandoning wife, negligence of Sunday worship, taking or becoming a concubine, marriage with unbeliever, adhering to Roman Catholic doctrines, idol worship, ancestor worship and so forth (Pyung: 2006). The strict observance of church discipline during the early period of the Korean church history may have to do with several reasons such as Puritan theology of early missionaries, mission policies, and the political situation, but above all, it was the determination of native Christian leaders who made it possible. They believed that moral transformation of their own people through Christian faith would eventually change the destiny of the nation, even though the nation was presently lost to the enemy. Church discipline became a forgotten word in Korean churches today. Church court has lost its name and their verdict does not have any effect. Litigations outside of the church are often considered to be inevitable and necessary to see justice done. Fluidity of church membership does not help maintain church discipline. Baptism is hastily given and catechism is disappearing. While most people took this for granted as a post-Christian phenomenon, the lead pastor of the Wooridle Church thought differently and seemed to suggest an alternative to church discipline. The Wooridle church (www.wooridle.com), a member church of Korea Association of Independent Churches and Mission Organization, makes unique efforts to train its members to confess their sins in public. The lead pastor makes public confession in a form of personal witness during Sunday worships and weekly small group meetings. In any case, the summarized contents of confessions are to be either printed in church bulletin or uploaded on church website. Such confessions each week reveal rather embarrassing episodes: Many confess so honestly their broken family history, lies, extramarital affairs, business mishandlings, bribery, and so on. The confessions made on Sundays are arranged upon voluntary requests and have to be accompanied by heartfelt and honest confessions as well as proof of change in one’s life. In brief, it is a combination of both a confession and a testimony of a transformed life. This example above has a similar nature to, yet an advanced form of the public confession which characterized the Great Korean Revivals in 1903 and 1907. In some sense, one can say that this tradition of practicing repentant confessions has continued in mountain prayer houses or small group meetings, but certainly not in public worships in a church. Thus the uniqueness of Rev. Kim’s ministry at Wooridle Church is evident. She calls personal confession as personal testimony so that it is a regular part of the Sunday worship liturgy. Some visitors may be distressed from simply listening to such a detailed personal story during public worship, however, many more find consolation and hope according to the church authority. In weekly group meetings which are composed of four or five families,

62

Jung-Sook Lee

believers are asked to reflect upon the word they heard from Sunday worship and apply its lesson into daily lives. During this application they share their lives candidly so that the leader, when necessary, sometimes with the help of other members, provides so called ‘prescription’ to remedy their problems. Some members also share personally that they were changed after they followed such prescriptions given by their leaders or pastors. Rev. Kim grew up as a fourth generation Christian in a Presbyterian church before she became an ordained pastor at the age of 52. After studying music in a renowned university she married a medical doctor and had a financially comfortable, yet mentally disturbing life because of her conflict with the in–laws and thus her own apparent hypocrisy in the so-called Christian family. However, it was the Bible which saved her from such life and enabled her to endure through the hard times of her husband’s sudden death when she was only 37. Starting out as the founder and lay leader of daily devotional ministry called ‘QT Ministry,’ she entered a Presbyterian seminary and eventually planted a church upon graduation. She had an extraordinary success in church planting as a woman pastor. A little over ten years later the church grew to be over 9,500 regularly attending members, nullifying the previous conception about the limitation of woman’s pastoral leadership, that women leaders can fill prayer houses, but not local churches. Partly because of this rapid growth, a particular type of her ministry, and most of all because of her identity as a woman minister, she was often accused of being a sectarian leader. She likens her church to a ‘public bath’ because sin gets taken off in front of everybody, just as dirt on our body gets taken off in a public bath, and in such a way so that no one would attempt to commit the same kind of sins any more. From the beginning of her ministry she openly confessed her sins and encouraged the whole church to closely follow what has been written in the Bible (Nehemiah 9:1–4). She believes that habitual sins and entangled sins need to be publicly opened up so that the community can be ‘a watchman’ for each other. She quotes Calvin as an origin of public confession. She also says her ministry is to foster a ‘sin-confessing community’ and sets forth three conditions to keep it on track: First, the community should be mature enough to hear another’s confession; second, a public confession should not be considered as sign of automatic forgiveness; third, it should be completely voluntary.12 Wooridle Church does not have to use traditional practice of church discipline, namely excommunication and restoration. In this sense, her ministry is a modified version of church discipline possibly more fitting for an urban, broken, and spiritually poor people. When churches give up church discipline and accept people without asking any previous or present wrongdoings in the name of 12 Rev. Yang Jae Kim, interview by author, Yongin, Korea, Aug. 7, 2014. Cf. Lee: 2011.

‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva

63

Christian love, Wooridle Church is making a confessing culture through which self-discipline is instilled and promoted through individual devotion and communal support. This obviously suggests an affirming practice to make church discipline more relevant today in the light of what Calvin rephrased David’s words after being rebuked by Nathan. I now make no excuse; I do not try to avoid being judged by all to be a sinner, nor to prevent what I tried to hide from the Lord being revealed also even to men. Therefore, a willing confession among men follows that secret confession which is made to God, as often as either divine glory or our humiliation demands it. For this reason the Lord ordained of old among the people of Israel that, after the priest recited the words, the people should confess their iniquities publicly in the temple [cv. Lev. 16:21]. For he foresaw that this help was necessary for them in order that each one might better be led to a just estimation of himself. And it is fitting that by the confession of our own wretchedness, we show forth the goodness and mercy of our God, among ourselves and before the whole world (Inst. 3.4.10).

Bibliography Bucer, Martin (1550), De Regno Christi (1550), trans. Wilhelm Pauck in collaboration with Paul Larkin, in Wilhelm Pauck (ed.), Melanchthon and Bucer, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969. Bergier, Jean-François/Kingdon, Robert M. (1962), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève au temps de Calvin, Tome I, 1546–1553; Tome II, 1553–1564, Geneva: Droz. Cammenga, Ronald (2010), Calvin’s Struggle for Church Discipline in: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, 43/2, 3–20. Grosse, Christian (2008), Les rituels de la Céne, Geneva: Droz. Kingdon, Robert M. (1993), Social Control and Political Control in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 521–532. — (unpublished), Transcription of the Registers of the Geneva Consistory During the Ministry of Calvin 1558. Lee, Jung-Sook (2009), How Collegial Can They Be: Offices in the Korean Presbyterian Churches, in: Theology Today 66/2, 170–183. Lee, Seong Min (2011), Theological Understanding and Application of Confession of Sins, Seoul: Presbyterian Seminary (ThM thesis). Mentzer Jr., Raymond A. (1991), Ecclesiastical discipline and Communal Reorganization among the Protestants of Southern France, in: European History Quarterly 21, 163–183. — (2000), Notions of Sin and Penitence within the French Reformed Community, in: Katharine Jackson Lualdi/Anne T. Thayer (eds), Penitence in the Age of Reformations, Alershot: Ashgate, 84–100. Monter, E.W. (1967), Calvin’s Geneva, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

64

Jung-Sook Lee

Parker, Charles (1997), The Moral Agency and Moral Autonomy of Church Folk in the Dutch Reformed Church of Delft, 1580–1620, in: Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48, 44–70. — (2000), The Rituals and Reconciliation: Admonition, Confession and Community in the Dutch Reformed Church, in: Katharine Jackson Lualdi/Anne T. Thayer (eds), Penitence in the Age of Reformations, Alershot: Ashgate, 101–115. Parker, Geoffrey (1988), The ‘Kirk by Law Established’ and the Origins of ’The Taming of Scotland: St Andrews 1559–1600, in: Scottish Social History: Essays in Honor of Rosalind Mitchison, Aberdeen: University Press, 1–32. Pyung, Kweon (2006), A Study on Government of the Early Korean Church: A Case Study of Kimpo-op Church’s Minutes Book, in Theological Forum 43, 581–609 (Korean). Thomson, Bard (1985), Liturgies of the Western Church, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Tracy, James D. (1992), The Calvinist Church of the Dutch Repblic, in: William S. Maltby, Reformation Europe: A Guide to Research II, vol. 3, St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 253–280.

Elsie Anne McKee

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

It was Sunday afternoon, March 28, 1546, at the 3 p.m. service at St. Gervais. Calvin was preaching on Ps. 90 and included a sharp defense of his previous criticism: the people were spending their Sunday afternoons strolling through town instead of coming to worship. He had seen this the past weeks on his way to and from St. Gervais. A member of the local parish, Amyed Alliod, a baker, expressed his objections to Calvin’s attack, speaking to the man next to him, Pierre Poyent from the parish of La Magdeleine. The noisy interruption caused an uproar which ended in the criminal courts.1 For present purposes, what is significant is the space and time which are illuminated by this incident. Calvin, the minister of St. Pierre, is preaching at St. Gervais, and this is not a single event—i. e., this Sunday is obviously not his first appearance in that pulpit. The preacher is also not the only migrant from across the Rhone River which divided Geneva, because at least one of those who regularly heard him at La Magdeleine had come to St. Gervais in order to follow the minister. The text Calvin is expounding is a Psalm, the only Biblical book which he did not preach in lectio continua fashion, in part because the texts were translated into meter not in sequential order and he wanted to explain the metrical versions first so that people could understand their prayers, in part because this was the ideal book for occasions which could not be sequential (see Colladon, OC 21.71). This vignette offers a window into a period of Calvin’s pulpit ministry which is otherwise very obscure. The present essay will survey some of the things which can be discovered about what the reformer was actually doing day by day, week by week, through identifying neglected features of Calvin’s sermons and prayers, and assembling apparently unrelated evidence to bring to light in a new or fresh way aspects of the reformer’s ministry. There are three parts of different lengths. First is an overview of the pulpits where Calvin preached regularly. The second 1 See Procès Criminels, 2 no. 695, Archives d’Etat de Genève. Fuller discussion of this and other points will be found in McKee: 2016.

66

Elsie Anne McKee

section is a discussion of how his sermons can be dated, particularly by the use of his intercessory prayers as well as other information such as baptismal and marriage records. This also includes some detective work on the liturgy for Sunday afternoons in Geneva. The third part explores some clues about the subject matter of Calvin’s sermons in the period before 1549 when those extempore texts began to be recorded.

1. Calvin in the Pulpits of Geneva Calvin was the minister of the parish of St. Pierre, but he regularly preached in all three city pulpits. Like his colleagues, he worked as one half of a pair who alternated for weekday sermons; in his case, it was in the parish of La Magdeleine from c. 1541 until mid-1559 when daily services were begun at St. Pierre (in addition to the Monday-Wednesday-Friday dawn ones; see McKee: 2004; 2016, chap. 2). Normally Calvin preached at St. Pierre on Sundays; he was always there on Sunday at 8 a.m., and usually on Sunday afternoons until his physical strength led to reducing the load to one sermon per day after his long illness in 1558–1559. However, Calvin also preached at St. Gervais on Sunday afternoons for at least seven years, from early 1546 (when Alliod caused a stir) until spring 1552. This assignment was probably the result of a problem at St. Gervais in 1545, when the people were objecting to the unpopular preacher Pierre Ninault. His alternate had recently died so he was temporarily alone, and the parishioners did not like it. In response to the complaints about Ninault the Senate ordered an exchange of pulpits between the two sides of the city, Greater Geneva (the parishes of St. Pierre and La Magdeleine) and St. Gervais: which seems to have been regarded—or felt it was—as a stepchild (Aug. 24, 1545, OC 21.360 (RC 39.f222)). The pastoral corps had had a form of ministerial pairing and rotation at least since 1542; two men took the same weekday preaching assignment in alternate weeks. However, the same two were not always together, because even if one was the anchor in a specific assignment, the second was moveable. For example, Calvin had a number of alternates over the years for his duty as weekday preacher at La Magdeleine and (after June 1559) at St. Pierre. Michel Cop, who was the anchor of the St. Pierre dawn services for his whole career, also had different alternates, as did Reymond Chauvet who arrived in 1545 (replacing Ninault) and served as the anchor at St. Gervais for most of his ministry. The point here is that there were not only alternating preachers every weekday at least from 1542, but the two men who worked in tandem were usually changed at intervals. Nonetheless, it was uncommon to have a senior minister move to a different pulpit outside his primary assignment, but this is what the pastors decided to do in response to the Senate’s order in 1545. Perhaps as a way to reassure St. Gervais

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

67

that it was not being discriminated against, they provided regular attention from the city’s most prominent preacher. Sunday afternoon was the logical time for such an exchange of pulpits for at least two reasons. It gave the people of St. Gervais a sermon on the most important day for worship; it also did not disrupt a weekday sequence, which was always more difficult to cover reliably than a Sunday. So Calvin made the trek across Geneva almost every Sunday afternoon for seven years. Consistory and criminal records like Alliod’s case indicate the start of this in early 1546. The chronicler Michel Roset mentions it in passing for a Sunday afternoon in March 1551 (Roset: 1894, 337). Evidence from the marriage records confirms it for 1550–1552, when the majority of the weddings performed by Calvin in this period were held at St. Gervais on Sunday afternoons. He married some couples at St. Pierre on Sunday afternoons and so was almost certainly preaching there those days,2 but on most of the Sundays in these seven years the city’s chief preacher came to the people of St. Gervais. The pattern of the subject matter of Calvin’s preaching in these years also fits with this. He was expounding different Biblical books morning and afternoon, according to his biographer Nicolas Colladon, which meant that the congregation in each place had an uninterrupted sequence. (This point and the relationship between preaching and weddings will be examined later in the essay.). This seven-year period was not the only time the residents of St. Gervais could hear Calvin but it was certainly the most accessible occasion for the greatest number of people. Genevans were free to attend any service they wished, with two exceptions: they must receive the sacraments and attend catechism in their home parishes (Ordonnances ecclesiastiques, OS 2.337). Both people in the pew and ministers themselves when they were off duty could and did avail themselves of the opportunity to move about and listen to different preachers. How frequently this happened is not known, but there were definitely people who were willing to follow Calvin across the city in order to be present at his sermons. This is demonstrated by Poyent from La Magdeleine in the story above: Poyent must have been very devoted, because he could hear Calvin at home on Sunday mornings and every weekday in alternate weeks. Tracking laity is rather difficult, but there are examples of individuals from St. Gervais coming to Greater Geneva, especially to St. Pierre on Sundays.3 There are also many instances of ministers 2 Weddings between January 1550 and April 1552. Four at St. Pierre on scattered dates (Feb. 9, July 13, Sept. 14, 1550, and June 7, 1551) vs. seventeen at St. Gervais, many of these in weekly sequence: e. g., April 13 & 20 & 27, 1550; Jan. 4 & 11; Feb. 1 & 8, 1551. The last wedding at St. Gervais in this period is April 3, 1552, and then Calvin was back at St. Pierre regularly. Late in his life, when he was probably preaching only once on most Sundays, Calvin did weddings at St. Gervais on the Sunday afternoons of May 12 and June 9, 1560, two dates when he also preached on Psalms. 3 A few examples of people worshiping in both parts of the city, at St. Gervais and St. Pierre, or St.

68

Elsie Anne McKee

attending Calvin’s sermons as witnessed by their participating in other liturgies, e. g., Chauvet from St. Gervais did baptisms at La Magdeleine or sometimes at St. Pierre when Calvin was in the pulpit.4 Clearly, Genevans were on the move and a number were drawn to Calvin. He himself was also in motion; for at least seven years he was preaching regularly in all three city parishes, and for the rest of his ministry until 1559 he was in two pulpits.

2. Dating Calvin’s Sermons Calvin’s sermons are a treasury of Biblical expositions that make it possible to overhear the teaching of God’s Word which was the central part of worship in Geneva. They are also a challenge for historians who would like to locate them in their exact time. All the sermons were of course originally supplied with dates, but many (though not quite all) of these temporal markers disappeared when specific texts were published in the sixteenth century. In addition, because the great majority of the manuscript sermons were lost in 1805, there are relatively fewer dated texts which can illustrate the actual rhythms of the reformer’s preaching than were once available. Nevertheless there are various kinds of information which can provide the means to assign dates to the undated sermons. Sometimes the accuracy of these dates can be virtually certain, at other times the range of possibilities can at least be significantly narrowed. The purpose of this part of the essay is to present the types of information which go into creating a dating scheme, giving examples of some of the results. The first set of observations which can help to date Calvin’s sermons is an analysis of the incipits of his intercessory prayers, with particular attention to the extempore ones. La forme des prières gives the intercessions for Sunday morning and the day of prayer, plus the special prayers for sacraments and weddings. The Strasbourg versions of the liturgy include a prayer for illumination-and-sealing, but in Geneva that was left to the minister (OS 2.20–24, 27–30; 19–20). This prayer Gervais and La Magdeleine: Consistoire: 1996, April 27, 1542, 48; Feb. 22, 1543, 184–186; April 3, 1544, 348. 4 Obviously Chauvet as the senior man in charge at St. Gervais could not come to Greater Geneva most of the time, but when it was his alternate’s turn to do the services at St. Gervais he could and did attend Calvin’s sermons; the evidence is the fact that he does baptisms at these services. Some examples from 1550: Sun. 8 a.m. on Sept. 28; Wed. day of prayer (8 a.m.) on Oct. 1. Other weekdays at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m.: Mondays: May 26; Tuesdays: May 13, June 10 & 24, Sept. 2; Thursdays: April 17, Sept. 4 & 18; Fridays: Sept. 5, Oct. 3; Saturdays: May 31, Aug. 23, Oct. 11. The one Fri. dawn service where Chauvet does a baptism at St. Pierre was probably a case of filling in for a colleague, but he then evidently stayed in Greater Geneva to hear Calvin at 6 a.m. and do another baptism.

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

69

before the sermon can be labeled extempore no. 1 and will be considered briefly later. Extempore no. 2 is the short prayer related to the individual sermon which Calvin attached each time he preached. This is the group of prayers used by some scholars to date the reformer’s sermons, but it is not very reliable and therefore is omitted in the present investigation.5 What is of primary interest here is extempore no. 3, the intercessory prayer for the services which were not defined in the printed liturgy. Extempore no. 3 was added to each sermon on Sunday afternoons or ordinary weekdays, after the short individual prayer (no. 2). Because the incipits of the intercessory prayers are a key factor in dating Calvin’s sermons it is necessary to examine them in a bit more detail. Late in the reformer’s life some of his colleagues who published his sermons included versions of his extempore prayers for illumination-and-sealing (extempore no. 1) and for intercession (extempore no. 3).6 Although these prayers were in principle not fixed, they became highly predictable if not indeed unvarying because Calvin developed and then used the same forms each time on weekdays.7 5 This often very standardized ‘individual’ sermon prayer is the one which Edwin Mülhaupt used in his dating process; he has argued that the examination of these tiny variations offers a way to assign undated sermons to different periods. He divides the prayers into three groups according to these phrases, the first attributed to the period beginning in 1549, the second to approximately five years later in 1554, and the third to three or four years after that, about 1557–1558. See Mülhaupt: 1981, l–lii. More recently other scholars have recognized that this pattern is not entirely reliable; while it can be a generally helpful guide, there are exceptions. For a good overview of this debate see the introduction by Moehn: 2011, xxviii–xxxv, to the first set of sermons published in the new Opera Omnia Denuo Recognita. My own observation supports Moehn’s caution. The sermons on Daniel, preached in 1552, provide relatively numerous examples of exceptions to the phrase which Mülhaupt considered indicative of this period. Of the 47 sermons on Daniel, Quarante sept sermons de M. Iean Calvin sur les hvict derniers chapitres des propheties de Daniel (La Rochelle: Barthelemi Berton, 1565), the great majority begin with the phrase Mülhaupt identifies, ‘Suivant cette saincte doctrine nous prosternerons devant la face de nostre bon Dieu.’ However, sermons 6 & 18: ‘devant la majesté de nostre bon Dieu’; sermons 15 & [‘18’]17: ‘devant la haute et souveraine majesté de nostre bon Dieu’; sermon 29 omits: ‘Suivant cette saincte doctrine,’ and sermon 45 is completely different: ‘il faut donc que nous prions Dieu que cette doctrine soit imprimee.’ The editors of OC dropped almost all the prayers, so these must be found in early modern printings. 6 The three sermons on Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac published by Jaques Bourgeois in 1561 and the popular series on Job which Antoine Vincent brought out in 1563 are the best known, but the Gospel Harmony of 1562 edited by Conrad Badius also includes extempore prayers. Bourgeois’ rubrics for Abraham, see OC 23.741: ‘La Priere ordinaire de l’Autheur, sur le commencement de ses Sermons en la semaine.’ ‘Ceste Priere suivante, se dit aussi par l’Autheur apres qu’on a chanté le Pseaume, tant le Dimanche que le Mercredi, iour des Prieres.’ ‘L’Autheur fait aussi ceste Priere à la fin de ses predications du Lundi, Mardi, Jeudi, Vendredi, et Samedi.’ Except for orthography, these OC versions are the same as the original printing. Vincent’s rubrics for Job, see OC 33.15–16: ‘Priere que fait ordinairement M. Jean Calvin au commencement de ses sermons.’ 7 There are no big surprises. The only significant theological difference is that the prayer for illumination-and-sealing on Sunday morning and the day of prayer does not include a note of

70

Elsie Anne McKee

And also on Sunday afternoons! This service has received little attention in its own right but the common assumption, for example by Jean-François Gilmont, is that it followed the practice for Sunday morning. Another bit of detective work reveals that, on the contrary, there are significant differences from the morning as well as significant similarities. One similarity is obvious: Psalms were sung on Sunday afternoons as well as mornings and the day of prayer. Rather less certain but very probable is that there was a distinct confession of sin.8 A key difference, however, is that the actual prayers used for illumination-and-sealing and for intercession on Sunday afternoons were those of the ordinary weekdays, Monday-Tuesday and Thursday through Saturday. Only Sunday mornings and the day of prayer had distinctive, prescribed prayers which every minister in Geneva must use. This difference for Sunday afternoons is not spelled out in the Genevan printings of La forme des prières, where that service is not even explicitly mentioned.9 However, the assimilation of the prayers on Sunday afternoon to those on ordinary weekdays is implicit in the fact that Conrad Badius, the editor of Calvin’s sermons on the Gospel Harmony, includes the ‘weekday’ prayer for illumination-and-sealing in his publication of these sermons. Most of these synoptic gospel sermons were preached in the morning, but some were given on Sunday afternoons and Badius wanted to be sure his readers knew what Calvin said then.10 Further circumstantial evidence for the identification of Sunday repentance while the Sunday afternoon and ordinary weekday version of this prayer does include a penitential reference. It is clear that at least on ordinary weekdays there was no independent confession of sin and so the words in the prayer before the sermon would give expression to that. The second of the prayers which Calvin’s editors include, the long intercession, extempore no. 3, offers no theological surprises; it is modeled very closely on the printed prayers for Sunday mornings and the day of prayer, which are themselves partially identical. 8 For Gilmont, see n. 10 below. The reasoning is that if there were not, when the third time of singing was added in 1562, right at the beginning of the service, there would have been only the one line of opening words ‘Our help is in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth’ between the first Psalm singing and the second. That juxtaposition of Psalms with virtually no intervening words is more unlikely than a redoubling of a penitential note found in the prayer for illumination-and-sealing. 9 The Sunday rubric refers only to the morning; the heading of the service in Strasbourg 1542 (which seems not to have been copied in Opera Selecta) says ‘Pour le dimanche matin’ and La forme des prieres gives a rubric ‘Pour les Dimanches au matin, on use communement de la forme qui s’ensuit.’ OS 2.18. 10 The appearance of this weekday prayer with the New Testament sermons poses a problem for Jean-François Gilmont, who regards the publication of this prayer as out of place because he identifies it as (only) for the weekday. Peter/Gilmont: 1994, 954: ‘Il est à remarquer que la prière imprimée f *6v n’est pas à sa place, car il s’agit de la prière que Calvin faisait au commencement de ses sermons de semaine et qu’il avait une autre prière pour les sermons de dimanche.’ The heading on f6v says ‘Priere ordinaire qui se fait avant la predication.’ This is the same prayer that is printed in the sermons on Job and identified there as ‘Priere que fait ordinairement M. Jean Calvin au commencement de ses sermons.’

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

71

afternoon and ordinary weekdays is found in the versions of the liturgy published in 1552 for the French-speaking Strangers’ Church in London. There it is clearly stated that the prayers for Sunday afternoon are the same as for ordinary weekdays.11 The following examination of intercessory prayer incipits provides earlier and continuous evidence for Calvin’s habit of using the same prayers on Sunday afternoons as on regular weekdays. Besides adding a new perspective on Sunday afternoon worship, this excursus leads to a rule of thumb for dating Calvin’s prayers according to the different incipits of the intercessions. The printed prayers for Sunday morning and the day of prayer in the liturgy begin with the phrase ‘Dieu tout-puissant, Pere celeste.’ The extempore no. 3 intercessory prayer that Calvin used on Sunday afternoons and ordinary weekdays begins with the phrase ‘Que non seulement’ followed by a sentence focused on ‘vrais et fideles ministres.’ When each sermon was transcribed, it included the individual prayer specific to it (extempore no. 2) and the incipit of the intercession. (Almost all the sermon prayers were omitted by the editors of the Opera Calvini so it is necessary to use early modern printings to recover them.) When the incipits are lined up for Sunday sermons, if the text was preached in the morning it concludes with ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ (or, infrequently, ‘Pere Celeste’ if the first three words are missing). The Sunday afternoon sermon ends with ‘Que non seulement’ (or occasionally ‘vrais et fideles ministres’). The same process although in more complex form applies to the incipits of the weekdays. ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ identifies a Wednesday day of prayer while ‘Que non seulement’ is the sign of the other weekdays: Monday and Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. There are very rare instances of inaccurate incipits, particularly in the first years and occasionally thereafter. This happens in dated sermons as well as undated ones. (‘Que non seulement’ was used for seven out of ten sermons that Calvin preached, so it is more common to find this

11 Poullain’s version of the French of 1552 says that the afternoon service begins after the catechism, specifies that the pastor is preaching from the New Testament in sequence, and then speaks of the prayer after the sermon: ‘et à la fin conclud par quelque priere à sa discretion: ou il use de ceste icy,’ p. 99. Then follows a rubric ‘Priere Au sermon du Dimanche apres disner, et aux sermons quotidians’ and a long prayer (Poullain: 1970, 101–103). Poullain’s version has some differences from the text published in Geneva, so it might seem to be a doubtful guide. However, even more interesting is a printing of La forme des prieres preserved in the Bodleian which is nearly identical to that of Geneva. This gives two different prayers for Sunday afternoon and weekdays (10r–13v); the one like Poullain’s is the second (12r–13v) and it is introduced with the rubric ‘Oraison prinse en partye du chapitre 9. de Daniel le prophete’ (12r). The first prayer is not the same as Calvin’s but has some common elements, including a form of the Lord’s Prayer and the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed; the Prayer is a paraphrase, which gives the same idea as Calvin’s Sunday morning intercession but is different from the recited form Calvin used on Sunday afternoons and weekdays.

72

Elsie Anne McKee

where ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ would be expected, but the reverse is also possible. However, in general the scribes were very accurate.12) Dated sermons show these patterns: ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ Sunday morning, ‘Que non seulement’ Sunday afternoon; ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ Wednesday, ‘Que non seulement’ Monday-Tuesday and Thursday through Saturday. See the sample table, which provides several dated ( Jeremiah/ Lamentations and Ezekiel) and one undated example (Daniel) of Old Testament texts, plus one dated (1 Corinthians 1–9) and several undated examples (1 Corinthians 10–11, Galatians, and Ephesians) of New Testament texts. The First Corinthians 1–9 volume is the only extant set of dated texts which are morning-and-afternoon pairs, which makes this series a particularly good instance to examine since most of the other extant but undated New Testament sermons also follow this pattern. Using the evidence from dated sermons it becomes possible to establish a framework for identifying with nearly perfect accuracy whether a sermon on the New Testament or Psalms was Sunday morning or afternoon, and whether a sermon on an Old Testament text was a Wednesday or one of the other weekdays. This pattern can then be applied to undated sermons; it is particularly helpful for weekdays because it allows the sermons to be centered on Wednesdays. ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ followed by ‘Que non seulement’ five times, then ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ and another five ‘Que non seulement’ means: Wednesday (‘Dieu tout-puissant’), Thursday-Friday-Saturday (three ‘Que non seulement’). Calvin skips a week and then the next two ‘Que non seulement’ are Monday-Tuesday and the next ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ is the next Wednesday and so on. This pattern is found throughout Calvin’s recorded sermons, for example in Jeremiah in 1549, early Ezekiel in 1552 (see the table), later Deuteronomy sermons in 1556, Isaiah in 1557, 2 Samuel in 1562. When it is observed that the undated Daniel sermons in 1552 fit this pattern almost perfectly, it is possible to assign them dates with near certainty. This pattern assumes that Calvin was following his regular preaching schedule of Sunday morning and afternoon, then Monday through Saturday, again Sunday morning and afternoon, and then he was off the next week. As the dated sermons demonstrate, this template was the norm but it was also subject to circumstantial changes of one kind or another. The Sunday pattern might be altered on a day the Lord Supper was celebrated, since most of the time the observance of the Nativity, Easter, and Pentecost interrupted the lectio continua sequence. Thus for example in First Corinthians preached in December 1556, 12 Here only dated sermons are considered. The Acts sermons are the most likely to have ‘Que non seulement’ where there should probably have been ‘Dieu tout-puissant’; in later years, there is only one dated instance of a New Testament text on Nov. 17, 1555, where what is clearly labeled Sunday afternoon concludes with the morning prayer’s incipit. The Wednesdays where ‘Que non seulement’ appears instead of ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ are relatively more frequent, e. g., Sept. 25, 1555 (Deut.), July 14, 1557 (Isa.), Feb. 21 & April 3, 1560 (Gen.).

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

73

there are two sequential sermons with incipit ‘Que non seulement’ dated Dec. 15 apres-midi (1 Cor. 3:8–10) and Dec. 22 apres-midi (1 Cor. 3:10–13). There is no missing Corinthians sermon but there is a service between these two sermons because on the morning of Dec. 22 Calvin was preaching on Luke 2 for the Nativity. This is a ‘planned’ interruption in the sense that it is part of the order of worship in Genevan life, but when looking at the undated sermons this kind of circumstance must be remembered as one explanation for the immediate juxtaposition of two Sunday services ending with ‘Que non seulement.’ Another less obvious change in the ‘normal’ template was the three-plus year ‘new pattern’ for Calvin’s regular weekday preaching assignment owed to the chronic illness of his alternate Abel Poupin. Beginning at the start of January 1553 and continuing until after Poupin’s death in March 1556, Calvin preached on virtually all Wednesdays but usually did not do the Saturday of his week. The reason was that his colleagues wanted their best preacher in the pulpit for the day of prayer, and so they asked him to take over all the Wednesdays while another pastor took one day of Calvin’s ordinary week (Compagnie: 1964, 150). This means that for years, the reformer’s daily sermon schedule was Monday through Friday, Wednesday, Monday through Friday, Wednesday, and so on. Above it was noted that early Ezekiel in 1552 and late Deuteronomy sermons in 1556 followed the regular pattern. However, part way through Ezekiel this ‘new regular’ pattern was introduced and it continued well into the series on Deuteronomy. The incipits of dated sermons on Ezekiel from 1553 and from Deuteronomy in 1555 show this pattern: two ‘Que non seulement’ (Monday-Tuesday), one ‘Dieu toutpuissant’ (Wednesday), two ‘Que non seulement’ (Thursday-Friday), another ‘Dieu tout-puissant’ (Wednesday the following week), and repeat. The undated sermons on Job in 1554–1555 (which come between those on Ezekiel and those on Deuteronomy) can be lined up fairly well according to this pattern. There were also naturally unexpected interruptions in Calvin’s pulpit ministry. These are visible in the dated sermons; sometimes there are explanations such as illness or absence on business. At other times, however, there is no logical reason; for example, one week in 1557 there are Isaiah sermons on TuesdayThursday-Saturday, skipping Monday-Wednesday-Friday.13 What this means for undated sermons is that there are almost always a few less sermons than possible preaching days and often no really sure way to determine where the gaps should be. The patterns of intercessory prayer incipits can be supplemented with another series of less frequent but helpful bits of information in order to narrow the options.

13 See May 17–22, 1557; no sermon on Mon. May 17 or Wed. May 19 or Fri. May 21, but no. 33/99, no. 34/100, no. 35/101 on Tues., Thurs., Sat.

74

Elsie Anne McKee

Internal evidence is one form of additional data. In Sunday sermons there are clues such as the relatively frequent phrase ‘ce matin’ to enable two sermons to be paired, morning and afternoon. Weekdays have a similar verbal clue when one text refers to what was said ‘hier.’ Other special occasions may turn up, especially in Sunday sermons; for example, references to the Lord’s Supper. In the series on Galatians, the sermon before the Nativity Supper celebration in 1557 can be identified by its instructions about ‘receiving the sacrament the next week,’ and thus at least a few specific sermons can be dated before and after the Sunday closest to Dec. 25 (see table). This then allows the rest of the lectio continua series to be distributed over the Sundays before and after this fixed marker, narrowing the range of their possible dates. One more verbal clue which is not always reliable but is worth noting is the use of ‘cy-dessus’ or ‘cy-devant’ to indicate an interval between two sermons. At the beginning of a sermon this phrase can often be correlated with a temporal gap between what Calvin is preaching and his previous sermon in this Biblical series. Sometimes the phrase refers to some event earlier in the scripture text itself, so caution is necessary for interpreting this clue, but ‘cy-devant’ can help to identify when the previous sermon in the series was some time before, i. e., neither ‘ce matin’ nor ‘hier.’ (See for example sermons on Jeremiah no. 16, no. 20, no. 25 in the table.) External evidence can also be brought to bear. Calvin almost never performed weddings when he was not preaching. He might do so for a special friend, but normally he married couples if they came to the service where he was scheduled to preach. Most often that was Sunday afternoon, since weddings were not allowed at the main morning service and Calvin never preached at the dawn service (the other favorite time, according to the marriage records). Marriages on weekdays were relatively rare but not unknown; there are examples of Calvin’s weddings on every day except Wednesday—because he refused to perform them on the day of prayer, although his colleagues did. As noted above, when there are more potential preaching days in his schedule than sermons, it can be a challenge to identify where the gaps should be placed. One way to narrow the options for such gaps is to figure out which were Calvin’s regular weeks to preach, and for this the evidence of his weekday weddings is useful. Dated sermons on Ezekiel identify his weeks in early 1554 and the two weekday weddings he performs on Monday, Feb. 12, and Monday, Feb. 26, 1554, fall in those weeks. (See table.) Dated sermons on Deuteronomy identify Calvin’s weeks and his three weekday weddings on Tuesday, May 7, 1555, and Monday, July 1, and Saturday, July 20, 1555, appear in those weeks. This information helps with sorting out how to assign the undated Job sermons to weeks. An example: there are two weekday weddings on Thursday, May 24, and Monday, June 18, 1554, and these must fit into Calvin’s regular weeks of preaching. A note in the Annales chronicle of the reformer’s activities indicates

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

75

that Calvin was absent from consistory on April 5 and 12, 1554, for some diplomatic travels (see OC 21.572). However, he might in fact have been away more than just those two weeks; if his sermons are simply set into the time after that known absence, they do not coincide with weddings he is known to have performed on May 24 and June 18. Thus, a slightly longer absence from his regular pulpit work must be assumed in calculating what dates to assign for the undated sermons on Job. By the same token, when the reformer’s alternate does baptisms or weddings consistently in certain weeks, it is evident that he was responsible for those weeks and Calvin had the intervening ones. Sometimes there will be a hiatus or a change of rhythm in Calvin’s dated sermons. In the dated Ezekiel sermons in early 1553, Calvin missed a week of his regular schedule on Monday through Friday, March 12–17,14 and in this time his alternate Jean St. André did a wedding at La Magdeleine on the 17th. This did not change the two men’s rhythm but simply demonstrated that the pattern of alternates was working because St. André filled in for Calvin while the latter was away. However, in October–November 1562 Calvin and his alternate changed weeks, evidently because of Calvin’s health. The dated sermons on 2 Samuel show that he tried to maintain his schedule but only did Oct. 5, the Monday of his assigned week. The next week he tried again, beginning Monday Oct. 12, and got through most of the week, so this became his new rhythm, although he actually missed his next full week (which should have begun Monday Oct. 26) and only took up full time preaching again on Monday Nov. 9. In the interim, the baptismal records for his alternate Jean Merlin indicate that the weeks the latter was in the pulpit had changed as he took Calvin’s former schedule.15 This kind of information: identifying Calvin’s and his alternate’s weeks to preach by factoring in the evidence of when they do baptismal or marriage liturgies, and so pinpointing when their rotation is inverted, serves as a model for deciphering a confusing change in early 1562 in the undated 1 Samuel sermons. As is already apparent, besides the baptismal and marriage records, another and more obvious kind of external evidence is found in whatever notes are recorded about Calvin’s travels and illnesses, or other ecclesiastical tasks such as visiting village churches or presenting (installing) new ministers. A week skipped 14 OC 21.572 notes that Calvin missed consistory meeting on March 16, so presumably he was out of town. 15 For examples of weeks when Merlin did baptisms or weddings on several days in one week in 1562, see Th-S Jan. 15 & 17; T-W March 3 & 4; W-Th-S March 18 & 19 & 21; W-Th April 15 & 16;T-Th April 28 & 30; W-Th-S May 13 & 14 & 16; T-Th July 7 & 9; T-W-Th-F Aug. 18 &19 & 20 & 21; M-T-S Aug. 31 & Sept. 1 & 5; T-W-Th Nov. 3 & 4 & 5; M-T-Th-S Nov. 16 & 17 & 19 & 21; M-T Dec. 28 & 29. The schedule up through the beginning of September is one set of alternating weeks. Then the November–December pattern is the opposite.

76

Elsie Anne McKee

in the dated Acts sermons in 1550 is explained as a visit to the rural churches of Cologny and Vandoeuvres (Compagnie: 1964, 73), absences from consistory often signal an illness or travel. However, the prayer incipits and other internal data provide the main features of this net of detection by which Calvin’s prayers illuminate the timing of his sermons for curious historians digging into the mundane matter of dates.

3. Discovering What Calvin Was Preaching Another and much more hypothetical kind of detective work focuses on what Calvin was preaching prior to 1549 when his sermons began to be recorded. This topic was virtually completely ignored by his contemporaries and has received only scattered attention by later scholars. The first biographies by Theodore Beza and Nicolas Colladon make no mention of the books on which Calvin preached in his early ministry before they or their families became associated with Geneva. Evidently they did not consider it sufficiently important to question the surviving auditors; sermons are ephemeral literature, meant for the hearers and not for posterity. Modern scholars have made a few fairly limited suggestions about what Calvin might have been preaching at one time or another. Most common is to point to the lectures on Paul (Romans) in the first Genevan sojourn and lectures on the Gospel of John in Strasbourg16 and sometimes to suggest that the same books were the subject of his preaching.17 Other scholars mention Genesis in the early 1540s; some express uncertainty about whether lectures or sermons are intended, while others affirm that these are sermons (Engammare: 2000, ix). Rodolphe Peter sees the publication of a small commentary on Jude in 1542 as possibly the fruit of sermons and Max Engammare has found references to Isaiah sermons in 1546.18 What is lacking is concerted attention to the question as a whole. 16 The printer Oporin wrote to Calvin March 25, 1537, that he heard Calvin was commenting on Paul, and he asks Calvin to put those lectures into commentary form; cited Peter/Gilmont: 1991, 76: ‘L’Epître aux Romains a probablement fait l’objet de ses premières leçons.’ For the Gospel of John, Boer: 2012, 149, quoting Sturm, Quarti antipappi tres partes priores (Neustadt: Mattheus Harnisch, 1581, 20). 17 Parker: 1981, ix, mentions this in passing. Parker: 1992, 58, says there is no information about Calvin’s preaching 1536–1538 “except that he called the City Council ‘a council of the devil,’’’ and there is nothing about Strasbourg. Parker goes on (62) to suggest that Calvin might have preached on the Catholic Epistles after his return to Geneva, because there is no other record of them. 18 Peter/Gilmont: 1991, 110: ‘De plus cet ouvrage est rédigé directement en français contrairement aux autres travaux d’exégèse. Dans une note inédite, R. Peter range cette exposition parmi les sermons de Calvin: ‘bien qu’elle n’ait pas la forme d’une prédication, elle nous en donne la substance’. Il remarque que le commentaire de la même Epître publié ultérieur-

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

77

To put this another and more provocative way: what is missing from the record of Calvin’s preaching? It is worth remarking that there are no sermons on Romans or the Gospel of John, or Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, or four of the minor prophets including Malachi with its significant Christological associations. (It is no surprise that the book of Revelations is not mentioned.) The present purpose is to examine this intriguing question and bring together the various hints in order to project a possible scenario of what Calvin was preaching before his sermons began to be recorded. The two most important New Testament books missing from the list of known sermons are Romans and the Gospel of John. There is evidence that Calvin was lecturing on Paul during his first Genevan ministry and it is virtually certain that he started with Romans. It is therefore very likely that he was also preaching on this book, because he could not have skipped it and, since there is no other reference to sermons on Romans, they must fit somewhere in these early years. According to Johannes Sturm, Calvin lectured on the Gospel of John in Strasbourg, which suggests that he may also have preached on it, particularly since it was his favorite of the four gospels. Or he might have preached on some Pauline epistle. On his return to Geneva, the reformer said that he took up where he had left off the last time he was preaching in that place.19 Conceivably this could have been Romans, or perhaps another part of Paul? Perhaps, as Rodolphe Peter suggests, a short series on Jude was fitted into these years. However, it is practically certain that within a few months of his return Calvin was preaching on the Gospel of John. There are several kinds of clues. At consistory on April 4, 1542, Pierre the Barber was being questioned about his attendance at worship. He said that on Sunday morning the sermon was on ‘St. Jehan’ and he thought Calvin was preaching; the afternoon was also on John, though he did not know who was preaching.20 Even if the reference were to St. John (the Baptist), it would probably have come from the Gospel of John since Calvin did not expound the synoptics until much later. Besides the consistory ement propose une exégèse plus serrée et un texte plus dense.’ See Engammare: 2012, vol. 1, xxv. 19 Calvin’s letter 384 to an unnamed correspondent, January 1542, OC 11.366. 20 Consistoire: 1996, April 4, 1542, 28: ‘Az respondu qu’il vaz aux sermons et ce fust dymenche a matin et cuyde que ce fust Calvin et qu’on prescha de Sainctz Jehan; et apres dyné ne scet lequel, sinon qu’il prescha de Jehan.’ If he recognized Calvin in the morning he ought to have done so in the afternoon, but since he seemed dubious about the identity of the preacher in the morning, he may not have been paying much attention to who was in the pulpit. If he was at St. Pierre in the morning, then he was also there in the afternoon because there was no other Sunday afternoon service in Greater Geneva in this period. Considering the way he refers to ‘St. Jehan’ or ‘Jehan,’ it seems probable that it was the Gospel, not the person, especially since Pierre speaks of morning and afternoon sermons as if their substance were a single subject matter or a series.

78

Elsie Anne McKee

note, there is also other circumstantial evidence to support the supposition that Calvin was preaching on this gospel, i. e., his need to correct the incompetence of his early colleagues. On Sept. 27, 1540, just before the Genevan Senate decided to invite their exiled pastor to return, one of the leaders of the council, Ami Porral, got into a dispute with minister Henri de La Mare over his sermon on John. Porral said it was poison when the preacher turned St. John upside down, and that he had heard Aimé Champereau explain St. John well. The accusation led to a sharp altercation between Porral and both de La Mare and pastor Jaques Bernard (who took his colleague’s part), a falling out not healed until Porral’s deathbed two years later.21 Combining these points: Calvin’s lecturing on John in Strasbourg, problems in the interpretation of this vital book in Geneva during his absence, and Pierre the Barber’s comments about ‘St. Jehan,’ provides very strong circumstantial grounds for identifying this book as the reformer’s key text for Sunday sermons after his return to Geneva. As with Romans, Calvin could not simply have skipped preaching on John to the Genevans at some point in his ministry and this appears the logical time. Pierre the Barber’s testimony indicates that both morning and afternoon sermons were on John, so it is likely that Calvin was focusing on the same book all day. If his early expositions were like the recorded sermons (and there is no reason to doubt this), the preacher probably needed as many as four years of Sundays to cover this theologically most complex gospel, say up to the end of 1545.22 Meanwhile Calvin may well have been preaching on Genesis on weekdays. In a letter to Farel, dated July 28, 1542, Calvin speaks of his ‘remarks’ on this book but says he ‘does not have great hopes of his hearers.’23 Rodolphe Peter and JeanFrançois Gilmont say that it is not clear whether the reformer is referring to sermons or lectures; Max Engammare identifies it as sermons. At consistory on Thursday, March 15, 1543, a man says he was at La Magdeleine ‘today’ and Calvin preached about ‘Joseph’s departure’; the editors of the consistory records identify this as Gen. 38:13–17, or possibly Gen. 38:12.24 Sermons on Genesis soon after he returned to Geneva would not be surprising, given the role of this history 21 Sept. 27 & 29, 1540, Conseil: 2011, 549, 552. For the reconciliation, see Calvin’s letter to Farel on June 16, 1542; no. 402, OC 11.409. 22 For calculations of lengths of sermons and numbers for these sermons and others below, see McKee: 2016, appendix ten. The synoptics taken as a whole are of course longer, even leaving aside the parallels, but they also do not present quite the theological challenge which John does—and certainly did in the sixteenth century. There are 65 sermons on about five chapters of the synoptics (these break off at Matt. 5:12/Luke 6:26). 23 See Peter/Gilmont: 1991, 521, citing Herminjard, Correspondance, tome 8, 80–81, Calvin’s response to Farel in a letter of July 28, 1542, in which he refers to ‘mes remarques sur la Genèse’ and his concern about his auditors ‘je n’ai pas grand espoir.’ 24 Consistoire: 1996, 195: ‘Az esté aujourd’huy au sermon a la Magdeleine et a presché le Sr Calvin et de Joseph az partie.’ For Biblical text see p. 195 n. 144.

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

79

for establishing the first ‘Church’ in Abraham’s family and the significance of the institution of circumcision for grounding infant baptism. As for how long this series would take: considering how many months were required for the extant Genesis sermons, September 1559 to August 1561 (with some significant interruptions), it is likely that the first series filled perhaps a year and a half or more; since Calvin had apparently reached chap. 38 by March 1543, the rest of the book might have occupied him into the autumn. Some other fixed points can be identified in the later 1540s. Colladon speaks of Calvin’s sermons on the epistle to the Hebrews on Sunday mornings in 1549, followed by Acts, which he began on Aug. 25 of that year according to Denis Raguenier’s catalogue. At the same time the Sunday afternoon sermons were on Psalms, and the weekday ones on Jeremiah.25 In order to estimate at what point the preacher actually began his work on each of these Biblical books, Colladon’s information has to be interpreted in light of Calvin’s habits. Take the Old Testament first, and consider the reformer’s regular pace: Isaiah numbered 343 sermons for 66 chapters, Hosea required 65 sermons for fourteen chapters, Amos’ nine chapters took 43 sermons, and the 21 verses of Obadiah occupied the preacher for five days. According to Raguenier’s records, there were 91 sermons in the set of Jeremiah that he transcribed beginning on Tuesday, Nov. 12, 1549. It is impossible that this could be the whole of Calvin’s exposition of that prophet. In fact, it is known that between June 14 and Aug. 16, 1549, Raguenier had already transcribed twenty-five sermons on Jer. 14:19–18:23 which are not included in the ninety-one.26 The set of 91 which his catalogue lists is among the missing volumes, but the stenographer states that they were not sequential which means that he missed some and so there were more than 91 after Nov. 12. So much for numbers; what about texts? It is probable that the 91 were (part of) Calvin’s exposition of the second half of Jeremiah. The reasoning: given the three months between Aug. 16 (the date of the last extant sermon which concluded with Jer. 14:18) and Nov. 12 (when Raguenier’s catalogue says he began), Calvin must have dealt with at least six or seven chapters before the point where Raguenier began his set of 91. Since it is clear that Calvin had reached Jer. 14:19 by June 14, it is also obvious that there must have been sermons on 25 See Colladon, OC 21.71. Raguenier’s catalogue is reproduced in the introductions of several of the Supplementa Calviniana volumes; here following Barrois: 1961, xv–xvii. 26 Raguenier’s catalogue, see Barrois: 1961, xvi: ‘Premierement sus le livre des revelations du Prophete Jeremie, 91 sermons (…) non reliez, et non suivans l’ung l’aultre, commenceant le premier d’iceulx le Mardi 12. jour de Novembre 1549.’ Clearly 91 sermons were not all that Calvin preached on Jeremiah even during this period, since Raguenier indicates that those he transcribed were not consecutive; Calvin certainly did not skip anything, so Raguenier must not have been present some of the time. There are other similar gaps in the first New Testament series, e. g., Acts. The 25 sermons on Jer. 14:19–18:23, dated June 14–Aug. 16, 1549, are edited in Supplementa Calviniana VI, cf. Peter: 1971.

80

Elsie Anne McKee

Jer. 1:1–14:18 preached before that date. Figuring the average of verses per sermon, it is likely that Calvin began this prophet in the autumn (October?) of 1548 in order to reach chapter fourteen by June of 1549. So what came before Jeremiah? Max Engammare has found evidence that Calvin preached on Isaiah for the first time in this period, starting on Jan. 27, 1546 (see Engammare: 2012 (vol. 1), xxv). It is quite possible that these sermons continued up into early 1548; the extant Isaiah sermons lasted from July 16, 1556 to Aug. 26, 1559 (with a seven-month interruption for illness) so something over two years for the first set would be quite reasonable. In the months before he began Jeremiah Calvin might have taken the four missing minor prophets Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. This leaves a significant gap in the preacher’s schedule from late 1543 until January 1546, i. e., between Genesis and Isaiah. Maybe Calvin gave further attention to the Pentateuch, perhaps especially Exodus? While it is pure speculation, it seems possible that books like Ezra or Nehemiah might also have found their way into the reformer’s list of pulpit texts as he tried to build up the church in Geneva.27 In Calvin’s preaching the Psalms are usually subsumed under the category of New Testament or at least Sunday sermons. Above the Gospel of John was located in the early 1540s; now it is appropriate to begin at the other end of the decade and work backwards from Colladon’s information in 1549. (In these years the reformer was preaching at St. Pierre on Sunday mornings and St. Gervais most Sunday afternoons.) Colladon says Calvin completed Hebrews in late summer 1549, so he may well have begun this book about mid-1547. A full exposition is found elsewhere28 but the logic is as follows. The sermons on Acts, which were also preached essentially on Sunday mornings (i. e., one sermon per week) lasted from Aug. 25, 1549, until mid–March 1554. Extant sermons on the epistles compared with those on Acts indicate that the former tended to cover fewer verses per sermon than the latter. Acts has 28 chapters as against thirteen in Hebrews, so it would probably take about two years for Calvin to preach through Hebrews, pushing the first sermons on this book back to the middle of 1547. The Psalms which Colladon says occupied the reformer on Sunday afternoons in 1549 continued at least until July 1553, when he completed his set of 22 on Ps. 119, and probably somewhat beyond this date. When Calvin began work on this book is not clear, because he seems to have preached on Psalms at different points in his ministry. For example, he chose Ps. 115 and 124 for the day of prayer in November 1545 (although these were something of an exception, because it 27 On Nov. 26, 1537, when the Genevans objected to subscribing the confession of faith, etc., Farel answered with a reference to the assemblies in Nehemiah and Jeremiah (Conseil: 2004, 416). It seems possible that these books about the rebuilding of the temple might have had a particular resonance in Geneva in the early years of the reform. 28 For calculations see McKee: 2016, appendix ten.

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

81

appears that the rest of the known Psalms were given on Sundays, according to Raguenier’s catalogue).29 Calvin was working on Ps. 90 in March 1546; there are expositions of Ps. 148 in 1554 and Ps. 149 in 1555, one on Ps. 65 in 1557, and four more on Ps. 46 and 48 in 1560 (see Mülhaupt: 1981, 15–64). Colladon says that in 1549 Calvin was progressing through the Psalms which had not yet been versified for singing, because he had already expounded the latter. First, can anything about his timing be deduced from the very limited extant sermons on Psalms? It is certain that at least the two on Ps. 46 from 1560 were not the first sermons Calvin had preached on the passage because this text had been in the Psalter since 1539, so he would have done it at least once well before 1549. Also, it is clear that when Ps. 115 and 124 were chosen for use on two special days of prayer these interrupted the lectio continua order, which suggests that Calvin found that wonderful ‘anatomy of the soul’ not only appropriate for spiritually intense times but particularly fitting for preaching outside his normal patterns (Preface to the Commentary on Psalms, OC 31.15–16). Secondly, one might ask if there is any association of Psalms with a particular place? The answer is that all the known references to Calvin’s preaching at St. Gervais seem to involve Psalms.30 So this distinctive book, which was already being used in worship not in canonical order (in singing), may have been fitted into varied non-sequential preaching contexts. It would then be particularly appropriate for a location which was also not the reformer’s usually assigned pulpit and which he might not be able to fill consistently every week. Now for the question: when did Calvin begin to work on Psalms? Colladon’s words suggest that in the late 1540s the preacher was working in canonical sequence through the texts which were not yet in metrical form. How many Psalms had Calvin expounded by 1549 and approximately how long might that have needed? There were thirty-six metrical Psalms in 1542, to which fifteen more by Marot were added the next year, and in 1549 there were thirteen more between Ps. 1 and Ps. 40 which had not yet been translated into verse. This makes sixty29 Ps. 115 and Ps. 124 were recorded by Jacques Cousin and published by Jean Girard in 1546. These were preached at St. Pierre where the second and later day of prayer service was held. This publication also printed the metrical version of Ps. 79, noting that it was ‘new.’ Raguenier says he recorded 72 Psalms beginning on Sunday afternoon Nov. 17, 1549, but these were not sequential (again, probably he missed some); cf. Barrois: 1961, xv. 30 Alliod’s case in March 1546. Colladon’s general comments dating Psalms sermons prior to and in 1549 only on afternoons (when other evidence indicates that Calvin was at St. Gervais). The Psalm expositions which Calvin himself published; Quatre sermons fort utiles pour nostre temps avec exposition du Pseaume 87 = Ps. 16, Ps. 27 (two sermons), plus Ps. 87, come from this period. Two of the sermons on Ps. 46 and Ps. 48 in 1560 must have been preached at St. Gervais because those are dates when Calvin performed weddings in that parish (May 12, June 9), and it is almost inconceivable that he did part of a Psalm in one parish and part in another, so all four must have been preached at St. Gervais.

82

Elsie Anne McKee

four and including the other non-metrical ones from Nov. 1545 (Ps. 124) and March 1546 (Ps. 90), would come to sixty-six which Calvin had explained by the summer of 1549. It required twenty-two sermons to cover Ps. 119, stretching through all the Sunday afternoons of the first six months of 1553, averaging eight verses per sermon; some very short Psalms may have been covered in one sermon, but many probably took two and some of the longest might need three. Putting together a guestimate of numbers of sermons on Psalms and Calvin’s schedule at St. Gervais (which included interruptions), leads to the hypothesis that the reformer may have begun to expound Psalms regularly when he moved to St. Gervais on Sunday afternoons in early 1546, and that he continued this book throughout his work in that pulpit. In the spring of 1552, when he moved back to St. Pierre for the entire day on Sundays, he went on with Psalms in the afternoons, probably until they were complete.31 Comparing now the Sundays which have been tentatively filled in with Biblical texts, what is left? The space in question is between the conclusion of the Gospel of John around the end of 1545, and the beginning of Hebrews on Sunday mornings in mid-1547. If the calculations above are accurate, Calvin may have decided that once he finished John he could move his afternoon preaching to St. Gervais, and should begin expounding a different book at St. Pierre on Sunday mornings. The New Testament books which are otherwise not mentioned in any way in discussions of the reformer’s preaching are Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, and James. Some of these—especially the Pauline texts—may have formed part of Calvin’s work in the earliest period in Geneva, the approximately eighteen months from autumn 1536 to April 1538, if he was preaching on the New Testament during the week as well as on Sundays. The rest were probably explained on Sunday mornings during 1546–1547 before he began the series on Hebrews. And this fills in the period before Calvin’s sermons were recorded with at least a tentative full-coverage of the missing books of the New Testament.32

4. Conclusion So what has this detective exercise brought to light? Working in reverse order: It is possible to point out what significant Biblical books are missing from Calvin’s repertoire and to suggest, with varying degrees of likelihood, when he may have expounded these in one or another of Geneva’s three parishes. There are good 31 For a fuller picture of these very complicated calculations, see McKee: 2016, appendix ten. 32 Excepted are 2 and 3 John and Revelations, on which he did not comment, and on which he probably did not preach.

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

83

grounds for identifying probable dates for all of Calvin’s extant but undated sermons, again with varying degrees of exactitude, from those like Daniel or the Pastorals for which dates are almost certain to others like 1 Samuel or Galatians which are fairly tentative. Along the way, the uniquely hybrid character of the Sunday afternoon liturgy comes into view, combining as it does characteristics of Sunday morning but also of ordinary weekdays. With all this attention to the subject matter of sermons and prayers, there is also a new perspective on Calvin’s presence and work in Geneva, as the pastor of St. Pierre who preached regularly not only in that parish and at La Magdeleine but also at St. Gervais.. a new glimpse of Calvin the Pastor-Preacher of Geneva.

Bibliography Barrois, Georges (1961), in: Georges Barrois (ed.), Supplementa Calviniana II. Sermons sur le Livre d’Esaïe, chapitres 13–29, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag. Boer, Erik A. de/Nagy, B. (eds) (2006), Sermons sur le Livre des Revelations du prophete Ezechiel Chapitres 36–48, Supplementa Calviniana 10.3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag. Boer, Erik de (2012), The Genevan School of Prophets, Genève: Droz. Compagnie des Pasteurs (1964), in: Jean-F. Bergier (ed.), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs au temps de Calvin, vol. 1, Genève: Droz. Conseil (2004), in: Archives d’Etat de Genève (ed.), Registres du Conseil de Genève à l’époque de Calvin. Tome II du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 1537, Genève: Droz. — (2011), in: Archives d’Etat de Genève (ed.), Registres du Conseil de Genève à l’époque de Calvin. Tome V du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 1540, Genève: Droz. Consistoire (1996), in: Robert M. Kingdon (ed.), Registres du Consistoire de Genève au temps de Calvin, Genève: Droz. Engammare, Max (2000), Introduction, in: Max Engammare (ed.), Supplementa Calviniana XI/1 & XI/2. Sermons sur la Genèse Chapitres 11,5–20,7, 2 vol., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. — (2012), Introduction, in: Max Engammare (ed.), Supplementa Calviniana IV/I & IV/II. Sermons sur le Livre d’Esaïe, Chapitres 52,1–66,24. 2 vol., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. McKee, Elsie Anne (2004), Calvin and His Colleagues as Pastors: Some New Insights into the Collegial Ministry of Word and Sacraments, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, Geneva: Droz, 9–42. — (2016), The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva, Genève: Droz. Moehn, Wilhelmus (2011) Introduction, in: Wilhelmus Moehn (ed.), Opera Omnia Denuo Recognita, Sermones, vol. III. Plusieurs Sermons de Jean Calvin, Genève: Droz, xxviii– xxxv. Mülhaupt, Erwin (1981), Einleitung, in: Erwin Mülhaupt (ed.), Supplementa Calviniana VII. Psalmpredigten. Passions-, Oster-, und Pfingstpredigten, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, vii–liv.

84

Elsie Anne McKee

Parker, T.H.L. (1981), Introduction, in: T.H.L. Parker (ed.), Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Leiden: Brill. — (1992), Calvin’s Preaching, Louisville: Westminster-John Knox. Peter, Rodolphe (1971), in: Rodolphe Peter (ed.), Supplementa Calviniana VI. Sermons sur les Livres de Jérémie et des Lamentations, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Peter, Rodolphe/Gilmont, Jean-François (1991), Bibliotheca Calviniana, Genève: Droz, vol. 1. — (1994), Bibliotheca Calviniana, Genève: Droz, vol. 2. Poullain, Valerain (1970), in: A.C. Honders (ed.), Liturgia Sacra (1551–1555), Leiden: Brill. Roset, Michel (1894), Les Chroniques de Genève, Genève: Georg.

Appendix OLD TESTAMENT Jeremiah and Lamentations1 1.Fr Jun 14, ’49 2. Sa Jun 15, ’49

QNS QNS

3. Mn Jun 24, ’49 4. Tu Jun 25, ’49 5. Wd Jun 26, ’49 6. Th Jun 27, ’49 7. Fr Jun 28, ’49 8. Sa Jun 29, ’49

QNS QNS [DTP] 2 QNS vismes hier QNS demourasmes hyer QNS monstrasmes hyer

9. Mn Jul 8, ’49 10. Tu Jul 9, ’49 11. Wd Jul 10, ’49 12. Th Jul 11, ’49 13. Fr Jul 12, ’49 14. Sa Jul 13, ’49

QNS QNS vismes hyer [DTP] vismes hyer QNS QNS commençasmes hier QNS

15. Mn Jul 22, ’49 Tu Jul 23, ’49 none 16. Wd Jul 24, ’49 17. Th Jul 25, ’49 18. Fr Jul 26, ’49 19. Sa Jul 27, ’49

QNS

20. Mn Aug 5, ’49 Tu Aug 6, ’49 none

traictasmes hier

[DTP] veu par cy devant QNS QNS QNS vismes hyer QNS

declaré par cy devant

1 Sermons sur les Livres de Jérémie et des Lamentations, pub. Rodolphe Peter. Supplementa Calviniana VI Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971. 2 [DTP] indicates that Calvin skipped to the second phrase of the prayer, beginning with ‘Père celeste.’ The prayer is otherwise identical to the usual DTP prayer.

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

21. Wd Aug 7, ’49 22. Th Aug 8, ’49 23. Fr Aug 9, ’49 24. Sa Aug 10, ’49

[DTP] QNS QNS commençasmes hier QNS vismes hyer

Mn Th Aug 12–15 none 25. Fr Aug 16, ’493

[QNS] monstré par cy devant

1.Sa Sep 6, ’50 2. Mn Sep 15, ’50

QNS QNS

veu cy dessus

Daniel4 1. Mn Jul 18, ’52 2. Tu Jul 19, ’52 3. Wd Jul 20, ’52 4. Th Jul 21, ’52 5. Fr Jul 22, ’52 6. Sa Jul 23, ’52

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

par cy devant commençames hier [+ 41:335] mostrames hier traittames hier vismes hier monstrames hier [+41:380]

7. [Mn Aug 1, ’52] 8. [Tu Aug 2, ’52] 9. [Wd Aug 3, ’52] 10. [Th Aug 4, ’52] 11. [Fr Aug 5, ’52] 12. [Sa Aug 6, ’52]

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

avons ici à traitter touchames hier veu ci dessus… vismes hier veu par ci devant declarasmes hier [+ 41:443]

13. [Mn Aug 15, ’52] 14. [Tu Aug 16, ’52] 15. [Wd Aug 17, ’52] 16. [Th Aug 18, ’52] 18=17. [Fr Aug 19, ’52] 18. [Sa Aug 20, ’52]

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

declaré par ci devant vismes hier

19. [Mn Aug 29, ’52] 20. [Tu Aug 30, ’52] 21. [Wd Aug 31, ’52] 22. [Th Sep 1, ’52] 23. [Fr Sep 2, ’52] 24. [Sa Sep 3, ’52]

QNS QNS QNS (!) QNS QNS QNS

25. [Mn Sep 12, ’52] 26. [Tu Sep 13, ’52] 27. [Wd Sep 14, ’52] 28. [Th Sep 15, ’52]

QNS QNS DTP QNS

85

parlames hier le propos qui fust hier touché cy devant & [hier 41:504, 505] monstrames hier vismes hier fut hier traitté fut hier touché [hier 41:556] desja dit… a esté touché laissames hier [+41:591, 601] touchasmes hier [+41:606] ci-dessus & [hier 41:625]

3 This was not Calvin’s regular week to preach. 4 Quarante sept sermons sur les huict derniers chapitres des propheties de Daniel. La Rochelle, Barthelemy Berton, 1565.

86

Elsie Anne McKee

Ezekiel5 Ms. Fr. 21 1. Mn Nov 21, ’52 2. Tu Nov 22, ’52 3. Wd Nov 23, ’52 4. Th Nov 24, ’52 5. Fr Nov 25, ’52 6. Sa Nov 26, ’52

[QNS] QNS DTP QNS [QNS] QNS

7. Mn Dec 5, ’52 8. Tu Dec 6, ’52 9. Wd Dec 7, ’52 10. Th Dec 8, ’52 11. Fr Dec 9, ’52 12. Sa Dec 10, ’52

QNS QNS DTP [QNS] QNS QNS

13. Mn Dec 19, ’52 14. Tu Dec 2=20, ’52 15. Wd Dec 21, ’52 16. Th Dec 22, ’52 17. Fr Dec 23, ’52 18. Sa Dec 24, ’52

QNS cy devant QNS DTP QNS QNS [QNS]

19. Mn Jan 2, ’53 20. Tu Jan 3, ’53 21. Wd Jan 4, ’53 22. Th Jan 5, ’53 23. Fr Jan 6, ’53 24. Sa Jan 7, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

au sermon prochain

25. Mn Jan 16, ’53 26. Tu Jan 17, ’53 27. Wd Jan 18, ’53 28. Th Jan 19, ’53 29. Fr Jan 20, ’53 Sa Jan 21, ’53 none

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS

cy devant

30. Wd Jan 25, ’53

DTP

cy devant

31. Mn Jan 30, ’53 32. Tu Jan 31, ’53 33. Wd Feb 1, ’53 34. Th Feb 2, ’53 35. Fr Feb 3, ’53

QNS [QNS] DTP QNS QNS

cy devant

[Wd Jan 11, ’53] 6

hier hier veu (…) la lecture prochaine

5 Transcription from Ms. fr. 21 & 22; see table of all sermons in SC 10/3, pp. xiv–xvii. Sermons sur le Livre des Revelations du prophete Ezechiel Chapitres 36–48. 6 Probable date of missing sermon (not transcribed by Raguenier); cf. ‘Introduction’ by Erik de Boer, SC 10/3, p. xiv.

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

Sa Feb 4, ’53 none 36. Wd Feb 8, ’53

DTP

37. Mn Feb 13, ’53 38. Tu Feb 14, ’53 39. Wd Feb 15, ’53 40. Th Feb 16, ’53 41. Fr Feb 17, ’53 Sa Feb 18, ’53 none

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS

42. Mn Feb 27, ’53 43. Tu Feb 28, ’53 44. Wd Mar 1, ’53 45. Th Mar 2, ’53 46. Fr Mar 3, ’53 47. Sa Mar 4, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

48. Wd Mar 8, ’53 Absent from consistory Mar.16, 1553 [OC 21:538] 49. Wd Mar 22, ’53 Passion week 50. Wd Apr 5, ’53

DTP

ci devant

cy devant Hier

DTP DTP

51. Th= Mn Apr 10, ’53 52. Tu Apr 11, ’53 53. Wd Apr 12, ’53 54. Th Apr 13, ’53 55. Fr Apr 14, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS

Ms. fr. 22 1/106.Fr Sep 1, ’53 2/107. Sa Sep 2, ’53

QNS QNS

3/108. Mn Sep 25, ’53 4/109. Tu Sep 26, ’53 5/111. Wd Sep 27, ’53 6/112. Th Sep 28, ’53 7/113. Fr Sep 29, ’53 8/114. Sa Sep 30, ’53

QNS cy devant QNS DTP [QNS] QNS hier [QNS]

9/115. Mn Oct 9, ’53 10/116. Tu Oct 10, ’53 11/117. Wd Oct 11, ’53 12/118. Th Oct 12, ’53 13/119. Fr Oct 13, ’53 14/120. Sa Oct 14, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS [QNS] QNS

15/121. Wd Oct 18, ’53 DTP None Oct 19: it was not Calvin’s week to preach

cy devant Hier

Hier

cy devant

87

88

Elsie Anne McKee

16/122. Fr Oct 20, ’53

QNS

17/123. Mn Oct 23, ’53 18/124. Tu Oct 24, ’53 19/125. Wd Oct 25, ’53 20/126. Th Oct 26, ’53 21/127. Fr Oct 27, ’53 22/128. Sa Oct 28, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

23/129. Mn Nov 6, ’53 24/130. Tu Nov 7, ’53 25/131. Wd Nov 8, ’53 Th-Sa Nov 9–11 none

QNS QNS DTP

26/132. Mn Nov 20, ’53 27/133. Tu Nov 21, ’53 28/134. Wd Nov 22, ’53 29/135. Th Nov 23, ’53 30/136. Fr Nov 24, ’53 31/137. Sa Nov 25, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

cy dessus

32/138. Wd Nov 29, ’53

DTP

cy devant

33/139. Mn Dec 4, ’53 34/140. Tu Dec 5, ’53 35/141. Wd Dec 6, ’53 36/142. Th Dec 7, ’53 37/143. Fr Dec 8, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS

cy devant Hier

38/144. Mn Dec 18, ’53 39/145. Tu Dec 19, ’53 40/146. Wd Dec 20, ’53 41/147. Th Dec 21, ’53 42/148. Fr Dec 22, ’53 43/149. Sa Dec 23, ’53

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS QNS

44/150. Wd Dec 27, ’54= ’53

DTP

45/151. Mn Jan 1, ’54 46/152. Tu Jan 2, ’54 47/153. Wd Jan 3, ’54 48/154. Th Jan 4, ’54 49/155. Fr Jan 5, ’54

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS

50/156. Wd Jan 10, ’54

DTP

51/157. Mn Jan 15, ’54 52/158. Tu Jan 16, ’54 53/159. Wd Jan 17, ’54

QNS cy dessus [QNS] DTP

cy devant

cy dessus

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

1/54/160. Th Jan 18, ’547 2/55/161. Fr Jan 19, ’54

QNS QNS

3/56/162. Wd Jan 24, ’54

DTP

4/57/163. Mn Jan 29, ’54 5/58/164. Tu Jan 30, ’54 6/59/165. Wd Jan 31, ’54 7/60/166. Th Feb 1, ’54 8/61/167. Fr Feb 2, ’54

QNS QNS DTP QNS QNS

9/62/168. Wd Feb 7, ’54

DTP

10/63/169. Mn Feb 12, ’54 11/64/170. Tu Feb 13, ’54 12/65/171. Wd Feb 14, ’54 13/66/172. Th Feb 15, ’54 14/67/173. Fr Feb 16, ’54

QNS QNS monstra hier DTP fut hier entamé QNS desja monstré cy dessus [63] [QNS]

89

ouysmes hier

traicté par cy devant tractasmes hier declaré cy dessus [es] vismes hier veu par cy devant [es]

15/68/174. Mn Feb 19, ’54 [QNS] Tu Feb 20, ’54 none [this was not Calvin’s regular week to preach] 16/69/175. Wd Feb 21, ’54 DTP NEW TESTAMENT First Corinthians 1. Sun Oct 20, ’558 2. Sun p.m. Oct 20, ’55 3. Sun Oct 27, ’55 4. Sun p.m. Oct 27, ’55 5. Sun Nov 3, ’55 6. Sun p.m. Nov 3, ’55 7. Sun Nov 10, ’55 8. Sun p.m. Nov 10, ’55 9. Sun Nov 17, ’55 10. Sun p.m. Nov 17, ’55 11. Sun Nov 24, ’55 12. Sun p.m. Nov 24, ’55 13. Sun Dec 1, ’55 14. Sun p.m. Dec 1, ’55 15. Sun Dec 8, ’55 16. Sun p.m. Dec 8, ’55

7 8 9 10

DTP [QNS] DTP [QNS] DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP DTP9 DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP10 QNS

ce matin veu par cy devant

ce matin ce matin traitté par cy devant ce matin

Boer/Nagy: 2006. Ms. fr. 26, chapters 1–9; my on-going transcription for Supplementa Calviniana. Here the incipit of the Sunday morning prayer text is used at a p.m. sermon. ‘Par cy devant S[ainct] Paul avoit dict que la sagesse de Dieu n’est point cogneue sinon de ceulx qui sont bien disposez à la recepvoir …’ refers back to earlier verses of 1 Cor. 2, probably those found in sermons 14–15.

90

Elsie Anne McKee

17. Sun Dec 15, ’55

DTP

18. Sun p.m. Dec 15, ’55 19. Sun [p.m.] Dec 22, ’55 20. Sun Dec 29, ’56=’55 21. Sun p.m. Dec 29, ’56=’55 22. Sun Jan 5, ’56 23. Sun p.m. Jan 5, ’56 24. Sun Jan 12, ’56 No p.m. sermon 25. Sun Jan 19, ’56 26. Sun p.m. Jan 19, ’56 27. Sun Jan 26, ’56 28. Sun p.m. Jan 26, ’56 29. Sun Feb 2, ’56 30. Sun p.m. Feb 2, ’56 31. Sun Feb 9, ’56 32. Sun p.m. Feb 9, ’56 33. Sun Feb 16, ’56 34. Sun p.m. Feb 16, ’56 35. Sun Feb 23, ’56 36. Sun p.m. Feb 23, ’56 37. Sun Mar 1, ’56 38. Sun p.m. Mar 1, ’56 39. Sun Mar 8, ’56 40. Sun p.m. Mar 8, ’56 41. Sun Mar 15, ’56 42. Sun p.m. Mar 15, ’56 No morning sermon 43. Sun p.m. Mar 22, ’56 No morning sermon: probably beginning Passion Week text 44. Sun p.m. Mar 29, ’56 Easter 45. Sun p.m. Apr 5, ’56 46. Sun Apr 12, ’56 47. Sun p.m. Apr 12, ’56 48. Sun Apr 19, ’56 49. Sun p.m. Apr 19, ’56 No morning sermon 50. Sun p.m. Apr 26, ’56 51. Sun May 3, ’56 52. Sun p.m. May 3, ’56 Calvin collapses in pulpit May 10 [21:81, 637] Pentecost 53. Sun May 31, ’56 54. Sun p.m. May 31, ’56 55. Sun Jun 7, ’56 56. Sun p.m. Jun 7, ’56 57. Sun Jun 14, ’56 58. Sun p.m. Jun 14, ’56

QNS QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS QNS

declaré cy dessus …dimanche prochain la saincte cene f141b ce matin veu par cy devant dimanche passé ce matin desja veu ce matin desja monstré ce matin veu par cy devant veu cy devant ce matin veu par cy devant desja commencé à voir ce matin ce matin par cy devant traicté ce matin veu par cy devant

QNS QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS QNS DTP QNS

DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS

veu par cy devant [es] dimanche passé …traictasmes ce matin desja traicté par cy devant

ce matin

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

1.Sun [ Jun 21, ’56] 11 2. Sun [p.m. Jun 21, ’56] 3. Sun [ Jun 28, ’56] 4. Sun [p.m. Jun 28, ’56] 5. Sun [ Jul 5, ’56] 6. Sun [p.m. Jul 5, ’56] 7. Sun [ Jul 12, ’56] 8. Sun [p.m. Jul 12, ’56] 9. Sun [ Jul 19, ’56] 10. Sun [p.m. Jul 19, ’56] 11. Sun [ Jul 26, ’56] 12. Sun [p.m. Jul 26, ’56] 13. Sun [Aug 2, ’56] 14. Sun [p.m. Aug 2, ’56] 15. Sun [Aug 9, ’56] 16. Sun [p.m. Aug 9, ’56] 17. Sun [Aug 16, ’56] 18. Sun [p.m. Aug 16, ’56] No morning sermon 19. Sun [p.m. Aug 23, ’56] Travels to Frankfurt Aug 26, ’56–Oct 12? [21:647, 650]

DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS

91

au sermon precedent

veu dernierement traitte ci dessus vismes dimanche passe declaré au sermon precedent dimanche prochain [49:764] ci devant (…) [dimanche passé 49:775] commencé ce matin [+49:780, 789] esté declare par ci devant* [ce matin 49:804]

QNS

Galatians12 1. Sun p.m. Nov 14, ’57 2. Sun [Nov 21, ’57] 3. Sun [p.m. Nov 21, ’57] 4. Sun [Nov 28, ’57] 5. Sun [p.m. Nov 28, ’57] 6. Sun [Dec 5, ’57] 7. Sun [p.m. Dec 5, ’57] 8. Sun [Dec 12, ’57] 9. Sun [p.m. Dec 12, ’57] 10. Sun Dec 19, ’57 11. Sun p.m. Dec 19, ’57

QNS DTP QNS DTP [QNS] DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS

12. Sun p.m. Dec 26, ’57 13. Sun [ Jan 2, ’58] 14. Sun [p.m. Jan 2, ’58] 15. Sun [ Jan 9, ’58] 16. Sun [p.m. Jan 9, ’58] 17. Sun [ Jan 16, ’58] 18. Sun [p.m. Jan 16, ’58] 19. Sun [ Jan 23, ’58] 20. Sun [p.m. Jan 23, ’58] 21. Sun [ Jan 30, ’58] 22. Sun [p.m. Jan 30, ’58]

QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS

Ce matin veu par ci devant ce matin [+50:327] [ce matin 50:360] ce matin[+50:378] veu par ci devant [ce matin 50:403, 405] (…) dimanche prochaine la Cene [50:413] exposé par ci devant veu par ci devant ce matin [ce matin 50:476] [ce matin 50:497] [ce matin 50:525, 527] veu par ci devant ce matin

11 Sermons sur le 10e et 11e chap. de la premier Epistre aux Corinthiens. Geneve: Michel Blanchier, 1563. 12 OC 50.

92 23. Sun [Feb 6, ’58] 24. Sun [p.m. Feb 6, ’58] 25. Sun [Feb 13, ’58] 26. Sun [p.m. Feb 13, ’58] 27. Sun [Feb 20, ’58] 28. Sun [p.m. Feb 20, ’58] 29. Sun [Feb 27, ’58] 30. Sun [p.m. Feb 27, ’58] 31. Sun [Mar 6, ’58] No p.m. sermon 32. Sun [Mar 13, ’58] No p.m. sermon 33. Sun [Mar 20, ’58] 34. Sun [p.m. Mar 20, ’58] 35. Sun [Mar 27, ’58] 36. Sun [p.m. Mar 27, ’58] Sunday before, Passion Week & Easter 37. Sun [p.m. Apr 10, ’58] 38. Sun [Apr 17, ’58] 39. Sun [p.m. Apr 17, ’58] 40. Sun [Apr 24, ’58] No p.m. sermon 41. Sun [May 1, ’58] 42. Sun [p.m. May 1, ’58] 43. Sun [May 8, ’58] Ephesians13 1. Sun p.m. May 15, ’58 2. Sun [May 22, ’58] 3. Sun p.m. [May 22, ’58] Pentecost 4. Sun p.m. May 29, ’58] 5. Sun [ Jun 5, ’58] 6. Sun [p.m. Jun 12, ’58] 7. Sun [ Jun 19, ’58] 8. Sun [p.m. Jun 19, ’58] 9. Sun [ Jun 26, ’58] 10. Sun [p.m. Jun 26, ’58] 11. Sun [ Jul 3, ’58] 12. Sun [p.m. Jul 3, ’58] A Sun missing between May 29 &Aug 28 13. Sun [ Jul 17, ’58] 14. Sun [p.m. Jul 17, ’58] 15. Sun [ Jul 24, ’58] 16. Sun [p.m. Jul 24, ’58] 17. Sun [ Jul 31, ’58]

Elsie Anne McKee

DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP

veu ci dessus

DTP

veu par ci devant

DTP QNS DTP QNS QNS DTP QNS DTP

desja exposé veu par ci devant [es] traitté cidevant ce matin [+50:645, 650] veu ci dessus

[ce matin 51:16] ce matin [+51:33, 39, 42]

ce matin [+51:83]

DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS

cy devant; preparer à recevoir (…) la sainct Cene 51:270 ce matin [+51:274, 277]

QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS

ci devant ci devant ci devant

DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP

ci devant ce matin [+51:420] desja veu

ce matin [+51:339] ci devant ce matin [+51:365, 368, 369, 371] ce matin [+OC 51:389]

ci devant

13 Sermons de Iean Calvin sur l’epistre S. Paul apostre aux Ephesiens. Geneve: Iean Baptiste Pinereul, 1562.

Sermons, Prayers, and Detective Work in Calvin’s Pulpit Ministry

18. Sun [p.m. Jul 31, ’58] 19. Sun [Aug 7, ’58] 20. Sun [p.m. Aug 7, ’58] 21. Sun [Aug 14, ’58] 22. Sun [p.m. Aug 14, ’58] 23. Sun [Aug 21, ’58] 24. Sun [p.m. Aug 21, ’58] 25. Sun [Aug 28, ’58] 26. Sun [p.m. Aug 28, ’58]

QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS QNS14 QNS

27. Sun Sep 4, ’58

DTP

28. Sun [p.m. Sep 4, ’58] 29. Sun [Sep 11, ’58] 30. Sun [p.m. Sep 11, ’58] 31. Sun [Sep 18, ’58] 32. Sun [p.m. Sep 18, ’58] 33. Sun [Sep 25, ’58] 34. Sun [p.m. Sep 25, ’58] 35. Sun [Oct 2, ’58] 36. Sun [p.m. Oct 2, ’58] 37. Sun [Oct 9, ’58] 38. Sun [p.m. Oct 9, ’58] 39. Sun [Oct 16, ’58] 40. Sun [p.m. Oct 16, ’58] 41. Sun [Oct 23, ’58] Calvin ill many months16

QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP QNS DTP

93

ce matin [+51:472] ce matin [+51:488, 492] ce matin ci devant ce matin ci devant ce matin [+51:569]; la saincte Cene dimanche prochain [51:578] ci devant (…) venir à cette saincte table [51:591] [ce matin 51:621, 622] 15 dimanche passé

ce matin ce matin ci-dessus ce matin

14 Here the first words of the p.m. prayer are used, instead of the Sunday morning text, but this seems to be a morning sermon because the following one speaks of ‘this morning.’ 15 In a number of sermons ‘ce matin’ is found later in the text, as in this case Eph. #30, even if it is not at the beginning, though also often when it is at the beginning; e. g., Eph. #3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 26, 36, 46. 16 Calvin absent from Consistory from Oct 20, ‘58 to Feb 2, ‘59 [OC 21.707] Calvin sick with quartan fever, before Oct 27, ‘58; writes from bed Nov 24, ‘58 [OC 21.707, 708] Calvin does not preach on weekdays after Sa Oct 8, ‘58, until Jun 12, ‘59 [Isaiah].

Johanna Rahner

New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin? The Present Status and Future Trends

1. A Significant Shift Leading to New Hermeneutics The beginning of the 20th century brought a fresh whiff of air to Catholic research on the Reformation. Due to the opening of the Vatican archives on the Council of Trent by Leo XIII in 1883 and the subsequent publishing work done by the Görres-Society 1901ff (up to 2001!) a new perspective on the Council of Trent, the different Catholic factions during the Reformation, and their theological debates and positions was possible (cf. Wassilowsky: 2010, 400). The explicitly anti-protestant reception of the Council, usual in the 18th and esp. in the 19th century, now became suspicious. Some Council Fathers and bishops at Trent seem to have been more open-minded towards the theology of Luther or the issues raised by the Protestant reformers than the traditional interpretation has ever allowed. The discussions at Trent showed that the anti-Protestant position confirmed by the Council wasn’t set in stone—as a confessionalistic Tridentinism in the 19th century keeps insisting. Regarding the discussion during the Council’s sessions, even some decisions made by the Council appear to have been more cautious, and the Council resolved some issues by making no decision at all. Even if the Council of Trent, from its starting-point, may appear as an antiProtestant council, a significant part of the participants and of the decisions made weren’t so at all. The Council of Trent responded to issues raised by the Protestant Reformers, but it was also part of a period of Catholic renewal, which had begun decades earlier. The Council abolished some of the more notorious abuses, which had been among the numerous causes of the Reformation, and introduced or recommended disciplinary reforms. During its first sessions, the Council only codified those doctrinal positions, which had been found useful in establishing a Catholic identity in the controversies since Luther and which therefore represented the core of the Catholic position. (Unsurprisingly then, the Council also

96

Johanna Rahner

condemned those who were teaching the opposite.) Some of the participants showed an ‘evangelical’ mind by favouring the supreme authority of the Scripture and justification by faith, but no concession was made to Protestantism. As we can see now, the decisions made by the Council could not be understood as the result of a discussion sine ira et studio, but rather as the laying out of boundaries. Trent did not speak out on everything possible concerning every single issue. And frankly speaking, it can be shown that for some issues the Council Fathers would not even have been able to do so. But the Council made clear where the central differences lay (or seemed to be) and what the future profile of Catholicism had to be. The decisions were explicitly Roman Catholic, i. e. apologetic, responses to the criticism of Protestant theologians. From this hermeneutical point of view none of the decisions could be understood as profound and fundamental theological approaches to Catholic doctrine at all—as 19th century Tridentinism did when styling Trent the ‘Council of all Councils’ (Pesch: 1996, 73) and giving its tenuous and unilateral decrees the status of infallibility and the odour of the only true Catholicism (cf. ibid. 75). To understand Trent in a proper way, one has to look for the ‘greater value’ its decrees provide. The ultimate challenge is to reconstruct their value against the negative and condemning attitude the Council Fathers used in their defence. Perhaps nowadays the decisions could be used as a guideline, which reveals its deeper meaning only at a second glance. Looking at the historical Council of Trent, it becomes clear that there is a significant divergence between Trent and the history of the Roman-Catholic Church after Trent. So the historical research on Trent has not only destroyed some much-loved stock ideas, but has also critically scrutinized the well-assured idea of a Catholic identity as the result of the Counter-Reformation (cf. Alberigo: 2006, 19–38).

2. Catholic Theology and the Reformers in the Wake of Vatican II As we all know, the Second Vatican Council put an end to the Counter-Reformation. This was the result of historical research and also of theological renewal and rethinking, which allowed a meaningful change in outlook. The liturgical movement, the ecumenical movement and the rediscovery of patristic traditions and sources esp. in Ecclesiology, the Theology of the Sacraments, and Christology during the 30s and 40s had prepared a different way of theological thinking —outside the Neo-Scholastic system with its pre-modern theology and philosophy that had dominated Catholic doctrine and theology since the 19th century. This new way of thinking made it possible to take into account the historical conditions of Catholic doctrine. The Fathers of Vatican II saw this as a call to

New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin?

97

rediscover their own theological traditions (both aggiornamento and ressourcement are the keywords of the Council!)—which, in consequence, drew attention to the fact that there was indeed a much broader and more divergent ‘Catholic tradition’ than the illusionary and in some way ‘tribal’ theology of a strictly antiProtestant Catholicism after Trent had displayed. Some parts of this broader Catholic tradition could now also be discovered in the theology of the reformers, so that this theology—previously unthinkable—could now be considered as part of the Catholic tradition itself. The ground-breaking study on Calvin’s ecclesiology by Alexandre Ganoczy (1968, esp. 343–430; 1965), for instance, displays a significant difference between the first French edition, written before the Council and published in 1964, and the supplemented German edition, published after Vatican II. The Ecclesiology found in the decrees of Vatican II—used as a point of reference in the second edition—seemed to be more compatible with the reformers’ theology than the pre-conciliar type of a Neo-Thomist Ecclesiology in the first edition (cf. Beintker: 2009, 161). That change of perspective by Vatican II and the drive for reform initiated by the Council allowed Alexandre Ganoczy to place John Calvin firmly in a Catholic context. This example makes obvious that since Vatican II Catholic theologians had a strong conviction of a substantial common theological basis, which allows a positive reception and interpretation of all reformers. Since Vatican II we are rediscovering the common ground of our faith together with the other denominations and not against them. In the wake of Vatican II numerous Catholic scholars were engaged in this comprehensive project. O.H. Pesch’s unique study on the doctrine of justification in Thomas Aquinas and Luther (cf. Pesch: 1989)—for our topic it must be considered a work of the century—broke the ground for a Catholic re-interpretation of Luther’s theology by showing how deeply Luther himself was rooted in medieval theology and therefore could be understood as a part of Catholic tradition. But Pesch also made clear that both, the Thomistic and Lutheran theologies, were to be understood as two different, incompatible but complementary and legitimate types of theology and as parts of an indispensable heritage of a broader Catholic tradition. Subsequent studies supported these findings. Especially the research done around the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana (1980) and Luther’s 500th anniversary (1983) present a substantial step forward to a common interpretation of the Reformation and its theological changes, a process resulting in the joint DBK-EKD study Condemnations of the Reformation Era. Do they still divide?, which, on an academic basis level, seriously doubts the theological adequacy of the former condemnations and their relevance for the present. In the wake of Vatican II we can observe a similar boom in studies on Calvin and Catholicism. We have quite a few scholars who are engaged in the quest for the ‘Calvinus Catholicus’ (Scholl: 1974), approaching the reformer and his the-

98

Johanna Rahner

ology in a creative and at the same time critical way, developing a ‘vision of a Catholic Calvin’ (Scholl: 1974, 114), and looking for a common basis of Catholic theology and the theology of Calvin. Calvin was found to be an early exponent of an ecumenical theology and a leading example for the reform of the church (cf. Beintker: 2009, 162f). Especially by his exceptional understanding of the ChurchFathers he seemed to be ‘one of us’. But after a first impressive wave of growing enthusiasm for Calvin, Catholic scholars became a little bit reluctant facing the systematic weight of Calvin’s theological oeuvre, which does not seem to allow a comprehensive approach. Again, around Calvin’s 500th anniversary we find a good number of individual studies, which, as usual, concentrate on a central or controversial issue. But do we really have Catholic research on Calvin? I hesitate to claim this. Perhaps some inner doubt and reservation still linger.

3. John Calvin and Catholic Theology—an Uneasy but Unique Relationship John Calvin divides. You can find as many most ardent admirers as vociferous critics. Any attempt at characterizing him results in a summary of clichés. The decline of his reputation began within years of his death. Especially ‘Catholic apologists across Europe were painting him as a licentious, wicked maverick, who has wrecked the unity of the church’ (Cornick: 2010, 265). Yes, Catholics normally do not like John Calvin. Leaving behind old prejudice, we might indeed find some probable reasons for this Catholic diffidence. John Calvin is clearly an exponent of the second period of the Reformation or the ‘Second Reformation’ as some scholars chose to call it. This period often is characterized by different, more or less appropriate, stereotypes: The conflicting parties were no longer interested in holding up a visible unity or even in searching for criteria of a common statement or confession of the faith to designate a common ground. That was the ideal and conviction of the first period—the Confessio Augustana (CA) would be the most famous example of this. By contrast, the reformers in the second period put their emphasis on establishing a stable form of identity for a particular church. There is a movement ‘from confessing with the goal of integration and consensus to confession aimed at setting boundaries and establishing identity’ (Dingel: 2012, 287f). Because at this time unity seemed to be irrevocably lost, everyone began to act accordingly. The confessions and declarations, the theological arguments and treatises on both sides developed the function of a vera explicatio doctrinae to counteract false accusations and condemnations and to clearly demarcate the boundaries between true and false teaching, between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Especially since the beginning of the Council of

New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin?

99

Trent in 1545, confronted with the first decisions of the Council, the reformers began to present themselves and their adherents in explicit contrast to Roman Catholicism. What does this entail when we look at Calvin more closely? Strengthening identity not only in dialogue with the different branches of the Reformation but also in confrontation with the Roman-Catholic Church might be a good characterization of the theology of John Calvin. The first aspect means looking for a strategic way of dealing with Protestantism’s internal controversies, the second is about a lifelong battle for the true church against the false church. His way of coping with these two endeavours is quite different. As a reformer of the second period Calvin no longer needed to discuss or argue on justification by grace alone, or on sola scriptura etc. All these fundamental topics of the Reformation are theologically well established and no further proof of validity is necessary. There is no longer any argument on the theological principles of the Reformation anymore. Now we are dealing with their consequences. It’s not wonder that the theological focus of interest changes from Soteriology to Ecclesiology (cf. McGrath: 1986, 68). With Calvin’s appearance on stage we also enter a phase of consolidating the theological insights and values the Reformation has brought. There is a fresh need for developing a new theological system, a systematic presentation of the doctrine and its universal dimension. So at first glance a growing confessionalism might be significant in this second period of the Reformation. However, looking at Calvin there is also a contrasting development. A new dispute comes up: Which faction—struggling for the truth —has preserved the old tradition in a better way? As the different versions of the Institutes show, Calvin increasingly used both, the common heritage of the Church-Fathers and the logic of medieval theologians, to strengthen the argumentative basis of his own theological thinking, especially when dealing with the topics which are now at stake: Ecclesiology, the structure of ecclesiastic ministry, the Theology of Sacraments, and how to build up a Christian government and society. No wonder that ‘Calvin was one of the finest patristic scholars of his day. The Institutes abounds with patristic references, particularly to Augustine and Cyprian, but his range is formidable. His theological method is in this sense impeccably catholic’ (Cornick: 2010, 267). By having recourse on the Catholic tradition itself, Calvin enriched the theoretical foundation of his theology, and he did not hesitate to use the same tradition and the same traditional arguments as his Roman-Catholic opponents: ‘It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (…), as if the Fathers were supporters to their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (…), the better part of the victory would be ours’ (Prefatory address to Francis I, King of France, OS 1.27). Calvin defended his own position by recurring to the theology of the Church-Fathers as well as medieval authors like the great mystic Bernhard of Clairvaux, but he also gave a new interpretation of the common tradition while his position now could be shown as

100

Johanna Rahner

preserving the tradition in an adequate way. ‘He wants to be in continuity with the tradition of faith as handed to the apostles and then the fathers’ (Cornick: 2010, 267). Therefore it is not astonishing that the crucial difference between the 1536 and the 1543 edition of the Institutes was ‘a deepening appreciation of the Catholic position’ (ibid., 267). While arguing about the common ground of a shared tradition, Calvin also sharpened his theological profile (cf. e. g. Leppin: 2010). The common tradition now has to be turned against its distorted interpretation and used as a witness against the so-called ‘old’ Church. His tone, therefore, is anything but conciliatory, as we can see in his famous answer to Cardinal Jacobo Sadoleto: ‘I will make it palpable to all that you knew, (…) not only that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours, but all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of different character, was afterwards flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction’ (Answer to Sadolet, OS 1.466). And—by referring to ‘Chrysostom and Basil, among the Greeks, and Cyprian, Ambrose and Augustine, among the Latins’—it becomes clear: Looking at the Roman Church you can see only ‘the ruins of the true church of Christ’ are left, while Calvin and his faction rediscovered and restored her (cf. OS 1.466). The more Catholic Calvin seems to be, the more his position becomes antiCatholic and his tone becomes belligerous. It is not his polemic style that causes the problem, but his new hermeneutics. There are two different interpretations of the same tradition, which struggle with regard to the true church and Calvin argues under new conditions. At Worms Cardinal Cajetan told Luther that following his theology would mean building a new Church, and now Calvin does start building it. But Calvin’s idea of a renewed church was explicitly not just different from the Papist version. The core of Calvin’s theology is controversy and contradiction of the Catholic system of his time. ‘Controversy keeps the Renewal to the Reformers alive. (…) Turning away from Catholicism, marking the differences, and naming the contradiction that’s the Calvinian Style’ (Thönissen: 2009, 182, transl. JR). Or, as Karl Barth puts it: ‘Calvin becomes the Father of a militant Protestantism’ (Barth: 1993, 321, transl. JR). To sum up Calvin and Catholicism: We do not find a dispute on a single theological argument. What we see is the clash of different theological systems based on the same tradition. And it is apparent that issues of principles are at stake here. A perspective like this seems to be barely fruitful for further ecumenical research on John Calvin’s theology. So what shall we do now? Calvin is a man of controversy, that is true, but this insight is only one side of the coin. As Wolfgang Thönissen emphasized, by dealing with this confessional controversies, Calvin ‘discovers the synthetic form of his theology’ (cf. Thönissen: 2009, 182, transl. JR). Calvin establishes himself as a master of tracing back the confessional con-

New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin?

101

troversies to their actual meaning. His originality lies in his ability to get to the bottom of what has been going on and in his tendency to strive for a synthesis of different options. In this ‘Theology of Synthesis’ he does not simply mix up Luther, Zwingli, Erasmus etc. but dares to make sense of all of the controversial positions. Against a latent monophysite Protestant ecclesiology he holds firmly on to a new structure of the church recurring to the freedom of consciousness of every single believer without giving up the ecclesial identity of Christian faith and the theological relevance of the visible Church; he defends the identity markers of the Reformation by founding them in the Catholic tradition itself; he leaves behind the aggressive conflicts on justification by faith alone to find a new synthesis in the dialectical relationship of justification and sanctification, which neither gives up the Protestant ‘sola fide’ nor does it promote ‘cheap grace’. He established a kind of via media or a Protestant version of the Catholic principle of ‘et (…) et’ as the hermeneutical principle for the understanding of the Christian doctrine dealing with different interpretations. That is the main reason why it does not make sense for a Catholic theologian to leave Calvin to the Calvinists. So let’s take it from here.

4. A Catholic Countering of a Hostile Takeover Bid—a Litmus Test on Two Basic Controversies 4.1. You Cannot Be a Christian without the Church ‘… as we revere her as our mother, so we desire to remain in her bosom’ (Answer to Sadolet, OS 1.466). Calvin never and in no way intended to break with the universal Church and to establish a kind of separated reformed branch. Therefore he put great emphasis on keeping unity and reforming the Church: ‘For [the reformers, JR] reminded me how great the difference is between schism from the Church, and studying to correct the faults by which the Church herself was contaminated. They spoke nobly of the Church, and showed the greatest desire to cultivate unity’ (Answer to Sadolet, OS 1.485). Reforming the church meant bringing her back under the Lordship of Christ, bringing her back to the roots, to her authentic and genuine form (‘On the whole they made it clear and palpable (…) that the true order of the Church had then perished (…) that Christian liberty had fallen (…) in short, that the kingdom of Christ was prostrated when this primacy was reared up’ [Answer to Sadolet, OS 1.486]. And by recurring on Cyprian: There is one bishopric of Christ and ‘accordingly, he declares that when heresies and schisms arise, it is because men return not to the origin of the truth, because they seek not the head, because they keep not the doctrine of the

102

Johanna Rahner

heavenly Master’ [Inst. 4.2.6, OS 5.36, 32f]), and this renewed and true church also had clear signs by which to identify her. The ‘papists’ insist on the visibility of the church and identify the visible church with Rome and its hierarchy. In contrast, Calvin asserted, ‘We (…) maintain, both that the Church may exist without any apparent form, and, moreover, that this form is not ascertained by that external splendour (…) but by a different mark, by the pure preaching of the word of God, and the due administration of the sacraments’ (Prefatory address, OS 1.31). So Calvin defined the signs of the church, the nota ecclesiae, close to the definition we find in Confessio Augustana (CA VII):‘Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have a doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail’ (Inst. 4.2.9). But because these marks of the Church were true marks, which make the true church obvious (‘Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity…’ [Inst. 4.1.10]), the visible church not only was a crucial point of Calvin’s ecclesiology (It is Satan who ‘at one time delete or abolish these marks and thereby destroy the true und genuine distinction of the church’ or ‘bring them into content and so hurry us into open revolt for the church’ [Inst. 4.1.11]), but for Calvin there is no invisible church without the visible communion. Therefore breaking with this church is such a dramatic act: ‘For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion. So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired (…) No crime can be imagined more atrocious than that of sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the marriage which the only begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with us’ (Inst. 4.1.10; cf. Thönissen: 2009, 189). Calvin held firmly on to the theological value of the visible signs of the church and their ecclesiogenetic function. That is the reason why the controversy about the true church (and how it must be organized), turned into such a bitter conflict and a matter of principle. But even the totally corrupt Papist church is no ecclesiological ‘no man’s land’ (cf. Beintker: 2009, 170; transl. JR) because some elements of being church, vestigia Ecclesiae, were still left: ‘so in the present day we deny not to the papists those vestiges of a Church, which the Lord allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation’ (Inst. 4.2.11; cf. Inst. 4.2.12: ‘In one word; I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain—symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy’). Calvin hesitated

New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin?

103

to call the Catholic Church ‘church’ because the papists perverted the Church of Christ into a false church (‘There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government (…) in place of the Lord’s supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions: doctrine [without which Christianity exists not] is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety’ [Inst. 4.2.2]). Therefore calling it still ‘church’ also meant enforcing a dispute on the true constitution of the church: ‘Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. The question we raise only relates to the true and legitimate constitution of the Church, implying communion in sacred rites, which are the signs of profession, and especially in doctrine’ (Inst. 4.2.12). In Calvin’s answer to Sadolet the Cardinal could first read: The Church ‘is the society of all the saints, a society which, spread over the whole world, and existing in all ages, yet bound together in the one doctrine, the one Spirit of Christ, cultivates and observes unity of faith and brotherly concord’ (Answer to Sadolet, OS 1.466). But Calvin additionally emphasized the central principles of this constitution of the church: ‘Since there are three things on which the safety of the Church is founded, viz., doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments, and to these a fourth is added, viz., ceremonies, by which to exercise the people in offices of piety [i. e. liturgy, JR]’ (Answer to Sadolet, OS 1.466). Obviously a consensus on the preaching the Word of God and administering the sacraments seems to be insufficient without ecclesiological consensus. Both crucial marks of the church entail structural and organisational consequences (cf. Beintker: 2009, 173). As a result of this theological insight Calvin developed a strictly functional and christocentric understanding of the church, its holiness, apostolicity, and catholicity (cf. Inst. 4.1.9ff) and he established a new discipline of the church ‘that serves the honour of God’ (cf. Faber: 2009, 324): ‘God himself appears and, as the author of this ordinance, requires his presence to be recognised in his own institution’ (Inst. 4.1.5). Therefore Calvin doesn’t share the typically Protestant disregard of the Church and it’s structure. Calvin is different, because, as Michael Beintker presumes, it might have been his education as a lawyer or his special sense for the problems a community has to deal with, that Calvin, like no other reformer, concentrated on the Church as a central topic of his theology (‘Church’ as ‘omnium piorum mater’ is one of Calvin’s favourite images: ‘I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has thus joined, let not man put asunder [Mark 10,9]: to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother’ [Inst. 4.1.1] or the headline of this chapter: Of the True Church. Duty of Cultivating Unity with her, as the Mother of

104

Johanna Rahner

all Godly) (cf. Beintker: 2009, 170). It becomes evident: Following Calvin ‘you can’t be a Christian without the Church’ (Beintker: 2009, 170; transl. JR), and dealing with ecumenics, in Calvin’s view, means to concede to Ecclesiology the crucial place it deserves.

4.2. No Justification without Sanctification and no Grace without Freedom We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that as long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings, which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us (…) all which he possesses being (…) nothing to us until we become one with him. And although it is true that we obtain this by faith, yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of Christ which is made by the gospel, the very nature of the case teaches us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of the efficacy of the Spirit, to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings (Inst. 3.1.1).

In this brief passage at the beginning of the analysis of his theology of grace in chapter III of the Institutes Calvin names the essentials of his theology of justification. Quite in contrast to Luther he emphasizes sanctification as the central effect, aim, and consequence of justification. Concentrating on justification as the main effect of God’s grace, Luther had no further need for thinking of any other agent than God alone. It is beyond doubt that Calvin shares this strict position. However, Calvin also looks at justification from a dynamic angle. With regard to sanctification as a renewal and rebirth of man through justification Calvin is able to change his hermeneutical perspective: We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. (…) [Y]ou cannot possess [Christ, JR] without being made a partaker of his sanctification. (…) Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by work, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification (Inst. 3.16.1).

A position, which—as Calvin recognized—, was very close to the Catholic position. Now the problem appears how God’s saving grace could become central to man’s personal salvation, how his justice could become my justice. Calvin doesn’t think that a human answer to God’s call is possible without God’s help. So he solves the problem by recurring to the impact of the Holy Spirit. God’s spirit is

New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin?

105

moving the heart of man to respond to God’s saving will. The Spirit bridges the gap between God’s will and the human answer. He firstly gives testimony to God as the chief agent in this process but also creates the conditions, which make an active human answer possible. God works with man in an inner way through the impact of the Holy Spirit but also by communicating with him in a way accommodated to human needs. By acting in a human way through the Logos who became flesh, God adapts to man by revealing himself in a human way. ‘Calvin’s theology is a kenotic theology; Calvin’s sovereign and majestic God is humbling himself in adapting to the abilities of man’ (Huizing: 2008, 91). His self-revelation develops an irresistible dynamic towards the human answer. While Luther still puts his emphasis on the pure passivity of man (cf. Jüngel: 1999, 155 FN 77), Calvin follows a different path. God communicates in the ‘language of Love’, in which the lover makes himself similar to the beloved one. And it is God’s irresistible love, which creates the human ability and his freedom to love. God’s love creates, renews and perfects the freedom of man, setting him free to give his answer of love. It is a truly human answer, but God remains the initiator. But how can the mind rise to such a perception and foretaste of the divine goodness, without being at the same time wholly inflamed with love to God? The abundance of joy, which God has treasured up for those who fear him, cannot be truly known without making a most powerful impression. He who is thus once affected is raised and carried entirely towards him (Inst. 3.2.41).

With this metaphoric bridge Calvin’s theology is able to narrow the confessional gap between grace and freedom. A dialogical understanding of grace and freedom seems to be possible and therefore a mediation of the Reformed and Catholic points of view on justification by grace, by leaving behind the exclusive alternative ‘sola fide et sola gratia’ vs. ‘sola fide caritate formata’. Therefore, even the confessional differences so clearly made out by the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (in 1999) could have been seen in a different light if the contribution coming from the theology of Calvin and its pneumatological reformulation of justification at this point would have been more present (cf. Beintker: 2009, 169; Faber: 2009, 329).

5. New Challenges and Future Trends: Towards a Joint Approach at Formulating a Political Theology Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes, and gives birth to the other (Inst. 1.1.1).

106

Johanna Rahner

Faced with this opening of Calvin’s Institutes we could say a lot about the ‘Glory of God’ as the crucial point of Calvin’s theology, the relationship between the ‘Glory of God’ and the ‘freedom of man’ and how the knowledge of God and of ourselves eventually merge. I will concentrate, however, on one central idea: Without doubt Calvin’s view of salvation is universal in various respects. By founding the central perspective of salvation in the theology of creation Calvin’s theology allows a more profound insight into God’s universal saving will as the inner core of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Here, Calvin’s theology of salvation and election develops a dynamic that goes beyond the boarders. No wonder Karl Barth develops his idea of a christocentric apokatastasis ton panton analysing and re-interpretating Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. This universal dynamic of Calvin’s theology also re-opens the possibility for a natural theology. Against the wider background of his theology of revelation an appreciative use of non-Christian sources of theology not only seems to be possible, by virtue of his humanistic training Calvin’s appreciation of the ancient authors and non-Christian philosophers goes far beyond that of the other reformers: ‘Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears’ (Inst. 2.2.5). Calvin’s pneumatology established the wisdom of the world as a central theological value. Due to the working of the Holy Spirit the whole world is the theatre of God’s glory. But Calvin does not really intend a new reformed kind of natural theology, but instead focuses his attention on establishing a kind of natural ethics. The ‘Gospel of Salvation’ as a ‘Doctrine of Life’ has to impregnate every little aspect of our daily life: ‘Doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the inmost recesses of the heart. (…) [I]t must be transferred into the breast, and pass into the conduct, and so transform us into itself, as not to prove unfruitful’ (Inst. 3.6.4). Therefore Calvin’s theology shows a significant tendency to establish a kind of socio-political spirituality. Calvin seems to strongly advocate the political dimension of theology: ‘How different is it to say, that we ought to pray for kings, in order that justice and decency may prevail, and to say, that not only the name of kingly power, but all government, is opposed to religion! We have the Spirit of God for the Author of the former sentiment, and therefore the latter must be from the Devil’ (Comm 1 Tim 2,2). As the whole world is not thinkable without the permanent assistance of the Holy Spirit, the church, the sacraments, and also politics and the state could serve as ‘media salutis’ if God

New Challenges for Catholic Scholarship on Calvin?

107

drew them into service. Chapter 4.20 of the Institutes is one of the theologicopolitical highlights of the Reformation as Hans Scholl puts it (cf. Scholl: 2003, 116). The boundaries between theology and politics dissolve (cf. ibid., 93–96; 102–111; here we can find a significant difference between the theologico-political thinking of Calvin and Luther!). At this point we must draw attention to the fact that the Wirkungsgeschichte of Calvin’s theology demonstrates an immanent danger of establishing a theocratic system of coercion. However, Calvin himself had put up a boundary against this possibility. The irresolvable difference between God and man, between divine salvation and human power puts an end to all theocratic daydreams. God’s sovereignty resists every human attempt at misusing it, and this also limits every kind of human power. Enforcing this difference leads to a theological legitimation of the world’s secularity. Together with the ‘Doctrine of God’s Universal Saving Will’, it also establishes a theologically grounded tolerance, because nobody can decide one’s eschatological fate—but alone God. In the end it was Sebastian Castillo who had to fight for this insight of Calvin’s theology against Calvin himself. As a consequence, by paying respect to the world’s secular wisdom and the freedom of conscience of others, God’s glory is granted—this being a point nobody is more aware of than Calvin.

Bibliography Alberigo, Guiseppe (2006), From the Council of Trent to ‘Tridentinism’, in: R.F. Bulman/ F.J. Parrella (eds), From Trent to Vatican II. Historical and theological Investigations, New York: Oxford University Press, 19–38. Barth, Karl (1993), Die Theologie Calvins, in: Hans Scholl/A. Reinstädtler (eds), KarlBarth-Gesamtausgabe Bd. 23, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Beintker, Michael (2009), Calvins theologisches Denken als ökumenische Herausforderung, in: Catholica 63, 161–174. Cornick, David (2010), Calvin and the Quest for Christian Unity, in: Ecclesiology 6, 265– 273. Dingel, Inge (2012), The Function and Historical Development of Reformation Confessions, in: Lutheran Quarterly 26, 295–321. Faber, Eva-Maria (2009), Calvin aus ökumenischer Perspektive, in: Pastoralblatt für die Diözesen Aachen, Berlin, Essen, Hildesheim, Köln, Osnabrück 61, 323–330. Ganoczy, Alexandre (1965), Calvin und das II. Vatikanum. Das Problem der Kollegialität, Wiesbaden: Steiner. — (1968), Ecclesia ministrans. Dienende Kirche und kirchlicher Dienst bei Calvin, Freiburg: Herder (French original: Calvin, théologien de l’eglise et du mininstère, Paris: Ed. Du Cerf 1964). Huizing, Klaas (2008), Calvin … und was vom Reformator übrig bleibt, Frankfurt a. M.: edition chrismon.

108

Johanna Rahner

Jüngel, Eberhard (1999), Das Evangelium von der Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen als Zentrum des christlichen Glaubens. Eine theologische Studie in ökumenischer Absicht, Tübingen: Mohr. Leppin, Volker (2010), Calvins Institutio vor dem Hintergrund der Theologie des Mittelalters gelesen, in: Herman Selderhuis (ed.), Calvin—Saint or Sinner?, Tübingen: Mohr, 173–184. McGrath, Alister E. (1986), John Calvin and Late Mediaeval Thought. A Study in Late Mediaeval Influences upon Calvin’s Theological Development, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 77, 58–78. Pesch, Otto Hermann (1989), Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas von Aquin. Versuch eines systematisch-theologischen Dialogs, Mainz: Grünewald. — (1996), Trient und das ökumenische Gespräch heute. Eine katholische Perspektive, in: Günther Gorschenek/Ernst L. Grasmück (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient im ökumenischen Gespräch, Hamburg: Katholische Akademie Hamburg, 71–118. Scholl, Hans (1974), Calvinus catholicus. Die katholische Calvinforschung im 20. Jahrhundert, Freiburg: Herder. — (2003), Der Geist der Gesetze. Die politische Dimension der Theologie Calvins dargestellt besonders an seiner Auseinandersetzung mit den Täufern, in: Peter Opitz (ed.), Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation. Historische und theologische Beiträge zur Calvinforschung, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 93–125. Thönissen, Wolfgang (2009), Calvinus oecumenicus? Eine katholische Perspektive, in: Catholica 63, 175–191. Wassilowsky, Günther (2010), Trient, in: Christoph Markschies/Hubert Wolf u. a. (eds), Erinnerungsorte des Christentums, München: C.H. Beck, 395–412.

Herman J. Selderhuis

‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’ John Calvin on Death and Dying

Introduction Il’est vray que ie voy que mon corps s’en va en decadence: s’il y a quelque vigneur, elle diminue de iour en iour, et ie contemple la mort sans l’aller chercher aux lieuës loin (Sermon on Job 19:26–29, CO 34.130).

‘My body is in decay and it’s getting worse every day. In order to contemplate death, I don’t need to go far’, Calvin says. ‘It’s only ten leagues away.’ Ten leagues is ten hours as a league is a mile and this distance is used as an indication of time. For a mile to walk you need an hour. Ten hours away from death, Calvin says in a sermon on Hiob. The sermon was held 1554. It would however not be ten hours but ten years before Calvin died. Yet, these words make clear enough that death was a constant companion for Calvin, a constant one and an early one, and above all a confusing one. In this contribution I want to deal not just with Calvin’s theological view on death and all that is around it, and I will not concentrate on his doctrines of physical death and spiritual death, but I want to listen to someone who wrestles with a fact that doesn’t fit in his system, who wrestles with it in the conflicting situation of being a humanist as well as a Christian. I will focus on the way Calvin deals with the reality of death and with the fact of dying. Such a focus is also necessary as a description of Calvin’s theology of death would easily fill at least one monograph, one that still needs to be written.1 Death and dying have recently been the object of quite a few early modern studies (Gordon/Marshall: 2000; Kolkofsky: 2000; Reinis: 2007; Rasmussen: 2009, 366–384), but in these works Calvin is rather absent, to say it mildly. The 450th anniversary of his death therefore offers a good occasion to take a closer look. 1 Still a number of books contain chapters as there are also a number of articles dealing with Calvin’s view on death: Lülsdorff: 1996, 70–83; McKim: 1992; Miles: Jul 1981.

110

Herman J. Selderhuis

In a first section I will briefly describe how death was a reality in Calvin’s personal life, then I want to present a summary of his thoughts on how to deal with death in a Christian way as we find these thoughts in his exegetical and homiletical works. The third section will show if and how these thoughts function when it comes to real life and to Calvin’s experience of the death of the persons he loved as well as to the way he comforts those who lost dear ones.

1. Death in Calvin’s Life As any other early modern person Calvin experienced death as an everyday and omnipresent reality, and the way he expresses these experiences make very clear how existential these were. Calvin calls life a short race organized by God who puts us on a track and makes us run a small obstacle-course. It is a short race, for He soon takes us back to Himself again (CO 31.834). Life is short and means very little. Wherever we look, there is death and despair. Our very insides are spoiled and we are but mirrors of death. And isn’t it true that all the events of this life are just nothing but a prelude to the final destruction (praeludium interitus, CO 32.73)? ‘We as humans are like dry grass, we can wither away at any moment, we are never far from death, indeed it is as if we are already living in the grave.’ (CO 32.66). Our life ‘hangs as if from a silk thread’ and we are ‘surrounded by a thousand deaths’ (CO 31.302). This begins right away at birth: ‘Leaving the womb is the entrance to a thousand deaths.’ (CO 31. 656). Life just flies by, and it is as if we have hardly been born before we die again (CO 32.73). ‘For after we have suffered numerous evils in this life, we must all face the grave. And what do we behold in death except the complete annihilation of our being? We know how quickly the body decays.’ (Calvin: 2003, 248). Multiple deaths are near every moment and everywhere. Calvin is aware that life is extremely fragile and that death looms around the corner every moment of the day. Often quoted but every time impressive are these words of his: If only you look up, how many dangers threaten us from there? But if you look down at the ground, how many poisons do you find there? How many wild beasts that can tear you to pieces? How many snakes? How many swords, pits, stumbling blocks, ravines, caved in buildings, stones and throwing spears? In short, we cannot take a single step without encountering ten deaths. (CO 40.135–136).

Calvin lives in a world full of dangers. ‘Many accidents are but waiting to happen in the city, but if you go out into a forest without knowing the way you soon run the risk of becoming prey to lions or wolves’ (CO 32.136).

‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’

111

And, If you step onto a ship, you are only one step away from death. If you climb onto a horse, your foot only needs to slip and your life is in danger. Just walk through the city-streets one time, and there are as many dangers as there are roof-tiles on the houses. If you or your friend are carrying a weapon, injury lies in wait. (Inst. 1.17.10).

As every man and woman, every boy and girl of his times and of times before, Calvin saw death as people where dying in the streets, many babies died at birth and dead bodies were being carried away in the city or lying around at the European battle fields. More significant for Calvin himself, however, was the death of his mother Jeanne in 1515, leaving him motherless from the age of six. For a six-year old the death of your mother has an enormous emotional impact, whether the child lives in the 21st century or in the 16th century. Further in life Calvin was struck by the death of the only child he and his wife Idelette had together. On July 28, 1542, Idelette had given birth to a son who was baptized with the name of Calvin’s uncle, Jacques. Calvin wrote that the birth was not without its dangers (CO 12.420), also because the boy was premature. And he died premature as well, for Jacques passed away after only little more than two weeks. ‘The LORD has given me a son, but He has also taken him away.’ (CO 9.576). After only nine years of marriage Idelette passed away. Calvin described Idelette’s last hours to Farel, how he time and again came back to her throughout the night to encourage her with God’s grace, and then would withdraw to pray. In the morning the end came: ‘Shortly before eight she quietly breathed her last, so that those who were present barely noticed her passage from life to death.’ (CO 13.229). Calvin confesses to Farel that he really had to do his utmost not to be fully depressed by grief, and one way of doing that is that he just kept on working, for any pause would confront him with the loss. Besides these deaths of his wife and of their son, Calvin in his letters reports of the deaths of many who were dear to him. Calvin tied into a well-known medieval song when he wrote that we are surrounded by death in the middle of this life. He knew what he was talking about, but with that same song he also wants to express his conviction that in death we will be surrounded by life.2 And it is this conviction that is reflected in the way he talks about death in his systematical work, which is the topic of my next section.

2 See Calvin’s letter to the prisoners in Lyon, dated August 22nd 1533, CO 14.561–562. Calvin makes the same reference in a sermon on Mic 5:8: ‘D’autant qu’ilz ont leur vie au milieu de la mort. J’ay desja dict que ceulx qui sont si malheureux de refuser la grace de Dieu qu’en la vie ilz ont la mort. Au contraire, en la mort nous auront la vie, moyennant qui Dieu nous tienne en sa main et en sa saulvegarde.’ Calvin: 1964, 168, 29–31.

112

Herman J. Selderhuis

2. Death in Calvin’s Thought Death is hardly a topic in Calvin’s Institutes and it is remarkably seldom mentioned. At the only place where death is given a separate treatment—in the section on the ‘meditatio future vitae’—it is set immediately in the context of eternal life. Having mentioned what the Bible and specifically the apostle Paul says about the miseries of this life and the glory of life after death, Calvin can come to no other conclusion than, ‘that no one has made progress in the school of Christ who does not joyfully await the day of death and final resurrection.’(Inst. 3.9.5). For Calvin this does not mean a disrespect of life on earth, but in the light of the glory of life eternal one can only say that even the good things of life such as wealth and health can only be seen to be fragile and temporary, and they stand in no relation to what awaits us in the eternal life with God. The joyful awaiting of death is in fact the joyful awaiting of life in the full. Therefore Calvin can simply not understand that, ‘many who boast themselves Christians are gripped by such a great fear of death, rather than a desire for it, that they tremble at the least mention of it, as of something utterly dire and disastrous.’ (Inst. 3.9.5). Calvin says that he can’t understand how a Christian could be afraid of death for there is no reason to have such fear, and yet he himself knows that there certainly can be such a fear. As late as 1562 Calvin could speak of his fears in persecution, though the events had happened thirty years earlier. In a sermon on 2 Samuel, he looked back on his time in France before he fled, and related how he was scared to death: ‘I was so afraid that I wanted to die to be rid of those fears.’ (SC, 2 Sam., 122). Deeper than the fear of dying is the fear for what happens right after the moment of death. Calvin expresses his own fear of death also in this sense, which is a fear of having to appear before God as a sinful person, a fear that for Calvin only increases as you better come to know God and desire more and more to live for Him (CO 31.77). It is the realization that ‘a sinner is confronted here with a judge whose wrath and severity count many deaths besides the eternal death.’ (CO 31.318). It is interesting to see this dual aspect in Calvin’s thinking for he says that getting to know God better increases the fear of death and at the same time he says that making progress in the school of Christ— which actually is not different from getting to know God better—means a joyful awaiting of death. This duality is due to the fact that in Calvin we find the same ‘simul iustus et peccator’-theology as in Luther. As ‘peccator’ I fear death, but as ‘iustus’ I joyfully await it. Decisive is the latter as the conviction that believers ought to have no fear for death (CO 31.303). Thus it is not surprising that in the Institutes nor in the rest of his work, there is not even a hint at any ‘tentationes’ that could come upon a Christian’s deathbed because of his or her sins or because of doubts about predestination. Reason for agony in death have only those who reject Christ. In a sermon on Micah 5, Calvin brings in again the medieval song

‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’

113

about being in death in the middle of life and applies it to the distinction between believers and unbelievers. First Calvin says that the unbelievers in their resistance against God and against the Christians, ‘will have to realize that there is nothing more they can do. And why is that? Because they live their life in the midst of death. I have already said that people who are wretched enough to reject God’s grace undergo death in the midst of life.’ But the opposite is true for believers, ‘for, on the contrary, in death we experience life, so long as God is holding our hand and providing our safekeeping.’3 For Calvin there can be no struggle about predestination on the deathbed, for believers know that their death is life. In passages in which he deals with the theological dimension of death, Calvin also gives expression to the experiential dimension. In his Psychopannychia he states that death is the punishment for sin and that thinking about death brings one to complete despair. Death namely is inflicted upon us by the wrathful and punishing God and the despair of having to come before his judgment seat can only be soothed when one believes that God is our Father and Christ is our ‘guide and companion’ (Calvin: 1932, 101). This reassurance does not take away from the fact that death is something awful. In between the above quoted lines Calvin as in passing says that ‘death is full of terror and loneliness.’4 These strong words indicate how Calvin does not trivialize death but senses the existential experience that death can scare you and is when it arrives a lonesome event. That evidently counts also for the Christian as Calvin says the same in his commentary on Genesis 38:7. Also for the Christian death is still something fearful, although not too much anymore (Comm. Gen. 38:7). Things have changed for the believer and death does not hurt anymore but it still is quite a burden (Comm. 1 Cor. 15). This fear is permanent Calvin admits, but he reprimands those Christians that are so afraid of death that it seems as if they had never known Jesus Christ (Comm. Phil. 1:23). There is in Calvin’s thinking also on this issue a simul which I would call the ‘simul terror et consolatio’. Calvin is also very critical about any fatalistic view on death. He criticizes extensively those who say that since God in his providence has set the moment of our death, there is no escape and it is just useless to find ways to get away from it. (Inst. 1.17.3) The way Calvin presents this view makes clear enough what he thinks about it. There is nothing we can do about the moment of our death, they say, and if we do, we would go against God’s will. Making plans for the future? Choosing a travel route that is known to be free from street robbers? Watch your diet and eat light food not to endanger your weak health? It all goes against God’s providence. This attitude, that often is seen as being typical for Calvinism, is 3 Sermon on Micah 5:8 (in French edition, p. 1681). Translation from John Calvin, Sermons on the Book of Micah, 296. 4 ‘…plenum esse terroris ac desolationis…’, Calvin, 101.

114

Herman J. Selderhuis

strongly rejected by Calvin. God has a plan, but we have our responsibility. God decides on the moment of our death, but we must take care of our lives and not bring it in danger. Interesting in this respect is that when Calvin speaks about the miseries of this present life he specifically mentions the miserable state of our bodies and the perfect new state of life that awaits us. Death is the unbinding of the tie between body and soul (Comm. Phil 1:12), and for the soul this can be a release. Here however we do not hear someone with a platonic, dualistic disrespect for the body as just a prison for the soul, but someone who was constantly ill, had pains in head and body for most of his life and who can only long to get rid of this ‘unstable, defective, corruptible, fleeting, wasting, rotting tabernacle of our body’ in order to be ‘renewed unto a firm, perfect, incorruptible, and finally heavenly glory’ (Inst. 3.9.5). Life on earth is good but if your body is like that of John Calvin you can certainly long to get something new. Calvin’s view on life on earth and on the relation between body and soul was influenced by his own continual illnesses and pains, so an evaluation of his views should take this biographical aspect into consideration. Thus it becomes clear that his views do not mean any disrespect for this life or the physical, aside of the human being. Quite the opposite is true as Calvin expressly states that we should respect the body as it is destined to partake in immortality (Comm. 1 Cor. 6:13). The fact that God raises up our body says enough of the value God attributes to the body. Neither is life in general to be devaluated. The fact that there can be a longing for the life to come is simply because then finally the real life gets started. Calvin’s idea as to how a believer should deal with death, can be easily seen in his commentary on 2 Samuel 12 where he deals quite extensively with David’s attitude towards the death of the child he and Bathseba had and that died as a punishment for the sin David and Bathseba committed. According to 2 Samuel 12:23 David questions the use of further tormenting himself now that the child had died, referring to his fasting and mourning during the time when the child was ill. ‘It seems as if David has lost all human affection’, Calvin says (SC 1.344,2). Calvin hastens to say however that these words do not mean that David did not mourn over the death of his son, but that the character of the mourning had changed. First the mourning focused on keeping off the approaching death as David saw in the suffering of the child what he himself had deserved.5 But now that this child is dead the mourning is not over his sins but is in David the feeling of affection that is natural to everyone. Interesting to note here is that the text of the Bible here does not say that David mourns over the death of his son, but that Calvin nevertheless says he did and also explains why David did so. This elab5 ‘Il voyt là un poure enfant endurer, or Dieu luy monstre comme en un miroir ce qu’il a desseruy.’, SC 1, 343, 21.

‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’

115

oration on mourning certainly has to do with the fact that Calvin knows very well how David would feel, as Calvin knows what it means to lose a child to death. Here once again it is out of the identification of Calvin with David that Calvin speaks about David’s mourning over death even though the text of the Bible doesn’t say so. Also this exposé is apparently meant to defend that human affections are legitimate, ‘for it is very natural to cry over those to whom we are attached.’6 A father who shows no emotion to the death of his son, can only be a monster, according to Calvin.7 So for Calvin it is clear that emotions of sadness and grief are natural and thus not foreign to Christians, but—and here we find an attitude typical for Calvin—Christians should heed to it that they let not these emotions get the upper hand. Moderation is the key-word for Calvin. ‘The faithful ought to consider their sorrows, but moderation should be observed’ (Comm. Matth. 5:25). We find this in the Old Testament, but also in the New. The apostle Paul—according to Calvin—in no way does forbid grief and mourning over the death of a beloved one, but this mourning should stay within certain limits (Comm. 1 Thess. 4:13). This is an attitude that believers can attain by reminding themselves constantly that death is a reality. Death should be always on our mind so ‘that it may accustom us to moderation’ (Comm. Gen. 11:4). This moderation helps us to keep the focus on the life to come which Calvin sees as a sign of growth in the faith, for without moderation we would mourn as if there was no heavenly hope. Moderation keeps the sight on eternal life after death and that prospect is the base line in Calvin’s thinking. That is also the reason that there is in Calvin’s sermons nor in any of his other works a description of the horribilities of hell in order to bring people to repentance or fear of death. He neither has words of confidence for those struggling on their deathbed with the question whether they are predestined or not. Reason is that he just can not imagine that this doctrine would cause such a struggle and in his extensive correspondence we come across no Calvinist who had these struggles. Therefore there is no basis for the thesis that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination and providence left no room for certainty at the deathbed8 nor for emotions at the funeral. The opposite is true. And if there is any struggle with death, it is Calvin’s own struggle, for although Calvin takes death as a fact, as a consequence of God’s judgment over sin, death and dying self do not fit in his system, so to say. Calvin’s preoccupation with ‘ordo’ does not allow for something so un-orderly as death. He wants to deal with it, grasp it, control it, rationalize it but he can’t get it done. In his sermons on Job Calvin 6 SC 1, 343, 42. Also: ‘Ainsi donc, de mener dueil, c’est une affection humanine, quand quelcun des nostres est trespassé.’ , SC 1, 344, 26. 7 ‘…que ce doit estre comme un monstre, si un pere ne pensepoint de la mort de son enfant et n′en face que hocher la teste.’, SC 1, 344, 16–17. 8 I thus disagree with Karant-Nunn: 2012, 202f.

116

Herman J. Selderhuis

states that death means nothing else then only disorder. ‘Death turns over the order of God’ (Sermon on Job 10, CO 33.515). That’s also why we as human beings abhor death. Our nature does not allow us to wish for the annihilation of ourselves (Comm. Gen. 3:19). That’s in summary about all Calvin says about the fact of death. To those who want to know more of how to deal with death, Calvin advises them to read Cyprian’s famous tract on mortality. We however will read Calvin’s letters to see what he said and did in situations of dying and death.

3. Death in Calvin’s Letters Now the question is how Calvin’s views on death and of a Christian attitude towards death are reflected in the way he himself dealt with his own grief as well as with the grieves of others over death, this where we will see that theory and practice also for Calvin are not always in balance. Should there be anything true about the image of Calvinists who show no emotion at death, bury their loved ones without shedding even a tear, and thereby wish to show that they are ready to receive whatever comes from God’s fatherly hand, it certainly can’t be John Calvin who initiated or propagated such an attitude. It is indeed true that his only comfort was ‘that even death could not be an unhappy circumstance for a Christian’ (CO 6.631), but Calvin’s letters are at the same time full of tears over loved ones who had died. He was convinced that this grief did not conflict with the belief that God was in control over all things. The shedding of tears and the faith in God’s providence are not mutually exclusive. When Calvin heard of the persecutions suffered by the Waldenses, he wrote to Farel: ‘I am writing in tears, and worn out with grief I sometimes burst out in tears so that I have to stop writing.’ (CO 12.76). And when his friend Guillaume de Trie, lord of Varennes, passed away, Calvin became sick with grief: ‘I have to dictate this letter from my bed in great grief, for my dear Varennes has been taken away from me.’ (CO 18.649). These two quotations are enough to see how the death of a dear one made Calvin sad and sick. In a letter of comfort he sent to a colleague at a French church in Frankfurt who had lost his wife, Calvin remarks: What a terrible injury, what a pain the death of your wife has caused you, and I speak from my own experience. For even now I fully know how difficult it was, seven years ago now, to deal with such grief. (CO 15.867).

So, even seven years after the death of Idelette, Calvin can still feel the grief over her death when he is confronted by it through only mentioning it in a letter.

‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’

117

After the death of his colleague Courault, he wrote that he was a wreck, and that in his grief he hardly knew the time of day. Throughout the day he would think back to it and could hardly do his work, and these torments during the daylight hours were followed by the horrors of the night. Or as Calvin says himself: Courault’s death has left me such a wreck that I can no longer put up with the pain. By day there is nothing that can occupy me without continually thinking about it. Added to this terrible pain by day are the severe agonies by night. Not only do the sleepless hours continually torment me, to which I am accustomed, but the entire nights in which I do not even close my eyes drain all my power, and there is nothing that could be worse for my health than that. (CO 10.273).

But as said above, these emotions in no way take away from Calvin’s conviction that all that happens stands under God’s providential care. Calvin in all of these situations connects dying, death and the pains of loss to the speaking about God’s life direction and he does so in such a way as to make it constantly clear that God intends these things for some good. When Claude Féray, a deacon to whom he had become very close, died from the plague, Calvin wrote that he was a complete wreck. But when he realized how much this man had meant to him, and been his support and refuge in all circumstances, he could only conclude that God was gravely pointing him to his sins by taking this friend away (CO 11.213). He said the same when his own child was taken. Calvin thanked Farel for the letter of comfort he had written to Idelette. She herself was unable to respond because of her grief, and Calvin wrote: ‘The LORD has dealt us a heavy stroke in the death of our little son. But He is our Father. He knows what is good for his children.’ (CO 11.430). This bringing of grief over death in relation to God’s caring providence is typical for Calvin and is best illustrated in the letter Calvin wrote to the lord of Richebourg to comfort him when his son Louis died from the plague (CO 11.188– 194). This letter—in which Calvin adapts Erasmus’ guidelines for letters of consolation9—reveals everything about how Calvin viewed life, and how he saw God’s guidance. Anyone who wants to know what Calvin really thought about providence as this was common conviction among reformers, and how this conviction looks like in practice needs to read this letter. Calvin begins by telling of his own sorrow over the death of his friend Claude Féray, who had been Louis’ teacher, and about his worries for his own family when the plague raged in Strasbourg. When I received the message about the death of master Claude and of your son Louis, I was so shocked and so despondent that for several days I could only cry. And although I tried to

9 I want to express my thanks to Olivier Millet for pointing me to this Erasmian background. Millet deals extensively with this letter in: Millet: 2011, 323–329.

118

Herman J. Selderhuis

find strength in the presence of God and wanted to comfort myself with the refuge He grants us in time of need, I still felt as if I was not at all myself. Really, I was no longer able to do the normal things, as if I myself were half dead.

There is no such thing as a hardened Calvin here, who, rooted in God’s almighty power, undauntedly and emotionlessly lets all things pass over him. Rather, we see a Calvin who is at his wit’s end, overwhelmed by grief. He mentioned his own experiences with loss and grief so as not to give the impression that it was easy for him to talk when offering comfort to De Richebourg, and exhorting him to stand firm. He knew the pain of losing a child, he knew the pain of that hole, and he knew the burden of the ‘Why?’-question. But that was exactly why he pointed De Richebourg to God’s providence. There is nothing that robs us more of our power, nothing that dejects us more than when we let ourselves fall into such complaints and questions as: Why did things go like this? Why not another way? Why like that just here? There would be reason to utter such words if we on our part had made a mistake and if we had neglected our duty, but if we have done nothing wrong in this matter, there is also no place for these types of complaints.

In this way Calvin tried to set this father free from such endless questioning as well as from self-reproach, and guided him to the only conclusion that Calvin thought could offer comfort: ‘And so it is God who has reclaimed your son, that son whom He entrusted to us to care for him under the condition that he ever remain his possession.’ For that reason, Calvin contrasts the present life with the life to come: If in your pondering over your son you were to consider how difficult it is in these dark times to bring our life in a pure manner to a good end, you would surely consider happy, one who has been delivered from this at an early age.

Calvin in this context used the image of our life as a journey through stormy seas, and spoke of what a blessing it was to arrive at a safe haven earlier than expected. Calvin also praised the boy for his conduct and faith, and for the good things that were expected of him. But he immediately anticipated the objection he thought De Richebourg would raise, namely that he knows his son is now in heaven, but that the reality remains that he lost a child. It is clear that Calvin himself knew the questions and the difficulties that could take the wind out of the sails of any form of comfort. But the fact that this is God’s way does not mean we may not grieve over it. You will say that all of this is too heavy to drive away or suppress the grief of a father so as to suffer no more pain at the death of your son. But I am not asking you to suffer no more pain. For this is not the life-view that we are taught in the school of Christ, that we lay aside the God-given human emotions and that we turn from people into stones.

‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’

119

This letter is the most extensive example of how Calvin deals with death and grief, but his correspondence offer more. For example when he writes about the death of his friend Guillaume de Trie and Calvin fell ill from grief, as mentioned above. From his bed Calvin writes that it was comforting for him that in the end De Trie could embrace his death as a gateway to heaven, but this comfort does not take away Calvin’s grief. Or as he briefly summarizes: ‘He is now in a blessed state, but I am in misery.’ (CO 18.649) Both letters indicate that Calvin had a hard time living up to his own principle of moderation. In fact, Calvin even admits that he went too far as he confesses at the end of the letter in which he mentions the death of Féray: ‘I wanted to touch upon my grief only briefly, but now I got verbose beyond any measure.’ (CO 11.212). Calvin admits that it’s pretty hard to keep what he commands to others. Moderation is a virtue and is for Calvin the ideal attitude, but he also knows the truth of Jesus’ words that with the apostle Paul he must admit that the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt. 26:41).

4. Calvin’s Death At the end of his life Calvin frequently writes that he longs for death, or that he at least expects it to come soon. Life had become a struggle for him, and in that situation he speaks of life as a military duty from which he soon hoped to be released (CO 15.357). If you look carefully, you will see that things are such that someone who gets up in the morning cannot take a step, cannot eat a meal, and cannot move a hand without continually becoming older. Life becomes shorter. For that reason we must simply acknowledge that our life disappears in the blink of an eye and flows away… We are always heading towards death, it comes near to us, and we must in the end go to it. (CO 33.212).

Next to all his encouragements, expectations and words about the joy of entering life eternal, Calvin must admit that it is quite unnatural to rejoice in getting older and in life getting shorter (Comm. Luke 12:50). So also for Calvin there was no escape and on the evening of Saturday, May 27, 1564, now 450 years ago, Calvin passed away. At two o’clock in the afternoon of Sunday, May 28, 1564, he was buried in a normal wooden casket in the cemetery of Plein Palais, in conformity with his request (CO 21.105–106). The well-attended funeral was as sober as the casket. The principle of everything in moderation held also for funerals (RohnerBaumberger von Rebstein: 1975, 19–31). Yet, funerals are for bodies, not for persons. Calvin assumed that people would recognize each other in heaven, and went rather far in his descriptions thereof. Richard Vauvill, pastor to the refugee church in Frankfurt, received a letter from Calvin on the death of his wife with the comfort ‘that you were able to live with a woman to whom you would gladly

120

Herman J. Selderhuis

return in order to reunite with her when you depart from this world.’ (CO 15.867). So for Calvin this would mean that he expected to be reunited to Idelette. And not only that, for he also expected to pick up some theological discussions and conversations in heaven. In his letter to Luther, which Luther never received, Calvin wrote that they would soon be together in heaven, where they could continue their discussion in quiet. He wrote the same to Melanchthon, with whom he also wanted to feast in heaven, which when I see the pictures of these two I can only imagine as a part with moderate, easily digestible foods and no dancing. Whatever party, clear is that when it comes to death Calvin knew that there are tears and that there is comfort, he knew that there is no escape, however he also knew that death is not the end, and that when we head towards death, we in fact head towards the real life.

5. Summary and Conclusion My conclusions are the following: 1. In Calvin’s works no reference is found to predestination as being the cause for agony and doubt on the deathbed. 2. Calvin legitimizes emotions of sorrow and grief as natural and biblical and he openly demonstrates his own emotions. 3. There is a tension between on the one side Calvin’s view on the Christian attitude towards grief over death and on the other side Calvin’s practical pastoral approach and his own attitude in matters of death and dying. 4. The topic of ‘Death in Calvin’s life and theology’ has been neglected too much in Calvin research. Maybe these four conclusion can best be summarized in Calvin’s own words. When Idelette had passed away, Calvin claimed that he had lost his best friend (CO 13.228–229, 230). That already is a wonderful testimony, but what the death of his wife really meant to him Calvin expresses when he says: ‘I am no more than half a man, since God recently took my wife home to Himself.’ (CO 20.394). There is the comfort of heaven, but there is also the great loss on earth. Death cut half of Calvin away. This man was full of faith, but death brought him completely out of balance.

‘We Are Always Heading Towards Death’

121

Bibliography Calvin, Jean (1932), Psychopannychia, ed. W. Zimmerli, Leipzig: Deichert. — (1964), Sermons sur le Livre de Michée, publiés par Jean Daniel Benoît, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins. — (2003), Sermons on the Book of Micah, translated and edited by Benjamin Wirt Farley, Phillipsburg: P & R Pub. Gordon, Bruce/Marshall, Peter (2000), The Place of the Dead. Death and Remembrance in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Karant-Nunn, Susan C. (2012), The Reformation of Feeling: Shaping the Religious Emotions in Early Modern Germany, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Kolkofsky, Craig (2000), The Reformation of the Dead: Death and Ritual in Early Modern Germany, 1450–1700, London: MacMillan Press/New York: St. Martin’s Press. Lülsdorff, Raimund (1996), Die Zukunft Jesu Christi. Calvins Eschatologie und ihre katholische Sicht, Paderborn: Bonifatius. McKim, Donald (1992), Death, Funeral and Prayers for the Dead in Calvin’s Theology, in Calvin Studies VI, Davidson. Miles, Margaret, R. (1981), Theology, Anthropology, and the Human Body in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, The Harvard Theological Review 74/3. Millet, Olivier (2011), Doctrine réformatrice et pratique humaniste de la consolation chez Calvin, in: Bull. Soc. Hist. Prot. Fr., juillet-août-septembre. Rasmussen, Tarald (2009), Hell disarmed? The function of Hell in Reformation Spirituality, Numen 56, 366–384. Reinis, Austra (2007), Reforming the Art of Dying. The Ars Moriendi in the German Reformation, St Andrews Studies in Reformation History, Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate. Rohner-Baumberger von Rebstein, Ursula (1975), Das Begräbniswesen im Calvinistischen Genf, Basel: Rohner-Baumberger.

John L. Thompson

Second Thoughts about Conscience Nature, the Law, and the Law of Nature in Calvin’s Pentateuchal Exegesis

Unlike a handful of his contemporaries who commented on the entire Pentateuch, John Calvin did not write a single continuous commentary on the first five books of Moses, as did Cardinal Cajetan (De Vio: 1531) and Martin Borrhaus (1555), nor did he compose a string of five separate works to be gathered later into his Opera Omnia; as did Johannes Brenz (1533; 1542; 1553; 1560; 1576). As is well known, Calvin’s 1554 commentary on Genesis was complemented nine years later, after a fashion, by an unusual harmonization of the last four books of Moses, in which their contents were finely dissected, split between history and doctrine, then rearranged under the ten obvious categories suggested by the Decalogue. That alone would make for an oddly-matched set, but Calvin’s exegesis of the Pentateuch is still more complicated, for in the years between these two Latin commentaries, he also preached on large portions of Moses. Not long after his Genesis commentary appeared, he delivered 200 sermons on Deuteronomy, from March 1555 until July 1556. Then, from September 1559 into 1561, he took Genesis back to the pulpit for another long series of sermons, of which 112 survive.1 Clearly, however much Calvin’s own health may have declined during the last decade of his life, the fortunes of Moses were on an upswing. If Calvin’s protracted considerations of the Pentateuch in both French and Latin make for a complicated exegetical trail, these sermons and commentaries also offer a remarkable opportunity to examine the development of his exegesis, theology, and practice over a short span of years—the same years in which he arranged his magnum opus, the 1559 Latin Institutes, in the order that left him, as he said, at long last ‘satisfied’.2 But Calvin’s engagement with Moses could also be charted throughout his career, and in many ways—for instance, in his repeated considerations of the Ten Commandments, which are expounded in the first edition of his Institutes in 1536; explained for young learners in his various 1 Details of Calvin’s Genesis sermons derive from Parker: 1987, 152; and from Engammare: 2000, xi n. 28, xix–xxi. Calvin’s Genesis sermons are not extant beyond Gen. 27:36. 2 See ‘Iohannes Calvinus Lectori’ in the 1559 Institutes (OS 3:5.14–15; LCC 20:3).

124

John L. Thompson

catechisms; considered again in at least three more revisions of the Institutes, through 1559; preached on in the sermons on Deuteronomy; and expounded in this new way in the Mosaic Harmony.3 To be sure, the Pentateuch is much more than the Decalogue, which uses but a handful of Hebrew words to describe the span of all human duty and even the meaning of human life. But many of the 613 commandments that the Talmud says are to be found in the Torah—including laws about food, dress, ceremonies, washings, and sacrifices—are less universal and less clearly applicable to those whose interest in the Hebrew Scriptures is impelled and shaped by the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Indeed, Jesus and Paul themselves complicated the force of the laws of Moses by their own passing remarks—by internalizing the law in radical ways, as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount; and by asserting the law’s universality, as Paul did in Romans 2, claiming to find the law written on the hearts and in the consciences of every man and woman. Neither the complexity of the Pentateuch nor the complexities of the relation of law to gospel or of nature to law escaped Calvin’s attention. One might expect as much from a Christian humanist trained as a lawyer; but the problem and promise of the Mosaic legislation is really the common stock of the entire Christian tradition. In exploring Calvin’s Pentateuchal exegesis, however, the Mosaic Harmony demands particular attention—not only because it was completed nearly at the end of Calvin’s life and could serve as his ‘last word’ on such matters, but even more because a comprehensive commentary might compel Calvin to address even the most unaccommodating details of the Mosaic narratives and legislation that a more general account of the Ten Commandments could in good conscience forego—including precisely those matters of food, dress, ceremonies, and sacrifices that inevitably found correlates in Calvin’s own day. So it is not unfair to read Calvin as facing a question something like this: How are we to apply—what are we to learn—from the awkward particularities of the apparently obsolete ceremonial and political laws of the nowdispersed nation of Israel? 4 In broaching this question on Calvin’s behalf, this study will probe the contours of Calvin’s Pentateuchal exegesis by bringing together the four sources 3 The final edition of Institutes 2.8, the long chapter in which Calvin expounds each of the Ten Commandments, mostly represents material from 1539, which itself revised what Calvin had written in 1536; but there are also additions and edits dating from 1543, 1550, and 1559, along with some unchanged material from 1536. Calvin devoted sermons no. 30–41 of his longer series on Deuteronomy to an exposition of the Decalogue. 4 For the centrality of application in Calvin’s exegesis as noted by his later readers, see Thompson: 2000. In the context at hand, Erik de Boer aptly describes how Calvin saw application as a primary purpose of biblical exposition; see De Boer: 2012, 27, which draws on Calvin’s remarks on 1 Cor. 14:6.

Second Thoughts about Conscience

125

already named—his commentary on Genesis, the sermons on Genesis and Deuteronomy, and the Mosaic Harmony—and by viewing them through the lens of one issue in particular, namely, the remarkably complicated laws about incest, which Calvin situates within the Seventh Commandment and its general prohibition of adultery. Like so many of the detailed laws of Moses, the rules about consanguinity and incest had unexpected correlates and applications in Calvin’s own day. They also tie the Mosaic Harmony to his exegesis of Genesis in surprising ways, as a brief consideration of how the Harmony relates to Genesis will suggest.

1. Calvin’s Mosaic Harmony and its Relationship to Genesis The Harmony is a monumental work. Comprising over 1100 columns in the Corpus Reformatorum edition, it is slightly longer than the 1559 Institutes. Calvin began this massive project in 1559, after completing a different sort of harmony of the synoptic gospels in 1555 and also after preaching through Deuteronomy in 1556. The Harmony was conceived in the context of the collaborative Bible studies for Geneva’s pastors and others on Friday mornings, the so-called congrégations or ‘gatherings.’ For more than ten years now, Erik de Boer has analyzed and edited the handful of surviving transcripts of these congrégations, one of which is the first congrégation on Exodus, in 1559—a transcript that could easily be taken as the prospectus for the Mosaic Harmony, because Calvin there outlines his rationale.5 Currently editing the critical edition of the Harmony, de Boer has already contributed many keen suggestions about influences on Calvin as well as his outline and sources. But the Harmony has benefited from the attention of other scholars, too, including T.H.L. Parker, David Wright, and Randy Blacketer, among others.6 In particular, Barbara Pitkin has illumined how the Harmony’s plan and methodology echo themes in sixteenth-century discussions of historical method (Pitkin: 2010). All these studies have vividly disclosed Calvin’s sophistication and challenged the dismissive remarks of Eduard Reuss, an editor of the older Calvini Opera, that Calvin’s Harmony is ‘hardly useful today’ (Reuss: 1890, 504, as cited by Blacketer: 2006a, 45). For now, it must suffice merely to recall the structure of the work. Well aware of the potentially confusing presentation of material in these four books of the 5 See De Boer: 2007; but this essay has been eclipsed by his updated chapter in De Boer: 2012, 163–187. The full text of this congrégation has recently appeared as part of the Opera Omnia Denuo Recognita (hereafter cited as COR); see De Boer: 2014, 133–151. 6 Parker: 1986, esp. 96–96, 122–175; Wright: 1986; Wright: 1993; Wright: 1997; Blacketer: 2006a; Blacketer: 2006b. Note also Woudstra: 1986; and also the commendably close reading of the Harmony in Neugebauer: 1968.

126

John L. Thompson

Bible, where the story of the exodus and wilderness wanderings freely mixes with both apodictic and casuistic legislation, Calvin divided the entire contents into two categories—history and doctrine—as a way to observe what he habitually described as ‘the right order of teaching.’7 So the narrative of Exodus 1–19, up to the point of receiving the Decalogue, is expounded in straightforward fashion; much later, Calvin will do the same with the narrative of Israel in the wilderness. But between these two linear or chronological expositions, Calvin treats all the legislative material in these four books by assigning each law or pericope, or sometimes even half of a verse, to one of the Ten Commandments: each divine command or instruction is reframed in terms of whichever commandment it seems best associated with, whether it enjoins a ceremony or sacrifice, political arrangements or judicial redress (that is, punishment). Among the largest categories is the First Commandment, which demands an inward purity in our worship and thus embraces ‘ceremonial supplements’ ranging from the proper observance of Passover to the consecration of firstborns and first fruits, keeping vows, and avoiding uncleanness in general; and also ‘judicial supplements,’ such as putting idolaters and witches to death. All these instructions constantly reminded Israel to honor God’s exclusive claim to allegiance. The Second Commandment governs an even larger selection of the laws of Moses. According to Calvin, the prohibition of graven images looks more toward the purity of worship in its outward expression. So the Second Commandment embraces all the instructions about the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrifices, as well as the penalties for breaking these laws. Similar logic governs the next eight categories or commandments, but not always with predictable results. The connection between Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch—and thus between these two great commentaries of Calvin—might seem tenuous, even though Calvin apparently wanted the two commentaries to stand as a set.8 The contrast is hardly subtle. Granted, Genesis and Exodus are connected by the ongoing story of Abraham’s descendants, but there is a sizeable gap of 400 years or so between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1. More to the point, while the last four books of the Pentateuch are all about the laws of Moses, Genesis can hardly be about Moses at all. Indeed, of those 613 commands in the Torah, only two occur in Genesis. However, even if the commands of Moses are not on display in Genesis, Calvin (like every other commentator) is aware that the behavior targeted by the laws of Moses—or, more often, the misbehavior—is certainly on display there. That is to say, sometimes the patriarchs are models of the piety that 7 Calvin regularly voiced his concern for the ordo recte docendi in his commentaries and also in the Institutes, beginning at 1.1.3 (OS 3.34.2). See Blacketer: 2006a, 36–38; on Calvin’s previous use of the history/doctrine distinction, see De Boer: 2012, 174–175. 8 Or so de Boer reasonably infers from some biographical remarks of Beza; see De Boer: 2012, 165.

Second Thoughts about Conscience

127

Moses will inculcate, as Calvin reads him; but at other times, the patriarchs and their contemporaries stand as bad examples and object lessons of what happens when someone ignores or defies the mores that Moses would later codify. This chronological gap and thematic disjuncture actually make the road from Genesis to the later Pentateuch more interesting. Again, like most Christian commentators, Calvin is sure that the patriarchs were somehow sufficiently instructed to know right from wrong, whether in matters of worship or morality. Consequently, the patriarchs testify to an awareness of the law that is derived not necessarily from a heavenly voice or tablets of stone but from nature: from the law of nature, from conscience. All Protestant Reformers generally agreed with a fundamental precept—long common to Christian ethics, jurisprudence, and exegetical tradition—to the effect that the commandments of the Decalogue simply reiterate in positive fashion what is naturally known to all as part of the ‘law written on the heart,’ of which Paul spoke in Romans 2.9 So the narratives of Genesis give us a look at how the patriarchs thought and behaved in an era when there was no Mosaic legislation and scarcely any positive law—only the law implicit in nature and conscience. Traditionally, patristic writers appealed to the fact that the law of Moses had not yet been given as a way to excuse what Roland Bainton called ‘the immoralities of the patriarchs.’10 The patriarchs’ habit of acquiring extra wives is a case in point. As Augustine argued against Faustus the Manichaean, polygamy was not unlawful for the patriarchs precisely because no such law had yet been given.11 Augustine’s casuistry illustrates how the absence of written law in Genesis could precipitate as many problems as it might solve: the absence of law might excuse Abraham or Jacob, but it could also suggest that monogamy was merely a local ordinance for Israel, morally indifferent unless vetoed. Augustine himself tried to resist such logic by citing other reasons why polygamy is not licit today, but later advocates of polygamy (and there have always been such advocates ready in the wings) continued to remember Augustine’s loophole. One such advocate in Calvin’s day proved to be Luther himself, who unwillingly took on this role in what became the scandal of Philip of Hesse’s bigamy. By contrast, Calvin would viscerally and vehemently reject the arguments of Augustine and 9 The traditional identification of the Decalogue with natural law is noted by many, but a touchstone older study is that of John T. McNeill: 1946; note also his earlier essay, McNeill: 1941. The literature on Calvin and natural law is immense and cannot be rehearsed here. For an account framed largely in the wake of the Barth–Brunner controversy, see Hesselink: 1992, and literature cited there; for a study more devoted to later Calvinist trajectories, see Grabill: 2006. 10 Bainton: 1930. The trajectory of Bainton’s article has been fruitfully developed by others, including myself. See Thompson: 1991a; Thompson: 1994; Manetsch: 2005; Blacketer: 2008. 11 Augustine, Contra Faustum 22.47 (PL 42.428, NPNF1 4.289).

128

John L. Thompson

Luther, both with respect to the patriarchs and for his own day as well; and he would do so by reading the relationship of nature, law, and conscience in the Pentateuch in a significantly different way.

2. Calvin’s Exegesis of the Seventh Commandment, 1554–1563 All of these ingredients anticipate the strand of Calvin’s exegesis that will be unraveled for the balance of this study—the Seventh Commandment. The prohibition against adultery is broadened by Calvin in the traditional manner, by inferring that every prohibition also implies active duties to fulfill and, further, by taking adultery as a synecdoche for all forms of sexual impurity. As Calvin says here, ‘the whole genus is comprehended under a single species,’ so that the prohibition of adultery also extends to simple fornication.12 Indeed, he goes on to gather texts from all parts of the Pentateuch to include under this commandment also the prohibitions against men lying with other men or with beasts, against prostitution and sex during menstruation, and against twenty or so named forms of incest. Also included are examinations and punishments of those accused or convicted of adultery; rape in various circumstances, as well as seduction; and procedures for accusations of fraudulent virginity as well as rules regarding divorce. Several aspects of Calvin’s exposition commend a focus on incest in particular. Let me name three. First, his treatment of incest is easily the longest extended discussion tied to the Seventh Commandment and is adorned with a full range of legal and theological vocabulary. Calvin considers not only the force of revealed and natural law, but also the law of nations; he ponders what it means for a written or unwritten law to be a matter of polity or political arrangement; and he weighs the evidentiary value of custom, habit, ethnicity, conscience, and the testimony of both Christ and the Apostles. Second, it is difficult to read this section in the Harmony without wondering just why Calvin is so viscerally exercised on this point, arguably more so than with respect to adultery or divorce; and while incest and rumors of incest regularly came to the attention of the Geneva Consistory, Calvin does not seem to have been provoked by any particular cause célèbre.13 Third, Calvin’s exposition correlates in arresting ways with 12 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Exod. 20:14, Deut. 5:18 (CO 24.641; cf. CTS 3.69): ‘certo inde colligimus sub una specie in hoc praecepto totum genus comprehendi.’ All English translations are my own, but readers will also be directed to the Calvin Translation Society edition: Calvin: 1852–1855; hereafter cited as CTS volume.page. 13 Ten incest cases from the years 1546–1557 are excerpted from the Consistory records in Witte/ Kingdon: 2005, 342–353. Scott Manetsch has shared with me the details of a few more cases known to him, through 1561 (e-mail correspondence, June 24, 2014).

Second Thoughts about Conscience

129

several stories in Genesis. In their chapter on incest in Geneva, John Witte Jr. and Robert Kingdon observe that many forms of incest named in Leviticus as well as additional forms named in Geneva’s 1546 Marriage Ordinances describe transgressions committed by many of the patriarchs (Witte/Kingdon: 2005, 314–323). Abraham married his half-sister, despite Lev. 18:9; Jacob married Rachel, his first wife’s sister, despite Lev. 18:18; Onan was killed for failing to marry his brother’s widow, despite Lev. 18:16, which prohibits such marriages; Judah subsequently had relations with Tamar, his daughter-in–law, despite Lev. 18:15; and Reuben had relations with Bilhah (whom Calvin describes as Reuben’s stepmother and the ‘lawful wife’ of his father Jacob14), despite Lev. 18:8. Moses himself, incidentally, was the child of a Levite who married his aunt, despite the curse on such unions in Lev. 20:20. Sometimes Calvin confronts these patriarchal misdeeds, but he is sometimes curiously silent; and sometimes he even changes his mind. We will begin by looking at Calvin’s general account of incest in the Mosaic Harmony.

Calvin’s General Case against Incest in the Mosaic Harmony The section in the Harmony that expounds the prohibitions against incest is itself a compact catalogue of exegetical arguments. Found mostly in Leviticus 18, these laws make clear not only what sorts of marital unions are unlawful but also condemn all incestuous connections outside of marriage. Who would quarrel with this? In fact, Calvin’s gritty defense and elaboration of Leviticus 18 has a number of opponents in view, along with a few allies—including various persons, nations, and notions. Even though he will insist that the general prohibitions against incest are part of the law of nature and ought to be known to all by the testimony of conscience, Calvin echoes Romans 1 and 2 more in his recognition that the law of nature is actually not very efficacious, or at best only occasionally so. The conflict here is no less than cosmic: ‘It’s (…) as if God were overthrowing whatever had been received from longstanding custom and abolishing the consent of the whole world by the authority of His doctrine.’15 Here as elsewhere, Calvin recognizes the power of bad habits and evil customs, especially if driven by libido and intemperance, to suppress all recognition of what nature teaches and to lull to sleep the abhorrence that ought to be registered by our consciences. But 14 For Calvin’s terminology here—noverca […] quoad thorum legitima erat uxor—see his Comm. Gen. 35:22 (CO 23.473, CTS 2.245). 15 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:4 (CO 24.661; cf. CTS 3.98): ‘Perinde igitur est ac si prosterneret Deus quidquid longo usu receptum erat, atque doctrinae suae autoritate aboleret totius mundi consensum,’ emphasis mine.

130

John L. Thompson

it is not, in fact, the whole world that perpetuates the depraved practices of incest. Rather, the threat is embodied particularly by the ‘libidinous Orientals,’ by which Calvin means to designate first of all ‘the customs of Egypt’ and, in second place, ‘all the Canaanite peoples.’ The Israelites, it would seem, had gone from the frying pan of Egyptian customs into the fire of Canaanite turpitude. Remarkably, were it not for their proximity and exposure to these bad examples, Calvin opines, the detailed cases and instructions of Leviticus 18 could have been omitted altogether as ‘superfluous.’16 But Calvin’s defense of the Mosaic legislation has to go a few more rounds, because somewhere in the distance he hears a twofold objection being raised. Some, it seems, argued that the obligations described here by Moses are simply ‘part of the political order’ God prescribed for his ancient people, as Calvin himself admits, but that those laws are now abrogated by the New Testament.17 Others seem to have argued that the customs of Egypt prove that not all nations did, in fact, acknowledge that incest is wrong. In the latter instance, Calvin’s appeal to natural law is explicitly broadened to take account also of the so-called ‘law of nations’ or ius gentium—that secondary attestation to the law of nature that many found by examining the customs and laws that all nations seem to share, insofar as those laws are founded on a common natural reason.18 Though it is worth pausing for Calvin’s recognition that there might be grounds to argue the content of natural law by invoking the law of nations, here he is only quick to dismiss. Not only do the ancient laws of Rome mirror the laws of Moses in rejecting incest, at least in general, but Calvin further disqualifies the objection: the ius gentium is not to be defined by the abominationes gentium—the abominations of the nations or ‘Gentiles’—because ‘what is natural cannot be nullified by any consent or custom.’ Thus, what Calvin calls ‘the barbarism that

16 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:1 (CO 24.660; cf. CTS 3.97–98): ‘Primo autem vetat ne Aegypti morem sequantur, deinde comprehendit omnes populos Chanaan. Nam ut libidinosi sunt Orientales, nunquam ulla apud eos religio fuit se polluere incestis coniugiis. Quam vero hac in parte effraenes fuerint Aegyptii, ex historiis plus satis patet. Coniugium sororis germanae non exhorruit frater, neque patruus vel avunculus neptis suae: denique pudoris obliti, dum post intemperantiam suam rapiuntur, omnia iura naturae calcarunt. Haec ratio est cur incestus hic Deus recenseat, quorum alioqui supervacua fuisset mentio.’ 17 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:6 (CO 24.661; cf. CTS 3.99–100): ‘Verum quidem est hanc esse partem ordinis politici quem in veteri populo statuit Deus: tenendum tamen simul est, quidquid praecipitur, ex ipso rectitudinis fonte sensuque nobis divinitus ingenito esse sumptum. Itaque praeposterum acumen affectant quidam in scriptura male exercitati, dum iactant, lege abrogata solutum esse vinculum quo suos adstrinxit Moses.’ 18 One might suppose that Calvin’s discourse dimly reflects a well-known ambiguity precisely on the point of whether the laws of ‘all’ nations (Gaius), or only ‘almost all’ (Isidore), are needed to establish the universality of the ius gentium. See Arthur Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1950), 18–22, 40–45.

Second Thoughts about Conscience

131

overran the East’ has no part to play in the law of nations except as a bad example.19 The second objection—that these rules about marriage and incest are ‘merely’ matters of polity or political order—is a more serious challenge, judging by the intensity and detail of Calvin’s response: for to dismiss or impugn these various prohibitions against incest as merely ‘political laws’ is, he says, a pretext. If this doctrine were founded [1] on the utility of a single people, or [2] on the custom of a particular time, or [3] on present necessity, or [4] on other circumstances, then [a] the laws deduced from these things might be abrogated for new reasons, or [b] their observance might be relaxed for particular persons as a special privilege. But since, in their enactment, the perpetual decency of nature was alone regarded, not even a dispensation of them would be permissible. Certainly, it might be decreed that it ought to be permitted without punishment, just as it is in the power of princes to remit penalties. Yet no legislator can make something that nature says is vicious to be not vicious; and if with tyrannical arrogance anyone dare to try, the light of nature thus suppressed will shine forth and prevail all the same.20

Confident words! Clearly, Calvin knows that not all biblical precepts have the same weight, and that some—especially in the Pentateuch—have no continuing role as laws that bind but retain at most a typological significance, insofar as they may point to the one true sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Of course, if an exegete wants to concede that some biblical precepts are no longer binding, one ought to specify how that concession has been reached. And Calvin’s rebuttal does furnish a blueprint, in part, for how to tell if biblical polity or political arrangements can be changed—or not. Thus, a limited utility, custom, or necessity would not suffice: there must be universal utility and custom and, perhaps, some sort of perpetual necessity. But none of these theoretical exceptions can obtain: because incest is inherently, naturally, universally, and irrefragably vicious.21 Yet it is ironic that Calvin’s clenched-teeth defense of the 19 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:6 (CO 24.662; cf. CTS 3.100): ‘Si quis rursus excipiat, non habendum esse pro iure gentium quod in multis regionibus contemptum fuit, prompta est responsio: barbariem quae in oriente grassata fuit, non exstinguere verecundiam quae gentium abominationibus opponitur: nam quod naturale est, nullo consensu vel more potest deleri.’ Calvin’s encomium for the laws of Rome appears earlier in this passage. 20 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:6 (CO 24.662; cf. CTS 3.101): ‘Si doctrina haec vel in unius populi utilitate, vel in usu certi temporis, vel in praesenti necessitate, vel in aliis circumstantiis fundata esset, abrogari possent leges inde elicitae novis de causis, aut solvi posset earum observatio in certis personis, privilegio singulari: verum quia in illis ferendis tantum spectata fuit perpetua naturae honestas, ne dispensatio quidem esset tolerabilis. Impune quidem ut liceat statui potest, sicuti in arbitrio principis est poenas remittere: verum ut vitiosum non sit quod vitiosum esse natura dictat, nullus legislator efficiet: quod si quis tyrannica superbia id audeat tentare, emerget tamen oppressum naturae lumen ac praevalebit.’ 21 To be sure, certain punishments stipulated by Leviticus could be abrogated by circumstances, as Blacketer argues from Calvin’s French translation of the Mosaic Harmony; see Blacketer:

132

John L. Thompson

biblical prohibitions against incest forces him into the arms of an authority that threatens to upstage the Bible itself. Calvin’s quest for an authority higher than the written page emerges plainly enough when he says, for instance, that whatever is prescribed here is deduced from the source of rectitude itself and from an awareness that is divinely rooted in us (…). [T]he prohibition of incests now set forth (…) flows from the source of nature itself and is founded on the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and inviolable (…). Those who are fair-minded and reasonable will therefore acknowledge that this law (ius) was held even by pagan peoples to be indissoluble, as if it were implanted and engraved on the human heart.22

How does Calvin know all this? What makes him so sure that these particular ‘political orders’—recorded alongside many obsolete laws—express without qualification God’s absolute will and the deepest human natural feeling? To say the least, Calvin’s impassioned argument seems an instance of opportunism or special pleading. That impression is only exacerbated by Calvin’s passing reference to 1 Cor. 11:13–15—a ‘tiny matter’ mentioned by Paul, to the effect that if a woman appears in public shorn or without her head covered, her behavior is indecent, shameful, improper, and (Paul adds) not allowed by nature or the law of nature.23 Women’s headcoverings are an example that Calvin is sure will convince his reader of how weighty an injunction is when God’s word invokes natural law. But Calvin’s memory here is rather disappointing. Only a few years earlier, polishing the Latin text of the 1559 Institutes, Calvin revisited the same verses and the same issue. There, Calvin was silent about what nature might teach about headcoverings and depicted Paul as describing a matter of polity that might at least be suspended in an emergency—say, should a woman need to rush, bareheaded, to help a neighbor.24 We should be quick to suppose that Calvin’s concept of nature 2006b, 165. Witte and Kingdon regard Calvin as somewhat reticent to address punishments for incest; see Witte/Kingdon: 2005, 322. 22 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:6 (CO 24.661–622; cf. CTS 3.99–101): ‘tenendum tamen simul est, quidquid praecipitur, ex ipso rectitudinis fonte sensuque nobis divinitus ingenito esse sumptum (…). In summa, prohibitio incestuum de qua nunc agitur, minime est ex legum numero, quae pro temporum et locorum circumstantiis abrogari solent: quandoquidem fluit ab ipso naturae fonte, et fundata est in generali omnium legum principio, quod perpetuum est ac inviolabile (…). Unde agnoscent aequi et moderati homines, etiam apud profanas gentes hoc ius fuisse habitum insolubile, ac si fixum esset et insculptum hominum cordibus.’ 23 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:6 (CO 24.622; cf. CTS 3.100): ‘Paulus in re minima nobis obiicit ante oculos ipsam naturae legem: nam ubi docet turpe esse et indecorum, mulieres in publicum prodire nisi velatas, consulere naturam iubet, an deceat ipsas tonso capite in publico versari. Et tandem subiicit: Natura id non patitur.’ 24 Some argue from Institutes 4.10.29–31 that Calvin actually intends great flexibility on the matters of polity, ‘ecclesiastical constitutions,’ and decorum that he treats there. I think he intends no wholesale social change but seeks only to recognize that instructions about headcoverings etc. do not bear on salvation and are liable to be suspended. Either way, the

Second Thoughts about Conscience

133

is complicated and difficult, as are his remarks about the fixity of ecclesiastical rites and polity. But invoking 1 Cor. 11:14 in the Institutes as an example of what nature teaches that is not so important, only to bring it back in the Mosaic Harmony as proof that nature is an inflexible warrant or mandate for biblical doctrine—well, that leaves the reader in a bit of a muddle.

Incest in Calvin’s Pentateuchal Exegesis Prior to the Mosaic Harmony, 1554–1560 There may be no easy resolution for what looks like Calvin’s self-contradiction. But we should suspend our judgment until we have looked at Calvin’s other Pentateuchal exegesis—his sermons on Deuteronomy and Genesis, as well as his commentary on Genesis. If we cannot absolve him of inconsistency, might we at least find a reasoned trajectory of development? Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy take us back to 1555–1556 and to the tumultuous year that saw a consolidation of his support in Geneva. The book of Deuteronomy, as Calvin noted, is a summary of the history and doctrine in the previous three books—a recap given by Moses at the end of forty years in the wilderness and just prior to entering the promised land, but also a strategic amplification.25 Deuteronomy thus lacks many details found in Leviticus 18–20, but there are verses in two chapters that reiterate the prohibition against marrying the wife of one’s father (22:30) and that utter curses against anyone who lies with his father’s wife, with his sister or stepsister, or with his mother-in–law (27:20–23). As one would expect, Calvin does address these verses, but he worries about incest in two other sermons as well.26 Though the first of the sermons treating incest at some length expounds but a single verse (Deut. 22:30), Calvin explains that what was needed at this time was not for Moses to treat all the degrees of incest addressed in Leviticus, but only to explain the general rationale. What he goes on to furnish looks much like the exegesis found later on, in the Mosaic Harmony. Thus, ‘those of Asia and the whole region of the East’ once again get blamed for incestuous habits and customs, which is why God promulgates the law against incest now, when Israel is about to enter the land. Calvin also anticipates his remarks about the law of argument in the Institutes, from 1536 through 1559, is sharply at odds with what Calvin says in the Mosaic Harmony. See Thompson: 1991b. 25 Blacketer ably expounds Calvin’s account of the argumentum of Deuteronomy. See Blakketer: 2006b, 89–100. 26 The references to incest identified here thus include sermons no. 12, 129, 143, and 151. The passing mention of Lot’s incest in no. 130 merely echoes the previous sermon, and Calvin’s reference to Reuben’s incest with his father’s concubine in no. 192 does not really say anything about incest per se. Likewise, no. 12 and 151 are fairly thin accounts.

134

John L. Thompson

nature imprinted on the hearts of pagans, per Romans 2, even as he concedes that Christians are no longer bound by these ordinances (police) of Moses. To be sure, we should still regard these laws as divine advice, if not as divine warnings, asking ourselves why incest was forbidden. Yet Calvin’s own answer is frustratingly circular: ‘Because the thing is intolerable.’27 One might amplify his reply from other exegetical hints, including his worry that incest makes us no different from ‘brute beasts,’ confuses parental bonds, and destroys the sort of discernment and decency (discretion et honnesteté) that ought to mark our marriages.28 But despite these inferences, the clarity of Calvin’s rationale leaves much to be desired. A month later, Calvin preached another text touching on incest—Deut. 25:5– 10, which expounds levirate marriage, the law by which a man ought to marry his brother’s widow in order to preserve his brother’s lineage. Calvin says the law was meant to protect the partitions of the land as originally drawn, not to preserve some sort of earthly renown for the deceased brother.29 But a moral problem upstages Calvin’s other points: for not only is marrying a brother’s wife precisely what is forbidden by Lev. 18:16 and 20:21, it also seems to be precisely what Judah asked of his son Onan in Genesis 38, that he raise up offspring with Tamar, widow of Er, Onan’s brother. ‘How is it,’ Calvin imagines asking regarding Onan, ‘that God not only permitted incest but even ordained it?’ He replies with a twofold solution. First, ‘brother’ here does not designate a birth-brother, a brother of the first degree. Rather, ‘as the Jews confess,’ the word designates ‘those with whom there is a degree of affinity; and the word itself extends only to those who can properly contract marriage together.’30 Calvin’s words represent a reasonable French paraphrase of the rabbinic exegesis of this verse according to Münster’s 27 Calvin, Serm. Deut. no. 129 on 22:30 (CO 28.62–63; cf. ET 795b): ‘Et si on allegue, que nous ne sommes point astraints par servitude à la police de Moyse: il est vray. Mais c’est pour le moins que nous acceptions les advertissemens que Dieu nous donne, et que nous usions de son conseil: encores qu’il nous ait affranchis de ceste astriction de la Loy politique de Moyse, si est-ce que tousiours il veut que nous retenions ce principe, c’est assavoir que nous advisions, pour quelle cause Dieu a-il defendu cela? C’est d’autant que la chose n’est point supportable.’ 28 Calvin, Serm. Deut. no. 129 on 22:30 (CO 28.61–62; cf. ET 795a): ‘il suffira de retenir la somme, c’est assavoir que nous devons avoir discretion et honnesteté en mariage, que les parentages ne soyent point meslez. …’ Bingham’s note in the Mosaic Harmony (CTS 3.103n2) points to Augustine’s discussion in Civ. Dei 15.16 for an account of how cousins refer to one another as brother and sister (see my next paragraph); but Augustine’s extended discussion there very well might be lurking in the background also of Calvin’s laconic warning against ‘mixing parentage.’ 29 Calvin, Serm. Deut. no. 143 on 25:5–10 (CO 28.223–25; cf. ET 879a–80a). 30 Calvin, Serm. Deut. no. 143 on 25:5–10 (CO 28.227; cf. ET 881a): ‘Si ç’a esté un inceste, qu’un frere prinst la femme du trespassé, comment est-ce que non seulement il est ici permis, mais que Dieu l’ordonne? Or les Iuifs confessent bien que ceci n’est point dit des freres qui sont en premier degré, des freres germains qu’on appelle: mais plustost de ceux avec lesquels il y a degré d’affinité: et c’est le mot propre aussi qui ne s’estend sinon à ceux qui peuvent contracter mariage ensemble.’

Second Thoughts about Conscience

135

Hebraica Biblia, which Tony Lane has painstakingly established as one of Calvin’s resources for the earlier commentary on Genesis.31 Thus informed, Calvin goes on to conclude that even though a law was not yet promulgated, Judah’s culpable mistake was to absorb the dishonorable customs of the ‘Oriental’ people around him, who were so devoid of conscience that brothers readily married sisters.32 What should he have done? Apparently, Judah should have had Tamar marry Er’s first or second cousin—even though Calvin elsewhere expresses his discomfort with marriages between first cousins.33 At this point, it would be of interest to see how Calvin preached on Onan’s incest with Tamar in his sermon on Genesis 38—if it were extant. However, while Calvin certainly does discuss incest in his Genesis sermons—he could hardly avoid saying something about Lot impregnating his daughters34—it is unlikely that his views of levirate marriage in particular would have changed from the sermons we have just examined, because his accounts both of Tamar and of incest in general in the earlier Deuteronomy sermons are closely mirrored by the later Mosaic Harmony. There, a positive account of levirate marriage occurs as part of the Eighth Commandment—because refusing to raise up offspring for one’s dead cousin would be inhumane, Calvin says, and is therefore ‘a kind of theft.’35 But Judah’s bad example is also noted in the Harmony, in connection with the Seventh Commandment, where Calvin consolidates what he said in the Deuteronomy sermons and asserts that the difficulty occasioned by the marriage 31 Hebraica Biblia Latina planeque noua Sebast. Munsteri tralatione, vol. 1 (Basel, 1534), 189v: ‘Est ‫ ינם‬frater aut alius propinquus, cui lege diuina competit ducere in uxorem, relictam uiduam fratris aut alterius propinqui, qui sine semine decessit. Alioquin uxor fratris est prohibita, cum scriptum sit in Leuitico, turpitudinem uxoris fratris tui non discooperies. Hinc ‫ ינמה‬est mulier quae iure propinquitatis siue affinitatis a me in hoc casu est ducenda.’ See Lane: 1999, 216–217, 227, 233; and the appendix to that essay. Max Engammare (2000, xliv– xlvi) has demonstrated that Calvin continued to mine Münster’s work when he later preached on Genesis. 32 Calvin, Serm. Deut. no. 143 on 25:5–10 (CO 28.227–28; cf. ET 881a): ‘Il est vray qu’en l’exemple que nous avons desia allegué, les freres qui estoyent en premier degré prindrent Thamar, et Dieu les extermina pour leur turpitude: mais la Loy n’estoit point encores faite. Et au pais d’Orient ils n’ont point eu grande honnesteté, tellement qu’ils se sont gouvernez d’une façon brutale en se mariant, qu’ils n’ont point fait de conscience de se mesler le frere avec la soeur, comme chiens et chiennes.’ 33 Calvin, Serm. Deut. no. 143 on 25:5–10 (CO 28.228; cf. ET 881b): ‘Quand nous oyons ce mot de Frere selon que les Hebrieux le prennent, il ne faut pas le restreindre à ce degré premier de frere germain: mais de cousins, tant en premier ordre qu’en second, comme on dit issus de germain. Car les Iuifs ont ce mot general de Frere, et n’en usent pas comme nous.’ 34 See Calvin, Serm. Gen. 19:31–38 (SC 11. 2. 1075.16): ‘Voilà un inceste qui est contre nature.’ 35 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Deut. 25:5–10 (CO 24.712; cf. CTS 3.178). Curiously, the argument introduced in sermon no. 143 (25:5–10) about preserving the original partitions of Canaan (as the impetus behind raising up offspring for a deceased brother) has wholly disappeared from the Mosaic Harmony. The rationale now is rather about preservation of the brother’s name and property per se.

136

John L. Thompson

of Judah’s sons to Tamar is ‘easily solved.’ Judah took the moral practices of the Eastern nations as granting him license to do likewise—but in so doing, he did wrong. ‘As so often happens,’ Calvin says, evil customs lead people astray.36 Though it is disappointing not to have Calvin’s late sermon on Genesis 38, we can still go backwards, chronologically, to look at the same passage in his commentary. And his remarks there harbor a surprise. Calvin’s excoriation of Judah for arranging a marriage between Tamar and Onan rather than with a more distant male relative is stunningly absent. Instead, the arrangement so heatedly condemned in Calvin’s 1556 sermon on Deuteronomy is utterly approved. Indeed, Calvin extols the ‘instinct of nature’ that drives Judah’s command—he lauds Judah for enacting ‘an office of humanity that the Lord infused into the human heart,’ known even before this precept became part of the written law and the polity of the Jews. Consequently, Calvin vilifies Onan for his malice, for envying his own brother and defrauding him of what was his by right (ius), and even for his immense barbarism. One might well wonder, what has become of those depraved customs of the Orient? 37 Clearly, the condemnation of levirate marriage as enacted by birth-brothers that Calvin will condemn in his Deuteronomy sermons and his Mosaic Harmony is diametrically opposed to the earlier and unqualified approval one finds in the Genesis commentary. There is no ambiguity here: Judah’s ‘natural instinct,’ lauded by Calvin, was for Onan to marry the widow of his brother—who was, emphatically, not a cousin but his ‘full brother’ (germanus frater, n. 37).38 So how might one explain this exegetical reversal? The solution is easy to surmise: even though Calvin was a keen student of Münster’s Hebraica Biblia, he was not at leisure to read ahead. The rabbinic understanding of brother as indicating also 36 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:16 (CO 24.664; cf. CTS 3.103–104): ‘Si quis obiiciat filios Iudae Her, et Honan, et Sela, fuisse germanos, Thamar tamen duobus nupsisse: solutio in promptu est, Iudam ex communi et recepto gentium more hac licentia non recte fuisse usum. Satis patet omnium temporum historiis, apud gentes orientales foedas mixturas, neglecto pudore, fuisse in coniugiis. Mala igitur consuetudine (ut fieri solet) tractus fuit Iuda ut eandem daret uxorem filio secundo, quae ante fuerat uxor primogeniti.’ 37 Calvin, Comm. Gen. 38:8 (CO 23.495; cf. CTS 2.281): ‘Tametsi de fraternis coniugiis, ut frater superstes semen mortuo suscitaret, nulla adhuc lex perscripta erat: non tamen mirum est solo naturae instinctu huc propensos fuisse homines (…). Humanum igitur esse putarunt nomen aliquod acquirere mortuis, ex quo pateret ipsos vixisse (…). Etsi autem hoc non est ex pietatis regula, Dominus tamen tanquam humanitatis officium hominum cordibus indiderat: sicuti postea Iudaeis in sua politia mandavit. Hinc colligimus quam malignus fuerit Onan qui hunc honorem fratri suo invidit (…). [I]mmanis ergo fuit barbaries, germano fratri negare quod extraneis datur. Adde quod non solum fratrem debito iure fraudavit (…).’ 38 Despite their admirably thorough treatment of incest texts in Calvin, Witte and Kingdon misleadingly characterize his commentary on Genesis 38 as if it were in full harmony with the Marriage Ordinances and the Mosaic Harmony, instead of standing in acute contradiction, as I argue here. See Witte/Kingdon: 2005, 318.

Second Thoughts about Conscience

137

other male kin, especially when a birth-brother would be prohibited by Leviticus 18 from marrying his sister-in–law, is reported plainly enough in Münster’s notes on Deuteronomy 25, where Calvin would have read it while preparing his 1556 sermon on that passage. But however closely he may have read Münster while lecturing on Genesis a few years earlier, there is no hint of this broader definition of brother in Münster’s notes on Genesis 38.

3. Reflections on Calvin’s Evolving Exegesis of Incest While the occasion for Calvin’s reassessment of Tamar’s marriage to two of Judah’s sons may be readily located in his discovery of the ‘Hebrew’ reading of brother, the implications of his shift are more complicated—and more intriguing. In brief, Calvin’s change of mind exposes additional conflicts among his own writings, in his theological doctrines, and, arguably, even within his own conscience.

Conflicting Texts There can be little doubt but that Calvin did change his mind and his exegesis regarding the first part of Genesis 38. As noted, it is all but certain that Calvin was unaware of the rabbinic reading of Deut. 25:5 prior to 1556, when he preached on that text and had reason to consult the Hebraica Biblia of Sebastian Münster. Once he learned of how the Hebrews used an extended definition of brother as the key to reconciling Leviticus 18’s prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow with Deuteronomy 25’s affirmation of levirate marriage, Calvin made that discovery his own. Textually, Calvin’s change of mind explains some things but complicates others. On the one hand, a fairly precise date for his about-face would corroborate a later date for two otherwise undated texts from Calvin’s Consilia in which he condemns the notion of a man marrying his brother’s widow; or a woman, her late husband’s brother.39 On the other hand, Calvin’s 1554 affirmation of Onan’s marriage to Tamar further contradicts the 1546 Marriage Ordinances, which explicitly forbade such an act (though without any added comment): ‘Let no one take the widow of his brother, and no woman may take the one who was her sister’s husband.’40 Witte and Kingdon have aptly described how the Marriage 39 Reprinted in translation in Witte/Kingdon: 2005, 335–337, as 9–4 and 9–5; also see their remarks on the relationship between these concilia and the Mosaic Harmony at 1.316n9. 40 Translated as paragraph 33 by Witte/Kingdon: 2005, 56; from Berger/Kingdon: 1964, 30–38.

138

John L. Thompson

Ordinances here reflect Calvin’s enhancement of Leviticus 18, but the wording of the ordinance just quoted does not suggest that Calvin gave any thought there to Judah and his sons, whether as bad examples or otherwise. In other words, Calvin’s rejection of marriage with a sibling’s widow—as expressed in 1546 and 1556, both before and after the Genesis commentary—neither explains nor dissolves the contradictory opinion in Calvin’s 1554 text. Disappointing as it may seem, the best explanation for the tension between the Marriage Ordinances and Calvin’s comments on Gen. 38:8 may well be that he simply didn’t notice the contradiction, on either occasion.41

Conflicting Theologies In fact, Calvin might have regarded it as a small risk to admit that Judah did right by marrying Onan to Tamar, however much the practice might be repugnant in Calvin’s own context. He suggests as much in the opening line of the sermon on levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5–10), which he describes as ‘a law that might seem wholly superfluous for us’ because it is no longer used and its purpose has now ended.42 And Calvin might well have found a famous precedent for such a view in Augustine, who wrote at length about how ancient marriage customs, driven by 41 Max Engammare appropriately asked, when this essay was first presented, how Calvin handles the extended sense of sister in Gen. 20:12, where Abraham defended calling Sarah his ‘sister’ on the grounds that she was his half-sister. In his commentary on that text, Calvin acknowledges his debt to the Hebrews, among whom ‘the word is construed more broadly,’ but he goes on to reject the obvious reading that Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister; instead, he ‘conjectures’ that Sarah was Abraham’s first cousin (see CO 23.292). Münster differs here, reporting that ‘the Hebrews think she was the daughter of a brother who had a mother different from Abraham’s,’ making Sarah the daughter of Abraham’s half-brother (Hebraica Biblia 1:17v). So it is hard to know if Calvin’s reference to ‘the Hebrews’ derives from Münster; or if his conjecture about Sarah’s identity was stimulated perhaps by Luther, who concludes that Sarah was Haran’s stepdaughter by a later marriage (see WA 43.128). Notably, all three writers want Sarah to be more distant from Abraham than a paternal half-sister, which the biblical text suggests. And while Calvin may have known in 1554 that sister (in Genesis 20) has a broad meaning among the Hebrews, the fact that brother (in Genesis 38) could be similarly construed seems strangely forgotten—at least until 1556, when Münster jogged his memory. Of equal interest, though, is the relative absence of any sense of scandal in Calvin’s commentary on Genesis: Abraham’s marriage to his ‘sister’ Sarah is not a case of levirate marriage and is not defended by appeals to the law of nature or custom; and Calvin’s endorsement of Judah’s plan to unite Onan and Tamar is offered with what could be described as measured enthusiasm. In brief, the 1554 commentary reveals a Calvin who was neither threatened nor offended by the marriage of Onan and Tamar, leaving us to wonder why he took Münster and the rabbis to heart so passionately only two years later. 42 Calvin, Serm. Deut. no. 143 on 25:5–10 (CO 28.223; cf. ET 879a): ‘Nous avons ici une loy, qui sembleroit estre du tout superflue entre nous: car l’usage n’en est plus, et la raison aussi cesse auiourd’huy.’

Second Thoughts about Conscience

139

necessity when the human race was small in number, were gradually refined by law, religion, and better customs.43 Calvin could have justified Judah, then, by an appeal to shifting customs or circumstances.44 He did not do so. Instead, he took a larger risk. I’ve already alluded to the vehemence of Calvin’s indictment of incest in his Mosaic Harmony, where the enduring force of the ‘political ordinances’ in Leviticus that forbid incest is defended by Calvin on every possible ground: appealing to exegesis, of course, but also to the law of nature that predates Scripture and is more universally known; to conscience, the law written on the hearts of all; to common customs and the law of nations, at least as exemplified by those decent nations that have not altogether succumbed to depravity; and occasionally to softer principles, such as common sense and fairmindedness. Clearly, Calvin wants to win this argument. Yet the confidence and tenacity he displays against Judah and Onan in his Mosaic Harmony are fully matched by Calvin’s unhesitating affirmation of Judah in his Genesis commentary, where, in shorter compass, he invokes most of these same reasons to justify Onan’s marriage to Tamar. These theological tensions properly confound the reader. Nature, the instinct of nature and the law of nature, the law imprinted on our hearts—these seemingly fixed points shift about in Calvin’s Pentateuchal exegesis. Earlier, we saw how what ‘nature teaches’ about a woman’s headcovering takes on different degrees of fixity between the Institutes and the Mosaic Harmony, presumably because these larger discourses have diverse rhetorical aims. Institutes 4.10 defends freedom in the midst of a biblically-ordered church; but the Mosaic Harmony on Leviticus 18 is by no means in search of freedom—not when the specter of incest looms! But in still other places, Calvin can invoke the authority of natural law in ways that simply seem careless. Primogeniture (for instance), the right of inheritance by the firstborn, is part of the usual order of nature, but ‘the Lord often changes’ this law or right of nature (ius naturae)—and deliberately so, lest we presume that God is not free to bestow gifts as he pleases.45 In the case of Judah and Onan, in 1554 ‘natural instinct’ and the divinelyinfused duties of humanity were able to instruct not just Judah but potentially others to raise up seed for a dead brother. But by 1556, all the language of incest as 43 For Augustine, see Civ. Dei 15.16—a text noted by the Mosaic Harmony’s translator at CTS 3.103n2, as well as by Smits: 1957, 161. But Calvin’s thematic debt to Augustine here falls far short of any verbatim resemblance. 44 Or by invoking his frequent appeal to how God tolerated the barbarism and hard-heartedness of the ancient people of God; see (e. g.) Mosaic Harmony on Exod. 21:7–11 (CO 24.650; cf. CTS 3.80), and also the larger discussions in Wright: 1986; and Wright: 1993. 45 Calvin, Comm. Gen. 48:17 (CO 23.586; cf. CTS 2.431): ‘Fallitur tamen quod Dei gratiam consueto naturae ordini alligat, ac si non Dominus saepe consulto ius naturae mutaret: ut sciamus in mero eius arbitrio esse positum quod gratis confert.’

140

John L. Thompson

a crime against nature is brought to bear on the hapless Judah and Onan, who have been carried away by their contemporaries’ filthy customs and are now like beasts: horribly confused, lawless and unruly, without conscience, neglecting God’s will. Yet Calvin never mentions that to get here, he has had to change his mind. He should have explained that change, not least of all because his doctrine of natural law was not meant as merely an intellectual exercise but as part and parcel of the application of Scripture. However much the law of nature mostly goes unnoticed and mostly serves only to render sinners without excuse—Calvin gladly follows Paul here—it’s equally true that appeals to nature, natural law, instinct, conscience, and the testimony of the heart return to Calvin’s exegetical presentation wherever he gazes at the big picture of the First Table or the finer details of the Second.46 Nature declares the glory of God; nature also abhors incest. Consequently, serious misunderstandings can corrupt Christian doctrine when Calvin himself introduces unexplained inconsistencies—whether about nature, law, polity, or ethics. Granted, this part of Calvin’s argument and this application of nature within his exegesis is meant for in-house consumption. That is to say, these arguments about what nature teaches, about how the law of nature confirms the word of God—these are insights to be pondered by those who read the book of nature with the spectacles of Scripture, not by those whose customs have obscured nature’s once-clear notes. But does it really help matters, to suppose that Calvin can be got off the hook of confusion by claiming that ‘regenerate’ readers will understand what he means by these appeals to natural law? Probably not. As Witte and Kingdon have also noted, Calvin surely is guilty of inverting his authorities—‘reversing his argument’—from time to time when it seems to bolster his larger aims. Usually, God’s will as found in the law of nature is framed by Calvin as an anticipatory but ultimately ineffective means of revelation, whereas it is Scripture that is clearer, more detailed, and (by the power of the Holy Spirit) more efficacious. But with Moses’ prohibitions of incest, Calvin treats the law of nature as a fuller account of what God wants; the Bible is merely an epitome (Witte/Kingdon: 2005, 330–331). Such a move undermines Calvin’s implicit claim to have in mind a clear and distinct notion of the law of nature and related concepts; it rather suggests that his appeals to nature and conscience are rhetorical devices, shaped by each emergent occasion and by Calvin’s immediate theological or ethical ends.

46 As Hesselink (1992, 52) observes, though Calvin ‘recognized the insufficiency of natural law,’ the concept nonetheless ‘plays a significant role throughout Calvin’s theology and not simply in a negative way. References in the Institutes are rather rare, but the commentaries abound in references.’

Second Thoughts about Conscience

141

Conflicting Thoughts: Conscience in Calvin and His Exegesis In noting various places in Calvin’s Pentateuchal exegesis that conflict with his statements elsewhere, this essay has been trying to describe not so much the self-contradiction of Calvin’s doctrine of natural law as found in the human conscience as that doctrine’s complexity. Indeed, the Achilles heel of natural law has always been its indeterminacy, and Calvin’s evolving exegesis both reflects and contributes to this indeterminacy. Moreover, it would be churlish to approach an oeuvre as immense as John Calvin’s and pretend to be shocked to find occasional discrepancies. There is nothing necessarily scandalous about a writer changing his or her mind and leaving a paper trail that documents that change. What is fascinating about Calvin’s change of mind, then, may well be not an inconsistency in what he said about certain cases of incest but rather a detectable consistency in his existential encounter with Scripture. What I wish to probe here, then, is the bond between exegesis and Calvin’s own conscience. In his first encounter with Gen. 38:8, Calvin is sympathetic to the plight of Judah’s son Er, who died without an heir. Despite his opposition to the Mosaic law of levirate marriage, as demonstrated by the 1546 Marriage Ordinances, Calvin used the full language of natural law to strongly endorse Judah’s insistence that Onan marry Tamar. Why? Presumably, because he believed the text’s silence endorsed levirate marriage, even if only in this instance, and that neither the wickedness ascribed to Er nor that subsequently practiced by Onan added any stain to Judah’s plan. A few years later, the Deuteronomy sermons enunciate a much different understanding: Calvin now regards it as better exegesis to adopt the rabbinic definition of brother as meaning something like first or second cousin. Accordingly, Gen. 38:8 no longer conflicts with what he wanted all along for Geneva’s Marriage Ordinances, nor with how he reads Deuteronomy 25. The intriguing point is that Calvin presumably exercised his exegetical reasoning in good conscience when lecturing on Genesis, and though he may have balked at commending levirate marriage as a practice for Geneva, he kept faith with the letter of the text in Genesis and went so far as to suggest that the actions of Judah and Onan were not exceptional, but deeply rooted in natural and therefore divine law. Later, when Calvin’s exegetical reasoning changed—again, presumably in good conscience—he continued to keep faith with the word of God by expounding the text in this new and better way, albeit at Judah’s expense. Calvin’s exegesis will necessarily appear inconsistent, but his conscience has remained true. Had Calvin used the traditional language of casuistry, he might have said that his earlier exegesis was skewed by his own misinformed or mistaken conscience, which was later corrected.47 Indeed, the same casuistry could 47 The case of the mistaken conscience is discussed with special reference to Bonaventure and Aquinas, including original texts, by Potts: 1980, 118–120 and 128–130.

142

John L. Thompson

have been extended to Judah, as I suggested above. But the dialect of casuistry is something Calvin does not much favor. Of course, Calvin may have been simply oblivious to his inner deliberations in the case of Genesis 38. We really cannot say, one way or the other. However, another issue raised by the Seventh Commandment may point to precisely such deliberation—namely, the case of marriage between first cousins. For while the rabbinic reading of Deut. 25:5–10 gracefully ushers a birth-brother off the stage, it potentially substitutes a first cousin. Calvin’s position here is curiously mixed, but his explanation is somewhat clearer. On the one hand, the Mosaic Harmony repeatedly says first cousins are allowed to intermarry, not only according to the law of Moses but also in accord with Roman law.48 On the other hand, Geneva’s Marriage Ordinances had instituted a different practice, with an explicit scruple added: [28.] (…) although marriage is not forbidden either by the law of God or the Roman civil law, nevertheless to avoid scandal, because for a long time this has not been the custom, and from fear that the Word of God may be blasphemed by the ignorant, a cousin-german may not contract marriage with his cousin-german until, with the passing of time, it is otherwise decided by us (…) (Witte/Kingdon: 2005, 56)

Here again, Calvin clearly recognizes that neither the Old Testament nor the New impedes first cousins from intermarrying, but custom does, and so does popular opinion, however much it may be ill informed.49 If we ask why Calvin refused to endorse what both God’s law and Roman law allowed, the simple answer is that he always subjected concrete ethical cases to the guiding principle of love for neighbor—and duty always entails avoiding scandal. Custom here is not particularly authoritative; it is merely the circumstance that has engendered the risk of scandal. A subtler question, though, is whether Calvin was sincere in suggesting that Geneva might ever allow first cousins to marry. The trajectory of his remarks in the Mosaic Harmony suggests that, unlike Augustine, he would have found it fully imaginable—at least from the side of exegesis and his own conscience. The three passages in the Harmony that mention the intermarriage of first cousins (much like his early exegesis of Gen. 38:8) show nothing but Calvin’s approval of the clear and plain meaning of 48 Calvin, Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:6, 16; Deut. 25:5 (CO 24.661, 664, 712; CTS 3.98, 103, 178). 49 One may also hear yet one more echo of Augustine, who described the growth of popular aversion to cousins marrying—except Augustine does not expect or desire that situation to change in any imaginable future. Augustine also praised the role of custom in the development of this aversion as properly ‘soothing or shocking human sensibilities’ and tied the whole process to ‘a certain mysterious and inherent sense of decency’ in the human conscience that is both natural and admirable. For Augustine, kinship-aversion protects a woman by shielding her from lust. Calvin makes none of these points. See Civ. Dei 15.16 (Bettenson ET, 624–625).

Second Thoughts about Conscience

143

the word of God—with no demurral, no hesitation, no scruple added. In other words, the scruple added to the 1546 ordinance suggests that Calvin truly did deliberate over how to protect the weak conscience of others when it came time to derive practical, case-based laws for Geneva from his biblical exposition. But his approval of cousins intermarrying in the 1563 Harmony suggests, in turn, that Calvin’s conscience required no such scruple when he found himself expounding a general and more abstract rule. In his exegesis of the Pentateuch, Calvin found that many of Moses’ laws could be resolved fairly easily either as the obviously obsolete civil ordinances of Israel or as clear types of Christ—often, as both. But the prohibition of incest and consanguinity plunged Calvin into a discussion about marriage law and matrimonial practices that was as perennial as it was vexed and complicated. Calvin was tasked with clearing away the inauthentic and contrived laws about prohibited degrees of intermarriage that had grown into a veritable thicket in medieval canon law. However, he had to ground these new Genevan laws in Scripture also without scandalizing consciences, without conceding undue authority to the mere ‘polity’ of the Old Testament, and certainly without a wholesale abrogation of every Mosaic precept.50 To cement the force of biblical laws and precepts that he found to be substantially cogent but formally nonbinding, Calvin sometimes appealed to an extra-canonical court—to the law of nature that God has imprinted on the human conscience. This divinely-imprinted testimony served Calvin well for supplementing scriptural laws without having to remain fully accountable to specific Bible verses. Nonetheless, as some of his Pentateuchal exegesis suggests, this extracanonical anchor could be a liability, too. Thus, when Calvin found reason to change his exegesis of a particular verse, he was forced to reinterpret also his collateral argumentation. Not surprisingly, he found it hard to explain how conscience and the law of nature, which had so strongly supported the view now abandoned, could be so quickly pressed back into the service of a new master. Not surprisingly, he followed a time-honored path by saying nothing at all. Yet the theological, exegetical, and ethical issues that beset Calvin still face us today. Even the tensions that emerge from Calvin’s decade-long engagement with the Pentateuch—at his lectern and from the pulpit—display his visceral concern for how human beings in all their sociality and embodiment are to discern their proper nature and calling as rational agents created to image the divine. And 50 Calvin thinks some interpreters ‘but little versed in Scripture’ do exactly that. An editorial note in the CTS edition at 3:99n1 points to the Council of Trent (Canon 3 of the 24th session), but that canon was not issued until three months after Calvin’s commentary appeared. Luther would be a better candidate to fit the substance of the action if not the epithet; see Mosaic Harmony on Lev. 18:6 (CO 24.661): ‘quidam in scriptura male exercitati.’

144

John L. Thompson

despite the measure of contempt that Reformed theology in the twentieth century heaped upon proponents of natural law, there are clear signs of reawakening interest in natural law among Reformed thinkers today, for whom Calvin assuredly must stand as an ally—as well as a cautionary tale.51

Bibliography Bainton, Roland H. (1930), The Immoralities of the Patriarchs according to the Exegesis of the Late Middle Ages and of the Reformation, in: Harvard Theological Review 23, 39–49. Berger, Jean François/Kingdon, Robert M. (1964), Registres de la Compagnie des pasteurs de Genève au temps de Calvin (2 vols.), Geneva: Droz. Blacketer, Raymond A. (2006a), Calvin as Commentator on the Mosaic Harmony and Joshua, in: Donald McKim, Calvin and the Bible, Cambridge: University Press, 30–53. — (2006b), The School of God: Pedagogy and Rhetoric in Calvin’s Interpretation of Deuteronomy, Dordrecht: Springer. — (2008), No Escape by Deception: Calvin’s Exegesis of Lies and Liars in the Old Testament, in: Reformation and Renaissance Review 10/3, 267–289. Boer, Erik A. de (2007), ‘Harmonia Legis’: Conception and Concept of John Calvin’s Expository Project on Exodus-Deuteronomy (1559–63), in: Church History and Religious Culture 87/2, 173–201. — (2012), The Genevan School of the Prophets: The congrégations of the Company of Pastors and their Influence in 16th Century Europe, Geneva: Droz. — (ed.) (2014), Congrégations et disputations, Geneva: Droz. Borrhaus, Martin (1555), In Mosem, diuinum legislatorem, paedagogum ad Messiam Seruatorem mundi, Commentarij: In Librum de Origine mundi, quem Genesim uocant. Exodum. Leuiticum. Numeros. Deuteronomium, Basel: Lucius. Brenz, Johannes (1576), Opera, Tübingen (including his separate commentaries and lectures on Genesis (1533), Exodus (1538), Leviticus (1542), Numbers (1560), and Deuteronomy (n.d)). Calvin, John (1852–1855), Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham (4 vols.), Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society. Engammare, Max (2000), Sermons sur la Genèse, chapitres 1,1–11,4 (SC 11/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Grabill, Stephen J. (2006), Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hesselink, I. John (1992), Calvin’s Concept of the Law, Allison Park, PA: Pickwick. Lane, Anthony N.S. (1999), The Sources of the Citations in Calvin’s Genesis Commentary, in Anthony N.S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, Grand Rapids: Baker, 216–233.

51 In addition to Grabill: 2006, see VanDrunen: 2010; 2014.

Second Thoughts about Conscience

145

Manetsch, Scott M. (2005), Problems with the Patriarchs: John Calvin’s Interpretation of Difficult Passages in Genesis, in: Westminster Theological Journal 67/1, 1–21. McNeill, John T. (1941), Natural Law in the Thought of Luther, in: Church History 10/3, 211–227. — (1946), Natural Law in the Teachings of the Reformers, in: Journal of Religion 26, 168– 182. Neugebauer, Richard (1968), Exegetical Structure in the Institutes of the Christian Religion and the Biblical Commentaries of John Calvin: A Study of the Commentary on the Four, Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, Columbia University (MA thesis). Parker, T.H.L. (1986), Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. — (1987), Calvin’s Preaching, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Pitkin, Barbara (2010), Calvin’s Mosaic Harmony: Biblical Exegesis and Early Modern Legal History, in: Sixteenth Century Journal 41/2, 441–466. Potts, Timothy C. (1980), Conscience in Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: University Press. Reuss, Eduard (1890), Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments, Braunschweig: Schwetschke (cited in Blacketer: 2006a, 45). Smits, Luchesius (1957), Saint Augustin dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin (2 vols.), Assen: Van Gorcum. Thompson, John L. (1991a), The Immoralities of the Patriarchs in the History of Exegesis: A Reassessment of Calvin’s Position, in: Calvin Theological Journal 26, 9–46. — (1991b), John Calvin and the Daughters of Sarah, Geneva: Droz. — (1994), Patriarchs, Polygamy, and Private Resistance: John Calvin and Others on Breaking God’s Rules, in: Sixteenth Century Journal 25, 3–27. — (2000), Calvin’s Exegetical Legacy: His Reception and Transmission of Text and Tradition, in: David L. Foxgrover (ed.), The Legacy of John Calvin: Calvin Studies Society Papers 1999, Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 31–56. VanDrunen, David (2010), Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. — (2014), Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Vio, Tommaso de [Cardinal Cajetan] (1531), In Pentateuchum Mosis iuxta sensum quem dicunt literalem commentarii, Rome. Witte, John/Kingdon, Robert M. (2005), Sex, Marriage, and Family Life in John Calvin’s Geneva, vol. 1: Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Woudstra, Marten H. (1986), Calvin Interprets What ‘Moses Reports’: Observations on Calvin’s Commentary on Exodus 1–19, in: Calvin Theological Journal 21, 151–174. Wright, David F. (1986), Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Heart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony Commentary, in: Calvin Theological Journal 21/1, 33–50. — (1993), Accommodation and Barbarity in John Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries, in: A. Graeme Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 213–227.

146

John L. Thompson

— (1997), Calvin’s Accommodating God, in: Wilhelm H. Neuser/Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion, Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 3–19.

Piotr Wilczek

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works In the Context of the History of Christianity in Poland

Introduction This paper has been inspired by an annotated bibliography entitled John Calvin in Poland, compiled by Wiesław Mincer, edited by myself, and published in 2012 as the 3rd volume in my book series The Reformation in Poland and East-Central Europe (Mincer: 2012). In this bibliography, 528 items are included—books, treatises, articles, essays, poems, and book reviews devoted to John Calvin and, at the same time, related to Poland. These works were published in the years between 1548 and 2012. Although at first sight 528 publications is not a large number, we should remember that they were published in a country which remained officially Roman Catholic during the age of the Reformation, which has never officially accepted the Protestant Reformation, and which was won over by the triumphant Jesuit-Catholic Counter-Reformation as early as the first half of the 17th century. Today the Protestant minority in Poland is very small, and there are only around 3000 members of the Reformed church. Seen in this light 528 is quite a large number of publications, even if it includes 53 letters by Calvin himself, 60 letters to Calvin, and 64 letters in an appendix from Thesaurus epistolicus Calvinianus written not to Calvin or by Calvin but nevertheless related to Polish issues. Leaving aside these letters, 351 publications still remain, including 38 works by Calvin published in Poland or related to Poland and 313 other publications devoted to Calvin and published between 1550 and 2012. It is important to emphasize that this Calvinian bibliography—a unique publication of its kind in Central and Eastern Europe—does not deal with the socalled Calvinism and its reception, but only with John Calvin himself, and his life and work. This is an important difference, although it is of course sometimes very difficult to decide what is Calvinian and what is Calvinist. However, only references to Calvin, and not to other Reformed thinkers, were taken into account in

148

Piotr Wilczek

this bibliography. The concentration on Calvin alone made the whole project more clear from a methodological point of view.

1. Calvin’s Contacts with Poland—a Bibliographical Survey John Calvin’s contacts with Poland during his lifetime have already been discussed in a number of articles in German, English, and Polish, beginning with a series of fundamental works by Theodor Wotschke, especially his Der Briefwechsel der Schweizer mit den Polen (Wotschke: 1908). This volume listed all the letters from the Opera Calvini related to Poland. In 1965 a prominent Polish historian of Protestantism, Oskar Bartel, published an article in which he discussed these contacts in detail (Bartel: 1965). In 1975, Nancy Marilyn Conradt, a student at the University of Michigan, defended a doctoral dissertation entitled John Calvin, Theodore Beza and the Reformation in Poland and the first three chapters of this work were entitled: I. Calvin and Poland, 1556–1560; II. Calvin and the problem of George Blandrata; III. Calvin and the Mediator controversy; and IV. Calvin, Beza and the Polish antitrinitarians. The last article on Calvin’s contacts with Poland was a paper by Mihaly Markus entitled Calvin und Polen which was delivered at the International Congress on Calvin Research in 2002 (Markus: 2004). However, the most comprehensive article on the first period of these contacts was published by George Huntston Williams (Williams: 1981). In it he proposed the following periodization of Calvin’s contacts with Poland. First, from 1549, the year he dedicated his commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews to King Sigismundus Augustus, to 1556; second, from 1556–1560, the period during which Johannes a Lasco was in Poland as a leader of the Polish church; and third, from the death of a Lasco in 1560 to the death of Calvin in 1564. I would like to propose in the following paragraphs a slightly different periodization, based on the analysis of Calvin’s correspondence with Poles (which is included in the bibliography of John Calvin in Poland). Calvin’s letters to the Polish King and nobles can serve as a starting point for reflection on the origin and crisis of the Polish Reformed church and the relations of foreign reformers with Poland (cf. Greef: 2008). The first evidence of Calvin’s contacts with Poland is his introduction to the commentary on the Letter to Hebrews, written on May 23, 1549. This commentary is dedicated to the Polish King, Sigismundus Augustus. In his dedicatory letter Calvin reminds that Johann Eck (as we remember —a leading Catholic apologist who debated with Luther) dedicated his book on the Holy Mass to the King’s Father, i. e. the previous King of Poland, Sigismund the Old. Calvin claims that Eck’s idea of sacrifice is contradictory to the idea of Christ’s priesthood. Calvin also argues that the Letter to the Hebrews contains the

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works

149

full teaching about Christ’s eternal divinity and unique priesthood. He encourages Sigismundus Augustus to promote the Reformation in Poland. This dedication has symbolic meaning not only as the first contact of Calvin with Poland, but also because many people put their hopes in the King, who allegedly had a friendly attitude towards the Reformation (although there is no reliable evidence of this). However, Calvin’s contacts with Poland can also be placed in the context of many intellectual debates of the mid-16th century, when numerous Christian intellectuals, although officially Roman Catholic, were involved in theological debates about various aspects of the Church and doctrine. Many of them held idealistic hope that the Council of Trent would introduce ideas favourable to irenicism, toleration, and Christian unity. A very typical example of such an approach may be seen in the life and work of a great Polish Renaissance humanist, Andreas Fricius Modrevius, known as the author of a fundamental work about the Christian state (De republica emendanda) and Silvae—a subtle theological analysis of the Holy Trinity. The next stage of Calvin’s contacts with Poland occurred between the years 1555–1559. In December 1555 Calvin sent to Poland as many as nine letters upon the request of Francesco Lismanino, who at that time was already under Calvin’s influence (although very soon he appeared a very inconvenient ally) and who for some time read twice a week fragments of the Institutes to King Sigismundus Augustus. In these nine letters Calvin calls for the promotion of the Reformation in Poland and especially for preparing a new translation of the Bible into Polish. He furthermore wished to establish a new Protestant university which would educate future ministers. Another interesting collection of letters is his correspondence with a leading Roman Catholic magnate (prince), Jan Tarnowski, who tries to explain to Calvin that introducing the Reformation in Poland could lead to social disorder. Even more interesting is his correspondence with Jakub Uchan´ski, a Catholic bishop and one of the most important leaders of the Polish church who was planning to introduce reforms in his diocese close to the ideas of the Reformation—the lay celebration of the Lord’s Supper with both bread and wine, the introduction of Polish in the liturgy, and the abolition of priestly celibacy. Although Calvin strongly encouraged the bishop to introduce such reforms, Uchan´ski ultimately turned back from these plans, and later became one of the most conservative bishops, especially after 1562, when he became the Primate of Poland, i. e. the leader of the whole Polish Roman Catholic Church. The third stage of Calvin’s contacts with Poland was an intensive correspondence associated with debates about antitrinitarian ideas which were endangering the future development of the Reformed church in Poland. There are a few letters in this collection which are especially interesting: two letters of 1560 and 1561 against Francesco Stancaro and a polemic with Jacob Sylvius in which

150

Piotr Wilczek

Calvin presented his famous Brevis admonitio ad fratres Polonos—a strong defence of the idea of the Holy Trinity against the views of Biandrata and Stancaro. The tensions of the late 1550s and early 1560s were exacerbated by the death of Johannes a Lasco and then, a few years later, by the death of Calvin himself. These events precipitated the kind of crisis which Calvin had long feared, although arguably even he had not fully realised the actual dangers. The antitrinitarian Church of the Polish Brethren emerged in the 16th century, within Calvin’s own lifetime, as the result of a split in the Reformed church. During numerous synods, there were intense disputes and debates. Many Polish adherents of John Calvin wanted to introduce changes into the Reformed doctrines. As we know from his correspondence, Calvin was very concerned about the situation, but his interventions proved fruitless. A respected Reformed theologian and minister, Gregorius Paulus of Brzeziny, started to call into question the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and was supported by others, including some educated Italian and German refugees, such as Giorgio Biandrata who had become influential in the Polish Reformed community. These refugees joined the group of Polish Reformed pastors and together formulated the most radical and theologically sophisticated heresy of the Reformation period (cf. Pelikan: 1991, Williams: 1978, 1992, Kot: 1956, 1957). Calvin’s correspondence is a good source for studying both his approach to these dramatic events and the development of early antitrinitarianism in Poland. Although not everyone is interested in alternative history, the case of Calvin’s contacts with the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth is a tempting example for those who enjoy thinking about counterfactuals. For that reason I would like to quote two passages from the aforementioned study on Calvin’s contacts with Poland by the renowned Reformation scholar George Hunston Williams, the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School. This is undoubtedly the most profound work written on this topic. Williams is the author of numerous books and articles on the Reformation, especially the Radical Reformation, and at the beginning of his inspiring paper on the ‘Polish-Lithuanian Calvin’ writes the following: If Calvin and his Swiss colleagues had been more observant, attentive, and responsive, the Reformed Church of the [Polish-Lithuanian] Commonwealth might have emerged from organizational and doctrinal controversy as a major and abiding entity. Instead they relied largely on the somewhat Erasmian Łaski [ John a Lasco]. (…) he had more of the strengths of an administrator than of a theologian, which the local situation surely required (Williams: 1981).

And here are his conclusions: If Calvin had better understood the strengths and weaknesses of Łaski and his people and also more swiftly perceived the theological agony and confusion of the Poles (…), and if he

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works

151

had shown half the interest in the [Polish-Lithuanian] Commonwealth that he did in his native Catholic-Huguenot France, European history would have taken a fundamentally different course, whether for good or ill (Williams: 1981).

Of course historians should be interested in, as Williams put it, ‘John Calvin’s attitude toward and influence in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth stretching from Cracow well beyond Kiev, the biggest state in Europe in the sixteenth century’ (Williams: 1981). But they also should not forget about the web of complicated social, political, and religious issues which resulted in the development of antitrinitarianism and the final triumph of the Catholic CounterReformation. I believe that even if John a Lasco had been a better theologian and even if John Calvin had been much more interested in Polish issues, Poland would not have become a Protestant state. The Jesuits finally won the battle. As intellectual leaders of the Counter-Reformation they were instrumental in the process of the restoration of Catholicism in the whole country. This restoration was rendered much easier by the fact that Polish Protestantism had no deep social and theological roots. Indeed, it is sometimes presented merely as the rebellion of a younger generation of influential noblemen in the 1540s and 1550s, who desired to gain power against the influential Catholic Church and to ensure that the execution of law, the ownership of property, and power over the peasants was in the hands of noblemen rather than bishops and vicars (Maciuszko: 2013) Although a hesitant king read Calvin’s Institutions and had intensive contacts with numerous European reformers, the attempts to establish a national church independent of Rome failed in the mid-16th century. The Reformation in Poland was only an episode, as a prominent historian stated in the often-criticized title of one of his books (Urban: 1988).

2. Calvin’s Works Translated and Published in Poland John Calvin’s theological works have never been widely known in Poland and have only been very rarely published in the Polish language. Indeed, a full translation of the Institutes of Christian Religion has not yet been published, not to mention other of his lesser known works. Nevertheless the first translations of Calvin into Polish can be traced back to the turbulent period of the 1550s and 60s. Only a few years ago, a Russian researcher, Margarita Korzo, proved that a fragment of Calvin’s Catechismus Genevensis Prior (published in French in 1537) was translated into Polish and published in Königsberg between 1552 and 1556 (Korzo: 2006, 2007). We now know only a few pages of this work, which was hidden in a cover of another work published in 1556, and it is still not clear whether the whole Geneva Catechism was published in Polish in the mid-16th

152

Piotr Wilczek

century or not. Leaving this question aside, the place of its publication is no surprise to anyone acquainted with Polish-Lithuanian history of the early modern period. At that time Königsberg was the capital of the Duchy of Prussia which was a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was ruled by the Polish king‘s cousin, Albrecht Hohenzollern. The city served as an important cultural and academic centre in which Polish students were trained and publications in the Polish language were published, including the first Protestant (Lutheran) translation of the New Testament into Polish. The Königsberg edition of the Geneva Catechism is probably the first publication of Calvin’s work in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the Polish language. However, the first works of Calvin which are really important as a part of his dialogue with Poland, although not published there, were associated with the antitrinitarian crisis. Ad quaestiones Georgii Blandratae responsum (1558) and Responsum ad Fratres Polonos Quomodo Christus sit Mediator, ad refutandum Stancari errorem (1561) were the two treatises written against the Italian antitrinitarian heretics who introduced the crisis into the Polish Reformed church. The main work by Calvin devoted to these issues was, however, Brevis admonitio Joannis Calvini ad fratres Polonos… (1563)—which is largely a polemic against the theological anitrinitarian views of Gregorius Paulus of Brzeziny. The above mentioned works should be listed together with two works dedicated to Poles. In 1549, Calvin published Commentarii in Epistolam ad Hebraeos, which I have already mentioned as the first example of his contacts with Poland. The last Polish non-epistolographical polonicum published during Calvin’s lifetime was Commentarii integri in Acta Apostolorum (1564), a work dedicated to Prince Nicholas Radziwill. Radziwill was the main protector of Calvinism in Lithuania who died one year later; his death also facilitated the development of antitrinitarianism in the country. In the 16th century there is only one more Calvinian polonicum, the final one in that century, published in 1599. This is a translation of Book 4, chapter XX of the Institutes: De politica administratione— and is a Cracow print, about 100 pages long. One more translation of a fragment of the Institutes (and the only Polish translation of Calvin in the 17th century) was published in 1626. This fragment of Book 4, again about 100 pages long, is devoted to the sacraments. This is the whole collection of Calvin’s works related to Poland or translated into Polish in the 16th and 17th centuries: two prefaces, three polemics with antitrinitarians, a translation of the Geneva Catechism (we know now only 4 pages) and two translations of fragments of the Institutes; eight works altogether. It is very significant that none of Calvin‘s works were published in Poland in the 18th and 19th centuries. To be more precise: none of Calvin‘s works were published in Polish for the 280 years, between 1626 and 1905! In 1905, when Central

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works

153

Poland was still under Russian rule, the synod of the Polish Evangelical Reformed Church in Warsaw published a Polish translation (from German, compared with the French version) of the first three chapters of Calvin’s short treatise on the Holy Communion (originally published in Strasbourg in 1540). Fragments of this translation were reprinted in 1980 and 1993 with no significant changes! Between 1905 and 1957, again, no translation of Calvin’s work appeared in Polish. Between 1957 and 2009, only 28 very short fragments of the Institutes of the Christian Religion were published, mainly in the journal of the Evangelical Reformed Church Jednota (The Unity). The only existing collection that is longer, the Institutio (140 pages), was published in 1972 as a part of a secular academic anthology Philosophical and Religious Thought of the 16th Century Reformation. The commentary to this edition was typical for the period. Institutio was presented as one of the most prominent theological treatises of the Reformation and compared to the Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas. The editors emphasize that Calvin’s thought is based on his view about the ‘absolute authority of God as an eternal legislator and judge, whose will is the law’. According to the authors, the problem of predestination is presented with ‘iron consistency’ and Calvin was aware of its ‘gloomy significance’. They argue further that this ‘idea of a chosen people’ was an important ‘impulse for the development of the bourgeois society’ (Kalwin: 1972). Such expressions are typical for the style of Polish academic publications in the humanities and social sciences at that time, when the academic community was under control of state censorship and influenced by Marxist terminology. To sum up, in the first half of the 20th century until 1957, there were no translations of Calvin in Poland and, if we do not take into account the 1905 translation of a short fragment of the Institutes, we can say that for 332 years, from 1626 to 1957, no single passage of Calvin was published in Poland. In the second half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, 28 fragments were published, including only one longer collection of passages from the Institutes.

3. Reception of Calvin’s Thought in the Early Modern Period and Academic Publications on Calvin in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries It is very significant that all 38 works devoted at least partly to Calvin and his thought and published in the early modern period, between 1550 and 1784, were polemical—written by antitrinitarians, Catholics, or Lutherans. There was no positive account of Calvin’s life and work published in Poland at that time.

154

Piotr Wilczek

The first work on Calvin related to Poland is De votis brevis disceptatio contra impugnationes Joanni Calvini by Joannes Cochlaeus published in Mainz in 1550 with a dedication to Nicholas Dzierzgowski, archbishop of Gniezno. This polemic with Calvin‘s Institutio written by a famous German Lutheran theologian was dedicated to the Polish Roman Catholic bishop and only for that reason may be included in the collection of polonica. In 1560s, during the trinitarian debate in the Polish Reformed church, three important antitrinitarian works against Calvin were published in Poland: De Trinitate et Mediatore Domine Nostro Iesu Christo adversus Henricum Bullingerum, Petrum Martyrem et Ioannem Calvinum by Francesco Stancaro (1562), and two works by Gregorius Paulus of Brzeziny entitled Carmen ad Joannem Calvinum et pios fratres and Epistola… monitoria, ad Tigurinos ministros et Calvinum (both c. 1563). Among the rest of these 38 early modern anti-Calvin works, we have translations into Polish of books written by foreign authors: for example, the famous French theologian and physician, Jérôme-Hermès Bolsec, who debated with Calvin on predestination; the English Jesuit Edmund Campion; the French opponent of Calvin, Sebastian Castellio and, by other, lesser-known authors like Laurence Arthur Faunt, an English Jesuit theologian and missionary to Poland. There are a number of anti-Calvin polemics by Polish Jesuits, including two well-known authors—Stanisław Grodzicki and Marcin Łaszcz. The title of Grodzicki’s work, including fragments on Calvin, is very significant: The rules of heretic faith, that is the evidence that heretic leaders claim that their own brains and not the Holy Scripture are the rule of faith (Grodzicki: 1592). None of these Polish and Latin polemical pamphlets are devoted exclusively to John Calvin, but he and his works are mentioned there very often, usually in a very stereotypical, simplified way. The works published in Polish usually include unrefined passages for undemanding readers, full of absurd stories and accusations, often written in verse, all of which are typical for religious polemics of that period. In one of these works by Hieronim Przewodowski, published in 1611, he explains that ‘heretic ministers’, i. e. Calvin and Luther, are to be likened to Lucifer, Judas Iscariot, and Pontius Pilate. Calvin is presented there as a man without will and memory, a blasphemer, and even as a robber. Latin polemics were not much more sophisticated—for example, in 1672 a Jesuit, Jan Kwiatkiewicz published a polemic entitled Fascinus a Luthero, Zwinglio, Calvini aliisque haeresiarchis… and a typical phrase in his polemic with the Institutes is the following: ‘novum Calvini Deum qui ex Diabolo sit’. I have studied numerous religious polemics of the early modern period, both anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Socinian and I am fully aware of the style and methods of persuasion of these texts, including an especially unrefined style of Jesuit polemics in vernacular languages in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. I have no illusions about the way in which our forebears argued with each other

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works

155

about religious matters (cf. Wilczek: 1999). My point here is that after the antitrinitarian crisis of the early 1560s, when the most talented Reformed ministers moved to the antitrinitarian church of the Polish Brethren, and after the triumphal victory of the Catholic Counter-Reformation led by the Jesuits, there was no possibility for a fair religious debate which would include Reformed Protestants. In these circumstances there was also no possibility for an impartial presentation of John Calvin and his theological thought. Calvin was present in the public debate in Poland from 1560s to the late 18th century as a marginal and distasteful figure, worth mentioning only as a pitiful foreign heretic. This situation was the result of a gradual marginalization of the Reformed faith in Poland from the end of the 16th century. Following the conversions to Catholicism of many powerful merchants, noblemen, and princes (which were inspired by the Jesuits), the Reformed church was deprived of influential supporters. Crowds of fanatics attacked Protestant churches and even funerals. It is often forgotten that in the mid-17th century not only Socinians but also Calvinists were persecuted and expelled from the country for alleged collaboration with Swedish invaders and a number of Reformed churches were destroyed. The kings usually supported anti-Protestant riots inspired by the Jesuits in various cities of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, for example in Vilnius. In the first half of the 18th century the rights of the Protestants to be members of the parliament, tribunals, and state offices were gradually limited. This was a serious deprivation of civic rights. On the other hand we should remember that these ‘anti-dissident’ laws was introduced 100 years later than similar regulations in other European Catholic countries, as a result of the process of the so-called confessionalization. One should not therefore be surprised that many Protestants, including members of the Reformed church, were in favour of the situation resulting from the partitions of Poland in the late 18th century. The future rulers of divided Poland used the so-called ‘dissidents’ case’ in their political manipulations already from mid-18th century and after the partitions of Poland Prussia, Russia and even Austria were much more favourable toward non-Catholic denominations than the Catholic rulers of the independent Poland-Lithuania. This country existed until 1795 when the last, final partition took place (the first two ones were in 1772 and 1793). All this does not mean that the number of publications on Calvin rapidly increased on Polish and Lithuanian lands after the partitions of Poland. I already mentioned the publication of a fragment of the Institutes in Warsaw in 1905. The first publication on Calvin in the 19th century appeared only in 1863 and this was a short note in a periodical published by the Reformed Church, devoted to the idea of building a monument to Calvin in Warsaw. Other publications in the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century (up to 1918 when Poland became independent), include 20 items: encyclopaedia entries on Calvin, short articles in

156

Piotr Wilczek

church periodicals, and a small number of scholarly publications on Calvin and Poland, including a few short articles and one book by Tadeusz Grabowski (Grabowski: 1906). This book was not a breakthrough academic achievement, but a thorough study which included also a chapter on Calvin’s significance in the history of European literatures and a chapter on relations between Calvin and the Poles in the 16th century. Nowadays, such an outdated piece of scholarship could be completely ignored if it were not the only general survey of Calvinist literature in Poland published so far. Of course, many studies have been published in the last 100 years on Calvinist writers and their works (especially Nicholas Rej, called the father of Polish literature) but no other comprehensive monograph or textbook on Calvinist literature in Poland has been published since 1906. There have been, however, books and articles on John Calvin published in the last 100 years, but only 18 of them during the interwar period (1918–1939) and about 240 after the Second World War. This number looks promising—240 postwar publications on Calvin in a country where the Calvinist community has now about 1500 members. It is not surprising that in these circumstances many of these publications are short articles for a general reader, published in modest church periodicals. As far as scholarly publications are concerned, there are a few authors worth mentioning here. In common opinion, as well as in Protestant scholarly circles, the most distinguished Calvin scholar in Poland now is Piotr Jaskóła, a Roman Catholic priest, full professor at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Opole, Director of the Institute of Ecumenism, and Chair of the Department of Theology of Post-Reformation Churches. Although his professionalism is unquestionable, his case is a paradox typical for a predominantly Catholic country: a Roman Catholic priest serves as the main expert on Calvin. Although he has published a number of articles on various issues related to Calvin and Calvinism, including a comprehensive article on the doctrine of predestination, his research is mainly devoted to the theology of the Holy Spirit in Calvin’s thought. To this issue he has devoted numerous articles and a book monograph. His other topics include: Calvin’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper, Baptism, faith, confession, kenosis, justification, incarnation of Christ, the Eucharist, and eschatology. His 25 books and articles present an interesting view on John Calvin. This is a view of a Roman Catholic theologian and all the topics are discussed from a Catholic and also ecumenical perspective. This is a very objective approach to the theology of John Calvin, albeit from a Catholic perspective, as can be especially observed in the articles on confession, the Eucharist, or predestination. These issues are evaluated and criticized from the point of view of Catholic theology. Although there is no reason to criticize a Catholic theologian for writing analyses on Calvin in favour of a Catholic point of view, it would also be beneficial to have publications on Calvin’s theology written from the Reformed or neutral/secular perspective.

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works

157

The only Polish Reformed theologian and pastor who publishes scholarly articles on Calvin is Rafał Leszczyn´ski, professor of the Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw. He is a specialist in early Christian theology and his articles on Calvin are written on the margins of his activities. However, thanks to this ‘marginal’ diligence, a Polish reader can now enjoy a series of articles which meet the best academic standards: ‘Ciceronian elements in John Calvin’s ‘Institutes of the Christian religion’’, ‘Nature and grace in the theology of John Calvin, Predestination in the works of John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas’, ‘Theology of John Calvin’ (a comprehensive, 30 page account), ‘Ethics and political doctrine of Calvin’, ‘Sacramentology of John Calvin’, and a chapter on John Calvin in his excellent book entitled ‘Fathers of the Reformation and Philosophical Aspects of their Thought’. Although these publications are written only in addition to the main field of his interest, they form—in my opinion—a collection of the best publications on Calvin’s theology ever written in the Polish language. There is one more author who has devoted a series of his publications to Calvin’s work, which is discussed from a philosophical and theological perspective. Stanisław Piwko is a philosopher, not a theologian, and has served as Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the Warsaw School of Economics—the best university for economics in the country. He has widely published on Calvin’s theodicy, anthropology, ethics, and other philosophical aspects of his thought. In 1987, he published a book entitled Philosophical aspects of John Calvin’s doctrine. This was the first academic book on John Calvin published in Poland. His 1995 book John Calvin: Life and Work was printed as the first academic monograph on both the life and work of Calvin. This was an expanded version of the previous book on Calvin’s doctrine, supplemented by—as the author himself put it—a ‘chronology of literary achievements of the reformer and historical background of his work’. Leszczyn´ski’s essays and book chapters, together with Piwko’s books and articles, are attempts to present Calvin’s life and work from the academic perspective, with limited prejudice and with obvious respect for the achievements of the reformer. At the same time, this is the evidence of the current situation of Calvin’s presence in Polish readership and scholarship: if the above mentioned works by Jaskóła, Leszczyn´ski, and Piwko are the only professional academic works on Calvin ever published in Poland, it means that Calvin’s life and work are almost invisible in this country (For bibliographical description of all these books see: Mincer: 2012). There were, however, more authors who had ambitions to write monographic works on Calvin. We must remember that at least until 1989, religious studies in Poland were very much influenced by the Communist version of Marxism and served as a tool for the authorities to fight against religion. Although Roman Catholicism was the main target of this anti-religious campaign, all Christian

158

Piotr Wilczek

denominations were presented as examples of religion to be treated in accordance with the famous saying by Karl Marx as ‘das Opium des Volkes’—the opiate of the people. Marxist writers were torn between two attitudes. The first one was using Protestantism and Socinianism as positive examples of religion in opposition to reactionary Roman Catholicism, which was both anti-Protestant and anti-Marxist. One of the examples of such an approach was a publication of the Library of Reformation Writers, a monumental academic book series in which many Calvinist, Lutheran, and Socinian works were published in Latin and in Polish. This was a very typical example of using Protestantism as a political tool against Catholicism because, at the same time, Catholic authors of the early modern period were not in such a privileged position in publication projects subsidized by the state. In light of this it is highly significant that the last volume in the Library of Reformation Writers was published in 1989, the year of the fall of Communism in Poland. The second attitude was a more typical expression of the Marxist opinion about religion: Calvinism was an example of Christian religion, and viewed as equally harmful to the country as Catholicism. John Calvin was presented as an intolerant, narrow-minded religious fanatic and persecutor of Miguel Servet and the doctrine of predestination was discussed as an example of the cruel, degenerate character of Christian theology. A typical example of such an approach is a book by Andrzej Tokarczyk entitled John Calvin, which was published in 1989. The author emphasizes that this is a ‘non-confessional’ book but numerous references to Karl Marx leave no doubt as to what kind of ‘nonconfessionalism’ the author represents. One year earlier, in 1988, a biographical novel by Jerzy Piechowski was published and the title itself—A Prophet or a Dictator—is clear evidence of the character of this book. After the fall of Communism, two translations of foreign biographies of Calvin were published: Calvin, by Bernard Cottret in 2000, and A Life of John Calvin by Alister McGrath in 2009. I believe that at least one more excellent Calvin’s biography should be translated into Polish: Calvin, by Bruce Gordon, which also includes a comprehensive chapter on Calvin and Calvinism in Poland and EastCentral Europe. We are still awaiting the Polish translation of Calvin’s Institutes. Before it is finished, it would also be good to publish an anthology of Calvin’s other works, in order to present to a Polish reader at least a slim volume with a selection of translations of these works, hitherto completely unknown in Poland.

4. Instead of a Conclusion In such a context, it is quite surprising that a renowned Polish poet wrote a poem on John Calvin. Ewa Lipska, a very well-known and award-winning Polish poet who has been translated into many languages, is the author of a poem entitled

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works

159

Calvin. She is not a religious poet and Christianity is not an important part of her work. Calvin is an intriguing and ambiguous poem but there is no doubt that it summarizes all kinds of universal, not only Polish, stereotypes about Calvin. Let me quote it to serve as a conclusion to this contribution on Calvin’s paradoxical presence in Poland over the last five centuries:

Calvin A slim one. And shy. Little sleep. Headaches. He was afraid of fear. He lived in an age of crime tourism. Letters of suspects. Arrests. Executions. A good time for pyromaniacs. During processions on six sites of meditation stakes of burning convicts. Inexhaustible avenues of treason. The year 1535. In Paris. His room was meticulously searched. Papers confiscated. Correspondence. He’s the author of a treatise on the dream of the soul. In Catholics he discerns Satan’s audacity. To top it all bubonic plague. Famine. The year 1541. Return to Geneva. Mutual provocations. Fanatical hatred. Terror yapping in the streets. Religion doesn’t save him. A utopian vision of eternity. He weakens. Weakens more and more.

160

Piotr Wilczek

A dry landscape. A red trickle of light. Echo of evil. He weakens. Weakens more and more. He dies. Converted into sin (Lipska: 2009).

Bibliography A full bibliography of works mentioned in the article is available in Mincer: 2012. Bartel, Oskar (1965), Calvin und Polen, Revue d‘Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 45, 1, 93–108. Grabowski, Tadeusz (1906), Z dziejów literatury kalwin´skiej w Polsce (1550–1650), Kraków: Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci. Greef, Wulfert de (2008), The Writings of John Calvin, Expanded Edition. An Introductory Guide, translated by Lyle D. Bierma, Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press. Grodzicki, Stanislaw (1592), Prawidła wiary heretyckiej. To jest okazanie, iz˙ wodzowie kacerscy, nie Pismo S´. Ale własny mózg swój za regułe˛ albo prawidło wiary sobie maja˛… Vilnius. Kalwin, Jan (1972), Nauka religii chrzes´cijan´skiej, translated by Irmina Lichan´ska, in: Lech Szczucki (ed.), Mys´l filozoficzno-religijna Reformacji XVI wieku. Warszawa: PWN. Korzo, Margarita A. (2006), Nota w sprawie nieznanego przekładu Jana Kalwina w Polsce XVI wieku, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 50, 257–259. — (2007), W sprawie jednego z XVI-wiecznych katechizmów kalwin´skich w Rzeczpospolitej, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, 51, 177–198. Kot, Stanislaw (1956), Szymon Budny: Der grösste Häretiker Litauens im 16. Jahrhundert, Wiener Archiv für Geschichte des Slawentums und Osteuropa, 2.1, 64–118. — (1957), Socinianism in Poland: The Social and Political Ideas of the Polish Antitrinitarians in the 16th and 17th Centuries, Boston: Star King Press. Lipska, Ewa (2009), The New Century. Translated by Robin Davidson & Ewa Elz˙bieta Nowakowska. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Maciuszko, Janusz (2013), Ska˛d sie˛ wzie˛ła reformacja w Polsce?, Pismo er, 2. (www.pismoer.pl/feeria/skad-sie-wziela-reformacja-w-polsce-janusz-t-maciuszko/, accessed: 1 January 2015). Markus, Mihaly (2004), Calvin und Polen. Gedankenfragmente in Verbindung mit einer Empfehlung, in: Herman Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20–24, 2002, Geneve: Librairie Droz, 2004, 323–330. Mincer, Wieslaw (2012), Jan Kalwin w Polsce. Bibliografia, edited by Piotr Wilczek. Warszawa: Sub Lupa (download at: www.sublupa.pl/pl/p/Jan-Kalwin-w-Polsce.-Bibliografia/208).

The Polish Reception of John Calvin’s Works

161

Pelikan, Jaroslav J. (1991), The Christian Tradition. A History of the Development of Doctrine, 4, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Urban, Waclaw (1988), Epizod reformacyjny, Kraków: KAW. Wilczek, Piotr (1999), Catholics and Heretics: Some Aspects of Religious Debates in the Old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, The Sarmatian Review, 2, 619–628. (www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/499/wilczek.html, accessed 1 January 2015). Williams, George H. (1978), The Polish Brethren: Documentation of the History and Thought of Unitarianism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the Diaspora, 1601–1685, Missoula: Scholars Press. — (1981) The Polish-Lithuanian Calvin during the ‘Superintendency’ of John Laski, 1556– 60, in: Brian-Albert Gerrish (ed.), Reformatio Perennis: Essays on Calvin and the Reformation in Honor of Ford Lewis Battles, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. — (1992) The Radical Reformation, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers.

Part II. Seminars

Max Engammare

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014) A Irena Backus, en souvenir de trente années de compagnonnage érudit

Etre l’éditeur des Opera Calvini aujourd’hui comme hier demande à rendre compte de sa tâche. Historien, il m’est apparu indispensable de comprendre la Wirkungsgeschichte de l’œuvre de Calvin à travers la série de ses opera omnia, parfois selecta depuis le XVIe siècle. La mise en contexte est indispensable, car elle permet de mieux comprendre la spécificité de l’édition calvinienne. Dès 1518, on publia des recueils d’œuvres de Luther, mais c’est vraiment en 1539 que parut le premier volume des Deutsche Werke de Luther, Der Erste Teil der Bücher D. Mart. Luth. uber etliche Epistel der Aposteln, à Wittenberg, chez Hans Lufft. Il y eut douze volumes d’œuvres en allemand jusqu’en 1559, et de nombreuses rééditions.1 Le second volume, qui rassemblait les œuvres polémiques du grand homme, ne parut qu’en 1548, deux ans après la mort du Réformateur. Les sept volumes des Opera omnia parurent également à Wittenberg, de 1545 à 1557, les cinq premiers chez Hans Lufft, puis les héritiers de Peter Seitz (6e) et Thomas Klug (7e). Melanchthon écrivit une préface pour le premier volume latin. Les quatre volumes des Opera omnia de Philip Melanchthon parurent à Wittenberg, chez Johann Crato, grâce à Kaspar Peucer entre 1562 et 1564 (Omnium operum reverendi viri Philippi Melanthonis, additus est ad finem copiosus Index rerum et explicationum praecipuarum, edidit Caspar Peucerus D.). Les 28 volumes du Corpus Reformatorum s’étalèrent de 1834 à 1860, fêtant la fin de l’entreprise avec le troisième centenaire de la mort du bras droit de Luther). Les Opera omnia d’Erasme, sous l’égide de Beatus Rhenanus, parurent quatre ans après la mort de l’Humaniste, en 1540, en neuf volumes (le volume 10, constitué d’index, parut l’année suivante) chez Hieronymus Froben et Nicolaus Episcopius. On constate donc que les éditions commencèrent juste avant la mort d’un grand homme ou peu de temps après celle-ci. Il s’agit également de l’œuvre 1 Cf. Aland, 549–560. Cf. surtout Wolgast: 1980 (le premier chapitre est l’œuvre de Hans Volz: ‘Die ersten Sammelausgaben (1518–1520)’, 429–464). Je remercie le Dr. Michael Beyer pour la référence au travail d’E. Wolgast.

166

Max Engammare

commerciale des éditeurs, hier comme aujourd’hui, ils cherchaient à gagner de l’argent. On peut immédiatement constater que l’auteur lui-même ne semble pas participer à la collecte et à l’édition complète de ses œuvres, on se demandera si ce fut le cas avec Calvin. Ce n’est pas que les hommes du XVIe siècle n’étaient pas capables d’une telle construction ou reconstruction, qu’on pense aux différentes architectures des Œuvres de Pierre de Ronsard, depuis la première édition collective de 1560 jusqu’à la septième de 1584, un an avant sa mort (cf. Simonin: 1990, 349, 354, 369; Ronsard: 1993/1994), ou aux Œuvres d’un autre poète, Philippe Desportes, parues en 1596, dix ans avant sa mort, mais les théologiens ne sembleraient s’être intéressés à l’édition collective de leurs œuvres au siècle de la Réforme. On trouve dès 1552 une édition des Opuscula de Jean Calvin, partiellement rééditée en 1563, en 1566 le Recueil des opuscules, avant trois rééditions complétées des Opuscula en 1576, 1597 et 1612. Ce dernier volume est à l’origine des premiers Opera omnia à Genève en 1617, avant ceux d’Amsterdam en 1667–1671, le Corpus Reformatorum de 1863 à 1900, et les Calvini opera denuo recognita commencés par Wilhelm Neuser et quelques autres en 1992. Ce sont ces éditions que nous allons ouvrir, dont nous allons chercher le projet et les enjeux.

1552 Joannis Calvini opuscula omnia in unum volumen collecta. Quibus accessit libellus nunc primum editus, De æterna Dei prædestinatione, adversus Albertum Pighium Campensem, et Georgium Siculum. Locorum sacræ Scripturæ in his opusculis obiter interpretatorum index, Genève, Jean Girard, 1552. Dans sa préface datée du 29 février 1552,2 Nicolas Des Gallars explique que dans ces temps ultimes troublés, où règne la tyrannie de l’Antichrist, il était nécessaire de conserver les trésors dont Dieu avait enrichi son Eglise (f° aiir°). Jamais plus qu’à l’époque contemporaine il n’y eut autant de superstition et d’impiété, autant de questions vaines et frivoles au lieu de traités précis expliquant l’Ecriture sainte. Calvin lui apparaît donc comme le dernier rempart contre ces dérives et ces erreurs induites par Satan, il en dresse un panégyrique:

2 Jean-François Gilmont résume la préface dans sa notice (cf. Bibliotheca Calviniana 52/8, 456– 462).

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)

167

En outre, entre les champions de la vérité qui ont excellé à notre époque, maître Calvin s’est présenté comme le fidèle, diligent, brave et invaincu, comme en témoignent ses remarquables écrits qui ne demandent aucune louange d’un tiers.3

Quoique ni Calvin ni ses écrits n’en aient besoin, Des Gallars n’en continue pas moins son dithyrambe, en précisant pourquoi il a rassemblé les écrits du maître: Mais j’ai estimé qu’il me fallait maintenant les rassembler, pour qu’ils soient le plus visible à tous, qu’il n’était pas inutile que soient rassemblées en un seul volume les écrits qui sont souvent sortis d’un tel homme depuis dix-huit ans.4

Remarquons qu’en 1552 Des Gallars considère que les premiers écrits de Calvin date de 1535 (le privilège inventé de la Bible d’Olivétan, non reproduit ici, puisque la Psychopannychia et la première mouture de l’Institutio sont de 1536). Il ne tient pas compte du commentaire au De clementia de Sénèque de 1532. A l’égal des écrits d’Augustin qui permirent de combattre pendant des siècles et jusqu’à aujourd’hui les adorateurs des idoles et les hérétiques, les écrits de Calvin serviront également longtemps dans le combat doctrinal, puisque le diable engendre de nos jours de nouveaux maléfices. Satan et son pouvoir sont très présents dans cette préface de Des Gallars, Calvin apparaissant comme le seul héros capable de lutter contre lui, de combattre les ennemis de l’intérieur et ceux de l’extérieur.5 Des Gallars énumère les opposants, Pighius, Sadoleto, les censeurs de la Sorbonne, le concile de Trente, ainsi que les anabaptistes, la ‘secte fanatique des libertins’ et ceux qui s’opposent à la prédestination éternelle de Dieu, c’est-à-dire au début 1552 l’ancien carme Jérôme Bolsec, dont le nom n’est pas cité. On trouve parfois le nom de Nicolas Des Gallars comme traducteur du texte latin, pour le traité Des reliques ou Contre les libertins spirituels (p. 466), mais ce n’est pas systématique. On peut toutefois le tenir comme le maître d’œuvre de ce recueil. N’oublions pas que, s’il avait rédigé en latin le commentaire de Calvin sur Esaïe de 1551 (cf. Bibliotheca Calviniana I, 51/6), Des Gallars avait été aidé par quelque collaborateur pour le traduire en français pour l’édition de 1552.6

3 ‘Porro inter veritatis propugnatores qui nostris temporibus excelluerunt, quam fidelem, strenuum, fortem, et invictum se præbuerit D.[ominus] Calvinus, sic testantur eximia eius scripta, ut alieno præconio non indigeant’ (Opuscula, 1552, f° aiir°–v°). 4 ‘Sed hæc mihi nunc pestringenda putavi, quo magis perspicuum sit omnibus, non frustra collecta esse in unum corpus opuscula quæ a tanto viro iam ab octodecim annis subinde profecta sunt’ Ibid., f° aiiv°. 5 ‘Nec enim unius generis hostes negocium nobis facessunt. Nunc ab exteris impetimur, nunc a domesticis, hoc est ab iis qui nostri videri volunt, quum tamen alienissimi atque inimicissimi sint.’ Ibid., f° aiiv°. 6 Cf. Bibliotheca Calviniana I, 52/2, 437: ‘je ne me suis point contenté de l’avoir escrit en Latin, mais (…) nous l’avons mis en nostre vulgaire, à ce que le Seigneur soit de plus en plus magnifié en toute langue.’ La succession d’une parole en ‘je’ puis en ‘nous’ indique que Des Gallars a été lui-même aidé pour la traduction en français.

168

Max Engammare

L’ordre des vingt-deux traités est chronologique, commençant avec la Psychopannychia. Après la préface de Des Gallars, c’est la préface de Calvin à la Psychopannychia, datée ‘Basileæ M.D.XXXVI.’, qui fait office de préface générale, puisque suit la liste des traités: Psychopannychia, Epistolæ duæ, Jacobi Sadoleti Epistola (…) Cum Johannis Calvini ad eam epistolam responsione, De Cœna Domini, jusqu’au De scandalis de 1550 et surtout le De æterna Dei prædestinatione de 1552 (terminé fin décembre 1551, à la mi-janvier 1552 au plus tard).7 On ne peut imaginer que Nicolas des Gallars, alors secrétaire très proche de Calvin, rédacteur de son commentaire sur Esaïe, je viens de la rappeler, n’ait pas parlé de ce projet et de sa réalisation à Calvin qui l’a approuvé. Dans la correspondance conservée de Calvin, pas un mot n’apparaît dans les lettres de 1551 et 1552 sur ce projet de recueil de ses opuscules.

1556–1557 Certaines premières éditions collectives n’ajoutent aucune préface particulière et l’on ne sait qui fut l’initiateur de l’édition, peut-être un imprimeur, mais pas toujours sans la volonté de Calvin, c’est l’histoire d’un petit papier qui nous met sur la voie. En 1556, Robert Estienne donne une édition collective de tous les commentaires de Jean Calvin à toutes les Epîtres néotestamentaires. Aucune préface de sa part, l’édition collective commence par la préface connue de Calvin à Simon Grynæus qui ouvre l’édition du commentaire sur l’Epître aux Romains, préface datée de Strasbourg, le 18 octobre 1539. On sait que cette édition fut davantage corrigée par Calvin que l’édition collective de 1551, déjà voulue et réalisée par lui, certainement avec l’aide de l’infatigable Des Gallars (cf. BC I, 51/10, 417 s). On peut être certain que Calvin prépara soigneusement cette édition, en agissant comme il faisait pour l’Institution de la religion chrestienne: il corrigeait une édition précédente et ajoutait des pages nouvelles, parfois des bouts de papier, des chartulæ. Une note à la fin du commentaire de l’Epître aux Hébreux précise que Robert Estienne n’a pas vu une telle note sur un petit papier à part (edition d’Estienne, 775). ‘Quia author seorsum in chartula hanc annotationem scripserat, ignosces lector quod nos inter excudendum librum fugerit: quod vero te fraudare ea voluimus, grata, ut spero, tibi erit nostra ingenuitas. Inserenda vero erit pagina 125, versu 5, post dictionem absurdi.’

7 Cf. Bibliotheca Calviniana I, 52/4 et la longue note de J.-F. Gilmont, 445–448.

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)

169

Badius la reprend dans l’édition française, sans l’insérer en son lieu.8 On décèle ainsi une préparation rapide de la copie, signe d’une précipitation dans la traduction au fur et à mesure. Cette précipitation est d’ailleurs caractérisée par une note de Badius en tête de la table de la seconde partie donnant le commentaire de Calvin aux Epîtres canoniques: Advertissement au lecteur. L’occasion s’estant offerte de commencer à imprimer par les Espistres canoniques, d’autant que la copie en estoit plustost preste que du reste, nous y mismes une signature d’une capitale avec une petite letre. Mais quand c’est venu à la fin des Espistres S. Paul, ayans perdu la souvenance d’y avoir mis telle signature, nous avons repris la mesme, au lieu que nous la devions desguiser (cf. BC II, 56/1, 599).

Le problème n’est pas bien grave, il ne concerne que les relieurs, mais il nous montre que le travail s’effectuait rapidement dans les officines genevoises, ici celle de Conrad Badius en 1556. On rencontre encore deux types d’index: 1. rerum et locorum avec mention des pages de l’édition. 2. index eorum quae qui est quasi le même index, mais avec les appuis scripturaires de Calvin. Nicolas des Gallars ou Augustin Marlorat l’auteur d’une collection de commentaires néo-testamentaires, parce qu’on ne prête qu’aux riches, ont-ils réalisé ces index? Dans les années 1550, et jusqu’en 1559, Marlorat était toutefois pasteur à Vevey et rien ne peut prouver qu’il participa à cette édition, alors qu’il rédigea les index de l’Institution sur l’édition de 1560, parue en 1562 (préface signée du 1er mai 1562).

1563 Joannis Calvini Opuscula, 1563 (Genève, Barbier et Courteau, in octavo, avec un index). Vérone, Biblioteca civica (Cinque S b 3). Il s’agit d’une reprise partielle du travail de Nicolas Des Gallars, y compris la préface qui conserve les dix-huit ans de 1552, et dans un ordre différent, certainement sans accord de Des Gallars ni de Calvin. Herminjard avait déjà souligné dans son propre exemplaire des Opuscua que les dix-huit ans n’avaient pas été 8 Cf. BC II, 56/1 (886 de l’édition de 1556). Jean-François Gilmont donne la traduction de Badius dans la notice de l’édition Estienne (BC II, 56/3, 606): ‘Pource que l’autheur avoit escrit ceste annotation en un petit papier à part, le lecteur excusera de ce qu’en imprimant le livre nous ne l’avons apperceuë, et cependant trouvera bon (comme j’espere) de ce que recognoissans la faute, nous n’avons voulu le frustrer de ladite annotation. Or il la faudra entrelacer en la page 146 [f° k2 v°], au verset 6, après le mot ‘absurdité’ [886].’ Dans cette 2e partie avec les Epîtres catholiques, la pagination reprend à 1 (–180), sans nouvelle préface.

170

Max Engammare

corrigés.9 Les typos de Nicolas Barbier et Thomas Courteau, qui n’étaient pas réputés pour leur acribie, Calvin se méfiant d’ailleurs des deux imprimeurs depuis 1559, firent en revanche deux fautes dans la date de la préface de Nicolas des Gallars, au lieu du 29 février 1552, ils écrivirent le 31 janvier 1547 (‘Genevæ, pridie Cal. Febr. M.D.XLVII.’, f° *iiiiv°).

1566 Recueil des opuscules, c’est à dire, Petits traictez de M. Jean Calvin, les uns reveus et corrigez sur le Latin, les autres translatez nouvellement de Latin en François, Genève, Baptiste Pinereul, 1566.10 La préface est celle de Théodore de Bèze à Renée de France: ‘Madame, si je vouloye m’arrester à discourir bien au long les temps et les occasions qui ont esmeu feu M. Jean Calvin, ce grand et fidele serviteur de Dieu à mettre en avant tous ses excellens traittez qui ont esté maintenant recueillis comme en un corps… (texte reproduit dans le volume VII de Bèze: 1973, 97–103).’ Bèze rapporte la perte douloureuse de la mort de Calvin et s’interdit d’expliquer ‘par le menu’ le profit que chaque lecteur tirerait de sa lecture, car il devrait composer un livre plutôt qu’une épître dédicatoire. Comme Des Gallars quatorze ans auparavant, c’est la figure du combattant de toutes les hérésies que loue et exalte Bèze, en relevant deux qualités principales en matière de dispute théologique: ‘une merveilleuse dexterité d’esprit, pour voir incontinent le nœud des matieres et soudainement les developper, et puis avec cela une telle integrité de conscience, qu’en fuyant toutes vaines subtilitez sophistiques avec toute ambitieuse ostentation, il n’a jamais cerché que la simple et pure verité (Bèze: 1973, 98).’ Bèze va toutefois utiliser tout le reste de son introduction pour défendre la véhémence de Calvin (‘nature vehemente et fort prompte à s’esmouvoir’) et son impatience, distinguant le zèle pour Dieu de la colère. La préface de Bèze est donc une légitimation de la véhémence polémique du Réformateur de Genève, véhémence qui est un don de Dieu à l’égal des qualités dont le Seigneur a doté Abraham et ses successeurs pour exercer leur office, ‘aucuns aussi d’une trempe divinement adoucie entre l’aigre et le doux, comme Joseph, Moyse et David entre tous les autres’. Bèze appelle encore Luther comme témoin de la véhémence nécessaire, 9 ‘Ces mots étaient à leur place dans l’édition de 1552 des Opuscula publiée par Gallasius chez Jean Gerard, petit folio, où la préface est datée Genevæ pridie Cal. Mart. M.D.LII. Il n’existait pas tel, sans doute, dans celle de 1547, mais existe-t-elle?’ (exemplaire conservé bien sûr à la BCU de Lausanne, consulté sur le site e-rara en juin 2014: http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara9611). 10 Cf. l’édition électronique procurée par Max Engammare et coll., Genève, 2002, aujourd’hui repris sur le site Calvin & Genève 16.

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)

171

admet l’insulte de chien et de pourceau, puisque Jésus en a usé, tout comme la critique de l’immoralité des opposants de Calvin. Bèze termine en rappelant la haute estime dans laquelle Calvin tenait la princesse, estime qui est également la sienne et en remerciant Renée de France de tout ce qu’elle fait pour la cause réformée, en accueillant tant de fidèles dans sa maison de Montargis. Bèze n’énumère aucun traité, mais on peut être certain qu’il en a relu quelquesuns avant de rédiger sa dédicace à la seconde fille de Louis XII, et que la véhémence de Calvin l’a tellement frappé, qu’il s’est employé à la défendre avec passion. Déjà dans sa Calvini vita de 1564, il avait rappelé ce trait distinctif de la personnalité du Réformateur: ‘Il y en a d’autres qui l’ont trouvé par trop cholere. Je ne veux point faire d’un homme un ange, ce nonobstant pource que je sçay combien Dieu s’est merveilleusement servi mesmes de ceste vehemence (…) Ceux qui ont veu et cognu à quelles gens il [Calvin] a eu affaire le plus souvent, les choses que Dieu a declarées et faites par luy, les circonstances des temps et des lieux, ceux-là peuvent juger de quoy une telle vehemence, vehemence, di-je, vrayement prophetique, a servi et servira à toute la posterité (cf. ‘Vie de Calvin’, in CO 21.39 s).’ En 1566, l’organisation de la collection des traités reste purement chronologique.

1576 Paraissent chez Pierre de Saint-André, à Genève, en 1576, les Joannis Calvini tractatus theologici omnes, nunc primum in unum volumen certis classibus congesti (cf. Bibliotheca Calviniana 3, 76/7, 244–251). La mention de la page de titre n’est pas une publicité mensongère, il s’agit vraiment d’une organisation systématique des traités de Calvin en deux grandes parties, les textes didactiques et les polémiques: τα διδακτικὰ et τὰ ἐλεγκτικὰ. Les traités polémiques sont ensuite répartis en sept classes: contre les papistes, contre les anabaptistes et les libertins, contre les nicodémites (appelés pseudonicodemitas), contre l’astrologie judiciaire qui fait classe avec l’unique traité de Calvin de 1549, contre les antitrinitaires, pour la prédestination, pour la Cène du Seigneur. Enfin, le commentaire du De clementia est ajouté in fine. On doit préciser que cette répartition systématique est doublée d’un ordre chronologique dans chaque classe. La plupart des traités ont conservé la dédicace ou l’adresse au lecteur de Calvin. C’est à nouveau Théodore de Bèze qui a composé une préface dédiée cette fois à Guillaume d’Orange et datée du 17 mars 1576 (cf. Bèze: 1994, 74–85). Bèze y présente un Calvin qui vaut par trois éléments: le nombre très important d’Eglises dressées surtout en France (innumerabiles pene Ecclesias) dont il peut être vu

172

Max Engammare

comme le père spirituel; ensuite, la qualité admirable et judicieuse, l’érudition et l’éloquence de ses écrits; enfin l’exemplarité de sa vie. Bèze se fait ici l’apologue de Calvin, de sa doctrine en particulier. On le critique en extrayant des passages hors de leur contexte ou on n’apprécie pas ses commentaires (explicationes), Bèze accepte ces attitudes, si elles ne contredisent pas l’analogie de la foi: D’autres n’approuvent pas certaines de ses explications, et il n’y a rien à redire si cela est fait d’une manière intelligente et en accord avec l’analogie de la foi; ici il faut que chacun soit libre de son jugement, et l’esprit des prophètes sujet aux prophètes. Alii quasdam eius explicationes non probant, et sane modo nihil dicatur quod cum fidei analogia non consentiat, suum hic cuique judicium liberum esse oportet, et spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjectos (Bèze, 76; Référence à 1 Corinthiens 14, 32).

Bèze défend l’excellence de l’interprétation de Calvin, l’acuité de son jugement, son érudition et la limpidité de son expression. Il répond à plusieurs critiques dogmatiques et rompt une lance contre les ubiquitaires. Si on accuse Calvin d’hérésie, il a su convaincre suffisamment d’adversaires d’hérésie, pour que les arguments continuent de porter. Bèze n’a pas oublié la véhémence de Calvin et le reproche qu’on continue de lui en faire, il s’appuie sur une cohorte de Prophètes pour la légitimer, Prophètes auxquels il joint Juges et Rois vétérotestamentaires.

1597 Réédition de la collection systématique, complètement recomposée, c’est important à souligner, car ce n’est pas une simple remise en vente d’invendus, comme il était fréquent (cf. Bibliotheca Calviniana 3, 97/4, en part. 577). On y trouve une simple modification, le remplacement de la Formula confessionis fidei scholæ Genevensis présente en 1576 par une Brevis formula confessionis fidei.

1612–1617 Johannis Calvini opera omnia theologica in septem tomos digesta. Tomus Primus… Genève, Jean Vignon, Pierre et Jacques Chouet, sept volumes, 1612–1617. L’édition commence avec la troisième édition des Tractatus theologici omnes, chez Jacques Stoer, en 1612, introduits avec la préface de Théodore de Bèze. L’ordre y est toujours systématique, puis chronologique dans chaque classe. Suivent les six autres volumes qui portent tous la date de 1617.

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)

173

La préface des imprimeurs Jean Vignon, Pierre et Jacques Chouet ne vient pas tout de suite dans le volume comprenant les commentaires de Calvin sur le Pentateuque, mais à la fin du cahier liminaire (f° [*vi]v°). Elle est brève: ‘Bibliopolæ ad lectorem admonitio. Quum ante sexaginta annos insignis Theologi Joannis Calvini, Genevensis Ecclesiæ fidelissimi Pastoris, scripta Latina, variis locis sæpius edita in publicum prodiissent…’ Quoique la page de titre porte le nom de trois imprimeurs, nous avons une parole en ‘je’: ‘eo tandem adductus sum, ut de absoluta Operum omnium Latinorum Calvini editione serio cogitarem’. L’éditeur donne ensuite l’ordre qu’il a souhaité. L’édition commence par la lettre-dédicace de Calvin à Henri de Vendôme, héritier du royaume de Navarre, datée du 31 juillet 1563, puis l’argument du commentaire sur la Genèse et les quatre autres livres du Pentateuque, la carte du paradis, avant la ‘Bibliopolæ ad lectorem Admonitio’: ‘Quum ante sexaginta annos insignis Theologi Joannis Calvini…’ La dédicace au futur Henri IV introduisait les Mosis libri V, cum Johannis Calvini commentariis de 1563 (cf. Bibliotheca Calviniana 63/ 16). Il s’agit d’une réutilisation de la préface du commentaire de la Genèse de 1554 aux fils du duc de Saxe (cf. CO 20.116–122, avec mention des passages ajoutés en 1563, au début et à la fin de la lettre). C’est dire que Calvin introduit la première édition critique de ses œuvres. En 1552, la préface était de Nicolas Des Gallars, en 1566 de Théodore de Bèze, comme en 1576, 1597 et 1612. En 1617, c’est Calvin qu’on rend préfacier de ses Œuvres complètes, Calvinus redivivus. Les éditeurs ont encore ajouté au début du premier volume, après l’argument du Pentateuque la version latine de la ‘Johannis Calvini vita’ de Bèze. On remarque également que les éditeurs genevois ont adopté comme marque d’imprimeur le portrait de Calvin âgé tel qu’on le trouve dans les Icones de Bèze en 1580. Le bois est usé, le cadre cassé et les traits de Calvin sont empâtés, mais il est ainsi comme le maître d’œuvre de ses Opera omnia. En 1566, le portrait de Pierre Woieriot avec Calvin tenant le livre ouvert était imprimé au verso de la page de titre; il s’affiche désormais sur le recto. C’est un monument de papier et d’encre qu’on érige pour le Père de la Nation réformée, plus de cinquante après que sa voix s’est tue, un siècle exactement après que Luther s’est levé en affichant les 95 thèses. Les imprimeurs indiquent que Calvin a publié ses œuvres en latin dans différentes villes et qu’il s’agit de la première édition parfaite (absoluta editione) de ces œuvres latines rassemblées. Il explicent aussi que l’ordre des sept tomes (systema theologicum, sive corpus operum septem tomos complectens) suit l’ordre canonique de l’Ancien puis du Nouveau Testament, mentionnant la méthode de l’analogie de la foi: ‘et que tu puisses lire jusqu’au bout selon l’analogie de la foi rappelée et soigneusement expliquée, et aussi facilement revenir de la théorie à la pratique (atque ad analogiam fidei revocatam et accurate explicatam perlegere, nec non a theoria ad praxin facile reducere potes).’ Cette indication de l’analogie

174

Max Engammare

de la foi vient de la préface de Bèze de 1576, reprise en 1597, mais pas expressis verbis. Les éditeurs donnent aussi un renseignement utile aux lecteurs qui n’auraient pas le temps de tout lire, de se limiter au tome 3 (les Psaumes et les Douze prophètes), leur espérance ne sera pas frustrée. On trouve donc cet ordre canonique: tome premier, les commentaires de la Genèse à Josué; tome 2, les sermons sur 1 Samuel et Job; tome 3, le commentaire sur les Psaumes et les Leçons sur les douze petits prophètes; tome 4, le commentaire sur Esaïe, les leçons sur Jérémie, les vingt premiers chapitres d’Ezéchiel et Daniel: tome 5, tous les commentaires néotestamentaires; tome 6, l’Institution et les Epistolæ et responsa; le septième et dernier tome, les 42 traités théologiques… de 1612. Seuls les sermons déjà traduits en latin sont intégrés, dans l’ordre canonique, sans séparer commentaires, leçons et sermons. L’ordre canonique n’est toutefois pas rigoureusement respecté, puisqu’on trouve les petits prophètes avant les grands, mais il s’agit d’une question de longueur des œuvres. Au XVIIe siècle, on ne conserve l’ordre chronologique que dans les classes des traités polémiques, c’est l’ordre canonique qui prime.

1667–1671 Jan Jacobz. Schipper (1667), sa veuve (1671) et l’imprimeur Borrit Janz. Smit sont les maîtres d’œuvre de cette édition à Amsterdam. L’édition comporte neuf volumes imprimés en 1667, mais le premier tome contenant les commentaires sur le Pentateuque et le livre de Josué a été complété par un cahier de 4 pages (*4) présentant l’édition et ajoutant le portrait de Calvin debout dans son bureau d’étude, tenant l’Institutio. Les éditeurs ne manquent pas, ils sont néerlandais, de dire que cela leur a coûté beaucoup d’argent (‘tanto majoribus impensis’, f° *3r°). C’est la veuve de Schipper qui tient la plume en 1671. Il est vrai que c’est la plus belle édition collective, le papier genevois était de très mauvaise qualité au début du XVIIe siècle. Ils ajoutent qu’ils ont beaucoup corrigé, pour restituer le sens exact, d’un point de vue religieux (‘… expurgavimus, literas, syllabas, voces, sensum ipsum tam accurate (religiose tamen) restituimus’). La réalisation des index fut également un long et grand travail, également coûteux (‘præter adauctas impensas’), tout comme la correction des citations fausses, ce dont Augustin Marlorat se plaignait déjà en rédigeant l’index de l’Institution, ce qui ne plut guère à Calvin. Madame Schipper oublie de dire que cela aurait été un travail davantage dispendieux s’il avait fallu construire tous les index, alors qu’elle et ses aides se sont simplifiés la vie en reprenant les entrées genevoises.

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)

175

L’ordre est également canonique pour les sept premiers volumes, en plaçant les Prophetas minores (on remarque la coquille dans le sommaire à majores) à leur place, après Daniel. Baum, Cunitz et Reuss avaient déjà remarqué le déplacement (cf. Calvini opera, vol. 1, 1863, XII). Le huitième volume contient les Opuscula varia theologica avant le volume final qui comprend l’Institutio et les Epistolæ et responsa. L’ordre de ces deux volumes est donc inversé par rapport à 1612–1617, alors qu’on passe de sept à neuf volumes. Cette inversion est suspecte. Ne serait-ce pas que 1667 reprend trop exactement 1617? Une comparaison page à page montre une reprise à Amsterdam de la compilation genevoise. Les deux éditions commencent toutes deux par la préface de Calvin à Henri de Navarre (encore duc de Vendôme jusqu’en 1572 et la mort de sa mère Jeanne d’Albret) qui ouvrait en 1563, l’édition du commentaire du Pentateuque (datée du 1er août 1563), suivie par l’Argumentum du même commentaire s’achevant par la parole laissée à Moïse (‘Nunc Mosen audiamus’), mais suivi de fait par la Calvini vita de Bèze. A la fin du Pentateuque, les entrées des index de 1667 sont la reprise exacte de celles de 1617, les numéros de pages ayant simplement été modifiés. Enfin, le premier volume hollandois se termine par le commentaire du livre de Josué et son index, exactement comme le premier volume genevois. Outre le format plus grand, un papier de bien meilleure qualité, des caractères hébraïques plus beaux et des coquilles corrigées, on trouve à la fin de la Calvini vita chez Schipper un ‘catalogus librorum a Joanne Calvino conscriptorum’ (1667, tome 1, f° [***6]v°) qui manquait à Genève, mais qui pouvait être considéré comme une répétition du sommaire donné précédemment (1617, tome 1, f° [*vi]v°). Il s’agit certes de la dernière page blanche d’un cahier liminaire, mais cela montre que l’éditeur, certainement aidé, est retourné voir les originaux. A Amsterdam, la carte du paradis, dans une nouvelle taille se trouve à sa place (tome 1, p. 12), alors qu’elle se trouvait à Genève après l’argument de la Genèse et avant la Calvini vita de Bèze (tome 1, f° [*vi]r°). Le deuxième volume dans les deux entreprises est identique dans le contenu, jusqu’à l’introduction d’une page de titre faussement indépendante avant les sermons sur le livre de Job, les index passant systématiquement en fin de volume aux Pays-Bas, mais c’est l’usage qui s’imposait, alors que les errata de 1617 sont reportés dans l’édition de 1667, on n’en attendait pas mieux (cf. la grossière erreur dans le premier sermon sur le livre de Job). La seconde partie du troisième volume de 1617 qui suit le commentaire sur les Psaumes saute aux petits Prophètes. L’édition d’Amsterdam rétablit l’ordre canonique en faisant suivre les Psaumes pas Esaïe. L’édition de Genève faisait un seul volume des leçons sur les quatre grands Prophètes, l’édition d’Amsterdam en fait deux volumes.

176

Max Engammare

On trouve encore des erreurs dans les pages de titres de l’exemplaire conservé à Genève, c’est que les quatre pages liminaires étaient imprimées sur des feuilles séparées. L’édition d’Amsterdam du dernier tiers du siècle a donc pillé l’édition genevoise du début du XVIIe siècle, tout en annonçant avoir tout repris sur nouveaux frais.

1863–1900 Joannis Calvini opera quæ supersunt omnia, C. A. Schwetschke et fils, Brunschwig (vol. 1–56, 1863–1896), Brunschwig et Berlin (vol. 57, 1897), Berlin (vol. 58 et 59, 1900). Il s’agit de l’œuvre des théologiens strasbourgeois Guillaume Baum, Edouard Cunitz et Edouard Reuss. La qualité de ‘Theologi Argentoratenses’ apparut en 1863 et se maintint après la défaite de 1870 jusqu’en 1900. Les trois éditeurs commencent leur première préface en rappelant: Le monument le plus glorieux et le plus durable que la postérité puisse élever à un grand écrivain, c’est assurément une édition complète et fidèle de ses œuvres.11

On remarque l’ajout de l’épithète ‘fidèle’ à côté de ‘complète’, présent depuis quasi trois siècles. Les éditeurs précisent qu’ils ont consulté les éditions originales et que ‘chaque écrit sera publié dans la langue dans laquelle il a été composé (CO 1)’, principe qui demeure dans l’édition en cours. L’ordre est maintenant revu en profondeur, commençant par l’Institutio—le néo-calvinisme a fleuri dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle –, et c’est l’œuvre dogmatique qui est mise en avant. Suivent les différents traités, dans un ordre chronologique (le commentaire au De clementia est le premier, avant la Psychopannychia, les Epistolæ duæ (volume 5), etc., la correspondance avant les commentaires bibliques. De copieux index (le volume 59, édité en même temps que le 58e, contient les 13 sermons sur Jacob et Esaü, col. 1–206) complètent l’édifice dressé à Jean Calvin. Les éditeurs avaient indiqué: Nous avons divisé les ŒUVRES COMPLÈTES en trois séries, dont chacune comprend indistinctement les écrits qui ont déjà été publiés et ceux qui sont restés inédits. Première série: Ecrits dogmatiques et polémiques. Deuxième série: Ecrits exégétiques et homilétiques. Troisième série: Lettres et Œuvres diverses. Chaque ouvrage sera précédé d’une introduction historique et littéraire (cf. verso de la page précédente). 11 Cf. CO 1, première page non numérotée de l’entreprise. La préface ‘Editores Argentoratenses lecturis s.’ commence plus loin en page V.

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)

177

La classification systématique des écrits de Calvin a disparu au profit d’une pure chronologie, les actes des procès importants contre Bolsec et Servet ayant été insérés en leur année de tenue (volume 8). Le volume 10 commence avec les Ordonnances ecclésiastiques, la correspondance occupant les volumes 11 à 20, ponctuée par des index et une concordance entre cette édition et les Epistolæ et Responsa édités par Bèze. Les commentaires bibliques, mêlent les commentaires au sens propre, les leçons et les sermons, et commencent avec la Genèse au volume 23 jusqu’aux Epîtres catholiques au 55e. Suit ‘La Bible française de Calvin’ (volumes 56 et 57) avant les tomes 58 et 59 parfois indiqués seulement LVIII, ainsi dans la table des matières générale des Calvini opera (col. 444 de cette dernière parution). L’éditeur commercial s’engageait à publier deux volumes par an au prix de seize francs or par volume de 500 pages à deux colonnes, pour les souscripteurs, diminuant le prix si les volumes comptaient moins de pages (cela correspond à environ à 150 € de 2014, mais 230 € en 2008, puisque l’or fluctue). Je vends moins cher les volumes aujourd’hui. Dans leur longue introduction ecclésiale en latin (vol. 1, p. V–XVII), les docteurs de l’Eglise de Strasbourg développent les deux pages françaises et souhaitent donner ratio et methodus (vol. 1, p. XII) de cette troisième édition des Œuvres complètes. Ils ne manquent pas de commencer par rappeler que leurs devanciers (trois comme eux), Capiton, Bucer et Jean Sturm ont accueilli Calvin à Strasbourg quand il avait été chassé de Genève pour des questions de discipline (p. X). Ils mentionnent également les deux entreprises du XVIIe siècle de 1617 et 1667 (p. XIs), ayant remarqué l’ajout du commentaire du De clementia daté de 1611, non les Tractatus parus à la date de 1612.12 Leur volonté est d’éditer tous les textes de Calvin déjà édités et ceux qui sont restés inédits, en utilisant des éditions authentiques ou originales (editiones authenticas vel originales), puis des éditions posthumes et plus récentes. Ils sont reconnaissants à Moritz Bruhn (1806–1883), le directeur de la maison d’édition Schwetschke et fils (achat en 1851) de l’aide accordée et à accorder. Ils n’ont noté que les variantes significatives (si qua exstiterit notatu digna, p. XIII), précisent-ils avant de rendre raison de leur tripartition. Leur modèle éditorial est Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider, l’éditeur des Opera omnia de Melanchthon (p. XIIIs), de même pour la typographie (p. XVI), mais Jules Bonnet (l’éditeur des lettres françaises de Calvin) n’est pas oublié (p. XIV). Ils citent encore les villes dans lesquelles ils ont trouvé et édité des lettres de Calvin, précisant qu’ils ont également eu accès à des collections privées. Pour la vie de Calvin, ils ne l’ont pas mis en tête, comme il serait usuel, mais ils projettent de 12 ‘Ultimo denique Tractatus theologici. Huic additur in calce liber Senecæ de clementia a Calvino illustratus anno 1611 a Jacobo Stoerio excusus.’ (CO 1.XI).

178

Max Engammare

l’éditer après les lettres, en ne donnant pas les variantes, mais les différents états (p. XV). Les éditions les plus anciennes de Calvin possédaient des index, les éditeurs modernes réfléchissent aux index qu’ils ajouteront, mais pas aux volumes singuliers (p. XVI). On utilise les deux séries d’index, de la correspondance et des autres œuvres à la fin. Ils auraient également voulu ajouter des photos des portraits de Calvin qui sont à Genève ; en 1863, la photographie à 24 ans, la reproduction photographique dans des livres, à l’exception du Pencil of nature de Henry Fox Talbot, une dizaine d’années (Louis-Désiré Blanquard-Evrard). Il est intéressant de noter qu’ils y ont pensé. Ils terminent sur le modèle de l’édition melanchthonienne.

1992– La nouvelle édition Calvini opera denuo recognita (COR) fut voulue par Wilhem Neuser et mise en œuvre par le Præsidium du Congrès Calvin. Elle reprend une distinction systématique et un ordre chronologique dans chacune classe, alors que le nombre d’éditeurs scientifiques a fortement augmenté. Quelques décennies lui seront nécessaires pour être achevée. Tous les volumes achevés apparaissent sur un site Calvin et Genève 16, pour l’instant payant, mais Droz est à la recherche d’un sponsor qui l’offrirait à la communauté scientifique mondiale. Editer des Opera omnia est une entreprise jamais achevée.

Bibliographie Aland, Kurt (1970), Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium, bearbeitet in Verbindung mit Ernst Otto Reichert und Gerhard Jordan. Dritte, neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Witten: Luther-Verlag. Bèze, Théodore de (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze (1566) recueillie par Hippolyte Aubert, publiée par Henri Meylan, Alain Dufour et alii (THR 136), Genève: Droz. — (1994), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, tome XVII (1576), recueillie par Hippolyte Aubert, publiée par Alain Dufour, Béatrice Nicollier et Reinhard Bodenmann (THR 286), Genève: Droz. Ronsard, Pierre de (1993/1994), Œuvres complètes. Edition établie, présentée et annotée par Jean Céard, Daniel Ménager et Michel Simonin (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), 2 volumes, Paris: Gallimard. Simonin, Michel (1990), Pierre de Ronsard, Paris: Fayard.

Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)

179

Wolgast, Eike (1980), ‘Geschichte der Luther Ausgaben vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert’, in: D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe, 60. Band, Weimar: Bo¨ hlau, 427– 637.

Anthony N.S. Lane

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria1

Calvin cited Cyril some 34 times throughout his career. This starts with one of his earliest writings, in 1537, and continues until his 1561 response to Heshusius, so it spans the bulk of his writing career. Appendix I, below, lists all of Calvin’s citations, in chronological order. (Also listed are citations of Cyril in letters addressed to Calvin as these often set the scene for his own citations.) I have sought these citations via four sources. The starting point for tracing Calvin’s citations is the tables at the end of R.J. Mooi’s classic Het Kerk- en Dogmahistorisch Element in de Werken van Johannes Calvijn (Mooi: 1962, 365–397). In addition I have made use of the excellent Calvini Opera Database produced by the Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek at Apeldoorn. This includes only works published in the nineteenth-century Calvini Opera, thus excluding the bulk of the sermons, for example. For those sermons that have been edited since the Calvini Opera, I have also checked the Supplementa Caviniana edition (vols. 1–8, 10/3, 11). Cyril features several times in the editor’s notes, but was never cited by Calvin. This is not surprising. T.H.L. Parker, writing on Calvin’s preaching, observes that although Calvin was immensely learned, he ‘never intrudes his learning into his sermons. (…) His learning is so well hidden that one might hear him preach for a month without suspecting that he had read any book other than the Bible. (…) The learning is present in his exegesis and interpretation, but he keeps the skeleton well clothed’ (Parker: 1947, 75). Finally, I have checked those volumes of the new critical edition that have so far appeared. The aim is to trace Calvin’s explicit citations of Cyril, not places where an editor is speculating that Cyril might be a source.

1 I am grateful to those who attended the seminar and contributed to the discussion, especially to Amy Burnett.This is the next in a series of studies of Calvin and the Fathers. For the topic in general, see Lane: 1999. For Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux, see Lane: 1996; 1999, ch. 4, 5. For Calvin and Tertullian, see Lane: 2002. For Calvin and Augustine, see Lane: 2006; 2013a; 2013b. For Calvin and the Greek Fathers, focussing on Pseudo-Clement, Irenaeus, Athanasius and the Cappadocians, see Lane: 1999, ch. 3.

182

Anthony N.S. Lane

Calvin also refers some 31 times to Nestorius, Nestorians or the Council of Ephesus (431). Three of these citations also mention Cyril, and so are included in the 34 citations of Cyril; the remainder do not. Appendix II, below, lists all of Calvin’s citations of Nestorius and/or the Council of Ephesus (431) in chronological order, whether or not Cyril is mentioned. These citations have been sought via the same four sources as the Cyril citations.2

Calvin’s Text Calvin did not have access to Migne’s Patrologia. In fact Cyril’s works had not yet been published in Greek (the evidence suggests that Calvin made little use of manuscripts, especially not for works that had appeared in print; Lane: 1999, 121– 122). Latin translations of a number of Cyril’s works were published in the early sixteenth century (IA 149.143–152) and these and others were brought together in a single (three-volume) edition of Opera for the first time at Basel in 1528 by Andreas Cratander (IA 149.155). This was twice reissued in 1546, in Basel by Ioannes Hervagius (IA 149.160) and in Cologne by Melchior Novesian (IA 149.162).3 After 1546 the new Cyril citations introduced by Calvin are all but one from Cyril’s In Evangelium Ioannis Commentarii. It is possible, but unlikely, that after 1546 Calvin switched from using the 1528 edition to one of the 1546 editions, but of no great significance as all three use the same translation. In 1561 Calvin also introduced a new citation from Cyril’s De sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate (C.XXXb).4 This is a work that Calvin had already cited in 1537 and 1539 (Cc.I, IV). As with the John Commentary, the translation is the same in the 1546 editions as in the 1528.5 It may sound like stating the obvious to say that Calvin had no access to Migne’s Patrologia, but this fact has not been so obvious to all of his editors.6 So, for example, the recent edition of Calvin’s John Commentary in the new critical edition lists the Migne edition of Cyril in its bibliography of sources.7 On the basis 2 Nestorius and Ephesus are mentioned by Mooi, but are not found in the tables at the end. 3 The Cratander and Novesian editions are available for download from the Münchener Digitalisierungs Zentrum: http://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=sammlungen_kategorien&l=en. 4 C.XXXb = the citation of that number in Appendix I. 5 The 1572 catalogue of the Genevan library contains no works by Cyril, so there is no clue there as to which edition Calvin might have used (Ganoczy: 1969). 6 I am embarrassed to state that one of the sinners is the editor of COR 4.3.317 (C.XI). For this citation, however, the source is not directly the 1528 edition but Pighius, De libero arbitrio 98b:25–29 (COR 4.3.442), to which Calvin is responding. 7 COR 2.11.1.XLIII.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

183

of this the editor makes bold claims about Calvin’s use of Cyril,8 and throughout the commentary he cites Cyril from that edition. There is no mention of any sixteenth-century edition.9 This may sound like pedantic nit-picking, but it is not. There are serious issues with the sixteenth-century editions. First, in 1514 Josse Clichtove published what he called Cyril’s commentary on Leviticus (IA 149.145), which was actually Origen’s.10 This is also found in the 1528 edition. There it is described throughout as Cyril’s, except at the very beginning: ‘Divi Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini, sive (ut alii volunt) Origenis in Leviticum Liber Primus’ (1:234 A). Secondly, Clichtove first published Cyril’s John commentary in 1508 (IA 149.143), without Books 5–8 which were missing from the manuscript he used. This lack he made up in a later edition by adding material from Chrysostom and Augustine to fill the gap. When did this first appear? According to the Index Aureliensis the next edition of this commentary was not until 1520 (IA 149.146),11 but the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich has an edition, not mentioned in the Index Aureliensis,12 complete with the extra four books, which it dates to 1514.13 In support of this date, the extra four books are preceded by an explanatory dedicatory letter, dated ‘M.d.xiiii, Nonis Ianuariis’.14 The 1528 edition contains the four added books and the letter.15 Whether by luck or by design, Calvin never cites either the Leviticus commentary or Books 5–8 of the John commentary. Where the latter is concerned, every folio is headed with ‘per Iudocum Clichtoveum Cyrillo additus’, so it does not require great detective skills to realise that these books might not be by Cyril. Furthermore, the Latin translations of Cyril in Migne are very different from those in the sixteenth-century editions. Looking for parallels between Calvin and 8 COR 2.11.1.XXIII. 9 The same fault is found in COR 7.1.30, 42, 43, 50. By contrast, the editor of COR 3.2, both in the Introduction (128, 131) and in the critical apparatus (146–147, 152), refers to the 1528 edition, as do the editors of COR 6.1(.254). 10 On this see Massaut: 1985, 317. Massaut euphemistically states that Clichtove was ‘more concerned with pastoral theology than with critical scholarship’. 11 Massaut: 1985, 317, states that Clichtove first published the new material in 1520. 12 IA mentions Paris editions of the John commentary in 1520 (149.146) and 1521 (149.148) and a Basel edition in 1524, published (like the 1528 edition) by Andreas Cratander (149.152). The 1508, 1514, 1520 and 1524 editions are all available for download from the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. The details in IA indicate that the 1521 edition is a reprint of the 1520 edition, with identical pagination. 13 2 P.gr. 141. The date 1514 has been added in pencil on the title page (a1 A). 14 The letter is found on adjacent folios, p3B and A1 A. After sheet p3 (numbered 115) there follows sheet A1 (numbered 1). That there are no missing pages is shown by the fact that this brief letter spans sheets p3 and A1. 15 The letter appears on 1:89C–D. The date has changed from 1514 to 1513, an error already introduced into the 1520 edition (IA 149.146) 105 A [= o1 A].

184

Anthony N.S. Lane

Migne is an exercise of limited value. Secondly, the references given in the two works are often very different both for the Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate and In Evangelium Ioannis Commentarii. In the former, for example, what Calvin cites as liber 10 becomes Assertio 23 in Migne. In the latter, for example, what for Calvin and the sixteenth-century editions is Book 4, chapter 17, in Migne becomes Book 4, chapter 2 (C.XXXIIId). Using Calvin’s references to trace his Cyril citations is little help with Migne, a great help with the sixteenthcentury editions.16 What was Calvin’s source for Council of Ephesus? This was almost certainly Peter Crabbe’s two-volume Concilia omnia.17 Calvin’s references to this council begin in 1543 (C.3),18 which together with his other references to councils at around this time, coheres with the conclusion that Calvin was reading the first volume of Crabbe in the early 1540s (Lane: 1999, 167, 170).

Works Cited Which works of Cyril did Calvin cite? Appendix III, below, lists all of those citations which refer to a specific passage in Cyril, arranging them by the work cited and by the specific passage. The first two citations, in 1537, involve Cyril’s Thesaurus and his De sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate. These citations appear in works under the joint names of the Genevan ministers (Calvin, Farel and Viret) so we cannot be sure that the references to Cyril originated from Calvin himself. Calvin repeatedly recycles these citations in his later works, adding just a very few extra citations from Thesaurus and De Trinitate.19 He also introduces just one citation from Cyril’s Ad reginas de recta fide (C.V). There is, therefore, real but limited evidence for Calvin’s knowledge of these works. The situation is very different with the fourth work, Cyril’s In Evangelium Ioannis Commentarii. This is first cited in the 1539 Institutio, around the time that Calvin praised Cyril’s exegesis in his Preface to Chrysostom’s Homilies (C.III), and over the years Calvin cites from some 17 different passages in this work, all from the genuine Cyril rather than Clichtove’s additions. Clearly Calvin was familiar with it. Unsurprisingly, one place where he cited it was his John com-

16 The situation is very different with the Latin Fathers where the text in Migne generally differs hardly at all from the sixteenth-century edition used by Calvin. 17 Cologne: Peter Quentel, 1538 (IA 146.233). Information on Ephesus (431) is found in 1:313D– 317E. A much shorter account is found in Cassiodore, Historia Tripartita 12:4–5, e. g. Lyon: J. Giunctus, 1534 edition (IA 133.230): O7b–P1a. 18 For C.3, see the citation of that number in Appendix II. 19 Cc.IV, XIIIc, XXXb. See Appendix I for more details.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

185

mentary. This raises the question of whether Calvin cited Cyril elsewhere in that commentary, but not by name, a question to which we will shortly return. Who translated these works? Two of them, the Thesaurus and the John Commentary, were translated by Georgius Trapezontius (1395–1484), a Greek scholar who emigrated to Venice in about 1430 and who translated many works from Greek to Latin. The other two works, De Trinitate and Ad reginas de recta fide, were translated by Iohannes Oecolampadius and appear in print for the first time in 1528. This means that Calvin’s citations against Lutherans (on the Lord’s Supper) or Roman Catholics were all taken from works translated by Trapezontius, not from translations made by a Swiss Reformer with polemical intent.

Topics for which Cyril is Cited Appendix IV lists all of Calvin’s citations, arranging them by topic, in chronological order for each topic. Cyril is most famous, not to say infamous, for his role in the condemnation of Nestorius—yet Calvin never mentions this. He refers repeatedly to Nestorius’s Christological heresy and its condemnation at Ephesus—but never mentions Cyril in the context of Nestorius’s heresy. He does once mention Cyril’s role at Ephesus, but there the issue is the role of popes at councils.20 This is not as surprising as it seems. The first two volumes of the 1528 Opera contain only writings composed before the Nestorian controversy. The third volume contains a later apologetic against paganism, Contra Iulianum, and the Ad reginas de recta fide, which was composed at the beginning of the controversy, but before the condemnation of Nestorius. Thus the Cyril of the 1528 Opera is not the Cyril who secured the condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus. How accurate was Calvin’s portrayal of Nestorius and of Ephesus? 21 First, Calvin is clearly referring to the Nestorius of Geschichte, the author of the heresy named after him, not the Nestorius of Historie, the author of the Bazaar of Heracleides. Just how different these two are is, of course, (as with Jesus) a matter of controversy. Calvin accuses Nestorius of devising a double Christ (C.2, 10). This is because he wanted to ‘pull apart rather than distinguish the nature of Christ’ (C.2). He ‘imagined one Christ who was God and another who was man’ (C.11), that ‘one and the same Christ is not both God and man’ (C.12). He also 20 C.IX. In C.X Calvin mentions the condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus and then shortly after mentions Cyril as one of a number of ‘vindicators of true doctrine’, but not specifically for his role against Nestorius. 21 This is in response to a question posed at the seminar.

186

Anthony N.S. Lane

accuses Nestorius of teaching that ‘the Son of God had not been truly man, but had only lived in human flesh’ (C.10) and that ‘the Son of God so dwelt in the flesh that he was not man also’ (C.22. Cf. C.17). Calvin understands correctly the nature of ‘Nestorianism’ and states it accurately, though loosely and in unsympathetic terms, using terminology that Nestorius would not have accepted, such as the idea of two Christs. The accusation that ‘the Son of God (…) only lived in human flesh’ should be seen as implying not Apollinarianism but that the [eternal] Son of God does not actually become human. The basic idea is Nestorius’s sharp distinction between God the Word and Jesus the man, between the divine person with a divine nature (Son of God) and the human person with a human nature (man). Underlying this is Nestorius’s unwillingness to recognise the Word, the second person of the Trinity, as the one subject of all the experiences of Jesus. Calvin knew that Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus, involving Celestine and Cyril. On one occasion, however, he appears to have imagined that Cyril was also involved at Chalcedon. He describes the events surrounding the 449 council and Chalcedon, and then asks who deserves the praise for the defeat of Eutyches. After grudgingly conceding a role for Leo’s Tome at Chalcedon he declares that the chief praise (praecipua laus) goes to Cyril ‘qui praefuit’ (C.XXXI = C.26). What does he mean by ‘praefuit’? A simple translation would be ‘was present’ or ‘took the lead’, neither of which was true of Cyril, who had died in 444. Given that the issue is how much praise Leo should receive for the condemnation of Eutyches, it is possible that Calvin is stating that the chief praise for this lies with Cyril’s teaching, rather than Leo’s Tome (as suggested by Mooi: 1962, 282). On the other hand, there was a French translation the same year which, in the view of the Bibliotheca Calviniana, was made by Calvin himself.22 Here ‘praefuit’ is translated unambiguously: ‘Mais on en doit attribuer la principale louange à Cyrille, lequel y presidoit’ (Calvin: 1561, 24–25). The most likely answer is that Calvin made a mistake due to the haste in which he wrote. There are three main topics for which Calvin cites Cyril. From 1537 to 1559, thus for most of his writing career, he cites him on the doctrine of the Trinity. Most of these citations concern a single issue: whether Christ has life and immortality of himself (a se ipso) and whether his nature is self-existent (a se ipsa).23 This first surfaced in the 1537 controversy with Caroli, which elicited responses in the Genevan ministers’ confession of faith on the Trinity and letter to the ministers of Zurich (Cc.I–II). That was not the end of the matter and in 1545 Calvin 22 Peter/Gilmont: 1991–2000, 2.805, 821. This is ‘sans doute’ because of the liberties taken with the original Latin by the translator (821). 23 For this issue in Calvin, see Ellis: 2012. Ellis makes no mention of Cyril, not even in chapter 3 on the classical tradition and Calvin’s relation to it (64–102).

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

187

wrote against Caroli’s ‘calumnies’, citing Cyril for the same points (Cc.XVI– XIX).24 As a spin-off from this Calvin also got into controversy with Capunculus ( Jean Chaponneau) and his fellow minsters at Neuchâtel over the same issue.25 He also, in two of his earlier writings (Cc.VI, VIII), appeals to Cyril’s interpretation of John 5:26 as proof that as God Christ has life of himself. This single issue accounts for almost all of Calvin’s trinitarian citations of Cyril. In addition, Cyril is also twice briefly mentioned in support of traditional trinitarian orthodoxy (Cc.IV, XXIX),26 and once in general terms against Servetus (C.XXIV). Marc Vial, drawing on the earlier work of Irena Backus, argues that [the Latin translation of] Cyril influenced Calvin’s trinitarian vocabulary.27 In one of Calvin’s earliest citations concerning John 5:26 this is applied to the Lord’s Supper, explaining how fullness of life dwells in Christ’s humanity, by partaking in which we can enjoy participation in life (C.VI). But the bulk of his citations on the Lord’s Supper appear from 1555 to 1561, in particular in his controversy against the Lutherans Joachim Westphal28 and Tilemann Heshusius (Hesshus or Heshusen in German),29 following the 1551 publication of the Consensus Tigurinus. Calvin seeks support from Cyril for the idea that our communion with Christ is mystical and spiritual, not corporeal, and so that unbelieving communicants do not receive the body of Christ. The same ideas appear in a letter of 1555 (C.XXVI) and the 1559 Institutes (C.XXVIII).30 The third main topic is Cyril’s exegesis. In his unpublished Preface to Chrysostom’s Homilies he declares Cyril to be second only to Chrysostom among the Greek fathers (C.III), a judgement that is borne out by his citations of Cyril in his John commentary (Cc.XX–XXIII). But how much did Calvin turn to Cyril in this commentary beyond these four citations? We will consider that further below. In addition to these major topics Calvin turns to Cyril for support on a number of minor topics. In his opposition to the papacy and his account of the role of 24 For this controversy with Caroli, see Warfield: 1956, 233–243; Ellis: 2012, 39–50. For the background, see Gamble: 1991. On Caroli and his recently rediscovered book to which Calvin was responding, see Stam: 1998. 25 For the controversy with Neuchâtel, and with Capunculus in particular, see Warfield: 1956, 237–239; Ellis: 2012, 45–47. 26 C.IV is merely a marginal note referring to two whole books of Cyril’s De Trinitate, in support of a general statement about ‘ecclesiastical writers’ on the unity of essence of the Trinity; in C.XXIX Cyril is one of four Fathers mentioned as having opposed trinitarian heresy. 27 COR 3.2.131–33. He also traces the influence of Cyril on the Confessio Genevensium Praedicatorum de Trinitate beyond the explicit citations (COR 3.2.146, n. 5, 147, n. 16). 28 C.XXVII. For the context of this work, see Tylenda: 1974. On Calvin’s use of the Fathers in this controversy, see Chung-Kim: 2011, ch. 3–4. 29 Cc.XXXII–XXXIV against Heshusius. On Calvin’s use of the Fathers in this controversy, see Chung-Kim: 2011, ch. 5. 30 For an analysis of Calvin’s use of Cyril on the Lord’s Supper see Hartvelt: 1960: 201–213, though this suffers from the drawback of being based on Migne, rather than the 1528 edition.

188

Anthony N.S. Lane

councils he appealed extensively to the practice of the Early Church, including three references to Cyril (Cc.IX, X, XXXI). On the subject of the cross Calvin is critical of Cyril in his 1539 Institutes for the suggestion that the cry of dereliction did not express Christ’s own anguish (C.V) but he later cites Cyril approvingly for the sense in which the cross was or was not voluntary for Christ (C.XXV). In the one citation on the topic of grace Calvin parries a citation of Cyril by Pighius, arguing that Cyril’s statement is compatible with the idea of efficacious grace (C.XI). Finally, Calvin responds to the appeal to Cyril of the Polish Anti-trinitarians, and of Francesco Stancaro in particular, arguing that it is as the God-man that Christ serves as our mediator (C.XXX).31

Calvin’s John Commentary As just noted, Calvin declared Cyril to be second only to Chrysostom among the Greek fathers (C.III). On what evidence was this assessment based? Only two commentaries appear in the 1528 edition of Cyril, those on John (232 folios) and the much shorter Leviticus commentary (50 folios), incorrectly ascribed to Cyril. Calvin repeatedly cites the former and never mentions the latter, so it appears that his glowing commendation refers specifically to the John commentary. Given that, we would expect him to make use of Cyril in his own John commentary. In that commentary Cyril is explicitly mentioned four times (Cc.XX– XXIII), though one of these times Calvin himself tells us that his source is Erasmus rather than Cyril (C.XX), an indication that all citations must be examined critically (Lane: 1999, 1–2). There is another indication that Calvin read Cyril for his 1553 John commentary. Prior to that year there are just a few relatively brief citations of Cyril’s commentary.32 These point to a real but limited acquaintance with Cyril. After 1553 the situation changes with more and fuller citations of the commentary (Cc. XXVa–b, XXVIIa–c, XXVIII, XXXIIa–c, XXXIIIa–e, XXXIV). Some of these respond to passages quoted by Westphal and Heshusius,33 but this still leaves plenty of passages introduced into the debate by Calvin himself, especially and unsurprisingly given the topic (Lord’s Supper) taken from John 6:35–63 (see Appendix III). Most significant is the gratuitous introduction of material from Cyril’s John commentary into Calvin’s commentary on the Synoptic Gospels in 31 For the controversy with Stancaro, see Tylenda: 1973a; 1973b. For the Polish background see Williams: 1981. For Calvin’s relations with Poland, see: Muller: 2015. 32 Cc.VI–VIII, XI, XIIIa, XVb. C.XI is taken from Pighius and C.XVb refers back to C.XIIIa. Also C.VI & C.VIII refer to the same passage. 33 C.XXVII responds to passages quoted by Westphal; Cc.XXXII, XXXIIIc respond to passages quoted by Heshusius.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

189

1555 (C.XXV). It looks as if this reflects Calvin’s memory of his recent reading of the commentary for his John commentary. Where Calvin cites others this is mostly anonymously, referring to ‘quidam’, ‘alii’, ‘interpretes’, ‘veteres’, etc. How many of these refer specifically to Cyril? While it is very likely that some do, specific claims should not be made without critical discernment. The fact that Calvin makes the same point as Cyril is no proof that he was dependant upon the Alexandrian, unless it can be shown that no one else made the same point. Of course, such a parallel may indicate dependence, but one cannot talk about ‘the only possible source’ or ‘no doubt that the source is Cyril’ unless one has good reason for supposing that there are no other potential sources.34 As a very preliminary probe I have examined the fifty places where the footnotes of COR 2.11 identify Cyril as a source to check how plausible each one is. As noted above, these fifty claims are made on the basis of a comparison of Calvin with Migne’s edition.35 I have checked each one against the 1528 edition and the results are tabulated in Appendix V. I do not claim any infallibility for judgements on each individual claim, but would claim that the overall picture is reliable. Four times it is Calvin himself who names Cyril (Cc.9, 10, 14, 50),36 though for one of these (C.9) it is Cyril as reported by Erasmus. Two other places also involve Erasmus’s citation of Cyril, and so are not evidence for Calvin’s own reading of Cyril (Cc.5, 32). Eleven times it is Books 5–8 of Cyril that are cited (Cc.19–29), and these are irrelevant because whereas the editor has cited Cyril from Migne the 1528 edition contains Clichtove’s material from Chrysostom and Augustine. Twice Calvin had cited Augustine and the editor notes that Cyril is similar (Cc.7, 48), which may be interesting but provides no reason to suppose that Calvin was citing Cyril. On nine occasions Cyril is one of four or more possible sources cited by the editor (Cc.3, 4, 18, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47). On all of these occasions Calvin’s citation is in general terms, such as qui[dam], alii or interpretes. Just twice Cyril fits Calvin’s citation well (Cc.37, 46). Some of Calvin’s citations specifically mention the ancients. Once he mentions Nestorius’s teaching (C.6), but Cyril’s 34 Backus: 2000, 274–275, uses this language. It may be that she has made an exhaustive search of other potential sources without revealing that fact in her chapter. On the underlying principle, see Lane: 1999, 9. Where Backus states that the modern editor identifies Cyril as ‘the only possible source’, in fact he merely states that Cyril fits the citation much better (‘Vielmehr’) without precluding other possible sources. Where there is ‘no doubt that the source is Cyril’, Calvin makes no mention of any source and the point being made is a basic truth of the doctrine of the Trinity, that Christ is both of the same essence as the Father and different. 35 Backus, ‘Calvin and the Greek Fathers,’ 268 notes that Calvin used the 1528 edition of Cyril, but she goes on to claim the influence of Cyril on the John commentary by a comparison with Migne (274–275). 36 For this and the next two paragraphs C.9, etc., refers not to Appendix II but to Appendix V.

190

Anthony N.S. Lane

commentary is clearly not the source for this as it was written before the controversy. Once where Augustine is cited this does not fit his writings and it is possible that Calvin meant Cyril (C.2). Once Calvin refers to Arriani but in the passage cited by the editor there is no mention of Arius or Arianism (C.35). Five times Calvin refers generally to sancti viri, veteres or patres (Cc.15, 16, 33, 36, 43) and three of these times Cyril fits the citation well (Cc.33, 36, 43). The remaining fourteen times Calvin’s citation is in general terms to qui[dam], alii, nonnulli, etc. For eight of these Cyril is of little or no relevance (Cc.12, 13, 17, 30, 45, 49) or unlikely (Cc.34, 38). This leaves six times where Cyril is one of two or three sources cited by the editor and is a distinctly possible source (Cc.1, 8, 11, 31, 40, 41), though in one of these the editor notes that Bullinger had cited Cyril (C.31) and so might be Calvin’s source. Where does this leave us? There are just twelve occasions (other than Calvin’s four citations of Cyril) when Cyril is a likely source for Calvin. Three are citations of veteres or patres (Cc.33, 36, 43) and once (C.2) is a possible case of mistaken identity (Augustine for Cyril). With Calvin’s more general references (to alii, interpretes, etc.), twice Cyril fits the bill well (Cc.37, 46) and six times he is a distinctly possible source (Cc.1, 8, 11, 31, 40, 41). This investigation suggests out of the editor’s fifty citations there are sixteen (i. e. about a third) where there is a significant likelihood that Calvin was referring to Cyril. That is not at all to claim that Calvin was thinking of Cyril on only these occasions. We have only investigated those places where the editor, relying upon Migne, has seen fit to mention Cyril. There are many other places where Calvin’s nonnulli, etc. may include Cyril — not to mention places where he is following or interacting with Cyril without even the vaguest explicit citation. Also, in one of the examples examined (C.33) Cyril makes the point concerned in his comments on the following verse. There may be other occasions where Calvin cites a view that Cyril expresses when commenting on a different verse. So our investigation has pointed to a number of places where Calvin may well be thinking of Cyril and leaves open the likelihood that, given that Calvin was using the Alexandrian’s John commentary, there may be countless others.

Bibliography COR = Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata, Geneva: Droz. IA = Index Aureliensis. Catalogus librorum sedecimo saeculo impressorum, Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner et al., 1965ff., cited by item number. Backus, I. (2000), Calvin and the Greek Fathers, in R.J. Bast/A.C. Gow (eds), Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History, Leiden: Brill.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

191

Calvin, J. (1554), Declaration pour maintenir la vraye foy que tiennent tous Chrestiens de la Trinité des personnes en un seul Dieu, Geneva: J. Crespin. — (1561), Congratulation à venerable Prestre Messire Gabriel de Saconnay Precenteur de l’Eglise de Lyon, [?Geneva]. Chung-Kim, E. (2011), Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist, Waco: Baylor University Press. Ellis, B. (2012), Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son, Oxford: OUP. Gamble, R.C. (1991), Calvin’s Theological Method. The Case of Caroli, in: W. van ’t Spijker (ed.), Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag, Kampen: Kok Pharos, 130–137. Ganoczy, A. (1969), La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin. Le Catalogue de 1572 et ses Enseignements, Geneva: Droz. Hartvelt, G.P. (1960), Verum Corpus , Delft: W.D. Meinema. Hazlett, W.I.P. (1991), Calvin’s Latin Preface to his Proposed French Edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies. Translation and Commentary, in: J. Kirk (ed.), Humanism and Reform. The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400–1643, Oxford: Blackwell. Lane, Anthony N.S. (1996), Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux, Studies in Reformed Theology and History New Series 1, Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary. — (1999), John Calvin. Student of the Church Fathers, Edinburgh: T & T Clark and Grand Rapids: Baker. — (2002), Tertullianus Totus Noster? Calvin’s Use of Tertullian, in: Reformation & Renaissance Review 4/1, 9–34. — (2006), Calvin, in: V. H. Drecoll (ed.), Augustin-Handbuch, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 622–627. — (2013a), Augustine and Calvin, in: C.C. Pecknold/T. Toom (eds), T&T Clark Companion to Augustine and Modern Theology, London & New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 174– 195. — (2013b), Calvin, in: K. Pollmann e.a. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, vol. 2, Oxford: OUP, 739–743. Massaut, J.-P. (1985), Josse Clichtove of Nieuwpoort, in P.G. Bietenholz/T.B. Deutscher (eds), Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 1, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Mooi, R.J. (1962), Het kerk- en dogmahistorisch element in de werken van Johannes Calvijn, Wageningen: H. Veenman. Muller, R.A. (2015), Facing Poland. Calvin’s Polish Correspondence and the Geography of Reformation Europe, in: J. Balserak/R. Snoddy (eds), Learning from the Past, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 33–55. Parker, T.H.L. (1947), The Oracles of God, London & Redhill: Lutterworth. Peter, R./Gilmont, J.-F. (1991–2000), Bibliotheca Calviniana. Les oeuvres de Jean Calvin publiées au XVI siècle, Geneva: Droz. Reeve, A. (ed.) (1986), Erasmus’s Annotations on the New Testament. The Gospels, London: Duckworth. Servetus, M. (1553), Christianismi Restitutio. Stam, F.P. van (1998), Le livre de Pierre Caroli de 1545 et son conflit avec Calvin, in: O. Millet (ed.), Calvin et ses contemporains, Geneva: Droz, 21–41. Tylenda, J. (1973a), Christ the Mediator: Calvin versus Stancaro, in: Calvin Theological Journal 8, 5–16.

192

Anthony N.S. Lane

— (1973b), The Controversy on Christ the Mediator: Calvin’s Second Reply to Stancaro, in: Calvin Theological Journal 8, 131–157. — (1974), The Calvin—Westphal Exchange: The Genesis of Calvin’s Treatises against Westphal, in: Calvin Theological Journal 9, 182–209. Warfield, B.B. (1956), Calvin and Augustine, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed. Westphal, J. (1555), Fides Divi Cyrilli episcopi Alexandrini de praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi in sacrae coenae communione, Frankfurt: P. Brubacchius. — (1557), Confessio fidei de eucharistiae scramento, Magdeburg: A. Kirchner. Williams, G.H. (1981), The Polish-Lithuanian Calvin during the Superintendency of John Łaski, 1556–1560, in B.A. Gerrish (ed.), Reformatio Perennis: Essays on Calvin and the Reformation in honor of Ford Lewis Battles, Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 129–158.

Appendix I: Calvin’s Citations of Cyril C.n = citation n; Cc.m, n = citations m & n. Where Cyril is mentioned in letters in CO not by Calvin these are also mentioned, though without being given a citation number. Some of these are significant for Calvin’s citations. For CO the figure in [ ] is the image number in the DVD edition. For the Cyril source references are to the 1528 Basel edition. References are also given to PG 73–75 where, for Cyril’s John commentary, the numbering differs from 1528—so, for example, Ioannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1528) = 10:2 (PG). Similarly, PG numbers Thesaurus differently, so Thesaurus 10:1 (1528) = 23 (PG). Parallel citations are listed after ‘//‘ and other related citations after ‘Cf.’ 1537: Confessio Genevensium Praedicatorum de Trinitate: De Christo Iehova C.Ia (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = e. g. Ioannes 1:1 on 1:1 (1.2 A-B), 5:24 on 8:25–27 (1.106D) 1 // Cc.IIa, XVIIa C.Ib (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.IIb, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII C.Ic (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) 2 = 23 (PG 75.379–384) // Cc.IIc, XVIIc C.Id (CO 9.709 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) = 23 (PG 75.379– 380) // Cc.IId, XIIId

1 For the idea, without the word principium, De Trinitate dial 3: ‘filius prodierit & natus sit ex patre sicut ex radice’ (2.96 A; PG 75.811–12). 2 Summary of the argument of Thesaurus 10:1.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

193

1537 (August):3 Epistola 74 Ministri Genevenses Turicensibus C.IIa (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = e. g. Ioannes 1:1 on 1:1 (1.2 A-B), 5:24 on 8:25–27 (1.106D) 4 // Cc.Ia, XVIIa C.IIb (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII C.IIc (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) 5 = 23 (PG 75.379–384) // Cc.Ic, XVIIc C.IId (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) = 23 (PG 75.379– 380) // Cc.Id, XIIId 1538–15406: Praefatio in Chrysostomi homilias C.III (CO 9.834 [494]; COR 6.1.403;7 ET Hazlett: 1991, 144) 1539: Institutio C.IV: Ch. 4 (CO 1.491 [307]) = De Trinitate dial 7 & 38 (2.92–103; 136–143; PG 75.787–860; 1075–1124) = 1.13.19 C.V: Ch. 4 (CO 1.531 [327]) 9 = De recta fide 2:18 (3.127D–128 A; PG 76.1355–1358) = 2.16.11 C.VI: Ch. 8 (CO 1.1001 [562]) = Ioannes 2:144 on 5:26–2710 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = 4.17.9. Cf. C.VIII 154211: Vivere apud Christum non dormire C.VII (CO 5.187 [153]; ET CTS 3.431) = Ioannes 1:22 on 1:18 (1.21C-D) = 1:10 (PG 73.182–83; ET 1.124–125) C.VIII (CO 5.192 [155]; ET CTS 3.437) = Ioannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1:50 A) 12 = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) Cf. C.VI

3 On the chronological relation between this and the previous citation, see COR 3.2.126. 4 For the idea, without the word principium, De Trinitate dial 3: ‘filius prodierit & natus sit ex patre sicut ex radice’ (2:96 A; PG 75.811–12). 5 Summary of the argument of Thesaurus 10:1. 6 Following the date given by Hazlett, 1991, 132–133 7 This work becomes Epistola 74 in COR 6.1. 8 Dialogues 7 & 3 are devoted to arguing the deity of the Spirit and the Son respectively. 9 The marginal reference to Cyril is missing from CO 1.531, but is found in the original text (p. 134). Because it is not in CO 1, it is missing from Mooi’s tables (Mooi: 1962, 369). 10 The point of agreement with Cyril is that it is as man, not as God, that the Son is granted to have life. 11 Calvin wrote this first in 1534 and revised it in 1536 (CO 5.169–76) but it was not published until 1542. As there can be no certainty about when the patristic citations were inserted it is safest to date them to 1542. 12 The point of agreement with Cyril is that it is as man, not as God, that the Son is granted to have life.

194

Anthony N.S. Lane

1543: Institutio C.IX: Ch. 8.105 (CO 1.607 [365]) = 4.7.1 C.X: Ch. 8.167 (CO 1.646 [384]) = 4.9.13 1543: Defensio doctrinae de servitute arbitrii C.XI: Book 6 (CO 6.396 [233]; COR 4.3.317; ET 233) = Ioannes 4:6 on 6:45 (1.71 A) = 4:1 (PG 73.554; ET 1.400) 13 1543 (May): Epistola 474 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XII (CO 11.561 [290]) 1543 (November?): Epistola 521 Ministris Neocomensibus14 C.XIIIa (CO 11.653 [336]) = Ioannes 4:18 on 6:57 (1.75D) 15 = 4:3 (PG 73.591; ET 1.428) // C.XVb C.XIIIb (CO 11.653 [336]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII C.XIIIc (CO 11.653 [336]) = Thesaurus 10:2 (2.42C) = 23 (PG 75.383–384) C.XIIId (CO 11.653 [336]) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42 A) = 23 (PG 75.379–382) // Cc.Id, IId 1543 (December): Epistola 590 Capunculus [ Jean Chaponneau] Calvino CO 11.781–802 [400–410]— Cyril cited on 785, 789, 791–799, in response to Cc.I, XIII 1545 ( January): Epistola 607 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XIVa (CO 12.16–17 [17–18]) = Calvin’s response to Ep 59016 C.XIVb (CO 12.17 [18]) = Calvin’s response to Ep 59017 C.XVa (CO 12.18 [18]) = reference to Capunculus’s critique in Ep 590 of C.XIII C.XVb (CO 12.18 [18]) = Ioannes 4:18 on 6:57 (1.75D) = 4:3 (PG 73.591; ET 1.428) // C.XIIIa C.XVc (CO 12.18 [18]) = reference to Capunculus’s critique in Ep 590

13 The source is Pighius, De libero arbitrio 98b:25–29 (COR 4/3:442), to which Calvin is responding. 14 On unreliability of the text of this letter, see CO 11.652. 15 The text itself appears to indicate this source. De Trinitate dial 3 (2:97C) is another possible source. 16 Capunculus cites Cyril (CO 11.785, 789, 791–799) and Hilary (CO 11.788–89, 792–93, 796). The citation of the Athanasian Creed is on CO 11.787. 17 Capunculus ‘paulo ante’ (CO 11.785) ridicules Calvin’s use of Cyril. He attacks Calvin’s use of Augustine at the end of his letter (CO 11.801–802).

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

195

C.XVd (CO 12.18–19 [18–19]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb, XVIIb, XVIII 1545: Pro Farello adversus P. Caroli calumnias C.XVI (CO 7.318 [214]; COR 4/6:89) 18 C.XVIIa (CO 7.322 [216]; COR 4/6:101; ET: Warfield: 1956, 240) = e. g. Ioannes 1:1 on 1:1 (1.2 A-B), 5:24 on 8:25–27 (1.106D) 19 // Cc.Ia, IIa C.XVIIb (CO 7.322 [216]; COR 4/6:101; ET: Warfield: 1956, 240) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb C.XVIIc (CO 7.322 [216]; COR 4/6:101; COR 4/6:101; ET: Warfield: 1956, 240) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) 20 = 23 (PG 75.379–384) // Cc.Ic, IIc C.XVIId (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield: 1956, 240) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) // Cc.Id, IId C.XVIIe (CO 7.322 [216]; COR 4/6:102) C.XVIII (CO 7.323 [217]; COR 4/6:103) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821– 822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb C.XIX (CO 7.325 [218]; COR 4/6:106-107) 21 1553: In Evangelium secundum Iohannem commentarius C.XX: On 3:3 (CO 47.54 [44]; COR 2.11.1.86; ET 1.63) = Ioannes 2:40 on 3:3 (1.30B) = 2:1 (PG 73.242; ET 1.167) 22 C.XXI: On 3:7–8 (CO 47.58 [46]; COR 2.11.1.92; ET 1.67) = Ioannes 2:44 on 3:7–8 (1.30D) = 2:1 (PG 73.246; ET 1.169–170) 23 C.XXII: On 4:44 (CO 47.98–99 [66–67]; COR 2.11.1.144; ET 1.110) = Ioannes 2:113 on 4:43–44 (1.43 A)] = 2:5 (PG 73.330; ET 1.231) C.XXIII: On 21:15 (CO 47.452 [243]; COR 2.11.2.311; ET 2.220) = Ioannes 12:64 on 21:15–17 (1.231B-C)] = 12:1 (PG 74.750–751; ET: 2.702–703) 1553: Servetus, Epistola Octava ad Calvinum CO 8.665 — Cyril Thesaurus 5:4ff. cited24

18 This is a general claim about Cyril’s aim to produce a simple scriptural definition of the Trinity, rather than an appeal to any particular passage. 19 For the idea, without the word principium, De Trinitate dial 3: ‘filius prodierit & natus sit ex patre sicut ex radice’ (2.96 A; PG 75.811–12). 20 Summary of the argument of Thesaurus 10.1. 21 I.e. Cyril supports Calvin’s claim ‘Christum esse a se ipso’, as Calvin argues in Cc.XVII, XVIII. 22 Reeve: 1986, 233. 23 Chrysostom and Cyril are also cited in Reeve: 1986, 234. 24 This is found in Servetus: 1553, 597.

196

Anthony N.S. Lane

1554: Defensio orthodoxae fidei de trinitate C.XXIV (CO 8.574 [324]; COR 4/5.133–134);25 FT.212–21326 1554 (October): Epistola 2034 Ministri Ecclesiae Tigurinae, Iudicia de Defensionibus Libello CO 15.281—[Westphal provided testimonium of Cyril on the Lord’s Supper] 1555: Harmonia ex tribus Evangelistis composita C.XXVa: On Mt 26:37 (CO 45.719–720 [377]; ET 3.147–148) = Ioannes 4:1 on 6:38– 39 (1.68 A) = 4:1 (PG 73.530–531; ET 1.384–385) C.XXVb: On Mt 26:37 (CO 45.719–720 [377]; ET 3.148) = Ioannes 4:1 on 6:38–39 (1.68B) = 4:1 (PG 73.531; ET 1.385) 1555 (March): Epistola 2142 Vermilius Calvino CO 15.492–497 — Cyril cited on 495 on the Lord’s Supper 1555 (August): Epistola 2266 Vermilio C.XXVI (CO 15.723 [371]) = Calvin’s comment on the citation of Cyril in Epistola 2142. Cf. Cc.XXVIIc, XXXIIc 1557: Ultima Admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum27 C.XXVIIa (CO 9.207 [181]; ET 2.435) = Ioannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C-D) 28 = 10:2 (PG 74.342; ET 2.370) // C.XXXIIa, c C.XXVIIb (CO 9.207–208; ET 2.435) = Ioannes 4:14 on 6:53 (1.74 A) 29 = 4:2 (PG 73.578; ET 1.418) C.XXVIIc (CO 9.208; ET 2.435) = Ioannes 11:20 on 17:11 (1.202D) = 11:9 (PG 74.517–518; ET: 2.515) Cf. Cc.XXVI,30 XXXIIc31

25 Calvin appears to be responding to Servetus: 1553, 704. 26 Calvin: 1554. For the claim that Calvin is ‘sans doute’ the translator, see Peter/ Gilmont: 1991– 2000, 1.510. 27 Calvin is responding to Westphal’s citations of Cyril in his Confessio fidei de eucharistiae sacramento (Westphal: 1557). He never mentions Westphal’s Fides Divi Cyrilli episcopi Alexandrini de praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi in sacrae coenae communion (Westphal: 1555). 28 Calvin is quoting Westphal’s quotation in Confessio E1a, where the Cyrilline passage quoted is the second of the four passages from 183C–D later cited by Heshusius, De praesentia D5a (C.XXXIIa). 29 Calvin is quoting Westphal’s quotation in Confessio E1b. 30 For the idea of hyperbole, see C.XXVI. 31 The same idea relating to John 17:21 is found in C.XXXIIc.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

197

1559: Institutio32 1.13.19 (CO 2.105–106 [63]; OS 3.132–133) = De Trinitate dial 7 & 333 (2.92–103; 136–143; PG 75.787–860; 1075–1124) = C.IV 2.16.11 (CO 2.377 [199] 34; OS 3.496) = De recta fide 2:18 (3.127D–128 A; PG 76:1355–58) = C.V 4.7.1 (CO 2.824 [422]; OS 5.104) = C.IX 4.9.13 (CO 2.866 [443]; OS 5.161–62) = C.X 4.17.9 (CO 2.1008 [514]; OS 5.350) = Ioannes 2:144 on 5:26–2735 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = C.VI C.XXVIII: 4.17.34 (CO 2.1038 [529]; OS 5.398) = Ioannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1.75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) // C.XXXIIId 1559: Confession de foy par les Eglises en France C.XXIX: Art. 2 (CO 9.741–42 [448]; OS 2.312) 1560 (October): Epistola 3255 Gregorius Paulus Bresinensis Calvino CO 18.211 = Cyril, De Trinitate on Christ as Mediator, w.r.t. C.XXX 1561 (February): Epistola 3345 Leapolitanus Calvino CO 18.375 = Cyril, Ioannes 2:19, 9:42; De recta fide 2; In apologetico anathematismate 10; De Trinitate lib.1 on Christ as Mediator, w.r.t. C.XXX 1561: Responsio ad nobiles polonos et Franciscum Stancarum C.XXXa (CO 9.357 [256]; ET: Tylenda: 1973b, 156)—see the passages cited on behalf of Stancarus in Epistola 3345 C.XXXb (CO 9.357 [256]; ET: Tylenda: 1973b, 156) = De Trinitate dial 1 (2.77B; PG 75.693–694) 1561: Gratulatio ad Gabrielem de Saconay C.XXXI (CO 9:435 [295]); FT: 24–2536

32 The citations from the 1539 & 1543 editions are listed again but not counted as new citations. 33 Dialogues 7 & 3 are devoted to arguing the deity of the Spirit and the Son respectively. 34 The marginal reference to Cyril is missing from CO 2.377, but is found in the original text (p. 181; OS 3.496). Because it is not in CO 2, it is missing from Mooi’s tables (Mooi: 1962, 384– 385, n. r). 35 The point of agreement with Cyril is that it is as man, not as God, that the Son is granted to have life. 36 J. Calvin, Congratulation à venerable Prestre Messire Gabriel de Saconnay Precenteur de l’Eglise de Lyon ([?Geneva], 1561). According to Peter/Gilmont 1991–2000, 2:821, Calvin is ‘sans doute’ the translator because of the liberties taken with the original Latin.

198

Anthony N.S. Lane

1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIa (CO 9.480 [317]; ET 2.520) = Ioannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C-D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342–343; ET 2.369–371) // C.XXVIIa37 C.XXXIIb (CO 9.480 [317]; ET 2.520–521) = Ioannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183B–184 A); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.338–347, 555; ET 2.367–375; 547) 38 C.XXXIIc (CO 9.480 [317]; ET 2.521) = Ioannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C-D); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.342–343, 555–556; ET 2.369–371, 547– 548) 39 Cf. C.XXVIIa, c C.XXXIIIa (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541) = Ioannes 3:37 on 6:35 (1.67 A) = 3:6 (PG 73.319; ET 1.376) C.XXXIIIb (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541) = Ioannes 4:12 on 6:51 (1.72C) = 4:2 (PG 73.566; ET 1.410) C.XXXIIIc (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541) = Ioannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C-D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342–343; ET 2.369–371) 40 C.XXXIIId (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541) = Ioannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1.75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) 41 // C.XXVIII C.XXXIIIe (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541) = Ioannes 4:24 on 6:63 (1.77C) = 4:3 (PG 73.603–606; ET 1.437–438) C.XXXIV (CO 9.509 [332]; ET 2.560) = Ioannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1:75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) 42 Cf. Cc.XXVIII, XXXIIId

Appendix II: Calvin’s Citations of Nestorius & the Council of Ephesus 1537: Confessio Genevensium Praedicatorum de Trinitate: De Christo Iehova C.1 (CO 9.707 [431]; COR 3.2.150) 37 The source is Heshusius, De praesentia D5a. 38 The source is Heshusius, De praesentia D5a. Calvin correctly observes that Heshusius’s passage comes in the context of controversy with Arianism. Reference to the Arian appeal to John 17:21 is found not there but in Cyril’s commentary on that passage. 39 The source is Heshusius, De praesentia D5a. The passage cited by Heshusius (see XXXIIa) contains this idea, but not the precise words (‘essentialiter unum’). On John 17:21 Cyril states that Christ ‘voluit nos quoque inter nos consubstantialis virtute trinitatis (quantum nostrae naturae licet) uniri’. The same idea relating to John 17:11 is found in C.XXVIIc. 40 This passage is cited by Heshusius, De praesentia D5a, which is mentioned in C.XXXIIa. 41 The same idea in very similar words is found in Ioannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342–343) ET 2.369–271]. Heshusius quotes from this section of Cyril (see C.XXXIIa), but does not include the sentence that parallels C.XXXIIId. 42 This is stated in the passage cited in Cc.XXXIIId (and XXVIII). A similar idea is found in the passage cited by Heshusius, De praesentia D5a, which is mentioned in C.XXXIIa.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

199

1539: Institutio C.2: Ch. 4:35 (CO 1.522 [322]; OS 3.463) = 2.14.4 1543: Institutio C.3: Ch. 7:16 (CO 1.522–523 [322–323]; OS 3.463–464) [shortly following C.2] = 2.14.4 C.4: Ch. 8:105 (CO 1.607 [365]) = C.IX = 4.7.1 C.5: Ch. 8:161 (CO 1.643 [383]) = 4.9.8 C.6: Ch. 8:167 (CO 1.646 [384]) = C.X = 4.9.13 1545: Admonitio paterna Pauli III. Cum scholiis C.7 (CO 7.261 [186]; ET 260) 1545: Pro Farello adversus P. Caroli calumnias C.8 (CO 7.314 [212]; COR 4/6:81) 1548: Commentarius in utramque Pauli Epistolam ad Timotheum C.9: On 1 Tim 3:16 (CO 52.290 [154]; ET 233) 1549: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebraeos C.10: On 2:16 (CO 55.34 [26]; COR 2.19.46; ET 32) 1553: In Evangelium secundum Iohannem commentarius C.11: On 1:14 (CO 47.14 [24]; COR 2.11.1.31; ET 1.20) C.12: On 2:19 (CO 47.47 [41]; COR 2.11.1.77; ET 1.56) 1553: Procès de Servet C.13: Articles du procureur général no.23 (CO 14.765 [404]) C.14: Cinquième interrogatoire de Servet no.23 (CO 14.770 [406]) C.15: Réquisitoire du procureur général (CO 14.773 [408]) 1554: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum C.16: On 20:28 (CO 48.469 [252]; COR 2.12.2.189; ET 2.184) 1554: Defensio orthodoxae fidei de trinitate C.17 (CO 8.561 [318]; COR 4.5.119) 1556?: Consilium Contra Mennonem: Calvinus Micronio C.18 (CO 10.174; Farley 44)

200

Anthony N.S. Lane

1557: Ultima Admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum C.19 (CO 9.153 [154]; ET 2.361) 1559: Confession des Escholiers C.20 (CO 9.721.2 [438]; OS 2.374–375; ET 2.361) C.21 (CO 9.723–724 [439]; OS 2.376; ET 2.362) 1559: Institutio1 2.14.4 (CO 2.356 [188]; OS 3.463–464) = Cc.2, 3 C.22: 2.14.5 (CO 2.357 [188]; OS 3.465) C.23: 2.14.7 (CO 2.359 [189]; OS 3.468) C.24: 2.14.8 (CO 2.361 [190]; OS 3.471) 4.7.1 (CO 2.824 [422]; OS 5.104) = C.4 = C.IX 4.9.8 (CO 2.862 [441]; OS 5.156) = C.5 4.9.13 (CO 2.866 [443]; OS 5.161–162) = C.6 = C.X 1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.25 (CO 9.492 [323]; ET 2.537) 1561: Gratulatio ad Gabrielem de Saconay C.26 (CO 9.435 [295]) 2 = C.XXXI; FT: 24–253 1561: Impietas Valentini Gentilis detecta C.27 (CO 9.379 [267]) 1561: Responsio ad versipellem quendam mediatorem C.28 (CO 9.534 [344]) C.29 (CO 9.551 [353]) 1562: Confession de foy pour présenter à l’empereur C.30 (CO 9.755 [455]; ET 2.141)

1 The citations from the 1539 & 1543 editions are listed again but not counted as new citations. 2 On whether Cyril has confused the 449 Council of Ephesus with the 431 Council, see above. For the events preceding the Council of Chalcedon, including the 449 council, see Crabbe, Concilia Omnia, 1.393 A–400B; for the Council of Chalcedon itself, see Crabbe, Concilia Omnia, 1.400B– 512B. 3 Calvin: 1561, 2.821, Calvin is ‘sans doute’ the translator because of the liberties taken with the original Latin.

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

201

1563 ( July): Epistola 3986 Friderico Electori Palatino = Dedication to Jeremiah Lectures C.31 (CO 20.74 [46]; ET xviii)

Appendix III: Calvin’s Citations of Cyril by Passage Cited De Trinitate = De sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate 1561: Responsio ad nobiles polonos et Franciscum Stancarum C.XXXb (CO 9.357 [256]; ET Tylenda 156) = De Trinitate dial 1 (2.77B; PG 75.693– 694) 1537: Confessio Genevensium Praedicatorum de Trinitate: De Christo Iehova C.Ib (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.IIb, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII 1537 (August): Epistola 74 Ministri Genevenses Turicensibus C.IIa (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = De Trinitate dial 3 // Cc.Ia, XVIIa C.IIb (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII 1543 (November?): Epistola 521 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XIIIb (CO 11.653 [336]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII 1545 ( January): Epistola 607 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XVd (CO 12.18–19 [18–19]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb, XVIIb, XVIII 1545: Pro Farello adversus P. Caroli calumnias C.XVIIa (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield 240) = De Trinitate dial 3 // Cc.Ia, IIa C.XVIIb (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield 240) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb C.XVIII (CO 7.323 [217]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb 1539: Institutio C.IV: Ch. 4 (CO 1.491 [307]) = De Trinitate dial 7 & 3 (2.92–103; 136–143; PG 75.787–860; 1075–1124) = 1.13.19

202

Anthony N.S. Lane

1559: Institutio 1.13.19 (CO 2.105–106 [63]; OS 3.132–133) = De Trinitate dial 7 & 3 (2.92–103; 136–143; PG 75.787–860; 1075–1124) = C.IV

Thesaurus = Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate 1537: Confessio Genevensium Praedicatorum de Trinitate: De Christo Iehova C.Ic (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) = 23 (PG 75.379–384) // Cc.IIc, XVIIc C.Id (CO 9.709 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) = 23 (PG 75.379– 380) // Cc.IId, XIIId 1537 (August): Epistola 74 Ministri Genevenses Turicensibus C.IIc (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) = 23 (PG 75.379–384) // Cc.Ic, XVIIc C.IId (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) = 23 (PG 75.379– 380) // Cc.Id, XIIId 1543 (November?): Epistola 521 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XIIIc (CO 11.653 [336]) = Thesaurus 10:2 (2.42C) = 23 (PG 75.383–384) C.XIIId (CO 11.653 [336]) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42 A) = 23 (PG 75.379–382) // Cc.Id, IId 1545: Pro Farello adversus P. Caroli calumnias C.XVIIc (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield 240) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) = 23 (PG 75.379–384) // Cc.Ic, IIc C.XVIId (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield 240) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) // Cc.Id, IId

De recta fide = Ad reginas de recta fide 1539: Institutio C.V: Ch. 4 (CO 1.531 [327]) = De recta fide 2:18 (3.127D–128 A; PG 76.1355–1358) = 2.16.11 1559: Institutio 2.16.11 (CO 2.377 [199]; OS 3.496) = De recta fide 2:18 (3.127D–128 A; PG 76.1355–1358) = C.V

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

203

Iohannes = In Evangelium Ioannis Commentarii 1542: Vivere apud Christum non dormire C.VII (CO 5.187 [153]; ET 3.431) = Iohannes 1:22 on 1:18 (1.21C–D) = 1:10 (PG 73.182–183; ET 1.124–125) 1553: In Evangelium secundum Iohannem commentarius C.XX: On 3:3 (CO 47.54 [44]; COR 2.11.1.86; ET 1.63) = Iohannes 2:40 on 3:3 (1.30B) = 2:1 (PG 73.242; ET 1.167) C.XXI: On 3:7–8 (CO 47.58 [46]; COR 2.11.1.92; ET 1.67) = Iohannes 2:44 on 3:7–8 (1.30D) = 2:1 (PG 73.246; ET 1.169–170) C.XXII: On 4:44 (CO 47.98–99 [66–67]; COR 2.11.1.144; ET 1.110) = Iohannes 2:113 on 4:43–44 (1.43 A)] = 2:5 (PG 73.330; ET 1.231) 1539: Institutio C.VI: Ch. 8 (CO 1.1001 [562]) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = 4.17.9. Cf. C.VIII 1542: Vivere apud Christum non dormire C.VIII (CO 5.192 [155]; ET 3.437) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) Cf. C.VI 1559: Institutio 4.17.9 (CO 2.1008 [514]; OS 5.350) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = C.VI 1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIIa (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 3:37 on 6:35 (1.67 A) = 3:6 (PG 73.319; ET 1.376) 1555: Harmonia ex tribus Evangelistis composita C.XXVa: On Mt 26:37 (CO 45.719–720 [377]; ET 3.147–148) = Iohannes 4:1 on 6:38–39 (1.68 A) = 4:1 (PG 73:530–31; ET 1.384–385) C.XXVb: On Mt 26:37 (CO 45.719–720 [377]; ET 3.148) = Iohannes 4:1 on 6:38–39 (1.68B) = 4:1 (PG 73.531; ET 1.385) 1543: Defensio doctrinae de servitute arbitrii C.XI: Book 6 (CO 6.396 [233]; COR 4.3.317; ET 233) = Iohannes 4:6 on 6:45 (1.71 A) = 4:1 (PG 73.554; ET 1.400)

204

Anthony N.S. Lane

1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIIb (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 4:12 on 6:51 (1.72C) = 4:2 (PG 73.566; ET 1.410) 1557: Ultima Admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum C.XXVIIb (CO 9.207–208; ET 2.435) = Iohannes 4:14 on 6:53 (1.74 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.578; ET 1.418) 1559: Institutio C.XXVIII: 4.17.34 (CO 2.1038 [529]; OS 5.398) = Iohannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1.75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) // C.XXXIIId 1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIId (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1.75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) // C.XXVIII C.XXXIV (CO 9.509 [332]; ET 2.560, 313–314) = Iohannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1.75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) Cf. Cc.XXVIII, XXXIIId 1543 (November?): Epistola 521 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XIIIa (CO 11.653 [336]) = Iohannes 4:18 on 6:57 (1.75D) = 4:3 (PG 73.591; ET 1.428) // C.XVb 1545 ( January): Epistola 607 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XVb (CO 12.18 [18]) = Iohannes 4:18 on 6:57 (1.75D) = 4:3 (PG 73.591; ET 1.428) // C.XIIIa 1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIIe (CO 9.495; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 4:24 on 6:63 (1.77C) = 4:3 (PG 73.603–606; ET 1.437–438) 1557: Ultima Admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum C.XXVIIa (CO 9.207 [181]; ET 2.435) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C-D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342; ET 2.370) // C.XXXIIa 1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIa (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.520, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342–343; ET 2.369–371) // C.XXVIIa C.XXXIIb (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.520–521, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183B– 184 A); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.338–347, 555; ET 2.367– 375; 547)

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

205

C.XXXIIc (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.521, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.342–343, 555–556; ET 2.369– 371, 547–548) Cf. C.XXVIIc C.XXXIIIc (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342–343; ET 2.369–371) 1557: Ultima Admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum C.XXVIIc (CO 9.208; ET 2.435) = Iohannes 11:20 on 17:11 (1.202D) = 11:9 (PG 74.517–518; ET 2.515) Cf. Cc.XXVI, XXXIIc 1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIb (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.520–521, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183B– 184 A); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.338–347, 555; ET 2.367– 375; 547) C.XXXIIc (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.521, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.342–343, 555–556; ET 2.369– 371, 547–548) Cf. C.XXVIIc 1553: In Evangelium secundum Iohannem commentarius C.XXIII: On 21:15 (CO 47.452 [243]; COR 2.11.2.311; ET 2.220) = Iohannes 12:64 on 21:15–17 (1.231B–C)] = 12:1 (PG 74.750–751; ET 2.702–703)

Appendix IV: Calvin’s Citations of Cyril by Topic Trinity 1537: Confessio Genevensium Praedicatorum de Trinitate: De Christo Iehova C.Ia (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = e. g. Ioannes 1:1 on 1:1 (1.2 A–B), 5:24 on 8:25–27 (1.106D) // Cc.IIa, XVIIa C.Ib (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C) // Cc.IIb, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII C.Ic (CO 9.708 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) // Cc.IIc, XVIIc C.Id (CO 9.709 [431]; COR 3.2.152) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) // C.IId, XIIId 1537 (August): Epistola 74 Ministri Genevenses Turicensibus C.IIa (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = e. g. Ioannes 1:1 on 1:1 (1.2 A–B), 5:24 on 8:25–27 (1.106D) // Cc.Ia, XVIIa C.IIb (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C) // Cc.Ib, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII

206

Anthony N.S. Lane

C.IIc (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = Thesaurus 10[:1] (2.41D–42B) // Cc.Ic, XVIIc C.IId (CO 10.121 [270]; COR 6.1.254) = Thesaurus 10[:1] (2.41D) // C.Id, XIIId 1539: Institutio C.IV: Ch. 4 (CO 1.491 [307]) = De Trinitate dial 7 & 3 (2.92–103; 136–143; PG 75.787–860; 1075–1124) = 1.13.19 C.VI: Ch. 8 (CO 1.1001 [562]) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = 4.17.9. Cf. C.VIII 1542: Vivere apud Christum non dormire C.VIII (CO 5.192 [155]; ET 3.437) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) Cf. C.VI 1543 (May): Epistola 474 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XII (CO 11.561 [290]) 1543 (November?): Epistola 521 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XIIIa (CO 11.653 [336]) = Iohannes 4:18 on 6:57 (1.75D) = 4:3 (PG 73.591; ET 1.428) // Cc.XVb C.XIIIb (CO 11.653 [336]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XVd, XVIIb, XVIII C.XIIIc (CO 11.653 [336]) = Thesaurus 10:2 (2.42C) C.XIIId (CO 11.653 [336]) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42 A) // Cc.Id, IId 1543 (December): Epistola 590 Capunculus [ Jean Chaponneau] Calvino CO 11.781–802 [400–410] — Cyril cited on 785, 789, 791–799, in response to Cc.I, XIII 1545 ( January): Epistola 607 Ministris Neocomensibus C.XIVa (CO 12.16–17 [17–18]) = Calvin’s response to Ep 590 C.XIVb (CO 12.17 [18]) = Calvin’s response to Ep 590 C.XVa (CO 12.18 [18]) = reference to Capunculus’s critique in Ep 590 of C.XIII C.XVb (CO 12.18 [18]) = Iohannes 4:18 on 6:57 (1.75D) = 4:3 (PG 73.591; ET 1.428) // C.XIIIa C.XVc (CO 12.18 [18]) = reference to Capunculus’s critique in Ep 590 C.XVd (CO 12.18–19 [18–19]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C; PG 75.821–822) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb, XVIIb, XVIII 1545: Pro Farello adversus P. Caroli calumnias C.XVI (CO 7.318 [214])

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

207

C.XVIIa (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield, 240) = e. g. Ioannes 1:1 on 1:1 (1.2 A–B), 5:24 on 8:25–27 (1.106D) // Cc.Ia, IIa C.XVIIb (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield, 240) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb C.XVIIc (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield, 240) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D–42B) // Cc.Ic, IIc C.XVIId (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield, 240) = Thesaurus 10:1 (2.41D) // Cc.Id, IId C.XVIIe (CO 7.322 [216]; ET: Warfield, 240) C.XVIII (CO 7.323 [217]) = De Trinitate dial 3 (2.97C) // Cc.Ib, IIb, XIIIb, XVd, XVIIb C.XIX (CO 7.325 [218]) 1553: Servetus, Epistola Octava ad Calvinum CO 8.665—Cyril Thesaurus 5:4ff. cited 1554: Defensio orthodoxae fidei de trinitate C.XXIV (CO 8.574 [324]; COR 4.5.134) 1559: Institutio 1.13.19 (CO 2.105–106 [63]; OS 3.132–133) = De Trinitate dial 7 & 3 (2.92–103; 136–143; PG 75.787–860; 1075–1124) = C.IV 4.17.9 (CO 2.1008 [514]; OS 5.350) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = C.VI 1559: Confession de foy par les Eglises en France C.XXIX: Art. 2 (CO 9.741–742 [448]; OS 2.312)

Exegesis 1538–1540: Praefatio in Chrysostomi homilias C.III (CO 9.834 [494]; ET: Hazlett, 144) 1542: Vivere apud Christum non dormire C.VII (CO 5.187 [153]; ET 3.431) = Iohannes 1:22 on 1:18 (1.21C–D) = 1:10 (PG 73.182–183; ET 1.124–125) 1553: In Evangelium secundum Iohannem commentarius C.XX: On 3:3 (CO 47.54 [44] ; COR 2.11.86; ET 1.63) = Iohannes 2:40 on 3:3 (1.30B) = 2:1 (PG 73.242; ET 1.167) C.XXI: On 3.7–8 (CO 47.58 [46]; COR 2.11.92; ET 1.67) = Iohannes 2:44 on 3:7–8 (1.30D) = 2:1 (PG 73.246; ET 1.169–170)

208

Anthony N.S. Lane

C.XXII: On 4:44 (CO 47.98–99 [66–67]; COR 2.11.144; ET 1.110) = Iohannes 2:113 on 4:43–44 (1:43 A)] = 2:5 (PG 73.330; ET 1.231) C.XXIII: On 21:15 (CO 47.452 [243]; COR 2.11.311; ET 2.220) = Iohannes 12:64 on 21:15–17 (1.231B–C)] = 12:1 (PG 74.750–751; ET 2.702–703)

Cross 1539: Institutio C.V: Ch. 4 (CO 1.531 [327]) = De recta fide 2:18 (3.127D–128 A; PG 76.1355–1358) = 2.16.11 1555: Harmonia ex tribus Evangelistis composita C.XXVa: On Mt 26:37 (CO 45.719–720 [377]; ET 3.147–148) = Iohannes 4:1 on 6:38–39 (1.68 A) = 4:1 (PG 73.530–531; ET 1.384–385) C.XXVb: On Mt 26:37 (CO 45.719–720 [377]; ET 3.148) = Iohannes 4:1 on 6:38–39 (1.68B) = 4:1 (PG 73.531; ET 1.385) 1559: Institutio 2.16.11 (CO 2.377 [199]; OS 3.496) = De recta fide 2:18 (3.127D–128 A; PG 76.1355–1358) = C.V

Papacy & Councils 1543: Institutio C.IX: Ch. 8:105 (CO 1.607 [365]) = 4.7.1 C.X: Ch. 8:167 (CO 1.646 [384]) = 4.9.13 1559: Institutio 4.7.1 (CO 2.824 [422]; OS 5.104) = C.IX 4.9.13 (CO 2.866 [443]; OS 5.161–162) = C.X 1561: Gratulatio ad Gabrielem de Saconay C.XXXI (CO 9.435 [295])

Grace 1543: Defensio doctrinae de servitute arbitrii

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

209

C.XI: Book 6 (CO 6.396 [233]; COR 4.3.317; ET 233) = Iohannes 4:6 on 6:45 (1.71 A) = 4:1 (PG 73.554; ET 1.400)

Lord’s Supper 1539: Institutio C.VI: Ch. 8 (CO 1.1001 [562]) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = 4.17.9. Cf. C.VIII 1555 (March): Epistola 2142 Vermilius Calvino CO 15.492–497—Cyril cited on 495 on the Lord’s Supper 1555 (August): Epistola 2266 Vermilio C.XXVI (CO 15.723 [371]) = Calvin’s comment on the citation of Cyril in Epistola 2142. Cf. Cc.XXVIIc, XXXIIc 1557: Ultima Admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum C.XXVIIa (CO 9.207 [181]; ET 2.435) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C-D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342; ET 2.370) // C.XXXIIa C.XXVIIb (CO 9.207–208; ET 2.435) = Iohannes 4:14 on 6:53 (1.74 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.578; ET 1.418) C.XXVIIc (CO 9.208; ET 2.435) = Iohannes 11:20 on 17:11 (1.202D)] = 11:9 (PG 74.517–518; ET 2.515) Cf. Cc.XXVI, XXXIIc 1559: Institutio 4.17.9 (CO 2.1008 [514]; OS 5.350) = Iohannes 2:144 on 5:26–27 (1.50 A) = 2:8 (PG 73.382–383; ET 1.271–272) = C.VI C.XXVIII: 4.17.34 (CO 2.1038 [529]; OS 5.398) = Iohannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1.75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) // C.XXXIIId 1561: Dilucida explicatio de vera participatione C.XXXIIa (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.520, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342–343; ET 2.369–371) // C.XXVIIa C.XXXIIb (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.520–521, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183B– 184 A); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.338–347, 555; ET 2.367– 375; 547) C.XXXIIc (CO 9.480 [317] ; ET 2.521, 280) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D); 11:26 on 17:20–21 (1.207B) = 10:2; 11:11 (PG 74.342–343, 555–556; ET 2.369– 371, 547–548) Cf. C.XXVIIc

210

Anthony N.S. Lane

C.XXXIIIa (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 3:37 on 6:35 (1.67 A) = 3:6 (PG 73.319; ET 1.376) C.XXXIIIb (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 4:12 on 6:51 (1.72C) = 4:2 (PG 73.566; ET 1.410) C.XXXIIIc (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 10:13 on 15:1 (1.183C–D) = 10:2 (PG 74.342–343; ET 2.369–371) C.XXXIIId (CO 9.495 [325]; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1:75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) // C.XXVIII C.XXXIIIe (CO 9.495; ET 2.541, 297) = Iohannes 4:24 on 6:63 (1.77C) = 4:3 (PG 73.603–606; ET 1.437–438) C.XXXIV (CO 9.509 [332]; ET 2.560, 313–314) = Iohannes 4:17 on 6:56 (1.75 A) = 4:2 (PG 73.583; ET 1.422) Cf. Cc.XXVIII, XXXIIId

Christ as Mediator 1560: Responsio ad nobiles polonos et Franciscum Stancarum C.XXXa (CO 9.357 [256]; ET: Tylenda, 156)—see the passages cited on behalf of Stancarus in Epistola 3345 C.XXXb (CO 9.357 [256]; ET: Tylenda, 156) = De Trinitate dial 1 (2.77B; PG 75.693–694)

Appendix V: Cyril in the Footnotes of COR 2/11:1–2 No. COR 2.11 1

1:13, n. 9

1:1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1:13f, n. 10 1:16, n. 19 1:25, n. 42 1:40, n. 82 1:77, n. 42 1:80, n. 53 1:85, n. 11 1:86, n. 12

1:1 1:3 1:11 1:21 2:19 2:24 3:3 3:3

10 11

1:92, n. 28 1:96, n. 34

3:7 3:12

John Calvin’s text Qui (…) inquiunt Augustinus varie .. legitur rectius (…) qui Erasmum Nestorius Augustinus falluntur, qui Erasmus, Cyrilli Cyrillus iis

COR footnote + comparison with 1528 edition Thomas & Cyril = 1:1 (2C): possible Error for Cyril? = 1:1 (1D): possible Five authors + Cyril = 1:6 (9B): ?relevant Four authors + Cyril: 1:12 (17B): possible Erasmus had cited Cyril C.12 Cyril similar—so what? Chrysostom, Bucer & Cyril = 2:40 (30B): possible C.XX. (Erasmus cited Cyril) C.XXI Chrysostom & Cyril = 2:49 (31B): clearer than PG

211

Calvin’s Use of Cyril of Alexandria

12

1:107, n. 74 3:27

13 14 15 16 17

1:125, n. 34 1:144, n. 82 1:174, n. 52 1:198, n. 35 1:223, n. 81

18

1:235, n. 12 7:15

eorum sententiae quidam Cyrillo sancti viri Veteres coactus est sensus Falluntur, qui

19 20 21 22 23 24

1:247, n. 29 1:248, n. 32 1:251, n. 40 1:252, n. 43 1:268, n. 25 1:285, n. 51

7:33 7:34 7:38 7:38 8:15 8:43

alii plures Quidam alii Alii Multi

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2:44, n.47 2:47, n. 53 2:81, n.17 2:91, n.40 2:99, n. 53 2:117, n. 6 2:124, n. 17

10:30 10:36 12:7 12:23 12:31 13:8 13:19

veteres Arriani interpretes Multi aliis tertii sensus

32 33

2:136, n. 2 14:1 Posset legi 2:143, n. 18 14:10 veteres

34

2:145, n. 21 14:12 Responsiones alias 2:150, n. 31 14:20 Arriani 2:156, n. 43 14:28 Patres orthodoxi 2:158, n. 44 14:30 interpretes 2:159, n. 48 14:31 Nonnulli

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

1 2 3 4 5 6

4:20 4:44 5:30 6:27 6:63

2:174, n. 41 15:18 secunda [expositio] 2:188, n. 20 16:11 Qui 2:194, n. 41 16:15 Alii 2:195, n. 42 16:16 alii 2:222, n. 26 17:21 multi ex Patribus

Augustine & Cyril = 2:60 (33B): ?relevant1 Musculus + cf. Cyril = 2:90 (39 A): so what? C.XXII Cyril = 2:146 (50D): possible Cyril = 3:29 (62 A-C): possible Cyril = 4:23 (77 A-B). Cf. Bucer: Cyril ?relevant Musculus, Augustine, Bucer & Cyril = 4:41 (84 A) 2 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril 1528 edition is not actually Cyril Faber, Bullinger & Cyril = 9:5 (156D): dubious Thomas, Bullinger & Cyril = 9:11 (158D): possible3 Erasmus cites Cyril = 9:30 (164D): possible Chrysostom, Augustine & Cyril = 9:39 (169 A) on 14:114 Augustine & Cyril = 9:41 (172C–173 A) on 14:12–135 Cyril 9:47 (175B–176D) doesn’t mention Arians Cyril 10:9 (180D) fits well Seven authors + Cyril = 10:11 (182B): fits well Augustine, cf. Chrysostom & Cyril = 10:12 (182C-D) 6 Four authors + Cyril = 10:26 (189 A-B): possible Chrysostom & Cyril = 10:40 (193C): possible Musculus & Cyril = 11:2 (194D–195 A): possible Five authors + Cyril = 11:3 (195B): possible Augustine & Cyril = 11:26 (207 A-C): fits well

The 1528 translation is rather different from PG. Cyril is vaguely relevant. COR notes that Bullinger cited Cyril. Cyril fits the statement well. Calvin says he is ignoring the other usual answers, so he could be thinking of almost anyone. Cyril reports but rejects view of ‘Nonnulli’.

212

Anthony N.S. Lane

44

2:223, n. 27 17:21 Quidam

45

2:226, n. 34 17:24 quidam

46 47 48 49

2:236, n. 15 2:254, n. 8 2:270, n. 48 2:284, n. 27

50

2:311, n. 12

18:15 19:11 19:35 20:14

Quosdam Aliqui Augustinus quidam

Four authors + Cyril = 11:26–27 (206D–208C) on 17:20–237 Chrysostom, Bullinger & Cyril = 11:28 (208C-D): dubious8 Five authors + Cyril = 11:38 (212 A): fits well Six authors + Cyril = 12:22 (218 A-B): ?relevant Cyril = 12:39 (222C) similar — so what? Chrysostom, Bullinger & Cyril = 12:47 (224 A): no C.XXIII

7 The point made is not found in the section on 17:20–23, the potential relevant verses. 8 The passage quoted in COR (n. 34) is not found in the 1528 edition, which more supports the alternative view (‘alii autem’) which Calvin goes on to set out.

Petr Sˇkubal

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes? Et si on lisait quelques extraits des commentaires des Prophètes produits dans l’espace rhénan au cours du xvie siècle, sans savoir qui les a écrits, ni quand? Ne terminerait-on pas leur analyse par réinterroger certaines conclusions avancées parmi les chercheurs depuis vingt ou trente ans? Peut-être oui. Peut-être non. A nous tous de voir où une telle aventure peut conduire le lecteur…

1. Lecture des textes Commençons donc par lire cinq extraits ‘anonymes’, tirés des commentaires des Prophètes produits dans l’espace rhénan au cours du xvie siècle. 1. Dans un commentaire de Daniel 11, 44–45, nous rencontrons cette justification de la démarche exégétique de l’auteur: Que ceux (…) qui exposent ces paroles de la mort de l’Antéchrist au mont des Olivier entre les deux mers (…) voient comment elles concordent avec les autres (propos de Daniel). Il n’est (d’ailleurs) pas nécessaire de prouver le mystère du Christ ou de l’Antéchrist de tous ces lieux. En effet, le Christ, les apôtres et l’Apocalypse de Jean indiquent assez les ignominies et les persécutions de l’Antéchrist: et c’est pourquoi exposer ces paroles d’Antiochius ne porte pas de préjudice à la vérité catholique mais atteste la vérité de la prédiction de la prophétie.1 2. Dans un commentaire de Sophonie 3, 11, nous découvrons cette explication du sens profond de la tournure en ce jour-là: 1 En latin: ‘Qui (…) de Antichristo haec exponunt in monte Oliueto occidendo inter duo maria (…) uideant quomodo reliqua concordent. Nec necesse est mysterium Christi uel Antichristi ex omnibus ubique locis probare. Satis enim Christus, apostoli & Apocalypsis Ioannis indicant Antichristi flagitia & persecutiones: ideoque haec de Antiocho explanata non obsunt catholicae ueritati, sed attestantur prophetiae praedictionis ueritati.’ Pour les références bibliographiques, voir la note n°8.

214

Petr Sˇkubal

Le début (…) ou plutôt l’aube de ce jour-ci, fut, quand la connaissance de Dieu a commencé à être répandue dans les régions orientales (…) par les Juifs et les Israélites dispersés les uns comme les autres. La lumière de ce jour-là est ensuite plus clairement apparue quand le Seigneur a aussi donné son Ecriture aux nations, et quand le zèle de la vérité (…) a été éveillé dans le monde. Toutes ces choses ont commencé, comme il est dit plus haut, au temps du monarque NebucadNetzar, et elles ont continuellement grandi dans la succession du temps, jusqu’à ce que le Christ glorifié, la vraie repentance et la vraie religion de Dieu commencent à être annoncées par les apôtres comme au son de la trompette (et) sans distinction à toutes les créatures. Alors le jour est vraiment paru (…) C’est pourquoi le jour dont le Prophète parle ici en disant: En ce jour-là, est tout ce temps pendant lequel la connaissance de Dieu, de laquelle l’unique et entière piété et la félicité proviennent, a commencé à être donnée au monde.2 3. Dans un commentaire de Jérémie 31, 33, nous relevons cette conclusion à l’annonce d’une ‘nouvelle’ Alliance entre Dieu et son peuple par le Prophète: Auprès de Dieu, cette alliance est une éternellement, qui est différemment disposée à cause de la diversité des temps. Elle a d’ailleurs toujours été une dans le for intérieur de l’homme.3 4. Dans un commentaire de Ps 20, 11, nous assistons à cette description du rapport entre les réalités externes de la foi (qui signifient) et les réalités internes de la foi (qui sont signifiées): Du fait que David a offert à Dieu ces sacrifices légaux là si studieusement et si religieusement selon la prescription de la Loi, alors qu’il savait qu’elles ne plaisaient pas à Dieu par elles-mêmes mais qu’un autre genre des sacrifices était requis par lui—sans doute le sacrifice du cœur contrit et de la louange, ce qu’il chante clairement aux Ps 40, 50 et 51—(de ce fait-là) les fidèles sont exhortés à ce qu’ils ne méprisent pas les choses qui sont recommandées et prescrites par Dieu à un certain moment, mais qu’il (les) observent par un exercice religieux et pieux de la foi, et qu’ils demeurent dans cette administration-là que Dieu a voulu instituer conformément au temps et par laquelle il a voulu exercer son peuple dans le goût 2 En latin: ‘Huius diei primum (…) uel Gallicinium potius, fuit, cum (…) orientis regionibus (…) per disperson otrusque, Iisraelitas & Iudaes, cognitio Dei, & apud gentes spargi coepta est. Proprior autem diei huius lux accessit, cum & scripturam suam Dominus gentibus donauit, passimque in orbe studium (…) ueritatis accendit. Quae omnia, ut superioris dictum, à monarcha NebucadNetzar coeperunt, & succedente tempore continuo auctiora euaserunt, donec Christo glorificato, par Apostolos, uera & resipiscentia, & religio Dei passim coepit omni creaturae ebuccinari. Tum enim dies hic uere exortus est (…) Dies itaque de quo Propheta hic loquitur, dicens: In die illo, totum illud tempus est, quo cognitio, à qua una, omnis & pietas & foelicitas prouenit (…)’ Pour les références bibliographiques, voir la note n° 9. 3 En latin: ‘Apud Deum unum est foedus illud aeternum, quod pro diuersitate temporum uariè disponitur. Et in interioribus quoque hominis semper unum fuit.’Pour les références bibliographiques, voir la note n° 10.

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

215

de la piété. David vivait aux temps de l’Ancien Testament, sous les ombres des choses futures, parmi ceux pour lesquels les cérémonies légales étaient prescrites comme les premières choses élémentaires (sont prescrites) aux enfants. Il convenait donc—(et) la vraie piété (le) requérait même—que (David) s’en serve lui aussi, même s’il savait que Dieu ne puisse pas être servi convenablement par l’œuvre externe et que celle-ci ne pouvait pas acquérir la rémission des péchés et le véritable salut (…) Que dire de David? Le Christ lui-même n’agissait-il pas de la même manière, quand il a dit à Jean: Sans façon! Il nous convient en effet d’accomplir ainsi toute la justice? Peuvent-ils donc être conduits par l’esprit ceux qui méprisent les symboles de la grâce proposés par le Christ à cause du fait qu’ils semblent être des choses externes? Et (quoi dire) de ceux qui rejettent aussi avec dédain le ministère de la prédication, de même que la parole externe? 4 5. Dans un commentaire d’Esaïe 60, 17, nous lisons cette critique de la l’interprétation christologique du texte biblique: Certains parmi les Hébreux exposent ainsi: Tout ce que les ennemis t’ont enlevé, je (te le) rend en double (…) Quelques uns des nôtres rapportent (ensuite) ces paroles à la destruction et à la restauration du temple, presque comme si l’arrangement du second (temple) était plus splendide que celui du premier. Et comme il est certain que l’artifice du second temple était de moindre valeur que celui du premier, ils pensent que cette prophétie ne peut pas s’y appliquer et qu’elle est (donc) à exposer du temple spirituel, c’est-à-dire l’Eglise du Christ (…) de sorte que le sens soit: Je transformerai ton Eglise méprisée et rejetée en Eglise glorieuse et distinguée, je suscite la vérité à la place de l’apparence, la lumière à la place de l’ombre, les charismes spirituels à la place des biens corporels, l’esprit d’amour et de liberté à la place de l’esprit de crainte et de servitude, ( je suscite aussi) une multitude affluant de toutes les nations de toute la terre à la place du petit nombre d’un seul peuple. Ces (propos) sont véridiques, pieux et chrétiens, 4 En latin: ‘Principio, ex eo quod legalia illa sacrificia Dauid tam studiose ac religiose iuxta legis praescriptum Deo obtulit, cum tamen sciret ea per se non placere Deo, sed aliud genius sacrificiorum ab illo requiri, nempe iustitiae contriti cordis ac laudis, id quod Psalm 40. 50 & 51 diserte canit: admonentur pij, vt quae à Deo singulis sunt tradita & praescripta temporibus, quamtumuis carnalia & externa videantur, nec principaliter ab illo ac per se requirantur, non contemnant, sed religioso & pio fidei exercitio custodiant, inque ea dispensatione maneant, qua Deus pro tempore populum suum in studio pietatis exercere & instituere voluit. Vivebat Dauid veteris Testamenti temporibus, sub vmbris rerum futurarum, inter eos quibus legales ceremoniae, perinde ac pueris prima elementa praescripta erant. Decebat ergo, imo requierebat vera pietas, vt illis vteretur & ipse, quamuis per illas Deo, externo opere, rite seruiri non posse, neque peccatorum remissionem, & veram salutem acquire sciret (…) Quid de Dauide loquor? Christus ipse, an non idem agebat, cum ad Ioannem diceret: Sine modo. Sic enim decet nos adimplere omnem iusticiam? Quo ducuntur ergo spiritu, qui symbola gratiae a Christo proposita, propterea contemnunt, quod videntur esse res externae? Et illi quoque qui ministerium praedicationis velut externum verbum respuunt?’ Pour les références bibliographiques, voir la note n° 11.

216

Petr Sˇkubal

mais je ne vois pas comment il peut être affirmé que l’esprit du prophète ait la vue sur ces (réalités) en cet endroit. Il semble être plus simple que nous comprenions que le Prophète promet la félicité de l’état des choses publiques aux rescapés (du peuple) d’Israël, qui leur était abondamment rendue par la ruine et le rejet des Babyloniens.5

2. Premières observations sur les textes Pourquoi s’intéresser à ces cinq textes? Tout simplement parce que chacun d’eux porte la marque de ce qui pourrait être désigné comme le ‘style’ de l’exégèse calvinienne des Prophètes. En d’autres termes, tous ces cinq textes pourrait être écrits par Jean Calvin lui-même. Voyons ce point de plus près: 1. Les propos sur Dn 11, 44–45 mettent en œuvre ce qui est reconnu par les chercheurs de nos jours comme l’un des principes herméneutiques majeurs de Calvin dans son exégèse des Prophètes. La lecture ‘apocalyptique’ du texte biblique est ici refusée et l’interprétation par l’annonce des événements à venir avant la venue de Jésus-Christ est résolument privilégiée. En l’occurrence, Dn 11, 44–45 ne parlerait donc que des persécutions subies par les Juifs sous le règne d’Antiochius au temps des Maccabées, et il ne s’appliquerait pas du tout à la seconde venue de Jésus-Christ. 2. Si nous analysons les propos sur Soph 3, 11, nous nous retrouvons aussitôt devant l’emploi d’un autre principe herméneutique majeur de Calvin. Celui-ci considère en effet que la révélation de Jésus-Christ dans l’Ancien Testament obéit à une dynamique que Wilcox appelle le Progrès du Royaume de Jésus-Christ. Jésus-Christ n’est pas encore révélé dans sa plénitude aux temps des Prophètes, mais leurs propos tendent déjà vers lui et sont fondée en lui. C’est donc au fur et à

5 En latin: ‘Ebraerorum quidam sic exponunt: Quicquid abstulerint tibi hostes, reddam in duplo (…) Nostrorum nonnuli referunt ista ad destructionem ac restaurationem templi, quasi promittatur spendidior posterioris quam fuerit prioris structura: & quoniam constat, deteriorem fuisse posterioris quam prioris machinam, atque ita uaticinium hoc ad illam pertinere non posse, putant exponendum esse de templo spirituali, Ecclesia uidelicet Christi (…) ut sit sensus: Ecclesiam tuam contemptam & abiectam commutabo in gloriosam & illustrem, adducam pro figura ueritatem, pro umbra lucem, pro corporalibus bonis charismata spiritualia: pro spiritu timoris ac seruitutis, spirituam amoris & libertatis: pro paucitate unius populi, multitudinem ex omnibus undique gentibus affluentem. Sunt haec uera, pia & Christiana: uerum an prophetae spiritus ad ea prospexerit hoc loco, non uideo quomodo possit affirmari. Simplicius esse uidetur, ut eam intelligamus publici status felicitatem reliquijs Israelis promitti, qua res illorum per Babylonios attritae & proiectae abunde restituantur.’ Pour les références bibliographiques, voir la note n° 11.

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

217

mesure que l’Histoire Sainte progresse que la révélation de Jésus-Christ devient de plus en plus claire.6 3. En arrivant au propos sur Jr 31, 33, nous pouvons établir une observation similaire à celles qui précèdent. Selon Calvin, l’Alliance de Dieu avec son peuple est une. Cela dit, elle est administrée différemment selon les temps, en fonction de la capacité de comprendre des auditeurs premiers de la Parole de Dieu, d’où la distinction entre l’Ancienne et la Nouvelle Alliance.7 Or, cette compréhension de l’Alliance de Dieu avec son peuple est typique pour l’exégèse calvinienne de l’Ancien Testament, et le propos sur Jr 33, 11 semble donc provenir une fois de plus de sa plume. 4. L’analyse des propos sur Ps 20, 11 est plus délicate. Car la façon dont Calvin explicite les rapports entre les réalités externes de la foi (qui signifient) et les réalités internes de la foi (qui sont signifiées) dans son exégèse vétérotestamentaire n’a pas encore été explorée dans toute sa profondeur. Il peut être dit ici que Calvin se montre très attentif aux capacités de comprendre du peuple juif sous l’Ancienne Alliance et que cet extrait du commentaire du Ps 20, 11 suit sa façon de développer le sujet: Il précise comment les réalités externes de la foi (ici les sacrifices) montrent les réalités internes de la foi (ici la personne de JésusChrist), le propre de sa démarche étant qu’il maintient les réalités externes de la foi pour ce qu’elles sont. C’est-à-dire qu’il ne passe pas tout de suite aux réalités ‘spirituelles’ qu’elles désignent dans ses propos. En l’occurrence, ce ne sont donc pas les sacrifices de l’Ancienne Alliance en soi mais leur pratique, qui élève le croyant vers Jésus-Christ et le lui annonce à travers les gestes qu’il accomplit. 5. La lecture de l’extrait du commentaire sur Es 60, 17 conduit, enfin, à observer une autre démarche typique de l’exégèse calvinienne de l’Ancien Testament. Car Calvin est connu dès son vivant pour sa critique de la surinterprétation christologique de l’Ancien Testament. C’est uniquement là où les propos prophétiques ne peuvent pas s’expliquer par les événements qui ont lieu entre le moment où les Prophètes parlent et la venue de Jésus-Christ, que Calvin recourt à l’interprétation christologique des textes bibliques. Les propos sur Es 60, 17 ne s’appliquerait donc

6 Cf. Wilcox: 1997; 2006. Il est à noter ici que Wilcox approfondit les recherches de Parker. Ce dernier décrit le rapport entre les annonces de la venue de Jésus-Christ par les Prophètes et sa venue dans l’exégèse calvinienne en parlant d’un dessin qui prend petit à petit sa forme: si les Prophètes dessinent les contours, c’est avec le temps que l’image se précise et trouve son aspect définitif. Cf. Parker: 1986, 43–80. Il convient aussi de signaler que les travaux de Muller sur l’emploi calvinien de la figure rhétorique complexus personarum temporarumque aident à mieux comprendre, à leur tour, comment Calvin conçoit le lien entre les annonces de la venue de Jésus-Christ par les Prophètes et sa venue en tant que telle. Cf. Muller: 1990, 68–82, 214–221. 7 Cette compréhension de l’unicité de l’Alliance de Dieu trouve son expression ‘systématique’ chez Calvin dans l’Institution de la religion chrétienne, livre II, chapitres X et XI. Cf. CO 2.313– 340.

218

Petr Sˇkubal

qu’au Retour des Juifs de l’Exil à Babylone et ne parlerait pas de Jésus-Christ à venir.

3. Les enjeux des textes étudiés Si les cinq extraits des commentaires des Prophètes que nous venons de lire et analyser portent tous la marque de ce qui pourrait être désigné comme le ‘style’ de l’exégèse calvienne, proviennent-ils pour autant de Jean Calvin lui-même? La réponse est négative: Calvin n’est pas l’auteur de ces cinq textes! Les propos sur Dn 11, 44–45 que nous venons de lire sont de Pellikan qui travaille à Zürich, et ils datent de 1534.8 Les propos sur Soph 3, 11 sont de Bucer qui travaille à Strasbourg, et ils datent de 1527.9 Les propos sur Jr 31, 33 sont d’Oecolampade qui travaille à Bâle, et ils datent de 1533.10 Les propos sur Ps 20, 11 et sur Es 60, 17 sont de Musculus qui travaille à Berne, et ils datent de 1551 et 1557.11 Qu’est-ce que cela implique? Grâce aux travaux de Steinmetz, Backus ou Schreiner (pour ne mentionner qu’eux), les chercheurs de nos jours postulent que l’exégèse vétérotestamentaire de Calvin est à étudier en lien avec l’exégèse patristique et médiévale, parce qu’il dialogue sans cesse avec elles. Quand on en vient à l’appréciation de ses travaux au sein du xvie siècle lui-même, ceux-ci sont pourtant vus comme un tournant majeur dans l’Histoire de l’exégèse par beaucoup de chercheurs: Calvin dépasserait ses prédécesseurs et il ne serait pas égalé non plus par ses successeurs.12 Or les analyses que nous venons de faire à propos des cinq extraits lus pendant ce séminaire, conduisent à réinterroger ce point! Car les exégètes rhénans déploient les mêmes démarches exégétiques que Calvin dès les années 1520, et celui-ci ne peut donc pas être tenu pour leur ‘inventeur’.13 Quant à ses contemporains comme Musculus, ils font de même.

8 9 10 11 12

Pellikan: 1582, 233a. Bucer: 1527, 67b–68a. Oecolampadius: 1533, 162b. Musculus: 1599, 198–199; 1557, 796. On peut penser ici, par exemple, à la conclusion d’Opitz à sa contribution à The Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Cf. Opitz, 2008, 2.407–451. On peut évoquer aussi la conclusion de Krauss à son article consacré aux méthodes exégétiques de Calvin. Cf. Kraus: 1977. 13 En se référant aux principes exégétiques de Calvin tels que Krauss les définit en 1977, il apparaît même qu’ils sont déjà tous déployés par ses prédécesseurs dans leurs propres commentaires des Prophètes. Avec une moindre fréquence, avec une autre insistance, mais assez pour changer le regard porté sur l’exégèse vétérotestamentaire de Calvin. Au point que la bonne question à se poser n’est pas tant: qu’est-ce que Calvin invente comme exégète, mais plutôt: comment il arrive à faire du neuf avec le vieux, là où il évolue par rapport à ses

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

219

Mieux encore: les propos de Musculus sur Ps 20, 11 datent de 1551, c’est-à-dire l’année où Calvin publie son premier travail d’exégèse vétérotestamentaire sur Esaïe, et ils ne peuvent donc pas être influencés par lui.14 Ses propos sur Es 60, 17 constituent ensuite une critique de Calvin lui-même et sa propre interprétation christologique du texte biblique (CO 37.366). L’exégèse vétérotestamentaire de Musculus se montre donc très proche de Calvin à ces endroits-ci, et elle est pourtant indépendante de lui.15 Comment apprécier ce fait que d’autres exégètes emploient dès les années 1520 les mêmes principes exégétiques que Calvin dans l’espace rhénan? Parler de l’exégèse réformée des Prophètes au xvie siècle constitue l’une des réponses possibles à cette question. Avant de débattre s’il est possible de décrire ainsi les phénomènes que nous venons d’observer (ou pas), arrêtons-nous pourtant sur le fait que Calvin et Musculus reprennent et développent en même temps l’héritage de leurs prédécesseurs dans l’espace rhénan. Leurs perceptions des rapports entre les réalités externes et internes de la foi nous serviront ici d’un exemple ‘type’, qui permettra de mieux observer en quoi consiste la singularité de leurs démarches exégétiques.

4. Les rapports entre les réalités externes et internes de la foi dans l’exégèse chrétienne de l’Ancien Testament en général Il convient ici de définir brièvement ce que nous entendons par les réalités externes et internes de la foi. Il convient aussi de montrer comment la recherche du rapport entre ces réalités externes et internes de la foi constitue l’une des préoccupations majeures de l’exégèse chrétienne en général. Nous entendons par les réalités externes de la foi tout ce qui signifie les réalités internes de la foi dans les Ecritures. Nous entendons par les réalités internes de la prédecesseurs! Pour les références bibliographiques concernant la contribution de Krauss, voir la note n° 12. 14 Pour mesurer la proximité des formulations de Musculus avec celles de Calvin, il est possible de lire, par exemple, les propos de Calvin sur Ps 47, 6–10; Ps 141, 2 ou Jr 33, 17–18. Cf. CO 31.469–472; 32.391–392; 39.71. 15 Si la proximité de Musculus avec Calvin et son indépendance sur lui sont palpables dès 1551 quand Musuculus publie son commentaire des Psaumes et Calvin celui sur Esaïe, elles se renforcent au cours de la décennie. En 1557, Musculus finit ainsi par retourner les principes herméneutiques de Calvin contre le réformateur genevois lui-même dans son propre commentaire d’Esaïe, partout où cela lui semble nécessaire! Nous pouvons relever, par exemple, le fait que Musculus réduit sensiblement l’interprétation christologique d’Esaïe 40 à 66 par rapport à Calvin. Si ce dernier critique déjà la surinterprétation christologique de ces textes bibliques chez les exégètes rhénan des années 1520–1530 (en particulier Oecolampade et Pellikan), Musculus finit par interpréter plusieurs discours d’Es 40 à 66 comme relatifs au seul Retour des Juifs de l’Exil à Babylone.

220

Petr Sˇkubal

foi tout ce qui est signifié par les réalités externes de la foi dans les Ecritures. Les réalités internes de la foi représentent, le plus souvent, la personne de Jésus-Christ et son Règne. Les réalités externes de la foi sont constituées, surtout, par les divers rites et sacrifices, et par la ‘parole’ des auteurs bibliques. Cette dernière constitue une réalité externe dans la mesure où elle est, aussi, un support ‘tangible’ qui montre dans certaines situations quelque chose de plus grand que le sens ‘nu’ des mots, à partir de la dynamique qui est engendrée dans l’esprit des auditeurs par l’acte de l’écoute. Ces quelques définitions étant posées, comment s’articulent donc les réalités externes et internes de la foi dans l’exégèse chrétienne en général? L’exégèse chrétienne s’est toujours penchée sur ce point. Elle s’est toujours efforcée de montrer, par exemple, comment les textes vétérotestamentaires annocent déjà Jésus-Christ, tout en ne sombrant pas dans l’arbitraire en face de l’exégèse juive. Au Bas Moyen Age, la dite exégèse allégorique devient la solution consensuelle à la question de savoir comment on articule les réalités externes aux réalités internes de la foi. Un effort particulier est alors fourni pour décrire le passage du sens littéral aux divers sens allégoriques dans le cadre de Quadrigua.16 Or cette exégèse allégorique connaît un essort considérable aux xive et xve siècles. Au point que les Réformateurs du xvie siècle arrivent à la conclusion que le sens littéral des textes soit tout négligé et que les seuls sens allégoriques de l’exégèse soient privilégiés. Ils se lancent alors dans la critique acerbe des ‘allégories’ et ils se concentrent sur la recherche du sens simple des textes. Ils s’apppuient, en particulier, sur la redécouverte de la rhétorique classique et sur les progrès de la philologie dans leurs démarches exégétiques.17 Comment les Réformateurs continuent pourtant à construire une exégèse chrétienne de l’Ancien Testament dans ces conditions-ci? Comment passent-ils des réalités ‘externes’ de la foi aux réalités ‘internes’ de la foi dans leurs exégèses? Bref, comment cherchent-ils (et trouvent) Jésus-Christ dans l’Ancien Testament?

16 Ce sont, par exemple, les travaux de Gilbert Dahan qui explorent ce sujet et qui permettent d’apprécier plus positivement l’exégèse vétérotestamentaire des xiie–xive siècles qu’il n’a été fait jusqu’à récemment. Voir Dahan: 2008; 2009. 17 Il est à noter ici que les Réformateurs ne critiquent pas pourtant toutes les ‘allégories’. Dans leur esprit, il s’agit plutôt d’éviter les mauvaises allégories. A titre d’exemple, on peut penser ici aux propos de Calvin sur Es 11, 6: Ayant défini le sens littéral du texte (dans le Royaume de Dieu, les animaux ennemis comme le loup et l’agneau vivront en paix), il assume ouvertement une lecture anagogique du texte biblique (la paix régnera aussi parmi les humains). Cf. CO 36.241–242. Quand Calvin embrasse ensuite une autre anagogie en commentant Gn 3, 19, il l’appelle une vraie anagogie présente dans le texte biblique (ici elle concerne le serpent qui représente Satan et les puissances du mal). Cf. CO 23.69–71. Force est d’ailleurs de constater que ce phénomène n’a pas échappé à la recherche. Nous pouvons penser ici, par exemple, aux travaux de Max Engammare—cf. Engammare: 2008; 2004.

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

221

Dès les années 1520, deux écoles voient le jour parmi les Réformateurs. La première apparaît à Wittenberg autour de Luther et elle met en avant le principe herméneutique du canon dans le canon. La deuxième se met en place dans l’espace rhénan et elle s’appuie sur le principe de l’unité d’essence de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testaments avec deux administrations différentes de cette même essence selon les temps. Elle privilégie aussi la lecture typologique des textes bibliques à la place des ‘allégories’, lorsqu’il s’agit de chercher Jésus-Christ dans l’Ancien Testament (Cf. Roussel: 1988; Strohl: 1955).

5. La lecture ‘typologique’ des Prophètes dans l’espace rhénan au cours du 16e siècle: une comparaison de Calvin et Musculus avec leurs prédécesseurs Nous venons de voir que la lecture typologique des Prophètes constitue l’une des marques propres de l’école rhénane d’exégèse dès les années 1520, surtout lorsqu’on en vient à l’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament. Les exégètes rhénans parlent volontiers des ombres et des types qui présagent la pleine révélation de JésusChrist à venir. Ils insistent aussi sur le fait que si les réalités externes sont vidées de toute leur substance au cours de l’interprétation des textes, elles ne peuvent plus montrer les réalités internes de la foi aux fidèles (par exemple, selon le principe de la similitude). Or la question se pose ici: Comment justifier cette approche des textes bibliques sans être accusé de pratiquer des ‘allégories’ arbitraires et gratuites? Comment éviter le dédoublement du ‘sens’ des propos prophétiques? Bref: Comment définir les rapports entre les réalités qui signifient et les réalités qui sont signifiées, de sorte qu’il y ait une continuité de ‘sens’ un, simple et unique entre les deux? C’est ici que les exégèses vétérotestamentaires de Calvin et Musculus trouvent leur singularité et leur pertinence. Car les deux s’efforcent de répondre à ces questions laissées en suspens par leurs prédécesseurs dans l’espace rhénan, tout en approfondissant leur héritage. Nous avons déjà étudié un premier exemple de la façon dont Calvin et Musculus explicitent les rapports entre les réalités externes et internes de la foi dans les années 1550 avec les propos de Musculus sur Ps 20, 11. Dans cet extrait, ce n’est pas tant le sacrifice en soi qui signifie Jésus-Christ à celui qui vit sous l’Ancienne Alliance (comme il est habituel de lire chez les exégètes rhénans des années 1520– 1540), mais c’est surtout sa pratique. C’est-à-dire que la dynamique des gestes qui constituent cette pratique et que le fidèle accomplit, est elle-même porteuse du ‘sens’ pour lui. Si elle n’a pas lieu, le fidèle ne reçoit pas le ‘message’ de Dieu (à savoir le salut en la personne Jésus-Christ). Calvin et Musculus vont pourtant plus loin encore dans leurs exégèses de l’Ancien Testament. Evoquons ici une dernière

222

Petr Sˇkubal

série d’exemples pour mesurer cette évolution: les propos d’Oecolampade, Pellikan et Calvin sur Es 19, 19.18 Oecolampadius et Pellikan affirment qu’après la ruine de Sennachérib, des Egyptiens se convertissent à la foi des Juifs. Ils relèvent néanmoins l’existence des fables juives sur l’érection d’un autel en Egypte et ils refusent qu’il en soit, à proprement parler, ainsi. Ils expliquent plutôt la mention de l’autel dans le propos du Prophète par l’usage de la typologie. La conversion des Egyptiens est en effet le type de leur conversion future à l’Evangile. Si donc un autel est ‘dressé’ en Egypte selon la parole du Prophète, cette tournure renvoie d’abord au rejet des idoles au profit de la foi en Jésus-Christ (à venir), et non pas à une pratique des sacrifices en Egypte. Or Calvin ne partage pas tout à fait cette approche exégétique. Il se montre, d’abord, sceptique quant à la conversion des Egyptiens avant la venue de Jésus-Christ. Puis, ses précisions sur le rôle de l’autel dans le texte biblique infléchissent l’interprétation christologique de ses prédécesseurs. Car il ne ‘spiritualise’ pas tout de suite la mention de l’autel dans le propos prophétique, mais il pose que cette mention même a un rôle précis et incontournable dans le cadre de l’Ancienne Alliance, sous laquelle Esaïe s’exprime. Sinon, ses auditeurs ne saisiraient pas son annonce de la conversion future des Egyptiens sous le règne de Jésus-Christ. Calvin écrit à leur sujet, tout en précisant ce qui relève de la perception du texte après la venue de Jésus-Christ: (Le Prophète) tient en effet compte des mœurs usités en ces temps-là: parce que les Juifs comprendraient à peine autrement les dons de l’Esprit, inconnus d’eux jusque-là. En effet, étant éduqués sous cette pédagogie (de la Loi), ils ne pouvaient pas monter plus haut que là où les sacrifices, les cérémonies, les rites et les signes les conduisaient. Les Prophètes leurs parlaient donc avec des paroles qu’on adresse à des enfants, auxquels rien de plus grand ne doit être proposé que ce qu’ils peuvent apprendre par la coutume et l’usage de παχυμερέστερον (style familier). Cette doctrine nous rend d’ailleurs accessibles divers lieux, dont l’obscurité inspire autrement un grand obstacle. (Car) il est clair que le Prophète parle du règne de Christ et que ces choses n’ont pas été accomplies avant sa venue.

18 Cf. Oecolampadius: 1525, 25a; Pellikan: 1582, 25a; CO 36.342–344. Quant à Musculus, son exégèse d’Es 19, 19 n’aboutit pas à une réflexion sur le rapport entre les réalités externes et internes de la foi, tout simplement parce qu’il finit par récuser toute interprétation christologique ici. Selon lui, les réalités décrites par Es 19, 18–25 sont trop concrètes pour qu’elles constituent une typologie avec le Règne de Jésus-Christ. Il préfère donc interpréter ce texte de la seule conversion des Egyptiens à la foi juive. Cf. Musculus: 1557, 337–341. Cela dit, nous trouvons des propos de Musculus qui rappellent celles de Calvin, par exemple, dans son exégèse d’Es 1, 18–19 ou du Ps 128, 2. Cf. Musculus: 1557, 1008–1009.

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

223

Les ombres sont donc à enlever (et) la vérité des choses est à observer, de sorte que nous comprenions par l’autel la véritable et sincère invocation de Dieu.19 Ce que Calvin accomplit ici, est qu’il précise comment le peuple juif attend Jésus-Christ avec ses capacités de compréhension propres au temps de l’Ancienne Alliance. Le peuple juif d’alors ne sait pas encore concevoir la foi sans référence aux cérémonies et aux sacrifices. Le fait incongru que ces mêmes cérémonies et ces mêmes sacrifices soient pratiqués par les Egyptiens dans le futur, montre pourtant un élargissement du culte de Dieu d’Israël à d’autres que le peuple juif. Or, c’est justement de cette façon-ci que l’annonce de Jésus-Christ surgit dans les propos d’Esaïe et qu’elle devient accessible à ceux qui vivent avant sa venue, tout en évitant le dédoublement du ‘sens’ dont pourrait être accusée l’interprétation typologique de ses prédécesseurs. En d’autres termes encore: Les Prophètes s’accommodent aux capacités de comprendre de leurs auditeurs premiers. Si, par exemple, le Prophète évoquait le monde entier pour décrire la grandeur du Royaume de Jésus-Christ au Ps 72, 8, le peuple juif ne comprendrait pas ce qu’il veut dire par rapport à l’universalité du Règne de Jésus-Christ. C’est la raison pour laquelle le Prophète s’accommode à eux et il propose une délimitation de ce Royaume de Jésus-Christ en se référant au monde environnant tel que les Juifs le connaissent. D’où l’insistance de Calvin qu’il faut garder ce référent ‘externe’ dans le cadre d’une signification du Règne de Jésus-Christ pour le peuple juif, qui attend encore Jésus-Christ dans son propre contexte historique.20

6. Une exégèse ‘réformée’ des Prophètes? Ayant effectué ces analyses, nous sommes désormais en mesure de nous poser la question qui figure dans le titre de ce séminaire: Au vu de tout ce que nous venons de découvrir, est-il possible de parler ici d’une exégèse réformée des Prophètes? 19 En latin: ‘Usitatum enim temporis illius morem spectauit: quod aliter Iudaei dona Spiritus sibi adhuc incognita vix sensu comprehendissent. Nam sub illa paedagogia educati, altius conscendere non poterant, quàm quo sacrificia, caeremoniae, ritus & signa eos perducebant. Sic igitur cum iis verba faciebant Prophetae vt cum pueris, quibus nihil maius proponi debet, quàm consuetudine & vsu παχυμερέστερον ediscere possint. Atque haec doctrina varios nobis locos aperiet, quorum alioqui obscuritas magnam remoram inijceret. Perspicuum est Prophetam loqui de regno Christi, nec ante aduentum eius haec impleta esse. Vmbrae igitur tollendae sunt: spectanda est rerum veritas, vt per altare veram ac synceram Dei inuocationem intelligamus.’ 20 CO 31.667–668. La démarche de Calvin peut être comparée ici avec celle de Pellikan. Pellikan annonce dès l’Argumentum que Ps 72 soit à interpréter de Jésus-Christ, en vertu de la typologie et selon le principe de la similitude entre le Règne de Salomon et celui de JésusChrist. Pellikan interprète alors Ps 72, 8 (selon son découpage du texte biblique) uniquement en se référant au Règne de Jésus-Christ, sans s’arrêter sur le référent ‘externe’ qui y conduit l’auditeur premier du Prophète. Cf. Pellikan: 1589, 118b–120a.

224

Petr Sˇkubal

Voyons d’abord pour quelles raisons cette question mérite d’être posée: 1. Il apparaît qu’une relation composée à la fois de continuités et de développements existe entre l’exégèse calvinienne des Prophètes et celles des exégètes rhénans des années 1520–1540. Par ailleurs, la singularité même de Calvin par rapport à ses prédécesseurs prend déjà sa source dans leurs travaux: c’est aux questions qui restent ouvertes chez eux que Calvin répond à travers son exégèse des Prophètes.21 Or il convient de ‘nommer’ cette continuité, et parler de l’exégèse réformée des Prophètes représente une option à ne pas négliger. Car la ‘chaîne’ exégétique qui relie Calvin aux exégètes rhénans des années 1520–1540, est distincte de l’école de Wittenberg porté par Luther et ses successeurs dès les années 1520. 2. Calvin n’est pas isolé dans sa démarche d’exégète vétérotestamentaire. En même temps que lui et indépendamment de lui, Musculus élabore une exégèse de l’Ancien Testament qui est préooccupée par les mêmes questions que la sienne. Nous assistons donc à un phénomène de génération dans leurs exégèses des Prophètes: un phénomène de génération où plusieurs exégètes travaillent dans la même direction, sans que l’un puisse être vu comme le maître à penser des autres.22 Parler d’une exégèse réformée des Prophètes décrit alors mieux cette pluralité d’approches que, par exemple, parler d’une exégèse ‘calviniste’ des Prophètes. Ceci donnerait encore à penser que Calvin invente à lui seul une nouvelle démarche exégétique dans ses commentaires des Prophètes, ce qui n’est tout simplement pas vrai! Est-il pourtant opportun de parler d’une exégèse réformée des Prophètes au xvie siècle pour ‘nommer’ les phénomènes observés au cours de ce séminaire? Trois arguments montrent qu’il est problématique de les désigner ainsi:

21 Il est à noter ici que nous explorons la singularité de Calvin dans le cadre des seuls exemples proposés au cours de ce séminaire. Analyser la façon dont Calvin fait intervenir le contexte littéraire des Prophètes dans son exégèse, examiner son recours à la figure rhétorique complexus personarum temporarumque en lien avec son interprétation christologique des textes, ou étudier ses arguments pour dater la rédaction des Psaumes, nous aménerait à définir sa singularité par rapport à ses prédécesseurs des années 1520–1540 de manière bien plus complexe. Par ailleurs, le même constat s’applique à l’exégèse vétérotestamentaire de Musculus. 22 Nous n’abordons pas ici, par exemple, l’exégèse vétérotestamentaire de Bullinger. Ses sermons sur Esaïe et Jérémie (accompagnés par un commentaire des Lamentations) constituent en effet un élément de comparaison instructif pour apprécier les efforts exégétiques de Calvin et Musculus dans la mesure où il ne les édite qu’en 1561 pour le commentaire des Lamentations, en 1567 pour les sermons sur Esaïe et en 1575 pour les sermons sur Jérémie. Il importe aussi que Bullinger édite dès 1534 De testamento seu foedere Dei unico & aeterno, qui constitue comme le point d’arrivé des efforts herméneutiques de l’école rhénane d’exégèse et le point de départ pour la réflexion herméneutique de Calvin et Musculus dans les années 1550.

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

225

1. Parler de l’exégèse réformée des Prophètes au xvie siècle en général, et dans les années 1520–1540 en particulier, est un anachronisme. Comme les études menées dans le cadre du concept de la confessionnalisation démontrent, il est difficile de parler d’une ‘identité’ réformée (ou luthérienne) avant les années 1550 au plus tôt. 2. Parler de l’exégèse réformée des Prophètes porte à la confusion. Car ce terme de réformé renvoie spontanément le chercheur à un certain nombre de convictions théologiques (par exemple: le refus de la communication des idiomes, le principe finitum non capax infinitum, le dit ‘troisième usage’ de la Loi et autres). Celui qui parlerait d’une exégèse réformée des Prophètes, laisserait donc entendre que nous avons affaire ici à une exégèse qui aboutit à la théologie réformée en tant que telle… et ce n’est pas tout à fait vrai non plus. Nous avons affaire ici, plutôt, à une démarche exégétique singulière, pratiquée dans certains cas par des théologiens réformés. 3. Il faut insister, enfin, sur le fait les exégètes rhénans des années 1520–1540 attestent une sorte de pluralité ‘confessionnelle’ dans leurs rangs, du fait des divergences dans leurs convictions théologiques. Bucer (et Capito) qui travaillent à Strasbourg, peuvent être difficilement vus comme des théologiens ‘réformés’, malgré leurs différences avec Luther. Oecolampade est perçu par certains comme un théologien ‘réformé’ qui inspire Calvin dans son discours théologique. Mais d’autres disent qu’il ne l’est pas encore ‘assez’ et que son positionnement ‘confessionel’ est similaire à celui de Bucer, dans la mesure où il s’efforce de réconcilier les positions de Zwingli et Luther. Ce n’est que Pellikan et le milieu zürichois qui peuvent être déjà vus comme ‘réformés’, par leur opposition à Luther qui se cristallise définitivement en 1529. Si donc la notion d’une exégèse réformée des Prophètes semble sujette à caution, comment décrire les phénomènes observés pendant ce séminaire? Comment rendre compte, en particulier, du fait qu’une ‘chaîne’ exégétique distincte de l’école de Wittenberg avec ses propres principes herméneutiques relie Calvin, Musculus, Pellikan, Oecolampade, Bucer et autres exégètes? Pourrait-on, par exemple, élargir le concept d’école rhénane d’exégèse, initialement posé par Roussel pour les années 1520–1540, à la suite du xvie siècle, tout en s’inspirant des réflexions de Campi dans ce contexte (Campi: 2011)? Cette option est forte de deux arguments de taille: 1. Tous les exégètes qui reprennent et qui développent l’héritage des Oecolampade, Pellikan et Bucer (pour ne nommer qu’eux) dans les années 1550–1560, travaillent dans l’espace rhénan au cours de leurs carrières: Calvin œuvre à Genève; Musculus à Berne; Bullinger (et Vermigli) à Zürich.23

23 Ce sera d’ailleurs toujours le cas des exégètes vétérotestamentaires qui travaillent dans les

226

Petr Sˇkubal

2. Si nous regardons le détail de la production exégétique dans l’espace rhénan au cours des années 1550–1560, nous réalisons que Calvin, Musculus (et Vermigli, en particulier) poursuivent les efforts de leurs prédécesseurs quant à la volonté de couvrir l’ensemble des Ecritures par leurs commentaires bibliques. Si les livres de Moïse ne sont pas encore commentés dans les années 1520–1540 (sauf Pellikan), Calvin, Musculus et Vermigli proposent tous un commentaire de la Genèse. Calvin édite aussi une Harmonie de la Loi, qui couvre l’Exode, le Lévitique, les Nombres et le Deutéronome. Vermigli comble ensuite un autre ‘vide’ avec ses commentaires des Juges, des livres de Samuel et des livres des Rois. Elargir le concept d’école rhénane d’exégèse aux années 1550–1560 (et au-delà) représente pourtant, à son tour, une faiblesse majeure: En effet, l’une des caractéristiques de l’école rhénane d’exégèse est sa pluralité ‘confessionnelle’. Malgré leurs différences sur certaines questions théologiques, Oecolampade, Pellikan et Bucer (pour ne nommer qu’eux) se retrouvent autour des préoccupations humanistes qu’ils partagent tous et qui les amènent à coopérer dans leurs efforts exégétiques. Or cette caractéristique majeure de l’école rhénane d’exégèse ne survit pas aux mutations des années 1550. En fait, ce sont seulement les théologiens ‘réformés’ qui reprennent l’héritage des exégètes rhénans des années 1520–1540 dans les années 1550–1560, à la différence des ‘luthériens’ qui privilégient la démarche exégétique de Luther et l’herméneutique du canon dans la canon. Par ailleurs, Strasbourg bascule dans l’aire luthérienne sous influence de Marbach, ce qui amène les derniers représentants des réformés comme Zanchi à quitter la ville (pour s’installer à Heidelberg). Quant à l’Eglise de Bâle, elle devient isolée dans son désir de faire le pont entre les réformés et les luthériens, et elle bascule petit à petit vers le camp réformé.24 Bien plus: cette ‘tendance’ qui débute dans les années 1550–1560, se confirme dans les années 1570–1600. Ce sont de nouveau les théologiens réformés comme Ursinus, Zanchi ou Daneau qui continuent à se référer dans leurs travaux d’exégèse vétérotestamentaire non seulement à l’exégèse de Calvin, mais aussi à celles de Musculus, Bullinger, Oecolampade, Pellikan, Capito ou Bucer selon les Prophètes qu’ils commentent (et parfois contre le réformateur genevois lui-même)! 25

années 1570–1600 comme Ursinus et Zanchi qui vivent à Heidelberg, ou Daneau qui suit sa formation théologique à Genève. 24 Sur les évolutions qui ont lieu à Bâle, on peut lire l’ouvrage magistral de Burnett Teaching the Reformation. Voir Burnett: 2006. 25 Si Zanchi connaît bien le commentaire de Calvin sur Osée, il préfère suivre Oecolampade, en particulier dans son interprétation christologique. Daneau renoue, pour sa part, avec l’exégèse de Capito en commentant Os 4. Quant à Ursinus, il explore les travaux de ses prédécesseurs dans ses leçons sur Esaïe, tout en préférant ici Calvin, là Musculus, et ailleurs Bullinger. Force est aussi de constater que les trois théologiens réformés approfondissent le travail de leurs prédécesseuirs dans leurs exégèses, ce qui les amène à étayer, encore, de

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

227

A ce titre, l’élargissement de la notion d’école rhénane d’exégèse à la deuxième moitié du xvie siècle ne semble donc pas approprié non plus. Ni cette dernière, ni la notion d’exégèse réformée des Prophètes ne résistent pas à toutes les critiques. Serions-nous, dès lors, en face d’une ‘aporie’ au terme de ce séminaire?

7. Conclusion Les débats autour de la question de savoir si on peut parler d’une exégèse réformée des Prophètes au xvie siècle (ou pas), nous semblent avoir conduit vers une sorte d’aporie. Nous avons réussi à circonscrire des phénomènes qui ne sont pas encore très bien connus, mais nous n’avons pas réussi à les ‘nommer’ d’une manière qui ferait consensus. Est-ce que cela veut dire que nous avons débattu en vain? Il serait sans doute exagéré de dire que nous avons travaillé en vain. Car cette ‘aporie’ même à laquelle nous conduit ce séminaire, ouvre un champ de réflexion et de recherche. Nous nous retrouvons ici devant un phénomène qui existe bien et qu’il convient donc de ‘nommer’, tout en poursuivant la recherche sur l’ensemble de la production exégétique dans l’espace rhénan au cours du xvie siècle. En effet, les études consacrées aux relations entre Calvin et ses prédécesseurs, Calvin et ses contemporains, ou Calvin et ses successeurs, commencent à paraître. Si elles ne concernent que des exemples ‘isolés’ pour le moment et si elles se limitent souvent à la comparaison de Calvin avec ses prédécesseurs,26 il est à espérer que des lectures croisées de tous les exégètes rhénans majeurs du xvie siècle à la fois au vu de l’ensemble de leur production exégétique, apporteront de nouveaux éléments à mettre sur la balance du débat. Le jour viendra alors, où la recherche statuera sur la question de savoir s’il est possible de parler d’une exégèse réformée des Prophètes au xvie siècle, ou s’il convient de désigner autrement les phénomènes observés pendant ce séminaire.

Bibliographie Balserak, John (2011), Establishing the Remnant Church in France: Calvin’s Lectures on the Minor Prophets, 1556–1559, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Blacketer, Raymond A. (2006), The school of God: pedagogy and rhetoric in Calvin’s interpretation of Deuteronomy, Dordrecht: Springer. nouvelles solutions exégétiques à certains textes bibliques, dont l’interprétation ne fait pas l’unanimité. 26 Parmi ces études qui procèdent à des comparaisons ‘partielles’ entre Calvin et les autres exégètes rhénans, nous pouvons lire, par exemple: Blacketer: 2006; Brashler: 2009; Pak, 2010.

228

Petr Sˇkubal

Brashler, John (2009), From Erasmus to Calvin: Exploring the Roots of Reformed Hermeneutics, in: Interpretation 64, 154–166. Bucer, Martin (1527), Tzephaniah, Qvam Sophoniam, uulgo uocant, prophetarum epitomographus, ad ebraicam ueritatem uersus, & commentairio explanatus, par M. Bucerum, Argentorati: apud Ioannem Hervagium. Burnett, Amy N. (2006), Teaching the Reformation: Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529–1629, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campi, Emidio (2011), Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation, in: I. Backus/P. Benedict, Calvin and his Influence, 1509–2009, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 119–143. Dahan, Gilbert (2008), L’Exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval, 12e–14e siècles, Paris: Cerf. — (2009), Lire la Bible au Moyen Age, essais d’herméneutique médiévale, Genève: Droz. Engammare, Max (2004), ‘Les allegories fermes des hébraïsants chrétiens de la Renaissance: Avatar ou triomphe de la pensée médiévale?, in: Brigitte Pérez-Jean/Patricia Eichel-Lojkine (eds), L’allégorie de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Paris: Champion, 567– 584. — (2008), L’allegoria in factis chez les exégètes protestants de l’Ancien Testament, de Luther à Théodore de Bèze, in: Colette Nativel (ed.), Noyau et l’écorce, les arts de l’allégorie (15e–17e siècles), Paris: Somogy, 95–106. Krauss, Hans J. (1977), Calvin’s Exegetical Principles, Interpretation 31/1, 8–18. Muller, Richard A. (1990), The hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament, in: D. Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, Durham & London: Duke University Press. Musculus, Wolfgang (1557), In Esaiam prophetam commentarii locupletissimi ac recens editi, per Wolfgangum Musculum, […], Basileae: ex off. Hervagiana per Joannem Hervagium & Bernardum Brand. — (1599), In Davidis Psalterium sacrosanctum commentarii, in quibus et reliqua catholicae religionis nostrae capita passim […] tractantur […] Ultimo magna diligentia recogniti. Per Wolfgangum Musculum, […] Ed. postrema. Accessere etiam de Juramento & Usura appendices duae […], Basileae: Per Sebastianum Henricpetri. Oecolampadius, Iohannes (1525), In Iesaiam prophetam hypomnematΩn, hoc est, Commentariorum, Ioannis Oecolampadii libri VI, Basileae: apud Andreas Cratander. — (1533), In Hieremiam prophetam commentariorum libri tres Ioannis Oecolampadij. Eiusdem in threnos Hieremiae enarrationes, Argentorati: apud Matthiam Apiarium. Opitz, Peter (2008), The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, in: M. Saebø, The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pak, G. Sujin (2010), The Judaizing Calvin, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parker, Thomas H.L. (1986), Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries, Edinburg: T. & T. Clark. Pellikan, Conrad (1582), In Prophetas majores et minores, ut vulgo vocantur […] commentarii, Conradi Pellicani, […], Tiguri: excud. Christophorus Froschoverus. — (1589), In Job, Psalterium, Proverbia, Ecclesiasten & Cantica Solomonis, Conradi Pellicani, […] commentarii […], Tiguri: excud. Christophorus Froschoverus.

Y a-t-il une exégèse réformée des Prophètes?

229

Roussel, Bernad (1988), De Strasbourg a Bâle et Zürich: Une ‘école rhénane’ d’exégèse (ca 1525–ca 1540), in: Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 68/1, 19–39. Strohl, Henri (1955), La méthode exégétique des réformateurs, in: J. Boisset (ed.), Le problème biblique dans le protestantisme, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 87– 103. Wilcox, Pete (1997), The Progress of the Kingdom of Christ, in Calvin’s Exposition of the Prophets, in: W.H. Neuser/B.G. Armstrong, Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 315–322. — (2006), Calvin as Commentator on Prophets, in: D. McKim (ed.), Calvin and the Bible, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121–124.

Part III. Short Papers

Forrest Buckner

Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology A Corrective to Billings and Muller on Calvin’s Divine Attributes

Introduction Recent Calvin scholarship has helpfully sought to correct those interpreters of Calvin who place his theological method and conclusions in stark discontinuity with his predecessors and successors. Such interpreters have sought to set Calvin in sharp contrast with the medieval and Reformed scholastic traditions, in part by highlighting his lack of interest in metaphysical and speculative discussions of the divine attributes (cf. Muller: 2003, 206).1 Calvin scholars Todd Billings and Richard Muller have both countered this claim, asserting catholicity and continuity in Calvin’s doctrine of God. Thus Muller contends that in the Institutes (and even more extensively in the commentaries), ‘Calvin did offer a significant listing of the attributes, including all of the more philosophical concepts, such as simplicity and infinity, and assuming a traditional division of the attributes into the categories of essential and personal.’ (Muller: 2003, 206). Similarly Billings says, ‘Whatever speculation Calvin was advising against, he was certainly not against an affirmation of key classical attributes of God. Indeed Calvin unequivocally affirms the classical attributes of God in a basic form.’ (Billings: 2011a, 128–129). Although Billings and Muller have both made significant contributions to the responsible interpretation of Calvin, here they have obscured Calvin’s teaching by focusing on its bare, material content gathered from across his corpus while ignoring Calvin’s non-speculative, pastoral methodology in his doctrine of God. In this paper, I shall briefly describe Calvin’s teaching on God’s absolute and relative attributes before assessing Billings’ and Muller’s statements regarding Calvin’s doctrine of God. Before we begin, it will be beneficial to define two key concepts: speculation and the classical attributes of God. First, what does Calvin mean by ‘speculation’ 1 E.g. ‘In keeping with his high view of the majesty and glory of God and his concomitant reticence to speculate concerning God’s essence, Calvin never provides any highly refined reflections on the attributes of God. Instead he links his understanding of God squarely to the witness of scripture as apprehended in human experience.’ ( Johnson/Leith: 1993, 75).

234

Forrest Buckner

(speculatio)? Although we have no evidence that Calvin was directly familiar with the writings of Thomas Aquinas, it is helpful to contrast Aquinas’ and Calvin’s definitions of speculation for the sake of clarity. For Aquinas, following Aristotle, both practical and speculative sciences are innately noble, but they have different ends. Practical sciences are directed toward human action, whereas the telos of speculative science is the knowledge of truth (cf. Aquinas: 1961, 2.2.290). Thus, for Aquinas, sacred doctrine is both a speculative and practical science, focusing on divinely revealed knowledge while secondarily relating to human actions (cf. Aquinas: ST, I–I, q.1, a. 4–5; Torrell: 2003, 17). Speculative knowledge is ultimately supreme because it relates to divine revelation and helps lead humanity toward its proper end in the beatific vision. In contrast, Calvin speaks of ‘speculation’ only pejoratively. Calvin defines speculation as impious inquiry (cf. Inst. 1.4.1, CO 2.38; Calvin: Comm. Col 2:10, CO 52.104) into God’s incomprehensible essence (cf. Inst. 1.5.1, CO 2.41) 2 that pompously ignores God’s gracious self-witness in Scripture and in his works (cf. Inst. 1.4.1, CO 2.38; Serm. Job 22:12–17; CO 34.300) and which results in cold, worthless knowledge (cf. Comm. John 1:3, CO 47.4) ‘flitting around in the brain’ (Inst. 1.5.9, CO 2.47). Calvin contrasts this empty speculative knowledge with the knowledge of God’s works (cf. Comm. Ps 145:4, CO 32.413) 3 according to Scripture (cf. Inst. 1.2.2, CO 2.35; Harmony, Exod 33:18; CO 25.108) that inspires pious living before God in trust, obedience, and worship (cf. Inst. 1.2.1, CO 2.34) in light of God’s great powers (cf. Inst. 1.5.10, CO 2.48). For the rest of this paper, when referring to speculation, we shall be utilizing Calvin’s exclusively negative definition of the term. Secondly, what do we mean by the ‘classical attributes of God’? Although a single, comprehensive list of divine perfections that encapsulates the diverse commitments of the church through the ages does not exist, the attributes of God as set forth by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica highlight many of the historically held perfections. He mentions, among others, God’s aseity, simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, unity, omniscience, and omnipotence (cf. I–I, q. 2–11, 14, 25). These fall primarily into the category of the absolute, or essential, attributes. Also included in a list of classical attributes are the relative, or personal, attributes of God, which Calvin

2 Cf. Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Exod 3:14; CO 24.44. From here on, this volume is referred to as Harmony. 3 ‘The greatness of God is not that which lies concealed in his mysterious essence, and in subtile disputation upon which, to the neglect of his works many have been chargeable with mere trifling, for true religion demands practical [practicam], not speculative [non speculativam] knowledge.’ (Comm. Ps 145:4, CO 32.413).

Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology

235

typically calls ‘powers’ (virtutes).4 These include, but are not limited to, God’s love, justice, mercy, righteousness, wisdom, truth, and goodness, all of which God enacts in the world. With these definitions in place, we turn to Calvin’s teaching on the divine attributes.

1. Knowledge of God’s Essence First, regarding God’s essence, Calvin teaches that those with faith can have skeletal, limited knowledge of the absolute attributes of God, about which he teaches rarely, occasionally, and pastorally. Although it is outside the purview of this paper to go into detail here, Calvin asserts that any right knowledge of God comes by means of the Spirit’s illumination of Scripture, as accessed through faith in Christ (cf. Comm. John 1:18, CO 47.19; Inst. 1.6.1, CO 2.53). From that starting point, as Billings rightly asserts elsewhere, Calvin forwards a partially negative, or apophatic, approach to the absolute attributes of God, asserting that humans cannot comprehend, nor should they speculate concerning, God’s incomprehensible essence (2011b, 68, 74). As Calvin memorably states, ‘We know that the most perfect way of seeking God, and the most suitable order, is not for us to attempt with bold curiosity [audaci curiositate] to penetrate to the investigation of his essence [essentiam], which we ought more to adore [adoranda] than meticulously to search out.’ (Inst. 1.5.9, CO 2.47; Inst. 1.5.1, CO 2.41. Cf. Harmony, Exod 3:14; CO 24.44). An obvious question thus arises, if all knowledge of God’s being is incomprehensible, does Calvin teach that anything can be known about God’s essence? Yes, we are able to obtain skeletal knowledge of God’s essence through God’s accommodation of himself to humanity (cf. Calvin: Comm. Rom 1:19; CO 49.23; Huijgen: 2011, 261–318). By ‘skeletal,’ I mean knowledge that provides a basic framework for talking about God in himself without claiming positive, fleshed-out, or comprehensive knowledge of God’s essence; in short, it is knowledge that God is (e. g. spiritual) not knowledge of what God is (e. g. what constitutes God’s spiritual being metaphysically). For example, in his discussion of the Trinity in the Institutes, Calvin points out that God is infinite, spiritual, and simple, providing skeletal descriptions that set boundaries regarding our understanding of God as incomprehensible, immaterial, and non-composite. Calvin does not provide a material description of God’s essence, a philosophical explanation of how it is that God can be infinite, spiritual, and simple, or a 4 Warfield describes these as ‘constitutive qualities of the Divine Person’ (1909, 416). Muller refers to these as the ‘personal’ or ‘so-called communicable’ attributes (2003, 207).

236

Forrest Buckner

discussion of the logical ordering of the perfections. Also, instead of being prompted by metaphysical speculation on the Trinity, Calvin’s occasion here is his refutation of false teaching, which is typical of Calvin’s instruction regarding the absolute attributes (cf. Inst. 1.13.1–2, CO 2.89–90).5 In his commentaries, Calvin similarly sets forth boundary markers regarding God’s being and links the teaching about God’s essence to occasional and pastoral needs. For example, in his commentary on Exodus 3:14, when God reveals his name to Moses, Calvin points out God’s aseity and omnipotence, immediately highlighting their pastoral import, namely to embolden Moses in his task of leading the Israelites out of Egypt (cf. Harmony, Exod 3:14; CO 24.43; Inst. 1.10.2, CO 2.73. Cf. Harmony, Exod 6:2–4; CO 24.78). Similarly, in a passage from Numbers 23, when Balaam asks Balak if he would make God a liar, Calvin affirms God’s immutability but does so without engaging in any metaphysical speculation about how or why God cannot change. Instead, for Calvin, God’s immutability reminds us that God’s word is true and unchangeable, worthy of our unhesitating trust (cf. Harmony, Num 23:18; CO 25.283, Comm. Ps 102:25–27; CO 32.73). Similar examples occur in both the Institutes and the commentaries.6 As an example of a contrasting approach, Aquinas asserts God’s immutability in three related statements: the First Being must be pure act without potentiality; since movement reveals composition, the simple God cannot move; and since God is infinite, he cannot acquire anything new (ST, I–I, q. 9, a. 1). Although Aquinas’ Summa is a different genre than any of Calvin’s works, this example highlights the way, in contrast with other theological methodologies, that Calvin primarily reasons from Scripture, avoids metaphysical speculation, and directly highlights the pastoral purpose of a doctrine. Calvin’s spare approach to teaching the absolute perfections is also clear in both the content and form of the Institutes, in which Calvin teaches quite infrequently about the essential perfections, providing no extensive lists of attributes.7 Although such a list may be amalgamated by searching broadly (cf. Warfiel: 1909, 417–418; Muller: 2003, 206), each instance is typically driven by a dispute, false teaching, or doctrinal need. Formally, Calvin does not allocate a locus or even a subsection to discuss the essential attributes, even in the first two books of the Institutes that are partially entitled, ‘The Knowledge of God.’ This is 5 His occasion here is the panentheism of Seneca, the dualism of the Manicheans, and the antitrinitarian teaching of Servetus. Cf. Inst. 2.14.2–8, CO 2.353–361. Cf. Inst. 1.13.8, CO 2.96. 6 E.g. Commenting on Joshua 7:22–23, Calvin primarily points out that God’s omniscience should prevent us from trying to hide our sin from God in vain (CO 25.479). Cf. Comm. Jas 1:16–18, CO 55.391–392. Cf. 1538 Catechism, s. 20i, CO 5.337–338. 7 The longest list Calvin provides, also in response to false teaching, is in Inst. 1.14.3 where he mentions God’s glory, eternity, self-existence, omnipotence, wisdom, and righteousness (CO 2.119).

Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology

237

in contrast with the initial locus ‘About God’ (de Deo) in Melanchthon’s Loci Communes from 1535 forward, which Muller demonstrates was a key source for Calvin’s organization of the Institutes (2000, 125).8 Calvin’s teaching in the Institutes highlights how little Calvin sought to directly explicate God’s absolute perfections. In contrast to what Muller (cf. 2003, 206) and Billings (cf. 2011a, 129) 9 assert, Calvin’s commentaries reveal a similar approach. There, as we have observed above, Calvin touches on the absolute attributes as the text requires but consistently and quickly moves past any abstract conceptions regarding God’s essence to the pastoral ramifications of the attribute. Thus when Muller claims that if Calvin had compiled his Institutes out of his commentaries, ‘we can easily imagine a rather vast discussion of divine attributes’ (2003, 207), we must seriously qualify that statement. As a Biblical and exegetical theologian, Calvin carefully engages each text, including those that speak of God’s being. However, even though a list of attributes could be built by searching through all the commentaries and lectures, they do not include vast discussions of God’s attributes, nor do they incorporate extensive speculation regarding God’s absolute perfections. Therefore, by searching throughout Calvin’s corpus, one is able to find material agreement with much of the medieval and Reformed scholastic traditions regarding God’s absolute perfections. However, Calvin’s methodology regarding the divine attributes is distinct as he provides non-speculative, spare, skeletal knowledge of God’s essence directly linked to the church’s doctrinal and pastoral needs. With that in mind, we now turn to consider Calvin’s positive teaching regarding the doctrine of God.

2. God’s Nature and Powers In Book 1 of the Institutes, Calvin opposes those who ask the question, ‘What is God?’ (quid sit Deus). He answers, ‘It is more important for us to know of what sort he is [qualis sit] and what is consistent with his nature [eius naturae].’ (1.2.2, CO 2.34–35; cf. Inst. 1.10.2, CO 2.73, Inst. 3.2.6, CO 2.402). For Calvin Scripture does not offer knowledge of what God is in his majestic and incomprehensible essence, but knowledge of what sort God is, or God’s nature (cf. Huijgen: 2011, 285). God reveals his unchanging nature (cf. Comm. Ps 77:11; CO 31.717) through 8 Calvin was also familiar with the 1543 recension as he wrote a preface to the 1546 French translation of the 1545 edition (de Greef: 1993, 205). 9 ‘The reason that these affirmations are often overlooked is that they occur in the course of his biblical commentaries, not in the Institutes.’ (Billings: 2011a, 129).

238

Forrest Buckner

his works, particularly his concrete actions in creation, providence, and ultimately redemption through the incarnate Son, as they are interpreted by and revealed in Scripture.10 These works disclose the positive, fleshed out knowledge of God in Calvin’s theology, described by God’s powers (virtutes).11 Although Calvin displays a familiarity with the scholastic term for God’s attributes (attributa),12 he instead chooses to speak of God’s powers.13 Calvin’s contrast between God’s absolute attributes and powers is highlighted in his comments on Exodus 34:6–7. After noting that eternity and self-existence are proclaimed in the Divine Name (‫)יהוה‬, ‘thereupon [deinde] his powers [virtutes] are mentioned, by which he is shown to us not as he is in himself [non quis sit apud se], but what sort he is toward us [qualis erga nos]: so that this recognition of him consists more in living experience than in vain and high-flown speculation.’ (Inst. 1.10.2, CO 2.73, my translation; cf. Inst. 3.2.6, CO 2.402). For Calvin, God’s works, individually and especially as a whole, depict to us God’s powers, as if in a register (tabula). Therefore, Calvin instructs believers to contemplate how God in these powers shows us his ‘life, wisdom, and power [virtutem]’ and exercises toward us (erga nos) ‘his righteousness, goodness, and mercy’ (Inst. 1.5.10, CO 2.48). This knowledge of God’s nature is not a subjective understanding of God based on one’s experience of God, but God’s revelation of himself to humanity through his works. As B.B. Warfield states, ‘[Calvin] is refusing all a priori methods of determining the nature of God and requiring of us to form our knowledge of Him a posteriori from the revelation He gives us of Himself in His activities.’ (1909, 402). Unlike the absolute attributes, one may easily find in Calvin’s writings lists of God’s relative attributes, or God’s powers. From God’s creative and providential works, Calvin highlights God’s kindness, goodness, mercy, justice, judgment, truth, holiness and power (cf. Inst. 1.10.2, CO 2.73; Comm. Ps 145:4–6; CO 32.413; Inst. 1.6.2, CO 2.54). Inspired Scripture, as one of God’s specific works, also directly witnesses to God’s powers. Calling upon Jeremiah 9, Calvin describes the 10 Included in God’s revelatory actions is his inspiration of Scripture, in which God is at times described propositionally, through which God’s works are interpreted, and in which many of his works, including the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, are recorded. 11 In short, ‘God is known [cogniscitur] by means of his powers [virtutibus], and his works [opera] are evidences of his eternal divinity [divinitatis],’ (Calvin: Comm. Phil 2:8, CO 52.26, my translation). Cf. Dowey: 1964, 10. Cf. Zachman: 2011, 9. 12 E.g. Aquinas talks about God’s essential attributes (essentialia attributa), (ST, I–I, q. 39, a. 7). Calvin uses attributa pejoratively in his description of Sabellius’ heretical teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not truly distinct but were only ‘attributes [attributa] of God’ (Inst. 1.13.4, CO 2.92). In Battles’ translation of the Institutes, besides Battles’ added heading for 1.10.2, the only other occurrence of God’s ‘attributes’ is, in fact, a rendering of virtutum (2.8.16; CO 2.277). 13 Another viable English rendering of virtutes would be ‘excellences,’ as in Battles’ translation of Calvin’s 1538 catechism (s. 24ii, CO 5.346).

Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology

239

core of God’s revealed nature as God’s mercy, justice and righteousness (cf. Inst. 1.10.2, CO 2.73; Comm. Jer 9:23–24, CO 38.51–52; Kooi: 2005, 131). Of those three, Calvin asserts that God’s mercy is the single most important power of God for humans to know (cf. Comm. Ps 145:8; CO 32.414; Huijgen: 2011, 284–286). God’s works in and through the incarnation of Jesus Christ the Redeemer confirm and magnify the powers exemplified through God’s works as Creator and Ruler and witnessed to in the Old Testament. Commenting on Col 1:15, Calvin points out that Christ as homoousia reveals the invisible God to us, ‘for in Christ he shows us his righteousness, goodness, wisdom, power, in short, his entire self [se…totum nobis exhibet].’ (CO 52.85). Calvin even proceeds to say, regarding Col 2:9, that in Christ, God ‘communicates himself to us wholly [totum]…and has appeared [apparuit] to us essentially [essentialiter].’ (CO 52.104). It is important to remember that Calvin repeatedly teaches that humans cannot know God’s unknowable essence or immanent life, even in Christ (cf. Comm. John 14:10; CO 47.326).14 Therefore, Calvin is asserting that what we see in Christ is wholly consistent with what we believe about God, revealing God’s powers in the concrete acts and person of Jesus Christ. Thus, God’s accommodation of himself to humanity in his works, in Scripture, and ultimately in Christ reveals God’s unchanging nature without disclosing God’s unknowable essence or the intra-trinitarian relations, about which, according to Calvin, humans need not know or speculate.15 For Calvin, this knowledge of God’s nature is immanently practical and personal (Cf. Comm. Ps 77:11–12, CO 31.717; Cf. Comm. John 1:14, CO 47.15). It concerns what Christians need to know of God and how they respond to God. Thus Calvin speaks of God’s powers as ‘a fit teacher of piety, from which religion is born.’ He famously goes on to define piety as ‘that reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces’ (Inst. 1.2.1, CO 2.34; cf. Inst. 1.14.4, CO 2.120). Ultimately for Calvin, faith itself is confidence not in propositions about God’s existence but a certain knowledge of God’s will toward us according to his nature (Inst. 3.2.6, CO 2.402). Therefore, Calvin’s positive, fleshed out doctrine of the knowledge of God consists in God’s nature as it is described by his powers and known through his works according to Scripture. He intentionally links this knowledge to the practical end of producing faith and piety in the lives of the faithful. As Warfield summarizes, ‘[Calvin] purposely rejects…the philosophical mode of dealing with 14 ‘For Christ, so far as His secret divinity [arcanam…deitatem] is concerned, is no better known to us than is the Father.’ (Comm. John 14:10, CO 47.326). Cf. Comm. 1 Tim 6:16, CO 52.332. Cf. Inst. 1.5.1, CO 2.41. 15 E.g. the way Calvin typically interprets passages that seem to describe God’s immanent life instead as references to Christ’s mediatorial identity and work (cf. Comm. John 15:9, CO 47.342).

240

Forrest Buckner

the attributes and devotes himself to awakening in the hearts of his readers a practical knowledge of God, a knowledge which functions first in the fear (timor) of God and then in trust (fiducia) in Him’ (1909, 422).

3. Billings’ and Muller’s Missteps In a particularly helpful article emphasizing the catholicity of Calvin’s theological project, Billings concludes, ‘Calvin, and Reformed orthodoxy after him, share a quite ‘catholic’ doctrine of God, rearticulating and defending the classical attributes of God in light of Scripture and the thought of their particular contexts.’ (2011a, 130). In his argument, he cites two passages from Calvin’s commentaries on Exodus 3:14 (regarding God’s aseity and omnipotence) and Numbers 23 (regarding God’s immutability) that we have already shown, upon closer inspection, are examples of Calvin’s skeletal, pastoral teaching on the divine perfections. Billings also asserts, ‘This concern to ground [Calvin’s] doctrine of God in the classical attributes is most concisely provided by the French Confession of Faith, of which Calvin was the primary author, fully endorsing its contents.’ (2011a, 129). He goes on to quote the French (Gallican) Confession, ‘We believe and confess that there is but one God, who is one sole and simple essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite, incomprehensible, ineffable, omnipotent; who is all-wise, all-good, all-just, and all-merciful.’ (2011a, 129; cf. Dennison: 2010, 142). This seems to provide strong evidence for Billings’ claim that Calvin does indeed teach the absolute attributes equally with God’s powers (or relative attributes). However, a look at the historical development of the French Confession changes the picture. Billings is correct that Calvin was the primary author of the Confession. In response to a request from Paris, he sent a 35-article version to the 1559 Reformed Synod, which approved it with minor modifications (Greef: 1993, 143). However, a look at the 35-Article version that Calvin sent along to the Synod (CO 9.739– 752) reveals a significant difference regarding the doctrine of God compared with the 40-Article Parisian edition.16 Whereas the Parisian recension opens with the 16 Dennison (2010, 141–142), Greef (1993, 143), and Link (2002, 31–32) all assert that the 35Article edition in CO is the Genevan recension that Calvin sent to Paris. Link points out that Calvin’s direct authorship of the confession has been questioned in scholarship over the past 100 years. Some have suggested Beza or Viret may have been the primary authors, but Link concludes that since at a minimum the confession emerges from Calvin’s colleagues and school, and as the tradition has held it is from Calvin, we should not doubt that the construction and argumentation goes back to Calvin (2002, 33). Dennison also holds that Calvin was the primary author, (2010, 141). Most importantly, regardless of his direct role in au-

Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology

241

list of attributes that Billings cites, Calvin’s version begins with an article describing how God reveals himself through his works in creation, the law and the prophets, and ultimately the gospel to provide what is needed for salvation. Calvin then briefly discusses the role of Scripture before in the second article providing a very modest list of God’s essential attributes, namely that God is spiritual, infinite, incomprehensible, and simple (CO 9.739–742). To Calvin’s list, the Synod added eternal, invisible, immutable, ineffable, ‘who can do all things, who is all-wise, all-good, all-just, and all-merciful’ and it moved the descriptions of God’s essence to the first article (cf. Calvin: 1952, OS 2.310; cf. Dennison: 2010, 142). The difference is self-evident. Calvin’s version begins with a generous depiction of God’s powers as they practically relate to God’s acts for our salvation and, subsequently, provides a sparing, skeletal list of four essential attributes. This is far from, using Billings’ words, ‘rearticulating and defending the classical attributes of God’ (2011a, 130). Besides what we pointed out above regarding the relatively small amount of teaching on the absolute attributes of God in the commentaries, Muller’s missteps are more subtle. He affirms that Calvin ‘has little sympathy…with abstruse discussions of the divine essence…but has a profound interest in discussions of ‘what sort God is—‘qualis sit Deus’’ (2003, 207). However, as we have seen, Muller then obscures Calvin’s anti-speculative approach by focusing on the material content, saying that Calvin ‘did provide a considerable mass of materials for the biblical discussion of the divine attributes. And in several places, he quite clearly indicates a very traditional view of the attributes as indivisibly and irreducibly belonging to the divine essence.’ (2003, 207). To support his point, he exclusively calls upon Calvin’s commentary on Romans 1:20, where Calvin says that God’s divinity has become known to us, ‘which cannot exist except accompanied with all the attributes [virtutibus] of God, since they are all included under that idea.’ (Comm. Rom 1:20, CO 49.24). The first problem is that although the English translations (including Muller’s quote in his text) use ‘attributes,’ Calvin is actually utilizing his normal word for ‘powers’ (virtutes). Further, one verse later in the commentary, Calvin connects God’s divinity to the concrete content of his powers; ‘No idea can be formed of God without including his eternity, power, wisdom, goodness, truth, righteousness [iustitia], and mercy.’ (Comm. Rom 1:21, CO 49.24). From the context and Calvin’s use of virtutes here, it is clear that he is thorship, Calvin still knowingly and approvingly sent the confession to the Synod, as seen in his letter to Morel (CO 17.525–527). Morel’s report back to Calvin on the proceedings and the minor changes that had been made to Calvin’s original can be found in CO 17.540. Link reports, interestingly, that hesitation from Morel, Swiss leaders, and some French leaders regarding the Parisian edition led to the 35-Article Version’s publication along with the 40Article Parisian Edition (OS 2.310–324), which was finally made the official confession in 1571 at La Rochelle (2002, 31).

242

Forrest Buckner

primarily referring to those acts of God by which we may positively know God, not God’s absolute attributes.17 Calvin does not show a concern with the logical relations or ordering of attributes that is common among some of his contemporaries and among many medieval and Reformed scholastics.18 Therefore, a closer look reveals that Muller’s use of this verse to assert that Calvin considers all the attributes of God as belonging to the simple divine essence is not justified. That depiction of the predication of attributes does not necessarily contradict Calvin’s stance, but neither does it do justice to Calvin’s non-speculative, pastoral methodology. Instead, Calvin is not speaking about metaphysical, essential attributes of God but about the positive knowledge we can have of the one true God, namely his nature as described in his powers and revealed through his works. Muller is right that Calvin does not have a methodological barrier to a discussion of the perfections, but Muller understates Calvin’s specific methodology regarding the attributes. Therefore, in their attempts to demonstrate continuity with the tradition, both Muller and Billings have accentuated the material content of Calvin’s doctrine of divine attributes while overlooking the particularity of Calvin’s methodology, which, for Calvin, is not ancillary but central to his discussion of the divine perfections.

4. Conclusion Both Richard Muller and Todd Billings have made exceptionally positive contributions to Calvin scholarship by helping mend the supposed gap between Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’ or more appropriately, between Calvin and the medieval and Reformed scholastics. However, Calvin’s doctrine of God is an instance in which they have both over-corrected prior interpretive mistakes, and in so doing have obscured an important contribution to Christian theology. Although Calvin does name the attributes that Billings and Muller assert, Calvin’s doctrine of God reveals a theological methodology that privileges God’s concrete acts as interpreted through and recorded in Scripture as the primary source of his positive teaching on the knowledge of God. As opposed to arising from speculative, metaphysical knowledge of God’s essence, Calvin’s doctrine of God emerges from God’s works and results in fruitful Christian lives as believers come to know the one, true God and respond to him in faithful, trusting obedience. 17 It is worth pointing out that although Calvin is predominantly concerned with God’s powers as known through his acts, he is not averse to including God’s eternity in the list here. Nonetheless, Calvin is not making a general metaphysical assertion here that God’s essential attributes somehow co-adhere in God’s simple essence. 18 E.g. Hyperius and Musculus (Muller, 2003, 208).

Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology

243

Bibliography Aquinas, Thomas (1948), Summa Theologica, translated by the Fathers of the Dominican Province, 5 vol., Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press. — (1961), Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, translated by John P. Rowan, Chicago: Henry Regnery. Billings, J. Todd (2011a), The Catholic Calvin, in: Pro Ecclesia 20/2, 120–134. — (2011b), Union With Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Calvin, John (1863–1900), Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia 1–59, edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum 29– 87, Brunsvigae: Schwetschke. — (1952), Ioannis Calvini Opera Selecta, vol. 2, edited by Petrus Barth and Guilelmus Niesel, München: Kaiser. — (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Edited by J.T. McNeill, translated by F.L. Battles, 2 vol., Philadelphia: Westminster. — (1997), Catechism 1538, translated by F.L. Battles, in Calvin’s First Catechism, edited by I. John Hesselink, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. — (2009), Calvin’s Commentaries, Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844–1855, repr. 22 vol., Grand Rapids: Baker. Dennison, James T. (2010), Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: Vol. 2, 1552–1566, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. Dowey, Edward A. (1964), The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, New York: Columbia University Press. Greef, Wulfert de (1993), The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide, translated by Lyle D. Bierma, Grand Rapids: Baker. Huijgen, Arnold (2011), Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assessment, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Johnson, William Stacy/Leith, John H. (eds) (1993), Reformed Reader: A Sourcebook in Christian Theology, vol. 1, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. Kooi, Cornelis van der (2005), As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych, translated by Donald Mader, Leiden: Brill. Link, Christian (2002), Calvin-Studienausgabe, Band 4: Reformatorische Klärungen, edited by Eberhard Busch et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Melanchthon, Philipp (1535), Loci Communes Theologici, Vitebergae: Clug. Muller, Richard (2000), The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford: Oxford U. Press. — (2003), Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725, vol. 3, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Torrell, Jean-Pierre (2003), Saint Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, translated by Robert Royal, vol. 2, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. Warfield, B.B. (1909), Calvin’s Doctrine of God, in: The Princeton Theological Review, 381–436.

244

Forrest Buckner

Zachman, Randall C (2011), Reconsidering John Calvin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Amy Nelson Burnett

Exegesis and Eucharist Unexplored Connections Between Calvin and Oecolampadius

There are no direct connections between Jean Calvin and Johannes Oecolampadius, the founder of Basel’s reformed church. When Calvin arrived in the city on the Rhine in 1534, Oecolampadius had been dead for over two years. Oecolampadius still had some faithful disciples among the city’s pastors—most notably Johannes Gast, who had been his associate pastor at St. Martin, the parish church affiliated with the cathedral. The leaders of the city’s church and university, however, were to some extent newcomers to the city, and they had relatively little direct contact with Oecolampadius.1 Even more importantly, the city’s theological direction had begun to change after Oecolampadius’ death. As a result of Martin Bucer’s efforts for eucharistic concord, the church’s association with Zürich was being replaced with stronger ties to Strasbourg, and Oecolampadius’ theological influence had begun to wane (Burnett: 2009). What influence, then, could Oecolampadius have exercised on Calvin, whether during the latter’s stay in Basel or later? That question is difficult to answer, in part because there are so few detailed studies of Oecolampadius’ career and his contributions to the Reformation.2 Moreover, there is a ten-year gap between Oecolampadius’ death and the most productive phase of Calvin’s ministry, and so not much attention has been paid to possible links between the two reformers. It is generally acknowledged that Calvin’s understanding of autonomous church discipline can be traced back to Oecolampadius, although it was mediated through Bucer and Calvin’s experi1 Oswald Myconius, Oecolampadius’ successor as preacher at the Münster, moved to Basel only a few weeks after Oecolampadius’ death. One of the university’s theology professors, Simon Grynaeus, arrived in Basel in the summer of 1529 and left for England in the spring of 1531, while the other, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, settled in Basel the same year that Calvin arrived (Bietenholz: 1985–87, 2: 142–6; Burnett: 2014a). 2 The noteworthy exception is the work of the Basel church historian Ernst Staehelin, whose biography is still the definitive work on Oecolampadius (Staehelin: 1939). English biographies include Rupp (1969), which is dated but still useful; Fudge (1997); and Poythress (2011), which tends toward the hagiographic.

246

Amy Nelson Burnett

ences in Strasbourg (Kuhr: 1998; Kuhr: 1999; Demura: 1984; Burnett: 1994). This paper looks at two other areas where it is instructive to compare the two reformers: biblical exegesis and the eucharistic controversy. In both of these areas, we can see Oecolampadius’ belated influence on Calvin.

1. Biblical Exegesis Oecolampadius was one of the most productive and influential humanist biblical scholars active during the first decade of the Reformation. He came to broader public notice while working with Erasmus in the mid–1510s. His ‘Afterword’ was included in the first two editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, and he prepared the index for Erasmus’ edition of Jerome. Oecolampadius also gained a reputation as a scholar of the Greek church fathers. Through the early 1520s he published Latin translations of the writings of a number of Greek fathers, including works by Chrysostom and the Gospels commentary of the eleventhcentury bishop Theophylactus, which was largely based on Chrysostom (Staehelin: 1916). Oecolampadius was also one of the earliest Christian theologians to learn Hebrew, and he was friend, teacher and mentor to a number of future reformers (Burnett: 2014b). After his definitive break with the Roman church in 1522, Oecolampadius settled in Basel, where he began preaching and lecturing on the Bible. The first fruit of his labors was a commentary on 1 John, published in 1524. In the meantime, he was appointed to one of the university’s chairs in theology and began lecturing on Isaiah. There was such demand for the commentary that resulted from these lectures, published in March of 1525, that it was reprinted in Cologne before the end of the year.3 Oecolampadius followed his lectures on Isaiah with lectures on 1 John, Romans, the last three minor prophets, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Gospel of John, and the first six minor prophets (see Appendix). At the time of his death in November 1531, he was lecturing on both Genesis and the Gospel of Matthew. Oecolampadius published several commentaries derived from these lectures himself. Lecture notes on the remaining books were published as commentaries between 1533–1536 by either his faithful assistant Johannes Gast or his widow’s new husband, Wolfgang Capito. It was not unusual for reformers to publish commentaries on the Bible. What is striking about Oecolampadius’ exegetical work is its early date and its concentration on the Old Testament prophets. In contrast to other reformers, Oe3 Staehelin describes the eagerness with which the commentary was awaited and the acclaim with which it was met (1939, 212f).

Exegesis and Eucharist

247

colampadius did not produce a commentary on the Psalter, although he published several sermons on individual Psalms, nor did he lecture on the Pentateuch or the historical books with the exception of his last, unfinished lecture series on Genesis. He was, however, the first reformer to publish a commentary on Isaiah as well as on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. His lectures on the remaining prophets were also pioneering work, based on the Hebrew text and delivered before the publication of commentaries by others.4 Twenty-five years ago Bernard Roussel and Gerald Hobbs described an ‘Upper Rhine school of exegesis’ that differed from that of the Wittenberg reformers and to which Oecolampadius was an important contributor (Roussel: 1989; Hobbs: 1989). The features of the Upper Rhine school were most marked in the 1520s, when Oecolampadius was lecturing and publishing his commentaries. One of the most important of these features was the prominent influence of Erasmus, both personally and in the approach to the interpretation of Scripture, which can be seen in Oecolampadius’ exegetical work. There are very few studies of Oecolampadius’ commentaries, and further research on them is one of the desiderata of research.5 I suggest however, that what Erasmus’ annotations and paraphrases were for the philological study of the New Testament, Oecolampadius’ commentaries were for the prophets of the Old Testament. Just as Erasmus’ exegetical work was the first tool available to eager young students of the Greek New Testament, so Oecolampadius’ commentaries were among the earliest Christian exegetical tools available to the first generation of Christian Hebraists. From a purely linguistic standpoint, Oecolampadius’ commentaries were an important resource for Christians who studied the Old Testament in its original language. Oecolampadius justified his fairly literal translation of the text of Isaiah on the grounds that it would help those who were still learning Hebrew (Hobbs, 1984). A quantitative analysis of commentaries on the Old Testament printed through 1560 reveals that he was the author of fully one-third of those Protestant commentaries that interacted with the Hebrew text.6 Moreover, Oecolampadius was one of the first to go beyond Nicholas of Lyra in exploring to what extent Jewish expositors could be used by Christians (Strohl: 1955; Roussel: 1997).7 Both with regard to his use of the Hebrew text and 4 The only prophets Oecolampadius did not comment on were Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. See the list of commentaries on the minor prophets published through 1534 in Krause (1962, 11ff), as well as the list of commentaries in Roussel (1988). 5 Poythress (2011, 61–84) gives a general introduction to Oecolampadius’ exegesis. 6 Eighteen out of fifty–five imprints. According to Burnett (2012, 102), the next most printed authors were Martin Bucer (four imprints) and Wolfgang Capito and Martin Borrhaus (three imprints each). 7 This was in striking contrast to Erasmus, who saw little value in Jewish commentaries (Rummel: 2008, 219f).

248

Amy Nelson Burnett

in his willingness to consult rabbinic commentators, Oecolampadius’ commentaries set precedents that others would follow. Oecolampadius’ commentaries on the Old Testament also had an impact similar to Erasmus’ study of the New Testament in providing a hermeneutical model for interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. Erasmus’ scholarly efforts were focused almost entirely on the New Testament.8 He had little skill in Hebrew and only a secondary interest in the Old Testament, which in his view merely pointed ahead to Christ and did not reveal him directly to its readers (Rummel: 2008; Compier: 1992). It was left to Basel’s reformer to show in his commentaries on the prophets how the hermeneutical principles that Erasmus outlined in his 1519 Ratio seu Methodus could be applied to the Hebrew Scriptures. Peter Opitz, among others, has pointed to Erasmus’ influence on Oecolampadius’ understanding of the proper relationship between the literal and allegorical senses of scripture (Opitz: 2008, 407–413); this is a point that deserves further study. How does all of this relate to Calvin? We know that Oecolampadius’ commentaries were readily available to the Genevan reformer. Jean Crespin published the Basler’s works on Job and Daniel in 1553 and the remaining Old Testament commentaries five years later, while a French translation of the Job commentary was published in 1562 (Staehelin: 1918; Staehelin: 1928, #209, #211).9 The Genevan Academy owned copies of Oecolampadius’ commentaries in 1572, and it is likely that it obtained them when the books were published in the 1550s (Ganoczy: 1969, 67ff; Gilmont: 2005, 141). Calvin said little about his sources, but he did make use of Oecolampadius’ commentaries, as he did those of other reformers. He told Pierre Viret (CO 11.36) that he preferred the Basler’s Isaiah commentary to those of Zwingli and Luther, although he said that Oecolampadius ‘did not always hit the mark.’ Calvin explicitly mentioned Oecolampadius in his commentaries on Isaiah (CO 37.262) and Daniel (CO 41.176), and Erik de Boer (2004, 80–84) has found evidence that he used Oecolampadius in his commentary on Ezekiel.10 Calvin also made use of Oecolampadius’ translation of Chrysostom’s homilies on Genesis (Mattox: 2013, 20).

8 Erasmus’ only exegetical work on the Old Testament concerned the Psalter. He published eleven works on individual Psalms between 1515 and his death in 1536 (Rummel: 2008, 221– 224). 9 Daniel and Job were also reprinted in Geneva after Calvin’s death (Staehelin: 1928, #216), and the entire set of Old Testament commentaries was reprinted in 1577 and 1578. These latter imprints are not included in Staehelin’s bibliography (Fisher: 2013, 66). Fisher (2013, 62) also details problems with the bibliography included in Poythress (2011, 135–170). 10 Poythress (2011, 50–55) compares Calvin’s exegesis of Isaiah with that of Oecolampadius. I have been unable to see her dissertation (Poythress: 1992).

Exegesis and Eucharist

249

Scholars have only begun to compare Calvin’s exegesis with that of Oecolampadius. Akira Demura (1977) has looked at both Calvin and Oecolampadius on key passages in their commentaries on Romans, while others have included both reformers in their studies of sixteenth-century exegesis more generally (Elliott: 2008; Farmer: 1996; Muller: 1990). In his recent dissertation on Oecolampadius’ Hebrews commentary, Jeff Fisher demonstrates that Calvin incorporated many aspects of Oecolampadius’ thought into his own commentary on that epistle (2013, 111ff., 151–157, 205–211, 282–285).11 James Brashler (2009) has pointed to similarities between Oecolampadius’ Isaiah commentary and that of Calvin, and he asserted that the Basler was an important mediator between Erasmus and Calvin, although he provided no examples of what that mediation involved. Don Compier’s comparison of the theological hermeneutics of Erasmus and Calvin offers a number of points by which Brashler’s assertion might be tested, however. Compier (1992) argues that Erasmus’ neoplatonic flesh/spirit dualism had significant consequences for his hermeneutics, including his understanding of the clarity of Scripture, the use of allegory in exegesis, and the function of the expositor. Despite important similarities with Erasmus, Calvin did not have the same neoplatonic worldview, and so he approached the task of exegesis with different assumptions on these points. Oecolampadius did share Erasmus’ neoplatonic worldview, however, and so it might be expected that his exegesis of the Old Testament would reflect the same hermeneutical assumptions that underlay Erasmus’ exegesis of the New. A comparison of Calvin’s commentaries on the prophets with those of Oecolampadius might thus yield new insights into the way Calvin appropriated ideas from the two men who shaped Basel’s Reformation. Erasmian neoplatonism was a major factor that distinguished the mental world of the early Swiss reformers from that of Calvin, and it played an important role in the second area I wish to address, that of the eucharistic controversy.

2. The Eucharistic Controversy There is little question that Calvin read Zwingli’s early discussion of the Lord’s Supper. The first edition of the Institutes contains a rejection of the sacrifice of the mass that echoes Zwingli’s argumentation in the Commentary on True and False Religion. Despite this positive influence, however, Calvin was critical of many aspects of Zwingli’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and his discussion of the sacraments was more profoundly influenced by the early Wit11 He also notes that Conrad Pellican cribbed extensively from Oecolampadius’ work in his commentary on the entire Bible, published between 1532–1539 (Fisher: 2013, 50f and passim).

250

Amy Nelson Burnett

tenberg position than it was by Zwingli and his supporters (CO 1.102–109, 118– 140; Calvin: 1975, 118–127, 139–168; Ganoczy: 1988, 139ff., 144f., 148f., 152–158; Neuser: 2009, 221–238). There is no indication in the 1536 Institutes that Calvin had read any of Oecolampadius’ treatises on the Lord’s Supper, although his rejection of the ubiquity of Christ’s body was ultimately derived from the Basler. In his 1525 Genuine Exposition of the Lord’s Words, ‘This is My Body,’ According to the Oldest Authorities, Oecolampadius had argued that Christ’s body had ascended into heaven and was now located at the right hand of the Father.12 This argument was quickly adopted by Zwingli and others, including Martin Bucer, who was probably the inspiration for Calvin’s argument.13 More important than identifying the sources of Calvin’s early understanding of the Lord’s Supper, however, is the striking difference between Calvin’s approach to the sacrament and that found in the publications of the Swiss reformers from the 1520s. In their earliest contributions to the controversy, Zwingli and Oecolampadius shared the goal of discrediting belief in Christ’s bodily presence in the consecrated elements. Their first pamphlets employed a similar strategy. They began by arguing that one could not understand ‘this is my body’ literally. In His Letter to Matthias Alber and the section on the Lord’s Supper in the Commentary on True and False Religion, Zwingli gave a lengthy explanation of Christ’s discourse on his body as the bread of life in John 6, ending with verse 63: ‘the flesh is of no use.’ Zwingli opposed spiritual to bodily eating and concluded that Christ’s body and blood were not present in the elements (Z 3.336–342, 776– 789). Oecolampadius opened his Genuine Exposition with a discussion of the sacraments as mysteries, argued that Augustine did not include the Eucharist among the nine genres of miracles, and he pointed to the popular abuses associated with belief in Christ’s corporeal presence (1525: A2r–B5r). Each reformer then suggested a figurative understanding of Christ’s words, as ‘this signifies my body’ or ‘this is a figure of my body’ respectively, and offered further arguments against Christ’s bodily presence, whether based on reason, the statements of the church fathers, or other passages of Scripture. Only in passing did they address the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, emphasizing its importance as a remembrance of Christ’s passion and death, a public profession of faith, and an encouragement to one’s neighbors (Z 3.348f., 351, 798f.; Oecolampadius: 1525, F5v–G3r). In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin turned this approach on its head. He began his discussion of the Lord’s Supper by explaining its purpose and value, emphasizing 12 Andreas Karlstadt had made the same argument in the fall of 1524, although in a more muddled way. Both men drew their argument from the Hussites (Burnett: 2011, 77–90). The only detailed study of Oecolampadius’ treatise is the dissertation by Northway (2008). 13 Zwingli did not address the location of Christ’s body before his 1526 Klare Unterricht. Neuser documents Calvin’s familiarity with Bucer’s Gospels commentary (2009, 228–231).

Exegesis and Eucharist

251

the believer’s engrafting in Christ and the strengthening of faith. Only then did he take up the issue of Christ’s presence. This was explained not simply in terms of whether the body was in the elements but was instead described in a more positive way, emphasizing how Christ was offered to believers. Calvin then returned to a discussion of the benefits of the sacrament (CO 1.118–130; Calvin: 1975, 138– 153). This ordering gave his discussion of the Lord’s Supper a much more constructive cast than the early works of the Swiss reformers, who were chiefly concerned with attacking a long-held belief rather than with presenting a new understanding of the Supper’s purpose. The difference between these two approaches can be attributed in part to the differing genres used by their authors—polemical treatise versus catechetical instruction. It also reflects the evolution of the eucharistic controversy in the decade between its beginning and the date of Calvin’s first discussion of the sacrament. Perhaps the most striking difference between Calvin and the Swiss reformers, though, concerns their underlying metaphysical presuppositions. The arguments of the Swiss reformers reflected their Erasmian neoplatonism in the subordination of material to spiritual and the strict separation of sign and thing signified (Krodel: 1955, 205–239). Calvin did not share this downgrading of the material, and he was critical of Zwingli’s etymologically-based comparison of sacraments to military oaths, which reduced them to public professions of faith. Criticizing those who said the sacraments did nothing to increase faith, Calvin described the sacraments as a means by which God confirmed and strengthened faith (CO 1.103f.; Calvin: 1975, 119ff.). Many years later Calvin wrote that when he read in Luther ‘that Zwingli and Oecolampadius left nothing in the sacraments but bare and empty figures, I confess I took such a dislike for their writings that I long refrained from reading them.’ (CO 9.53; Calvin: 2002, 252f.). Quite apart from Calvin’s rhetorical strategy in making this statement to Joachim Westphal, his early distaste for a position that devalued externals is entirely plausible in light of how he described the Lord’s Supper in 1536. It reflects the differences between the mental world of the Swiss reformers so strongly influenced by Erasmus and that of a young French humanist who took refuge in Erasmus’ adopted home but who remained a foreigner there. Let us now jump ahead two decades, to look more closely at Calvin’s exchange with Westphal. In his eucharistic treatises of the 1550s Calvin often mentioned Zwingli and Oecolampadius together, but he said nothing to indicate that he had read any of Oecolampadius’ works. The Basel reformer had published several lengthy Latin treatises on the Lord’s Supper in 1525–1526. His Genuine Exposition was regarded by Catholics and Lutherans alike as a powerful attack on Christi’s bodily presence, and much more of a threat than anything Zwingli had published. Theobald Billikan, Johannes Brenz, and Willibald Pirckheimer were

252

Amy Nelson Burnett

among those who wrote against Oecolampadius, and the Basler in return wrote defenses of his position addressed to each of these men (Burnett: 2014b). In these treatises he developed a host of arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence that would be taken up and repeated by others, including Zwingli. Oecolampadius’ Latin treatises, products of the first phase of the eucharistic controversy, would be forgotten in the 1530s, as the shape of the debate changed. As is clear from his 1541 Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin’s understanding of the first phase of the eucharistic controversy was decisively shaped not by reading the works of either Zwingli or Oecolampadius, but by Martin Bucer’s interpretation of events. Calvin’s account of the controversy echoed that given by Bucer in several of his publications from the 1530s.14 According to this view, Luther had not explained his ideas well and had used ‘similitudes that were somewhat harsh and rude,’ which Zwingli and Oecolampadius had misunderstood. The Swiss reformers were also at fault, however. In their eagerness to oppose the idolatry of those who worshiped the consecrated bread, they had forgotten to discuss how Christ himself was present in the Supper. The result was mutual misunderstanding that had finally ended, in that both sides now recognized that ‘We are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.’ (CO 5.458ff.; Calvin: 2002, 195ff.). This brief summary obviously ignored the views of the Zurich church, which did not accept Calvin’s statement of mutual agreement. Calvin’s rose-tinted view of the agreement that had brought an end to the public controversy would be challenged after the 1549 Consensus Tigurinus established a common position for the churches of Zurich and Geneva. Repeating the long-established Lutheran argument that the ‘sacramentarians’ did not agree among themselves, Joachim Westphal published a Farrago of Confused Opinions Concerning the Lord’s Supper in 1552 that quoted from the works of Karlstadt, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Vermigli, and Calvin himself. When Calvin sent Bullinger the draft of his response to Westphal’s pamphlet for approval, the Zurich reformer sent back his own account of the early eucharistic controversy, which disagreed fundamentally with that of Bucer. Bullinger excused Calvin’s ignorance of Luther’s true position because the Frenchman could not read the Wittenberger’s German works (CO 15.274). The Zurich Antistes provided translations from those works, however, to prove that Luther held that Christ’s body was truly and corporeally eaten in the Supper, that he endorsed the manducatio impiorum, and that he would never agree with those he condemned as Schwärmer (CO 15.274ff.).15 To illustrate the correctness of the

14 See, for example, Bucer’s Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum (MBOL 5.89–102). 15 Bullinger cited from Part 2 of Wider den himmlischen Propheten (1525), Sermon von dem

Exegesis and Eucharist

253

Swiss position, Bullinger cited from several late works by Zwingli and Oecolampadius, and he stressed that the two reformers had held the same understanding of the Eucharist (CO 15.278).16 Bullinger then pointed out that Luther refused to recognize the Swiss as brethren at Marburg and had continued to polemicize against them up to his death (CO 15.278ff.).17 Calvin published his Defense of the Consensus Tigurinus at the beginning of 1555. It provoked Westphal to write a Just Defense against the False Accusations of a Certain Sacramentarian, in which he repeated the charge of disagreements among his opponents. Calvin responded with his Second Defense, which led Westphal to write an open letter against Calvin as well as a lengthy Confession of Faith. This particular exchange ended with Calvin’s Last Admonition, although Calvin would continue the argument with Tileman Heshusius (Tylenda: 1974). Westphal’s citation of so many ‘sacramentarian’ authors made clear that he was familiar with the issues debated at the beginning of the eucharistic controversy. While Calvin could only rely on the contrasting accounts of Bucer and Bullinger, Westphal had copies of the pamphlets that were published in 1525– 1526, and he cited from them against Calvin. Moreover, as Wim Janse has pointed out, Westphal’s pamphlets put Calvin in something of a bind. Westphal’s understanding of the sacraments was not that much different from what Calvin had upheld before signing the Consensus Tigurinus. The position the Lutheran pastor was attacking was that expressed especially by Zwingli in his earliest works, when the Zurich reformer was most vociferous in insisting that the bread and wine were only symbols—a position Calvin himself had rejected in 1536 ( Janse, 2008a; Janse 2008b). Calvin now had the difficult job of defending a view he had never held, expressed in works he had never read, in order to uphold his recent agreement with Zwingli’s successors in Zurich—who, it might be added, also differed from the early Zwingli (Sanders, 1992). It was under these circumstances that Calvin became acquainted with Oecolampadius’ contributions to the eucharistic controversy. In both Farrago (1552, C1r–v) and Just Defense (1555a, 31, 85), Westphal had used passages from Oecolampadius’ Apologetica, his combined response to Billican and Brenz (Oeco-

Sakrament des Leibs und Bluts Christi wider die Schwärmgeister (1526), and Vom Abendmahl Christi Bekenntnis (1528). 16 From Zwingli he cited De conuitijs Eccij epistola (1530), the Expositio Fidei (1531), and Zwingli’s Jeremiah commentary (1531). From Oecolampadius, Bullinger quoted Das der miszuerstand D. Martin Luthers…nit beston mag. Die ander billiche antwort (1527), a passage from the Bern disputation (1528), and Oecolampadius’ letter to Melanchthon printed in Qvid de Evcharistia veteres…senserint Dialogus (1530). 17 Bullinger cited from Luther’s published letters to Markgraf Friedrich of Brandenburg (1532) and the Frankfurt church (1533), as well as his pamphlet Wider den Winckelmäss (1532), his Kurtz bekentnis (1544), and his theses against the theologians of Louvain (1545).

254

Amy Nelson Burnett

lampadius: 1526, E8v; German translation: W2 20: 683, #83).18 Calvin’s comments concerning Oecolampadius in his Second Defense were little more than a brief repetition of what, according to Westphal, the Basel reformer had said: [Westphal] inveighs against Oecolampadius, who understands the pronoun which, in the words of Christ, not relatively but causally: as if it were unlawful for an interpreter to explain in a simpler manner what otherwise gives unnecessary trouble. Oecolampadius said that the body of Christ is not offered to believers to be eaten, inasmuch as it was once offered to expiate sins; in other words, to acquaint us that the previous parts are attributed to the sacrifice (CO 9.63, cf. 91; Calvin: 1975, 267, cf. 307).

Calvin’s lackluster and generic defense suggests that he had not taken the time to find and read the Apologetica, but Westphal’s use of the pamphlet must have aroused Calvin’s interest in the writings of the Basel reformer. As the public debate continued, Calvin turned to Oecolampadius for arguments to be used against his Lutheran opponents, and especially for citations from the church fathers that supported his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Although Zwingli had cited a few church fathers in his early works on the Lord’s Supper, it was Oecolampadius’ Genuine Exposition that brought the interpretation of the church fathers into the Eucharistic controversy (Burnett: 2012; Hoffmann: 2011, 20–117). In 1530 Oecolampadius published another work that displayed his patristic learning, the Dialogue Concerning What the Ancients, Both Greek and Latin, Believed about the Eucharist. In their use of the fathers, Calvin and his opponents were following a well-worn path (Chung-Kim: 2011), and Oecolampadius’ works were a rich source of patristic citations that Calvin could use against the Lutheran position. In the treatise he wrote against Tilemann Heshusius, Calvin acknowledged Oecolampadius’ importance by stating that the Basler was the first to show clearly, ‘with accuracy and skill…that the figment of a local presence was unknown to the early church.’ (CO 9.490; Calvin: 1975, 535). I will give just one example of how Calvin made use of Oecolampadius, by looking at two citations taken from Augustine. In his Genuine Exposition, Oecolampadius had given a figurative interpretation to a statement from Augustine’s prologue to Ps. 33, ‘Christ was borne in his own hands when he commended his body to [the disciples], saying ‘this is my body.’’19 To uphold this reading, Oecolampadius pointed out that Augustine had added, ‘he took in his hands something the faithful recognized, and he carried himself in a certain way (quodam modo) when he said, ‘this is my body.’’ (Oecolampadius: 1525, A6r– A7r). Brenz criticized Oecolampadius’ interpretation of Augustine’s words in the

18 Ganoczy notes that the Geneva Academy owned a copy of this treatise (1969, 202, #123). 19 The passage was familiar through its inclusion in canon law, Decretum III, dist. II, c. 92 (Friedberg: 1879–81, 1: 1351).

Exegesis and Eucharist

255

Syngramma, which Westphal had certainly read,20 and Westphal included the passage in his compilation of citations from Augustine that supported a Lutheran understanding of the Supper (Westphal: 1555b, B5v–B6r). Calvin responded to this passage in his Last Admonition to Joachim Westphal, making the same argument as Oecolampadius: by using the phrase quodam modo, ‘in a certain way,’ the church father had meant that his statement should not be understood literally (CO 9.490, Calvin: 1975, 365). Immediately before discussing this passage, Calvin introduced another statement from Augustine to the effect that the Lord’s Supper should not be considered miraculous. This was a reference to Augustine’s description of nine types of miracles, which Oecolampadius had also summarized in his Genuine Exposition, directly before he discussed the prologue to Ps. 33 (1525, A7r–v).21 This at least suggests that as Calvin was writing his Last Admonition he consulted Oecolampadius’ work and drew from it arguments useful against Westphal. Calvin would add a brief discussion of these two passages from Augustine, among others, to the final edition of his Institutes (CO 2.1027; Calvin: 1960, 1396f). By the end of the 1550s, then, Calvin had come to appreciate Oecolampadius both as an expositor of the Bible and as a source for arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence in the Lord’s Supper. This study has only scratched the surface in looking for links between Calvin and Oecolampadius, however, and I hope it will encourage further research into the connections between the two reformers.

Bibliography CChr = Corpus Christianorum. MBOL = Martini Buceri Opera Latina. W2 = Johann Georg Walch, ed. (1881–1910), Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften, St. Louis: Concordia. Z = Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. Bietenholz, Peter (1986), Simon Grynaeus, in: Peter Bietenholz (ed.), Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 142–146. Boer, Erik A. de (2004), John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s ‘Sermons inédits,’ especially on Ezek. 36–48, Kerkhistorische bijdragen. Leiden: Brill.

20 The Syngramma was printed as part of Oecolampadius’ Apologetica; the Augustine passage is discussed at fol. K4r. It was also debated between Pirckheimer and Oecolampadius. 21 Augustine’s discussion of miracles in De Trin. III.10.19–20 (CChr 50.147).

256

Amy Nelson Burnett

Brashler, James (2009), From Erasmus to Calvin: Exploring the Roots of Reformed Hermeneutics, in: Interpretation 63, 154–166. Burnett, Amy Nelson (1994), The Yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian Discipline, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 27. Kirksville, Mo: Sixteenth Century Publishers. — (2009), ‘It Varies from Canton to Canton’: Zurich, Basel and the Swiss Reformation, in: Calvin Theological Journal 44, 251–262. — (2012), ‘According to the Oldest Authorities’: The Use of the Church Fathers in the Early Eucharistic Controversy, in: Anne Marie Johnson/John A. Maxfield (eds), The Reformation as Christianization. Essays on Scott Hendrix’s Christianization Thesis, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 66, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 373–395. — (2014a), Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, in: Irene Dingel/Volker Leppin (eds), Das Reformatorenlexikon, Darmstadt: Lamert Schneider Verlag, 45–51. — (2014b), Oekolampads Anteil am frühen Abendmahlsstreit, in: Christine Christ von Wedel/Sven Grosse/Berndt Hamm (eds), Basel als Zentrum des geistigen Austauschs in der frühen Reformation, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 81, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 215–231. Burnett, Stephen G. (2012), Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era (1500–1660): Authors, Books, and the Transmission of Jewish Learning, Library of the Written Word 19. Leiden: Brill. Calvin, Jean (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ford Lewis Battles (trans.), Library of Christian Classics 20–21, Philadelphia: Westminster. — (1975), Institution of the Christian Religion, Ford Lewis Battles (trans.). Atlanta: John Knox Press. — (2002), Treatises on the Sacraments, Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, Henry Beveridge (trans.), Grand Rapids: Christian Heritage. Chung-Kim, Esther (2011), Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debate over the Eucharist. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press. Compier, Don H. (1992), The Independent Pupil: Calvin’s Transformation of Erasmus’ Theological Hermeneutics, in: Westminster Theological Journal 54, 217–233.. Demura, Akira (1984), Calvin’s and Oecolampadius’ Concept of Church Discipline, in: Wilhelm H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos, Frankfurt/M: Lang, 187–189.. — (1997), Two Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans: Calvin and Oecolampadius, in: Wilhelm Neuser/Brian G. Armstrong (eds), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 165–188. Elliott, Mark W. (2008), Romans 7 in the Reformation Century, in: Kathy Ehrensperger/ R. Ward Holder (eds), Reformation Readings of Romans, London: T & T Clark, 171–188. Farmer, Craig S. (1996), Changing Images of the Samaritan Woman in Early Reformed Commentaries on John, Church History 65, 365–375. Fisher, Jeff (2013), A Christoscopic Reading of the New Testament Use of the Old: The Early Reformed Exegesis of Johannes Oecolampadius on the Book of Hebrews, Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Friedberg, Emil (ed.) (1879–81), Corpus Iuris Canonici, second ed. 2 vols., Leipzig: Tauchnitz.

Exegesis and Eucharist

257

Fudge, Thomas R. (1997), Icarus of Basel? Oecolampadius and the Early Swiss Reformation, in: Journal of Religious History 21, 268–284. Ganoczy, Alexandre (1969), La Bibliothèque de l’Academie de Calvin. Geneva: Droz. — (1988), The Young Calvin, David Foxgrover/Wade Provo (trans.), Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Gilmont, Jean-François (2005), John Calvin and the Printed Book, Karin Maag (trans.), Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State University Press. Hobbs, R. Gerald (1984), Exegetical Projects and Problems: An Undated Letter from Bucer to Zwingli, in: E.J. Furcha/H. Wayne Pipkin (eds.), Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli, Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 89–107. — (1989), Strasbourg et l’ ‘école rhénane’ d’exégèse (1525–1540), pt 2: l’hébreu, le judaïsme et la théologie, in: Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 135, 42– 53. Hoffmann, Gottfried (2011), Kirchenväterzitate in der Abendmahlskontroverse zwischen Oekolampad, Zwingli, Luther und Melanchthon: Legitimationsstrategien in der innerreformatorischen Auseinandersetzung um das Herrenmahl, Oberurseler Hefte, Ergänzungsbände 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Janse, Wim (2008a), Joachim Westphal’s Sacramentology, Lutheran Quarterly 22, 137–160. — (2008b), Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology: Three Dogma-Historical Observations, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 37–69. Krause, Gerhard (1962), Studien zu Luthers Auslegung der Kleinen Propheten, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck). Krodel, Gottfried G. (1955), Die Abendmahlslehre des Erasmus von Rotterdam und seine Stellung am Anfang des Abendmahlsstreites der Reformatoren, Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Erlangen.. Kuhr, Olaf (1998), The Significance of Oecolampadius and the Basel Discipline Ordinance for the Institution of Ecclesiastical Discipline in Geneva, in: Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 16, 19–33. — (1999), ‘Die Macht des Bannes und der Buße.’ Kirchenzucht und Erneuerung der Kirche bei Johannes Oekolampad (1482–1531), Basler und Berner Studien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie 68, Bern: Peter Lang. Mattox, Mickey (2013), Translator’s Introduction, in: Mickey Mattox (ed.), Johannes Oecolampadius. An Exposition of Genesis, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 7– 29. Muller, Richard A. (1990), The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom, in: David C. Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 68–82. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (2009), Johann Calvin. Leben und Werk in seiner Frühzeit 1509–1541, Reformed Historical Theology 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Northway, Eric W. (2008), The Reception of the Fathers & Eucharistic Theology in Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531), with Special Reference to the adversus haereses of Irenaeus of Lyons, Ph.D Dissertation, Durham University. Oecolampadius, Johannes (1525), Ioannis Oecolampadii De Genvina Verborum Dominici, Hoc est corpus meum, iuxta uetustissimos authores, expositione liber. [Strasbourg: Knobloch], VD16 O 331.

258

Amy Nelson Burnett

— (1526), Apologetica Ioann. Oecolampadii. De Dignitate Evcharistae Sermones duo. A Theobaldvm Billicanvm quinam in uerbis Caenae alienum sensum inferant. Ad Ecclesiastas Svevos Antisyngramma, Zurich: Froschauer, VD16 O 305. Opitz, Peter (2008), The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, in: Magne Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 407–451. Poythress, Diane (1992), Johannes Oecolampadius’ Exposition of Isaiah, Chapters 36–37, Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary. — (2011), Reformer of Basel, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. Roussel, Bernard (1988), De Strasbourg à Bâle et Zurich: Une ‘école rhénane’ d’exégèse (ca. 1525–1540), in: Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 68, 19–39. — (1989), Strasbourg et l’ ‘école rhénane’ d’exégèse (1525–1540), pt 1: une ‘école’ et son programme, Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 135, 36–41. — (1997), De Jean Oecolampad et Martin Bucer à Andreas Masius et Jean Mercier. Statut et fonction des référence à Rashi dans les travaux d’exégètes Chrétiens du XVIe siècle (v. 1525–v. 1575), in: Gilbert Dahan/Gérard Nahon/Elie Nicolas (eds.), Rashi et la culture juive en France du Nord au moyen âge, Paris: Peeters, 361–382. Rummel, Erika (2008), The Textual and Hermeneutic Work of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, in: Magne Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 215–230. Rupp, E. Gordon (1969), Johannes Oecolampadius: the Reformer as Scholar, in: E. Gordon Rupp, Patterns of Reformation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 3–46. Sanders, Paul (1992), Heinrich Bullinger et le ‘zwinglianisme tardif ’ aux lendemains du ‘Consensus Tigurinus,’ in: Heiko A. Oberman/Ernst Saxer/Alfred Schindler/Heinzpeter Stucki (eds.), Reformiertes Erbe. Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80. Geburtstag, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 307–323. Staehelin, Ernst (1916), Die Väterübersetzungen Oekolampads, Schweizerische Theologische Zeitschrift 33, 57–91. — (1918), Oekolampad-Bibliographie (Verzeichnis der im 16. Jahrhundert erschienenen Oekolampaddrucke), in: Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 17, 1– 119. — (1928), Bibliographische Beiträge zum Lebenswerk Oekolampads, in: Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 27, 191–234. — (1939), Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 21. Leipzig: Heinsius. Strohl, Henri (1955), La Méthode Exégétique des Réformateurs, in: Jean Boisset (ed.), Le Problème Biblique dans le Protestantisme, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 87– 104. Tylenda, Joseph N. (1974), The Calvin-Westphal Exchange: The Genesis of Calvin’s Treatises against Westphal, in: Calvin Theological Journal 9, 182–209. Westphal, Joachim (1552), Farrago Confvsanearvm et inter se dissidentivm opinionum De Coena Domini… Magdeburg: Rödinger, VD16 W 2287. — (1555a), Aduersus cuiusdam Sacramentarii Falsam criminationem, Ivsta Defensio, Frankfurt/M: Braubach, VD16 W 2260. — (1555b), Collectanea sententiarum Divi Aureli Augustini…de Coena Domini. Regensburg, VD16 A 4170.

259

Exegesis and Eucharist

Appendix Oecolampadius’ Commentaries on Scripture1 Commentary 1. 1 John

Lectures began Advent 1523 (sermons)

1a. German trans. 2. Isaiah 2a. Partial Germ. trans. 3. Romans

First Publication/ Reprints June 1524 1524 (Nuremberg), 1525 x 2

Staehelin Bibliography #95 #96, 105–106

Comments

1524, 1525

#100, 106

Trans. K. Hedio

Easter 1523 March 1525 1525 (Cologne), 1548, 1558 (Geneva)

#109 #110, 209.1

August 1525?

#136

August 1525 1525 (Nuremberg), 1526

#111 #111a, 122

4. Haggai, Zech., Summer Mal. 1524 4a. German trans. of Malachi

Jan 1527

#137

1526 x 2 1526 x 2 (Augsburg, Leipzig), 1528 (Erfurt)

#132, 132a; others not in Staehelin

Trans. L. Hätzer

5. Jeremiah/ Lamentations

Mar. 1527 & earlier

#172 #209.2

Ed. W. Capito

6. Ezekiel

Mar. 1527

Sept 1533 (Strasbourg) 1558 (Geneva) Mar 1534 (Strasbourg) 1558 (Geneva)

#173 #209.3

Ed. W. Capito

7. Daniel

Sep. 1528

Mar 1530 1530, Geneva: 1553 & 1567 1545 (Geneva)

#162 #163, 209.7, 216.2 #197

Mar 1532 Geneva: 1553, 1567 1562 (Geneva)

#168 #209.6, 216.1 #211

Aug. 1524

7a. Incl. in Engl trans. 8. Job 8a. French trans.

Dec. 1528

Trans. L. Hätzer

Compiled/ trans. G. Joye

Cf. #222 (1585)

1 Information from Staehelin (1939; 1918; 1928), corrected by Fisher (2013, 62–6). Place of publication is Basel unless noted otherwise.

260

Amy Nelson Burnett

(Continued) Commentary 9. Hebrews

Lectures began Spr 1529

First Publication/ Reprints Aug. 1534 (Strasbourg)

Staehelin Bibliography #175

10. John

Fall 1529

1533 1535

#171 #179

1535 1558 (Geneva)

#181 #209.5

Ed. J. Gast

1536 1562 (Geneva) 1536

#184 #212 #183

Ed. J. Gast

11. 6 minor Oct. 1530 prophets (HoseaMicah) 12. Gen 1–16 Aug. 1531 13. Matt. 1–10

Aug. 1531

Comments Ed. J. Gast and K. Hubert Ed. J. Gast

Ed. J. Gast

Esther Chung-Kim

John Calvin on Poverty and Wealth

Introduction Religious traditions have long had something to say about the ethics of poverty and wealth, and the Reformation was no exception. In the book, The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, Natalie Zemon Davis shows that sixteenth-century France ‘was in the process of redefining four powerful prescriptions for human exchange: Christian charity, noble liberality, the favors of friendship and neighborly generosity, with each offering ideals for giving and receiving in different social milieus.’1 For these four values, the underlying premise is a human need. Each exchange between donor and recipient denotes the bonds of a community for meeting reciprocal needs. Broadly understood, a human need is a type of poverty. In fact, a major classification of gifts, which ‘covered a large number of gift situations, was aumône or alms, [whenever] the recipients were poor or in circumstances evoking pity’ (Davis: 2000, 14). In the process of redefining these values of human exchange, the ideals for giving and receiving were often communicated through emerging views about poverty and wealth. As Timothy Fehler puts it, ‘Despite changes in religious values associated with charity, social welfare reforms of the sixteenth century, whether Catholic or Protestant, retained a fundamentally religious foundation and significance’ (Fehler: 1999, 11). Based on strands of continuity and tides of change, it is clear that earlier models of giving continued with varying degrees of modification as newer models also entered the scene. In most cases, neither model by itself was seen as a sufficient solution for meeting the demands of increasing human needs. 1 Davis identifies two core beliefs held in tandem that shape sixteenth-century sensibilities about giving, exchange and social relations. The first belief links human giving to divine providence with the pervasive biblical notion that all we have is from God. This receiving from God and then giving back to God is symbolized in ‘a vertical cycle of giving’ between the Lord and human donors. Meanwhile the second belief recognizes giving as a form of reciprocal relationships based on both the social needs of a community and ‘a horizontal movement of benefits among humans.’ See Davis: 2000, 13–15.

262

Esther Chung-Kim

Whatever political motivation lay behind the desire for social order and human dignity, poor relief was most often communicated through religious language highlighting both the ideals of Christian charity and neighborly generosity. In other words, political agendas could conveniently intersect with religious duty, or in many cases, religious responsibilities had political implications. The establishment of a newly-concentrated infrastructure for poor relief brought to the surface the prickly issue of authority. Who would run these institutions and who were they ultimately accountable to? What principles were they supposed to follow? With the Reformation, the magistrates of Geneva answered the first two questions with the positions of procureur and hospitallier, who would be elected by the city council and accountable to the Small Council. However it was not necessarily well-defined what principles they would follow beyond the mundane task of distribution to the poor. With the development of parallel spheres of religious and political authority bolstered by Martin Luther’s two kingdoms theology, it is possible to assume that the Reformation was a time when religious authority became more limited, and proscribed to the specific devotional duties of worship and sacraments and that social welfare reforms were left solely in the hands of the political and civic authorities. Yet in the case of Geneva, it seems more accurate to say that religion had the potential to exert its influence in a new way, maybe even a more powerful way, via the emerging lay leaders who would see their work as procureur, hospitallier, deacon or donor as a divine calling and ultimately accountable to God. In this context, John Calvin exercised his pastoral authority to encourage a religious ideal that would shape these principles in a decisive way. Because Calvin increasingly saw the use of wealth as a spiritual activity in the context of leading a congregation full of foreign religious refugees needing support for resettlement or continued peripatetic existence, he sought to influence both the principles of poor relief and its ultimate purpose.

1. Calvin’s Context—Genevan Citizens and French Immigrants Calvin’s arrival in Geneva was part of a larger migration pattern of religious refugees moving to cities like Geneva that were more favorable to the Reformation. Recognizing Calvin’s social context as an immigrant pastor gives further insight into why Calvin saw religious commitment so closely tied with communal care and charity. Reformed thought allowed a fundamentally religious people to be both anti-ecclesiastical toward a certain type of establishment and faithful by changing the source of authority, namely to Scripture, the early church fathers and ministers who rightly interpreted these ancient sources. In the endeavor to relate Christian doctrine to the social situation in Geneva, John Calvin as chief

John Calvin on Poverty and Wealth

263

minister took the lead in expressing a Christian way of addressing poverty and wealth that excluded the confraternities, but retained an ongoing concern for the poor through the deacons. More specifically, Calvin exercised his religious authority to connect wealth with piety and increasingly construe the use of wealth as a spiritual activity. Because he saw that inequitable wealth caused divisions among citizens and immigrants, he advocated for the ideal religious community to express the virtue and benefit of fraternal unity rather than the political factionalism of Geneva. Since the adoption of the Reformation, Geneva found itself inundated by a large number of mostly poor foreigners passing through the city.2 Hence Calvin was in the pastoral role of providing religious services for those sojourners who for the most past were not allowed to settle in Geneva. Since the responsibilities of the General Hospital only extended to Genevan citizens, there was no other relief organization to absorb this flood of pressing needs. To alleviate the burden of the French refugees, the Bourse française, or The French Fund, was launched through the donations of wealthy French and Calvin’s unequivocal support.3 As many prominent refugees served as donors, they developed the bonds of a caring community through their economic system of support. In the church where Calvin had the most influence, authority and jurisdiction, he supported an early church order that included deacons who would work to relieve the foreign poor. Although Genevans were willing to assist transient strangers (foreigners) passing through, they demonstrated much greater reluctance and opposition toward settling immigrants (Naphy: 1994, 122). Meanwhile, the Company of Pastors was nearly dominated by French ministers who played an active role in the city.

2 According to Naphy, in the period from October 1538 to 1539, the city hospital assisted 10,657 poor strangers (a term Calvin uses in his will) as they passed through Geneva. This does not include the number of native Genevans (estimated at about 5 percent of the total population) who received regular assistance from the hospital; therefore Geneva, with a population of 12,000 was attempting to support 600 local poor on a regular basis and an additional 10,000 refugees in a one-year period. Naphy: 1994, 122. The press of refugees continued to be an enormous strain on Genevan resources as when 500 French poor arrived from Strasbourg in June 1547. Naphy: 1994, 123. 3 According to Olson, the Bourse Française was created after 1545, based on the death of David Busanton, an early refugee who left a sizeable sum in his will to the poor of Geneva which may have served as the seed money for the Bourse but before September 1550 when the opening accounts are recorded. See Olson, 36.

264

Esther Chung-Kim

2. Calvin’s View of Wealth Within this Genevan context of ethnic tensions, political factionalism and socioeconomic stratification, Calvin penned his views on poverty and wealth. While Calvin was not among the transient poor, his views were guided by the biblical principle of communal and social responsibility for the pressing needs of a refugee settlement. Because Scripture gave him a myriad of opportunities to discuss the poor, money and riches, Calvin communicated his ideals, both through his Institutes, commentaries and sermons, as well as through the institutions he supported, like the Consistory and the French Fund. As Calvin sought to integrate his religious ideals with the social realities of cultural, political and economic divisions, several themes emerge. First, the foundation for Calvin’s economic views is the premise of abundance. Unlike medieval ascetic types, Calvin has the mentality that repeatedly insists that ‘God not only provides for humans’ necessity, but also for their enjoyment [since] in [ultimate] goodness God deals still more bountifully with them by cheering their hearts [not just with water but also] with wine and oil.’4 In other words, God provides more than the basics for human survival. In the Institutes, Calvin declares that all good things were created so that people might recognize God as the author and source of all things and give thanks for God’s beneficence.5 Therefore the purpose of wealth and any good thing is to create an attitude of thanksgiving that bridles any excess; however this attitude must be intentionally cultivated. The second premise is that poverty or wealth is ultimately a type of testing. The righteous believer will not fail this test as long as he or she accepts his or her lot in life by being thankful for whatever lessons each situation brings. Concerning the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, Calvin points out that Christ condemns those who neglect the care of the poor and indulge in all manner of gluttony, ‘who cruelly kill with famine those whom they ought to have relieved when the means of doing so were in their power’ (CO 45.407f). As before, Calvin is quick to say that not all elegance is displeasing to God nor that all the care bestowed on preparing victuals (fine dining) ought to be condemned, but the problem is that such things are hardly kept in moderation. In other words, Calvin sees luxury as a slippery slope in which one is easily lured into excess. To the wealthy he poses this question for self-examination: ‘Where is your thanksgiving 4 CO 32.89. Employing prophetic literature of Hosea 2:8, Calvin notes that ‘the abundance of all good things, and everything that supports human beings flow from God’s bounty (…).’ OC 14.234. 5 Calvin, Inst. 3.10.3. English translation of the Institutes is based on, but in some places modified or updated from John T. McNeill (ed.) (1960), Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 721; CO 2.530.

John Calvin on Poverty and Wealth

265

if you so gorge yourself with banqueting or wine that you become rendered useless for the duties of piety?’ (Inst. 3.10.3, CO 2.530) At this point in the Institutes, Calvin also provides a few rules for faithful believers to follow. The first rule is that believers ought to indulge oneself as little as possible and not flaunt superfluous wealth in order to guard against turning blessings into hindrances (Inst. 3.10.4; CO 2.531). The second rule is that those who have little resources ought to go without things patiently, lest they be troubled by a consuming desire for them. In other words, those who glory in their abundant wealth or fret in their miserable poverty fall into the problem of being fixated on earthly possessions. The third rule is that believers ought to use earthly possessions in such a way that fulfills the precepts of love and their calling. Therefore the right attitude calls for a free and detached approach to both plenty and poverty (Biéler: 2005, 275). The kingdom of heaven is open to all who have either made a sober use of riches or patiently endured the want of them (Luke 16.25: CO 45.411). In the passage concerning Jesus’ saying (Matth 19): ‘If you want to be perfect, go and sell everything you have,’ Calvin differentiates between observing the law and inheriting eternal life (Matth 19.16: CO 45.537). Calvin claims that ‘the law does not command us literally to sell all (after all, rich people under the old covenant were blessed); rather ‘it intends us to be prepared for…poverty’ (Matth 19.20: CO 45.539–540; see also Matth 6.20). Nevertheless the rich person who yields to the allurement of the present life, indulging in every earthly enjoyment and despising God’s kingdom, will suffer the punishment of his/her own neglect of God’s will and purpose for that wealth. Praise for Lazarus does not stem from his status of abject poverty, rather ‘Lazarus is commended for patient endurance of the cross, which always springs from faith and a genuine fear of God’ (Luke 16.25: CO 45.411). Once he established the two premises of God’s abundance and thankful acceptance, Calvin then devotes much of his attention to two additional themes related to how those who have wealth should act and why they should do so. In continuity with the Christian tradition it is important to remember that for Calvin, the use of money or temporal things is considered a spiritual activity, though slightly nuanced. Rejecting ascetic severity on one hand and licentious indulgence on the other, Calvin demonstrates his overarching concern for the right use of earthly benefits. Since those who have wealth are the ones who need guidance about its proper use, the third premise recognizes that the rich people are stewards or managers of God’s resources. If one has riches in the form of wealth, property or possessions, they are resources to manage and put to proper use.6 His intended audience seems to be 6 Davis: 2000, 119. This coincides what Natalie Zemon Davis calls a sole concern about the donor, since Calvin’s rules focus only on giving but not on taking. This emphasis is not

266

Esther Chung-Kim

potential donors who would fund the institutions of Christian charity in the city. While Calvin claims the freedom of believers in external matters so as not to be restricted to a fixed formula or legal limitation, Calvin echoes a warning based on Luke 16:2 that may be the best guide of all, namely that the believer must one day render an account of how one’s wealth was used (Inst. 3.10.5–6; CO 2.531–532). Because believers are called to be stewards, Calvin believes that any wrongful use of wealth and lack of mercy will become apparent when ‘we give an account of what God has placed in our hands’ (SC 8.195). According to François Dermange, it is possible that Reformed language about the responsibility of the wealthy paradoxically turned out to have an affinity with capitalism, but with a fundamental difference: its sole concern was to improve the actual situation of the poor (Dermange: 2007, 51). Closely related to the third theme about the believer as steward, the fourth and the most common point is to exercise one’s communal responsibility when others are in need. Calvin laments that such a proper use is far from being practiced by Christian communities that let themselves be contaminated by the profiteering mentality that prevails in society. Calvin is highly critical of ‘the insatiable desire to buy’ where people waste and spend to no good purpose what God intends for the service of others (Biéler: 2005, 312). The indifference of believers towards the financial needs of their fellow believers in the church explicitly reflects the failure to use wealth properly. In light of his first premise of abundance, there should be enough for everyone to have basic necessities; therefore rampant poverty is a sign of a grave evil. If poverty and wealth are a test, then believers are not doing well. Ultimately for Calvin, the purpose of wealth is not to be obsessed with self-interest but to do good to neighbors and to help them in their time of need instead of squandering it on all kinds of trifles and excesses (SC 8.120). This kind of assistance should be particularly apparent in the church because it is a foretaste of the kingdom yet to come. A closer examination of Calvin’s biblical interpretation demonstrates his conviction that Reformed religious ideals would created an exemplary community that would shape the rest of society. Calvin’s Biblical Interpretation Calvin’s interpretation of the earliest Christian community as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles provides a key place for him to expound on his views about communal responsibility, poverty and wealth. Not only does Calvin favor the ancient traditions of the early church as the purest models for Christian thought surprising since Calvin’s view of human nature is naturally inclined toward self-interest and needs encouragement to give.

John Calvin on Poverty and Wealth

267

and practice, but Calvin also wishes to counter other interpretations that were calling believers to follow the example of communal property which renounced private property according to a literal interpretation of Acts. Guarding against two extremes, Calvin rejects two types of misguided interpretations. Those who set such a low bar are mistaken to think that as long as they do not harm or defraud the poor, they are ‘doubly righteous so long as they do not seize or steal another’s goods’ (CO 48.59f). At the same time, those who advocate no individual ownership misunderstand the intent of Scripture. Calvin further expands the spiritual function of how one uses wealth. His distinctive concerns, based on his experience and social context, appear more clearly in his sermons, ranging in tone from pastoral and didactic to critical and cynical, sometimes with a more radicalizing tendency. Since unbridled self-interest causes divisions and enmity, he demonstrates a concern for right intention in caring for others. The purpose of charity is for the sake of unity. Works of care and compassion, or donating to the same cause should be preceded by a true concern and love toward others. To reach the right kind of charity, Calvin teaches that the root of charity is empathy, namely, seeing ourselves in the other. In a pastoral tone, he says in his sermon on Acts 2, ‘We cannot look upon another human being without having before us a living representation of our own selves, and if we deny him our help it is as if we were refusing it to ourselves.’7 Those who think they are faithful as long as they do no harm to another are not completely innocent. Avoidance of responsibility is not Calvin’s solution; rather the believer ‘must be sufficiently concerned about his neighbors to help them with the wealth God has put within his hands.’8 Yet he is not naïve to think that this mutuality happens easily or automatically.9 Evidence of faith depends not on economic status but on the attitude toward economics. For Calvin, the rich can demonstrate good virtues, like self-control, moderation and patience when they sell their lands and houses to relieve the poor (Gingerich: 1985, 266; CO 48.95). Calvin asserts that the mutual sharing of goods is commended not only because it is an example of love but also because it is evidence that the rich are not focused on private advantage and personal profit (which portrays Calvin’s idealized version of the early church). Calvin transfers 7 SC 8.46–54, here at 51. See also Rob Roy McGregor’s English translation of Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles Chapters 1–7, 2008. 8 SC 8.53. Likewise, in his sermon on Acts 4, Calvin refers to a mutual friendship and fellowship that guides believers to fulfill one’s ‘individual responsibility toward their neighbors.’ SC 8.114. 9 ‘But when there is a multitude, unless the Holy Spirit leads, confusion will necessarily result and people will show themselves to be what they are by nature. …There you have the beginning of debates and dissensions,…endless confusion and disorder.’ [Mais quand il ya multitude, sinon que le sainct Espirit gouverne, il fault qu’il y ait confusion et que les hommes se monstrent tels qu’ils sont de nature.… Et voilà qui engendre les debatz et les dissentions, en sorte qu’il y aura tousjours confusion et desordre.] SC 8.114.

268

Esther Chung-Kim

the virtues usually idealized in the poor as a possibility for the rich. This indicates a departure from traditional exegesis in its emphasis. Calvin’s interpretation locates the notable virtues of self-control, moderation and patience often linked with Christian character as exemplified not by the poor (as earlier Christian writers had asserted), but by the rich, albeit a certain kind of rich, those who give generously but not necessarily everything. This was the recognition of a new kind of ‘virtuous rich’ (Chung-Kim: 2009, 66), in which Calvin breaks any correlation between virtue and intentional poverty. The virtuous rich is an ideal in the apostolic narratives that becomes particularly important for the French refugees settling in Geneva, since the faithful believer no longer has to be poor to be holy. Wealthy refugees could identify with a biblical model and follow the early church examples of the virtuous rich. Yet his most scathing reproach is toward those who think cruelty toward the poor is ‘fair game [such] that they suck the life out of them, by not only seizing their poor neighbors’ purses, but cutting their throats and gnawing their bones’ (SC 8.135). Pure intention becomes important because according to Calvin’s experience, these same people may even give a few pennies to God, but then they continue to practice more usury, robbery, cruelty and financial abuse. In line with his eschatological vision of a future restoration, Calvin hopes for a glimpse or a ‘forecast’ of this future in the church, i. e. the ‘beginnings of the heavenly kingdom.’10 Poor relief, even if partial, reflects the coming justice on earth. Hence the church may fill gaps and needs unmet by civil government. To do this effectively, Calvin argues for the validity of religious authority and is careful to guard both (as Elsie McKee puts it) the ‘autonomy of the church and the plural manifestations of the ministry,’ including the role of the deacons (McKee: 1984, 130). Concerning the ministry of the diaconate, Calvin establishes its importance based on necessity, early church tradition, humanitarian concern and the church’s contribution to social welfare. Concerning the creation of deacons in Acts 6, Calvin recalls the setting up of deacons in the early church as a remedy for the complaints arising from the disciples about unequal distribution to the Hellenist widows. He cites a common proverb, ‘Bad customs give rise to good laws’ (CO 48.117) or what we might exclaim, ‘Necessity is the mother of invention.’ But Calvin is keen to note that the establishment of the deacons ministry was not simply a political move or just a matter of practical expediency. Rather the development, recognition and demand of the necessity would ‘con10 Inst. 4.20.2 (1536). See also Tuininga: 2013, 11. I differ slightly from Tuininga on this point that the church does not make up for the failures of human charity or the limits of civil government. While Calvin sees the present church as cooperating with the magistrates, Calvin’s emphasis is that the true church seeks to meet the needs of the community, even when others will not.

John Calvin on Poverty and Wealth

269

vince the faithful from this experience’ of how much they needed the deacons for this important work (CO 48.117). Hence by delaying the order of deacons until necessity demanded it, believers would be well-disposed to the idea and generous in handling over their gifts. According to Calvin’s understanding of the early church, the deacons held the task of dispensing the church’s goods to care for the poor; they were stewards who collected the alms offered at the altar, then distributed them to the poor and cared for the sick (Inst. 4.5.15; CO 2.808–809). In his first sermon on Acts 6, Calvin insisted that the diaconate was ‘not a profane or a mundane office but a spiritual charge’ (SC 8.200). The specific role of the diaconate in Acts 6 demonstrated how seriously the early church took its role in poor relief. Interpreting I Timothy 3, Calvin recognizes the ordination of ministers and deacons of blameless character, whether to preach the gospel or to care for the poor, since the deacons are the public face of the church (CO: 53.289). Because order, justice and poor relief are spiritual matters, Calvin finds himself extending his religious authority into these issues. While Calvin struggled to establish ‘his spiritual conception of the diaconate,’ he insisted that the right use of the diaconate is ‘the touchstone whereby we must be tried’ (Tuininga: 2013, 24; see also CO 53.295). In addition, Calvin is interested in the dignity of the poor when he writes, ‘Those who care for the needy are to be cheerful, pleasant and ungrudging, [since] it will only make the poor person more miserable if someone helps him in his need and grumbles [or berates him] at the same time. It is as if the person hit him with one hand and gave him a piece of bread with the other’ (SC 8.198). In his long-term outlook, Calvin directly links the effectiveness of the deacons to the continuity of the church from generation to generation.

3. Conclusion: Implications of Calvin’s Views Calvin’s views were shaped by multiple factors, including his political status as a foreigner, his social location as a prominent immigrant church leader, his cultural awareness of ongoing ethnic hostilities, the periodic urgencies of economic distress, and primarily his work as a pastor seeking to reform his congregation. Sometime in the second half of the 1540s, the French Fund was established to be a welfare institution and a refugee agency.11 A cadre of donors from the class of 11 Olsen: 1989, 37. The existence of these two sets of deacons one for the hospital and the other for the Bourse française has confused modern understanding of the situation. The reference to the deacons of the city hospital in the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, so readily available to modern scholars has tended to diminish awareness of the deacons of the Bourse, whose record remains largely in unpublished manuscripts. In the colloquial usage ‘deacon’ apparently referred to an administrator of the Bourse rather than to one of the hospital. The term

270

Esther Chung-Kim

wealthy French immigrants financed and administered the assistance, which ranged from temporary housing, job retraining, tools or raw materials for artisans to set up trade, loans or grants to make rent payments on a home or business, stipends for wet nurses, childcare and medical expenses, in addition to the regular hand-outs and money to poor travelers, just to name a few (Olsen: 1989, 39–43). Hence Geneva would be an oasis for the French Reformed poor, not because of the Genevan hospital for poor relief, but because of the French Fund run by the Genevan church. The French Fund took the burden off the indigenous welfare system and the general hospital, since the Fund’s sole responsibility was to aid foreigners. The creation of the French Fund also represented a departure from the sixteenthcentury tendency toward centralization, because the French Fund was supervised by deacons and pastors, and financed independently of the city council (Olsen: 1989, 12). Other Reformed towns followed this model of a fund for poor strangers and foreigners. The Reformation in Geneva was certainly shaped by the influx of foreigner immigrants who were marginalized religiously in their homeland, but hoped to settle in a place that would accept them. In this historical development, Calvin was not only a religious leader of the Genevan church but also a social reformer for the French immigrant community. The French Fund records show that Calvin was a regular donor to the French Fund and a recommender of persons needing assistance. Receiving his citizenship only nine years before his death, Calvin understood what it meant to be an outsider. Calvin was not the only person in history to join wealth and social responsibility, but he also linked it to a spiritual exercise. More importantly he was able to concretely embed his ideals in the formation of the diaconate and French Fund that would become a model for multi-confessional communities throughout Europe. In his sixteenth century Genevan context, Calvin called for the correlation between wealth and social responsibility because it was crucial to the assimilation of the French refugees into Geneva and for their souls as believers. The right use of wealth increased spiritual virtue both for the poor receiving with thanksgiving and for the rich giving a portion for the sake of the community. His views were based on centuries of precedent and yet meeting newly-arising needs. Even when eschatological religious concerns about the final judgment have been overlooked, the social values emerging from Calvin’s economics of faith have had lasting

‘deacon’ was habitually used to refer to those men chosen to administer funds for religious refugees and references to deacons in Genevan documents of the mid-sixteenth century should be considered with this in mind. See Olsen: 1989, 32. Meanwhile David Busanton (of Hainault) willed a sizeable sum to the poor of Geneva and this amount most likely helped to establish the French Fund. See Olsen: 1989, 33.

John Calvin on Poverty and Wealth

271

repercussions, even providing some of the historical roots for philanthropy in the Reformed tradition. Calvin and other prominent French leaders sponsored a social support system sponsored by the church, run by men and women for disenfranchised immigrants whose displacement meant economic struggle and instability. Calvin’s economics of faith was a catalyst for a program to accommodate the enormous financial needs of religious refugees hoping to settle in Geneva or to find their way home. While Calvin does not necessarily defy the early modern system of economic stratification and inequality, his views, when heard, challenge perhaps even haunt, those who live in the richest nations with a large dose of social responsibility and an awareness of the struggles facing those who are marginalized religiously, culturally or socially. By the end of the sixteenth century, it became a common practice for Genevans to include one of the refugee funds in their wills, in addition to the hospital and the Academy (Olsen: 1989, 174–175).

Bibliography Biéler, André (2005), Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought, Edward Dommen (ed.) and James Greig (trans.), Geneva: WWC Publications, originally published in French, La pensée économique et sociale de Calvin, 1961. Chung-Kim, Esther (2009), Calvin on the Use of Wealth in the Christian’s Life, in: The Dulia et Latria Journal, 2, 57–78. Davis, Natalie Zemon (2000), The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Dermange, François (2007), Calvin’s View of Property: A Duty Rather than a Right, in: Edward Dommen/James D. Bratt (eds), John Calvin Rediscovered: The Impact of His Social and Economic Thought, Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press. Fehler, Timothy G. (1999), Poor Relief and Protestantism: The Evolution of Social Welfare in Sixteenth Century Emden, St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Gingerich, Barbara Nelson (1985), Property and the Gospel: Two Reformation Perspectives, in: Mennonite Quarterly Review 59/3. Gordon, Bruce (2009), Calvin, New Haven: Yale UP. Grell, Ole Peter (1997), ed., Health Care and Poor Relief in Protestant Europe 1500–1700, London and New York: Routledge. Jütte, Robert (1994), Poverty and Deviance in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge University Press. Kingdon, Robert M. (1971), Social Welfare in Calvin’s Geneva, in: The American Historical Review 76/1, 50–69. — (1984), Calvin’s Ideas about the Diaconate: Social or Theological in Origin? in: Carter Lindberg (ed.), Piety, Politics and Ethics, Reformation Studies in Honor of George Wolfgang Forell, Kirksville: Truman State UP, 167–180.

272

Esther Chung-Kim

Lindberg, Carter (1993), Beyond Charity: Reformation Initiatives for the Poor, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. — (2010), The European Reformations, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. McKee, Elsie (1984), John Calvin on the Diaconate and Liturgical Almsgiving, Geneva: Droz. Naphy, William (1994), Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Olsen, Jeannine (1989), Calvin and Social Welfare. Deacons and the Bourse Française, London and Toronto: Associated University Presses. Safley, Thomas Max (2003), ed., The Reformation of Charity, Leiden: Brill. Spijker, Willem van ’t (2009), Calvin: A Brief Guide of His Life and Thought, trans. Lyle D. Bierma, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. Tuininga, Matthew (2013), Good News for the Poor: Analysis of Calvin’s Concept of Poor Relief and the Diaconate, paper given at Refo RC Berlin Conference, May 2013. Wandel, Lee Palmer (2003), The Poverty of Christ, in: Thomas Max Safely (ed.), The Reformation of Charity, Leiden: Brill.

Patrizio Foresta

‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7) Substitutionstheologische Elemente in Calvins Institutio religionis christianae (1559).1

1. Die Substitutionstheologie: geschichtstheologische Vorbemerkungen Die sogenannte Substitutionstheologie prägte das Verhältnis des Christentums zum Judentum von der frühen Patristik im zweiten Jahrhundert (man denke nur an den Dialog mit dem Juden Tryphon des Justinus und an das in dieser Zeit entstandene Schrifttum adversos iudaeos), bis in die zweite Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts hinein. Ihrer Lehre zufolge ist der alte Bund zwischen Gott und Israel mit der Entstehung des Christentums gekündigt und daher überholt; an seine Stelle ist der neue Bund zwischen Gott und dem neuen und wahren Israel, dem Christentum, getreten (Simon: 1964). Aus dieser heilsgeschichtlichen Perspektive findet Israel keinen Platz in Gottes Vorsehungsplan und spielt keine Rolle in der Geschichte der Offenbarung und der Erlösung; der alte Bund sei nach dem Kreuzestod und der Auferstehung Christi obsolet geworden, sodass der Karfreitag das Ende der jüdischen Geschichte markiere. Das neue, geistige Israel übernehme die Rechte und Privilegien des alten, das verworfen worden sei; demzufolge wird das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament in Exegese, Liturgie und Katechese im Sinne von Verheißung contra Erfüllung, Vorläufigkeit contra Endgültigkeit, Schatten contra Wirklichkeit dargestellt (Pollefeyt: 1997, 2– 3; zum Thema vgl. auch Pollefeyt: 2007, 131–132). In der Geschichte der Theologie, ja in der Geschichte überhaupt, sind die Folgen der Substitutionstheorie mit all ihrem Gewaltpotential verheerend gewesen. Die Ursachen dafür sind zahlreiche: Aus theologischer Sicht ist laut Marco Morselli die Substitution des Messias Israels mit dem Gott der Christen und das Thema der Absolutheit Christi ein Ausdruck des Wunsches seitens der Christen, 1 Ich möchte mich bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Emidio Campi und Herrn Dr. Luca Baschera für die wertvollen Hinweise und Anregungen ganz herzlich bedanken.

274

Patrizio Foresta

sich auf der Suche nach einem absolut neunen Anfang vom eigenen jüdischen Ursprung zu befreien, wobei der Messianismus des Paulus das Christentum, sein Antinomismus jedoch den Antijudaismus hervorgebracht habe (vgl. jeweils Morselli: 2007, 144; Maestri/Morselli: 2009, 20). Aus kulturgeschichtlicher Sicht spricht Carlo Ginzburg seinerseits von der ‚christlichen Ambivalenz gegenüber den Juden‘, welche die ‚Wurzeln‘ des Christentums selbst von Anfang an betrifft. Ginzburgs Andeutung spielt hier ausdrücklich auf Röm 11, 16–24 an, eine Bibelstelle, welche die durch ‚Distanz und Kontinuität‘, ‚Feindseligkeit und Nähe‘ gekennzeichnete Haltung der Christen gegenüber den Juden durch die Jahrhunderte ausdrückte und ihren—d. h. der Christen—Anspruch, das wahre Israel zu sein, begründen sollte (Ginzburg: 1998, 177, 184f.). Aus politikgeschichtlicher Sicht hingegen sind die drei jüdischen Kriege zwischen 66 und 135 nach Christus und die sogenannte Konstantinische Wende 313 als die Hauptereignisse anzusehen, die das Verhältnis von Judentum und Christentum nachhaltig und wohl nicht zum Besseren beeinflusst haben. Insbesondere das Erbe Kaiser Konstantins I. und des sogenannten ‚Konstantinischen Zeitalters‘, das durch ‚die Konvergenz von Thron und Altar, weltlicher Obrigkeit und christlichem Papsttum‘ gekennzeichnet war, beeinflusste zutiefst das Verhältnis zum Judentum und ging weit über die Antike hinaus bis in das 20. Jahrhundert hinein (Furmagalli: 2013, 757). Bis auf wenige seltene Ausnahmen war der interreligiöse Dialog zwischen Juden und Christen bis zur Nachkriegszeit mit dieser schwerwiegenden Hypothek belastet, bis die christliche Theologie nach Auschwitz langsam begann, ein alternatives Modell zu gestalten, wonach das Judentum nicht mehr als Auftakt des Christentums oder gar als Feind betrachtet wird und die Christen ihre religiöse Identität ebenfalls behalten, ohne sich auf einen als tragend geglaubten Eckpfeiler mehr stützen zu können (Pollefeyt: 1997, 3; Connelly: 2012). Obwohl die Substitutionstheologie auch in nuancierterer Form als in den Jahrhunderten zuvor noch ihre seltenen Verfechter hat, gilt sie heutzutage wegen ihres Ansatzes allgemein und zurecht als überwunden. Gleichfalls bietet sie Theologen, Kirchenhistorikern und Kulturhistoriken die Möglichkeit, wichtige Knotenpunkte der Theologiegeschichte unter diesem Gesichtspunkt zu untersuchen, natürlich nicht um historische „Mittäter’ in der Vergangenheit zu finden und auf die Anklagebank zu setzen, sondern vielmehr um zu verstehen, wie sich dieses Paradigma gebildet hat und welche kirchenhistorischen und theologiegeschichtlichen Bedingungen seine Langlebigkeit in allen christlichen Konfessionen ermöglicht haben. Ein hervorragendes Beispiel dafür bietet Calvins Institutio religionis christianae. Ziel des vorliegenden Beitrags ist es, Calvins Meisterwerk anhand einiger Schlüsselwörter (unter anderen: Bekehrung, Bund, Erwählung, Kirche, Testament) daraufhin zu analysieren, wie das Verhältnis vom ‚alten‘ und ‚neuen‘ Israel beschrieben und gedeutet wird, in welchem textuellen Zusammenhag substitu-

‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7)

275

tionstheologische Züge zutage treten und welche Konsequenzen dies für Calvins theologischen Ansatz hat. Dafür wurde das analytische Sachregister verwendet, das Jean-Daniel Benoit für seine zwischen 1957–1963 erschienene kritische Edition der Institutio aufstellte.2 Aufgrund der Vielschichtigkeit des Themas wird sich das Augenmerk besonders auf das Verhältnis zwischen der ‚nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche‘ und der altgläubigen, sprich römisch-katholischen Kirche richten. Hier werden Achim Detmers Überlegungen zum in der Theologie des 16. Jahrhunderts ausgetragenen Streit um die innerchristliche ‚Profilierung‘ und ‚Abgrenzung nach außen‘ aufgegriffen, denn vor allem bei Calvins ‚sekundäre[r] Israel-Lehre‘ ging es nur indirekt um eine tatsächliche Auseinandersetzung mit dem Judentum post Christi adventum, wohingegen innerchristliche ‚Konflikte und Interessen‘ wie die Zurückweisung der als jüdisch angesehenen Zeremonien der römischen Kirche im Vordergrund standen (Detmers: 2001, 318–319; zum Thema vgl. ebd., Abschnitte D.4 und D.6). Hier kann auf andere wichtige Theologumena wie etwa die Kirchenlehre, die Tauflehre oder aber die Erwählungslehre nicht eingegangen werden; der Untersuchungshorizont wird sich darüber hinaus auf die Institutio beschränken müssen, wenngleich Calvins homiletische und exegetische Werke in einem späteren Schritt deutlicher in den Blick genommen werden könnten und sollten.

2. Altes und neues Israel in der Institutio religionis christianae. Obwohl Israel in der Institutio erwartungsgemäß vielerorts erscheint, können hier nur einige wenige Beispiele daraus herangezogen werden. Zunächst einmal kann gesagt werden, dass Calvin an einigen für das Thema der Substitution Israels durch das Christentum bedeutenden Stellen lateinische Verben bzw. Verbalformen wie abdico, substituo, reicio, depello, transfero, recipio, verwendet, etwa in Inst. 3.24.7: von 1. Joh. 2, 19 ausgehend warnt Calvin vor ‚jener lässigen, ungebundenen Sicherheit des Fleisches, die Aufgeblasenheit, Anmaßung und Verachtung der anderen mit sich bringt, welche die Demut und Ehrerbietung vor Gott auslöscht, und die den Menschen dazu bringt, die empfangene Gnade zu vergessen‘; wie der Apostel lehre (Röm 11, 18ff.), sollten die Heiden die Juden ‚nicht hoffärtig und unmenschlich schmähen, weil diese nun enterbt und sie selbst an ihrer Statt eingesetzt worden seien‘ (‚[Gentiles] docet, non esse Iudaeis superbe et inhumaniter insultandum ideo quia ipsis abdicatis in eorum locum substituti essent‘; ‚[les Gentils] ne doyvent point fièrement et inhumainement 2 Calvin: 1957–1963, 5.127–128, 170, 196–201, 371–372; dieser Ausgabe sind die französischen Zitate entnommen. Die lateinischen Zitate folgen der Ausgabe OS, die deutschen der Ausgabe Calvin: 1955/1997, wenngleich mit einigen Berichtigungen seitens des Verfassers.

276

Patrizio Foresta

insulter aus Iuifs, pource qu’ils avoyent esté substituez en leur lieu‘).3 Schließlich seien die Heiden wie ‚wilde Ölzweige‘ durch das Evangelium an der Stelle der Juden (‚in illorum locum‘), aufgepfropft worden seien, während diese, ‚natürliche Zweige einer heiligen Wurzel‘, abgebrochen worden seien.4 Auf ganz ähnlicher Weise argumentiert Calvin in Inst. 3.2.22, der Apostel wolle, wie es in 1 Kor 10, 12, überliefert wird, die Glaubenszuversicht der Korinther nicht erschüttern, sondern den Heiden ,die Hoffart und das vermessene Vertrauen auf die eigene Kraft‘ fortnehmen, damit diese, die nach der Verstoßung der Juden an ihrer Statt angenommen worden seien, die Juden nicht allzu übermütig verhöhnten (,ne depulsis Iudaeis Gentes in eorum locum receptae, ferocius insultent‘; ,afin que nous, qui sommes Gentils, n’insultions aux Iuifs, en la place desquels nous avons esté substituez‘). Der Apostel habe dann die Juden mit den Heiden verglichen und gezeigt, fährt Calvin fort (Inst. 3.2.22), wie die Juden in ihrer Verwerfung die gerechte Strafe für ihren Unglauben und ihre Undankbarkeit empfangen hätten; auch habe er die Heiden ermahnt, sie sollten nicht in Hochmut und Aufgeblasenheit die Gnade der Kindschaft verlieren, die ihnen gerade verliehen worden sei (,postquam [Apostolus] illos [i. e. Iudaeos] ostenderat iustas incredulitatis et ingratitudinis suae in eo poenas dare quod reiecti essent, has [i. e. Gentes] etiam hortatur ne superbiendo ac sese efferendo gratiam adoptionis nuper ad se translatam amittant‘; ,[l’Apostre] ayant monstré que la reiection des Iuifs estoit une iuste punition de leur infidélité et ingratitude, il exhorte semblablement les Gentils de ne se point enorgueillir n’eslever, de peur de perdre la grâce d’adoption, laquelle ils avoyent nouvellement receue‘).5 Zweitens widmet Calvin dem Hauptmotiv der Erlösung des Menschen durch Christus und des Bundes zwischen Gott und seinem Volk das ganze zweite Buch der Institutio. In Inst. 2.6.2, legt er die Erlösung des Menschengeschlechts durch Christus anhand einiger Bibelstellen vor allem aus dem Alten Testament geradezu substitutionstheologisch aus: Es sei vollends klar, dass Gott dem Menschengeschlecht ohne den Mittler nicht gnädig sein könne, und deshalb sei den heiligen Vätern unter dem Gesetz stets Christus vorgehalten worden, auf den sie 3 Vgl. Calvins Auslegung von Röm 11, 19–21, in Parker/Parker: 1999, 243–244: ,Nam exectio Iudaeorum si ob incredulitatem facta est, Gentium vero insitio per fidem (…) Itaque Gentibus denuntiat Paulus, si Iudaeis insultent, paratam fore mercedem eorum superbiae, quia iterum sibi riconciliabit Deus prioreum illum populum, cum quo divortium fecit‘. 4 Dazu die Appendix libelli adversus Interim adultero-germanum, in CO 7.675–686, hier 679: ,Ita Paulus docet, quum Iudaei, qui naturales rami sanctae radicis erant, defracti fuerint, gentes tanquam sylvestres oleastros, fuisse in illorum locum insitas [Röm 11, 20]. Quo modo hoc? Nempe per evangelium‘. 5 Vgl. auch Inst. 3.24.6, ebenfalls auf 1 Kor 10, 12, und Röm 11, 20, rekurrierend: ,Quinetiam ipse quoque Paulus alibi a securitate dehortatur, Qui bene stat, inquit, videat ne cadat [1 Kor 10, 12]. Item, Insertus es in populum Dei? Noli insuperbire, sed time [Röm 11, 20]; potest enim Deus rursum succidere, ut alios inserat‘.

‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7)

277

ihren Glauben richten sollten; das verheißene Heil habe einzig und allein in Erfüllung gehen können, als Christus erschienen sei, dessen Amt es sei, das Zerstreute zu sammeln. Es habe also die Annahme des erwählten Volkes von Anfang an von der Gnade des Mittlers abgehangen. Calvin erkennt zwar, dass der Bund nicht abgetan worden sei und der Erlöser zu seiner Zeit kommen werde, sosehr König Ahab und das Volk in ihrer Bosheit die dargebotene Verheißung von sich gewiesen und mit fester Absicht sich bemühten hätten, die Zusage Gottes abzuschwächen (Inst. 2.6.3); andererseits ist er nicht müde, den Leser daran zu erinnern, dass die Hoffnung aller Gläubigen einzig und allein auf Christus beruht habe (ebd.); wenngleich sie schändlich abgeartet seien, habe doch das Bewusstsein dieser einen Grundwahrheit nicht verlöschen können, dass Gott, wie er David verheißen habe, durch die Hand Christi die Kirche befreien werde, und dass der Gnadenbund, in den Gott seine Erwählten aufgenommen habe, auf diese Weise erst zu rechtem Bestand kommen werde (Inst. 2.6.4). Drittens verdeutlicht auch Calvins Auslegung des ersten Gebots diese theologische Grundannahme. Er betont Israels Erwählung, die Gnadenverheißung und Wohltat durch Gott, ,um die Juden ihrer Undankbarkeit zu überführen, wenn sie sich nicht so verhielten, wie es seiner Güte angemessen war‘ (Inst. 2.8.13), denn ,die Undankbarkeit [gilt] als der schlimmste Frevel‘ (ebd., 15). Gott ist der Befreier Israels, das ihn als solchen anerkennen und in freudiger Bereitschaft gehorsam verehren soll (ebd.). Wenn aber zum einen die Erlösung aus der Knechtschaft durch Gott erwähnt wird, damit sich die Israeliten ihm in größerer Bereitwilligkeit hingeben, merkt Calvin zugleich an, dass diese Erlösung auch die Christen angehe, bzw. und noch genauer: Wenn die Propheten Gott besonders bezeichnen wollen und ihn etwa den ,Gott Abrahams, Isaaks und Jakobs‘ nennen (Ex 3, 6), oder wenn er im Tempel zu Jerusalem inmitten der Cherubim sitze, so bedeute es nicht, dass ihn derartige Ausdrücke an einen Ort oder an ein Volk bänden, ganz im Gegenteil; die ägyptische Knechtschaft Israels sei ein Abbild der geistlichen Gefangenschaft, in der sich alle Christen befinden, bis sie der himmlische Befreier losmache und in das Reich der Freiheit führe. Wie also Gott einstmals das Volk Israel, um es aus ihrer Zerstreuung zur Anbetung seines Namens zu versammeln, aus der untragbaren Herrschaft des Pharao, die sie bedrückte, herausgerissen habe, so schütze er nun auch all die, als deren Gott er sich bezeugt, vor der furchtbaren Gewalt des Teufels, für die jene leibliche Knechtschaft ein Abbild war (Inst. 2.8.15). In traditionell substitutionstheologischer Manier wird hier die Heilsgeschichte Israels zur Figur der christlichen. Viertens wird überdies das zweite Gebot nach diesem Muster gedeutet. Auf der Basis von Ex 20, 5–6 vergleicht Calvin die Haltung Gottes, der ein ‘eifernder Gott’ sei, gegenüber seinen Gläubigen mit jener eines Ehegatten, denn die Verbindung, die er mit ihnen durch ihre Aufnahme in den Schoß der Kirche eingegangen sei, ähnele dem heiligen Ehestand, der auf gegenseitiger Treue, eheli-

278

Patrizio Foresta

cher Zucht und Liebe beruhe. Daraus folge, dass die Gläubigen ihre Seelen nicht dem Ehebruch preisgeben sollen; deswegen beschuldige Gott die Israeliten des Ehebruchs, wenn sie mit ihrer Abtrünnigkeit gegen das Ehegesetz verstießen. Dies gilt freilich nicht nur für Israel, denn Gott, wie jeder ,rechtschaffene und zuchtvolle‘ Gatte, der ,uns [d. h. die Christen] in der Wahrheit vermählt hat‘, gerate auch dann in zornige Eifersucht, wenn die Gläubigen die Reinheit seines heiligen Ehebundes mit ihnen vergäßen, in frevlerischer Lust dem Ehebruch verfielen oder die Verehrung seiner göttlichen Majestät mit irgendeinem Aberglauben befleckten (Inst. 2.8.18). Schließlich sind das Verhältnis von Gesetz und Evangelium in Inst. 2.9.1–4 und einige Stellen aus Inst. 2.10 zur Ähnlichkeit des Alten und Neuen Testaments kursorisch zu erwähnen. Die Überschrift von Inst. 2.9, könnte nicht eindeutiger sein: ,Christus war zwar schon den Juden unter dem Gesetz bekannt; er tritt uns aber erst im Evangelium klar entgegen‘. Zweck des Gesetzes ist nach Calvin gewesen, Israel in der Erwartung auf das Kommen Christi zu halten; allerdings werde noch ein viel helleres Licht durch Christi Ankunft aufgehen. Die Propheten des Alten Testaments hätten das köstliche Kleinod, das Gott den Christen durch ihre Hand zukommen ließ, selbst nicht empfangen, so weiter Calvin; während sie nur einen kleinen Vorgeschmack der Gnade, von der sie zeugten, gehabt hätten, durften sie die Christen reichlicher genießen (Inst. 2.9.1). Wenngleich nach Christi eigenen Worten Moses ein Zeugnis von ihm abgelegt habe, versichere Christus selbst, dass die Christen nach dem Maße der Gnade hoch über den Juden stünden; die Geheimnisse, die Israel nur im Schatten undeutlich erschaut habe, seien den Christen nun offenbart; da Gott in Christus erschienen sei, sei er gewissermaßen sichtbar geworden, während sein Bild zuvor dunkel und schattenhaft gewesen sei. Umso übler und abscheulicher sei es dann, wenn nach Christi Ankunft Menschen in ihrer Undankbarkeit am hellen Mittage blind dastünden (ebd.).6 Die Ähnlichkeit des Alten und Neuen Testaments, die Calvin vor allem in Inst. 2.10, eingehend thematisiert, und das Licht-Dunkelheit Motiv von Inst. 2.9.1, kehren in aller Deutlichkeit auch im Passus Inst. 2.10.23, zurück: Obwohl alle Menschen, die sich Gott vom Anbeginn der Welt an zu seinem Volk erwählt habe, mit ihm nach dem gleichen Gesetz und durch das gleiche Band der Lehre verbunden gewesen seien, die immer noch in Kraft seien (vgl. Inst. 2.10.1), wäre die törichte Hoffnung des ganzen Judenvolkes auf ein irdisches Reich des Messias 6 Vgl. Calvins Auslegung von 2 Kor 3, 14–15, in Feld: 1994, 61–62: ‚Velamen illud, quod texit faciem suam Moses in publicanda Lege, symbolum fuit futurae et diuturnae in populo hebetudinis. Ita hodie quum Lex illis preadicatur, audiendo non audiunt et videndo non vident‘; ‚Reddit causam, cur in luce tandiu caecutiant. Lex enim per se lucida est. Sed tunc demum eius claritate fruimur, quum in ea nobis Christus apparet. Iudaei a Christo, quantum possunt, avertunt oculos‘.

‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7)

279

verwunderlich, wenn die Schrift nicht schon zuvor gesagt hätte, dass die Juden für die Verwerfung des Evangeliums auf diese Weise bestraft worden seien. Nach Calvins Auslegung offenbarte sich darin Gottes gerechtes Gericht, wonach ein Volk, welches das dargebotene Himmelslicht verschmäht und sich deshalb freiwillig in die Nacht des Irrtums begeben habe, nun mit Blindheit geschlagen sei. Die Juden könnten Moses Tag und Nacht lesen, ohne aber das Licht sehen zu können, das aus Moses’ Gesicht strahlt. Daher bleibe er Israel verdeckt und verhüllt, bis es sich zu Christus wende, von dem es sich immer noch abzulösen und zu trennen suche (Inst. 2.10.23). Calvins bundestheologische Grundannahme könnte also wie folgt zusammengefasst werden: ,Der Bund mit den Vätern ist im Wesen und in der Sache von dem unsrigen nicht zu unterscheiden, sondern ein und dasselbe‘ (Inst. 2.10.2), aber freilich aus einer christlichen und insbesondere paulinischen Perspektive der Verheißung, die auf die Heilsgeschichte Israels projiziert wird (Inst. 2.10.3: ,So hat das Alte Testament nach dem klaren Zeugnis des Paulus besonders auf das zukünftige Leben hingewiesen; denn er sagt ja, es enthalte die Verheißungen des Evangeliums [Röm 1, 1–2; 3, 21]‘); dies gilt ja auch für die Ähnlichkeit und sogar ,Einheit der beiden Testamente‘ (Inst. 2.10.2). Diese wenigen Belegstellen zum Verhältnis von Judentum und Christentum aus der Institutio deuten zunächst an, dass sich Calvin der herkömmlichen christlichen Substitutionstheologie in ganz geläufiger Weise bedient. Eine solche Erkenntnis ist nicht gerade neu: Man denke hier unter anderen an die Studien zum Thema von Achim Detmers (2001; 2006), Hans-Joachim Kraus (1991), G. Sujin Pak (2009; 2010), Jack Hughes Robinson (1992) und David Curtis Steinmetz (1999). Zahlreiche andere könnten überdies aus Calvins Werken herangezogen werden. Als kleines Beispiel hierfür kann an seine Auslegung von Gen 48, 4 erinnert werden: Da die Bestätigung der Verheißung Gottes an Jakob ,nichts anderes als eine Vorbereitung auf die reiche Menge gewesen sei, die kommen sollte, als Gott die Kirche aller Nationen um sich versammelte und den Samen auf aller Welt streute, erkennen wir den in der alten Gestalt gespendeten Segen wieder, sodass es aber sich schickt, darüber hinaus zu gehen (…) Aber nur nachdem das geistige Israel in allen Erdgebieten zerstreut wurden, und nachdem verschiedene Nationen in einer einzigen Kirche vereinigt wurde, begann die Mehrung sich zu vollenden‘.7 Aber wie spiegelt sich dieser substitutionstheolo7 Vgl. CO 23, Genesiskommentar, Sp. 1–622, hier 580–581: ,Sed quia nonnisi praeludium hoc erat eius amplitudinis, quae postea sequuta est, quum Deus sparso per totum orbem semine, ecclesiam sibi ex cunctis gentibus collegit: sic benedictionem in veteri figura praestitam agnoscimus, ut tamen ultra progredi conveniat (…) Sed ex quo spiritualis Israel per omnes mundi piagas diffusus est, et variae gentes in unam ecclesiam aggregatae sunt, in solidum compleri coepit multiplicatio‘; Calvin: 1961, 616–617: ,Mais parce que ceci n’était qu’un préparatif de cette ample multitude qui a depuis suivi, quand Dieu a recueilli l’Eglise de toutes le

280

Patrizio Foresta

gische Ansatz in Calvins Behandlung vom Verhältnis zwischen der ,nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche‘ und der altgläubigen, d. h. römisch-katholischen Kirche wider?

3. Das ,wahre Israel‘ in der reformierten Kirche Hierzu ist Inst. 4.2, dem ,Vergleich der falschen Kirche mit der wahren‘ gewidmet, sehr aufschlussreich, insbesondere aber Inst. 4.2.1–10. Laut Calvin ist der Dienst am Wort und an den Sakramenten das Kennzeichen zur Unterscheidung der wahren von der falschen Kirche: In der einen trete dieser Dienst ,unversehrt und unverkürzt‘ zutage, in der anderen hätten ,Lüge und Falschheit die Herrschaft gewonnen‘ (Inst. 4.2.1). Genau das habe sich im Falle des Papismus ereignet, und daraus lasse sich erkennen, was dort noch an Kirche übrig sei. Calvin malt ein erschreckendes Bild davon, was in der Kirche der Papisten geschehen ist: Statt des Dienstes am Wort habe ein verkehrtes und aus Lügen bestehendes Regiment die Oberhand gewonnen; an die Stelle des Heiligen Abendmahles habe sich die abscheulichste Heiligtumsschändung eingeschlichen, während die Verehrung Gottes durch eine vielseitige und unerträgliche Menge von Aberglauben entstellt worden sei. Die reine Lehre, das wahre Fundament des Christentums, sei schließlich ganz begraben und beseitigt worden, wie man an den öffentlichen Kultversammlungen sehen könne, die zu Schulen des Götzendienstes und der Unfrömmigkeit geworden seien (Inst. 4.2.2). Womit rechtfertigten aber die Papisten ihren Anspruch bzw. ihre Anmaßung, die wahre Kirche zu sein, fragt sich Calvin? Indem sie sich auf die Martyrer stützten, die ,einst mit gesunder Lehre die Kirchen gründeten und aufrichteten und diese Lehre selbst und die Erbauung der Kirche mit ihrem Blute bekräftigten‘, und auf die apostolische Sukzession der Bischöfe, welche die Kirche der Martyrer aufrechterhielten, machten sie von demjenigen Vorwand Gebrauch, den die Juden einst benutzten, als sie die Propheten der Blindheit, der Unfrömmigkeit und des Götzendienstes beschuldigten. Auch die Juden beriefen sich auf den Tempel, die Zeremonien und das Priestertum, so Calvins Deutung, da für sie diese die Merkmale waren, an denen sich die Kirche einhellig erkennen ließ. Genau so machten es die Papisten: statt der Kirche böten sie bloß gewisse Äußerlichkeiten dar, die aber oft weit von der Kirche entfernt seien und ohne die die Kirche sehr wohl bestehen könne (Inst. 4.2.3). Um das biblisch zu unternations, répandant la semence dans le monde entier, nous reconnaissons que la bénédiction a été octroyée en la figure ancienne de telle sorte qu’il faut toutefois passer plus oltre (…) Mais depuis que l’Israël spirituel a été répandu par toutes les régions du monde, et que diverses nations ont été assemblées en une seule Eglise, la multiplication a commencé d’être entièrement accomplie‘.

‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7)

281

mauern, greift Calvin hier dasselbe alttestamentliche Bild auf, das er in seiner Auslegung des ersten Gebots in Inst. 2.8.15, verwendete: Obwohl die Herrlichkeit Gottes zwischen den Cherubim im Allerheiligsten ihren Sitz gehabt habe, und obwohl Gott Israel verheißen habe, er wolle dort seinen festen Platz haben, so sei er doch anderswohin gezogen und habe diesen Ort ohne jede Heiligkeit zurückgelassen, sobald die Priester seinen Gottesdienst mit üblem Aberglauben verdorben hätten (Inst. 4.2.3). Calvins Urteilt über die ,papistische‘ Kirche fällt kategorisch aus: Wenn jener Tempel, der zur immerwährenden Wohnstatt Gottes geweiht zu sein schien, von Gott verlassen und unheilig werden konnte, so könnten die Papisten sicherlich nicht behaupten, Gott sei an Personen und Orte gebunden und an äußerliche Gebräuche dergestalt gefesselt, dass er bei denjenigen bleiben müsste, die doch nur den Titel und den äußeren Anschein der Kirche hätten. Wie einst die Magd mit ihrem Sohn verstoßen worden sei—Calvin bezieht sich hier auf die Geschichte Hagars und Ismaels in Gen. 21, 8–21—, so seien ,die törichten Ansprüche der Papisten‘ ebenfalls zu verwerfen, denn obwohl Ismael der Erstgeborene und beschnitten gewesen sei, sei er verworfen worden; das beweist in Calvins Augen ein für alle Mal, dass das äußere Bekenntnis und das Alter der katholischen Kirche keine Gewähr sind, um den Anspruch zu erheben, die wahre Kirche zu sein (ebd.). Die Tatsache, dass die Papisten den Tempel, das Priestertum und andere Äußerlichkeiten zum Vorwand nähmen, so Calvin weiter, solle keineswegs die wahre Kirche zur Überzeugung bewegen, dass sie dort sein könnte, wo Gottes Wort nicht in Erscheinung tritt (Inst. 4.2.4). Auf der anderen Seite ist die alte Kirche Israels für ihn das beste Mittel, um die ‚Tyrannei des römischen Abgotts‘ zu verstehen: Als die Israeliten hinsichtlich Lehre, Gottesverehrung und Sakramente noch den Bund mit Gott einhielten, war die wahre Kirche bei ihnen; nachdem sie aber Gottes Gesetz verließen und zu Abgötterei und Aberglauben entarteten, verloren sie teilweise das Vorrecht, Gottes erwähltes Volk zu sein (Inst. 4.2.7: ,Vera tum extabat apud Iudaeos et Israelitas Ecclesia, quum in foederis legibus perstarent (…) Postquam deserta Lege Domini degenerarunt ad idolatriam et superstitionem, illa praerogativa exciderunt‘). Dies geschah in Calvins Darstellung zwar allmählich im Lauf der Geschichte Israels, in aller Deutlichkeit aber in der Zeit zwischen König Jerobeam und Ahab (Inst. 4.2.8); nicht nur könnten die Papisten bestreiten, so Calvin, dass der Zustand der Gottesverehrung bei ihnen ebenso verkommen und verdorben sei, wie er es im Reiche Israel unter Jerobeam gewesen sei, sondern die Abgötterei, die bei ihnen bestehe, sei sogar gröber als damals; auch in der Lehre seien sie ,um kein einziges Tröpfchen reiner, wenn sie nicht gar auch hierin noch unsauberer sind als die Israeliten einst‘, vor allem wenn man zwei Hauptstreitpunkte betrachte, welche die wahre von der falschen Kirche trenne: zum einen die Gebete, Sakramente und Zeremonien der Papisten, zum anderen die Forderung, alles, was

282

Patrizio Foresta

Christus seiner Kirche an Ehre, Macht und Gerichtsgewalt zuerteilt habe, auf ihre, wohl falsche Kirche zu übertragen (Inst. 4.2.9). In Anbetracht dieser Ausführungen könnte man also zusammenfassend—und möglicherweise auch verkürzend—sagen, dass aus Calvins Perspektive die Kirche Israels und die ,papistische‘ ein und dasselbe Schicksal in folgender Hinsicht vereint: Zum einen verletzten beide Gottes Bund ob ihrer Untreue; zum anderen habe derselbe Bund durch das wahrhaftige Zeichen und Sakrament jeweils der Beschneidung und der Taufe trotz aller menschlichen Gottlosigkeit dank Gottes Gnade und Güte zumindest teilweise seinen Bestand bewahrt (Inst. 4.2.11). Über die Institutio hinaus operiert Calvin mit diesem auf die theologischen Kontroversen seiner Zeit zugeschnittenen Substitutionsbegriff etwa auch in seiner Exegese des Johannesevangelium. Selbst in seiner Auslegung von Joh. 8, 39–47, einer Perikope, die sich eigentlich wie kaum eine andere zu einer antijüdischen Interpretation anböte, wendet er sie auf die römischen Katholiken an: Der Streit zwischen Christus und den Juden zeige sehr deutlich, so Calvin, wie hochmütig und unbändig die Verachtung gegenüber Christus gewesen sei; die Juden beanspruchten, aus Abrahams Geschlecht in dem Sinne zu stammen, dass sie ein heiliges Geschlecht, Erbe und Söhne Gottes seien. Hierbei stützten sie sich auf das Fleisch, aber die Abstammung nach dem Fleisch sei nichts andere als eine Larve. So verhielten sich auch die Papisten, die das Wort Gottes, das Berge versetzen könne, als märchenhaft verhöhnten und mit Eisen und Feuer unverschämt verfolgten; sie seien so übermütig zu glauben, dass sie sich selbst und ihre Mitmenschen darüber hinwegtäuschten, sie könnten sich des falschen Titels rühmen, die wahre Kirche Gottes zu sein.8

4. Schlussbemerkungen Mit Sicherheit griff Calvin in der Institutio auf Motive zurück, die in der traditionellen antijüdischen Polemik seiner Vorgänger, Zeitgenossen und Nachkommen weit verbreitet waren. Deswegen wäre es nun anachronistisch und epistemologisch falsch, an dieser Stelle besonders ihm Sünden anzulasten, die sich die ganze christliche Theologie mit wenigen Ausnahmen bis zur Nach8 Vgl. Calvins Auslegung von Joh 8, 39, in Feld: 1997, 282–283: ‚Altercatio ista nimis clare ostendit, quam superbe et ferociter omnes Christi obiurgationes contempserint. Hoc sibi perpetuo arrogant: se esse Abrahae filios; nec tantum eo sensu, quod geniti fuerint ex progenie Abrahae, sed quod sint sanctum genus, Dei hereditas et filii Dei. Interea tamen nonnisi carnis fiducia nituntur. Atqui carnale genus sine fide nihil nisi mera est larva (…) Sic hodie Papistae verbum Dei, quod lapides movere posset, tanquam fabolosum rident et audacter ferro et igni persequuntur, tantum quia fallaci Ecclesiae titulo freti Deo se posse et hominibus illudere confidunt‘.

‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7)

283

kriegszeit im 20. Jahrhundert zuschulden kommen ließ. Wie die Studien von Achim Detmers, Hans Joachim Kraus und G. Sujin Park gezeigt haben, war zudem Calvins Sicht der biblischen Juden und ihres Glaubens in mancher Hinsicht sogar besser als jene anderer prominenten Exegeten des Alten Testaments wie etwa Augustinus oder Luther (Detmers: 2001, 317–322; Kraus: 1991; Pak: 2009, 2). Gewiss, selbst wo sich Calvin sehr positiv über Israel äußert, indem er die frommen biblischen Juden wegen ihres Glaubens, ihrer Beständigkeit und Hoffnung in seinem Psalmenkommentar als Vorbilder für die Kirche seiner Tage preist, tut er dies im Rahmen—man könnte sagen—seiner substitutionstheologischen Sicht von der Einheit der zwei Testamente und von dem einen Bund Gottes, der in Jesus Christus gipfelt; der Wert des historischen Kontexts und der ursprünglichen Absichten der alttestamentlichen Autoren liegt für Calvin überdies darin, dass sie eine ‚Goldmine für die christliche Unterweisung und Erbauung‘ sein können (Pak: 2009, 11). Obwohl man die Trennung zwischen Calvin dem Exegeten und Calvin dem Systematiker nicht überstrapazieren darf, kann mit Hans-Joachim Kraus gesagt werden, dass sich die in der Institutio vorgenommene ,systematisch-dogmatische Kategorisierung von dem humanistisch-historischen Ansatz der Exegese‘ deutlich unterscheidet (Kraus: 1991, 196). Diese Spannung ,zwischen der historischen und der theologischen Behandlung‘ von Themen wie dem Verhältnis zwischen Christentum und biblischem sowie postbiblischem und zeitgenössischem Judentum wohnt auch der heutigen Debatte inne (Ruzer: 2007). Außerdem wirkt die kulturelle Matrix, der das Paradigma der Substitutionstheologie unterliegt, in vielen historisch-theologischen Wissensbereichen, wobei es sich um den Ring um das heilsgeschichtliche Schicksal einzelner Religionen, Konfessionen oder Völker handelt. Diese Substitutionsmatrix weist frappierende Ähnlichkeiten zu einer anderen viel verbreiteten Kulturmatrix auf, jener der universellen (und meist jüdischen) Verschwörung, der Umberto Eco 1988 und 2010 in seinen Romanen Das Foucaultsche Pendel und Der Friedhof in Prag ein literarisches Denkmal gesetzt hat und die sozusagen die Kehrseite des Substitutionsparadigmas darstellt: Da der alte Bund zwischen Gott und Israel überholt sei, versuche dieses durch einen unerbittlichen Krieg gegen das Christentum wieder zu seinem nun verlorenen heilsgeschichtlichen Platz zu gelangen. Als provisorisches Fazit kann gesagt werden, dass Calvin die herkömmliche substitutionstheologische Sicht in der Auslegung der Heilsgeschichte Israels auf eine ganz persönliche Weise übernahm, tat er dies doch im Zusammenhang mit der Abhandlung einiger für seine Theologie relevanten Themen. Calvins Deutung kann also zum einen der langen Geschichte der christlichen Substitutionstheologie zugeordnet, zum anderen aber eben nur von seinem theologischen Ansatz und historischen Zusammenhang her gewürdigt werden, um zu vermeiden, dass sein theologisches Schaffen ,angepasst‘ wird und in der universellen

284

Patrizio Foresta

Substitutionsmatrix, in der alle Theologen und ihre Lehren grau sind, gefangen bleibt.9

Bibliographie Calvin, J. (1955/1997), Unterricht in der christlichen Religion. Institutio Christianae religionis, nach der letzten Ausgabe übersetzt und bearbeitet von Otto Weber, 6. Auflage der einbändigen Ausgabe, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. — (1957–1963), Institution de la Religion Chrestienne. Edition critique avec introduction, notes et variantes publiée par J.D. Benoit (5 vol.), Paris: Les belles lettres. — (1961), Commentaires sur l’Ancienne Testament, Bd. I, Le livre de la Genèse, Genève: Labor et Fides. Connelly, J. (2012), From Enemy to Brother. The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933–1965, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. Detmers, A. (2001), Reformation und Judentum. Israel-Lehren und Einstellungen zum Judentum von Luther bis zum frühen Calvin, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: Kohlhammer. — (2006), Calvin, the Jews, and Judaism, in: D.P. Bell/S.G. Burnett (eds), Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 197–217. Feld, H. (ed.) (1994), Ioannis Calvini opera exegetica. Volumen XV, Commentarii in secundam Pauli epistolam ad Corinthios, Genève: Droz. — (ed.) (1997), Ioannis Calvini opera exegetica. Volumen XI/1, In evangelium secundum Johannem commentarius, Genève: Droz. Fumagalli, P.F. (2013), Gli ebrei nell’Impero romano in età costantiniana, in: Costantino I. Enciclopedia costantiniana sulla figura e l’immagine dell’imperatore del cosiddetto editto di Milano 313–2013, vol. 3, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 757–767; abrufbar unter: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/gli-ebrei-nell-impero-romano-ineta-costantiniana_(Enciclopedia-Costantiniana)/. Ginzburg, C. (1998), Occhiacci di legno. Nove riflessioni sulla distanza, Milano: Feltrinelli. Kraus, H.-J. (1991), ‘Israel’ in der Theologie Calvins, in: H.-J. Kraus, Rückkehr zu Israel. Beiträge zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 189–199. Morselli, M. (2009), I passi del Messia. Per una teologia ebraica del Cristianesimo, Genova/Milano: Marietti. Maestri , G./Morselli, M. (eds) (2009), Didachè. La Torah del Messia attraverso i dodici apostoli ai goyim, Genova/Milano: Marietti. Muller, R.A. (2000), The Unaccommodated Calvin. Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Pak, G. Sujin (2009), John Calvin and the Jews: His Exegetical Legacy, Washington: Reformed Institute of Metropolitan (www.reformedinstitute.org/documents/GSPak.pdf);. 9 Muller: 2000, 4: ‚The historical Calvin ought not and, ultimately, cannot be accommodated to modern theological programs without considerable distortion of his intention and meaning (…) Approaching Calvin in his proper historical context… is a matter of establishing the specific sixteenth-century context within which various sixteenth-century documents ought to be read‘.

‘In eorum locum substituti’ (Inst. 3.24.7)

285

— (2010), The Judaizing Calvin. Sixteenth-century Debates Over the Messianic Psalms, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parker, T.H.L./Parker, D.C. (eds) (1999), Ioannis Calvini opera exegetica. Volumen XIII, Commentarius in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Genève: Droz. Pollefeyt, D. (1997), Introduction. In Search of an Alternative for the Theology of Substitution, in: D. Pollefeyt (ed.), Jews and Christians. Rivals or Partners for the Kingdom of God? In Search of an Alternative for the Theology of Substitution, Leuven: Peeters Press, 1–9. — (2007), The Church and the Jews. Unsolvable Paradox or Unfinished Story, in: N. Lamdan/A. Melloni (eds), Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact on JewishCatholic Relations, Berlin/Münster: Lit, 131–144. Robinson, J.H. (1992), John Calvin and the Jews, New York: Lang. Ruzer, S. (2007), Nostra Aetate and the Historical Quest for the Jewish Origins of Christianity, in: N. Lamdan/A. Melloni (eds), Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact on Jewish-Catholic Relations, Berlin/Münster: Lit, 87–99. Simon, M. (1964), Verus Israel. Etude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’Empire Romain (135–425), II éd., Paris: De Boccard. Steinmetz, D.C. (1999), The Judaizing Calvin, in: D.C. Steinmetz, Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, Wiesbaden, 135–145 (abgedruckt in: D.C. Steinmetz (2010), Calvin in Context, 2. Auflage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201–216). — (2010), Calvin and the Jews, in: D.C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, 2. Auflage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 217–234.

Aurelio Garcia

A Reformer’s Twilight Character and Crisis in Calvin’s Dedicatory Preface to his Commentary on Genesis (1563), and in Beza’s Preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Ezekiel (1565).

1 There was an established genre of the hortatory letter for the formation of a prince in the Renaissance. The paradigmatic work was The Education of a Christian Prince by Erasmus, dedicated to Charles V in 1516. Some of Calvin’s main themes in his Preface reflect those of Erasmus. In particular we may notice warnings against the dangers of sensuality and of flattery; these are also stressed in Calvin’s letter. According to Erasmus, the teaching’s main point is to instruct the prince to rule benevolently, a principle also prominently present in Calvin’s edition of Seneca’s De Clementia. Erasmus states that wisdom must be sought in order to exclude ambition, wrath, cupidity and flattery. However, Erasmus’ work is rather paradoxical in that it addresses the prince rather than the tutor, while much advice seems to be directed to the latter. Erasmus’ exhortation seeks to result in a Christian formation for the prince, resulting in a benevolent rule without tyranny, in imitation of God’s rule. Calvin’s aim is more specific: to exhort the prince to persevere in the Reformed faith and to absorb the teaching of scripture on God’s purposes in history. These two works also differ in that Calvin’s writing constitutes the preface to a major work; therefore it is a short introductory letter. On the other hand, Erasmus’ is a general treatise on the subject. Bucer’s De regno Christi (1550), an exhortation to Edward VI to carry out reform, constitutes a third example of this genre, and perhaps its climax. Calvin’s dedicatory epistle to Henry, duke of Vendome, naturally acknowledges the Prince’s youth. Henry is only ten years old, but as a high prince of the Reformed faith he is of great importance to the church’s future. Henry is being brought up by a devoted mother, Jeanne d’Albret, whose husband does not show such a clear commitment to the faith. In view of this fact, Calvin begins by congratulating the prince for the ‘sincere and ingenuous profession of the faith,’ which is an auspicious beginning, and which the reformer hopes will lead to an

288

Aurelio Garcia

invincible constancy in the future. While Calvin has not requested the prince’s mother’s permission to dedicate the work, since in doing so he would have exposed the prince to even greater hostility by highlighting his Reformed inclinations, he is confident she will not disapprove, knowing well her character. Calvin hopes that by motivating the prince to inquire into the knowledge of the origins of the world, a task in itself pleasant to youth, he will move on to become interested in the origins of the church, thus discovering the nature of the true worship of God. Calvin’s idea of what constitutes a well-formed character is revealed throughout the preface; this discussion occurs in the context of the Reformer’s acute awareness of his imminent death. The correspondence surrounding these years abounds in testimonies of the bodily pains and sufferings Calvin was undergoing; the descriptions are not only Calvin’s own, but also of his friends and acquaintances. Yet Calvin is always timid and withdrawn by character, consequently his remarks on the theme of his health are just in passing. Now he affirms that he has been brief in his treatment of the book: since it is already avoided by readers on account of its length, he will not increase the problem by writing a copious commentary.1 And he adds a second reason: ‘since in my progress I have often despaired of life, I have preferred to give a succinct exposition to leaving a mutilated one behind me.’ This statement shows how Calvin is acutely aware his time has come. Thus in speaking to the young man on the nature of character, and on the appropriate humanistic formation that must support it, he exposes his ideal of formation and the virtues he values in himself. The reformer makes clear now that it is most important to have good habits formed from tender age.2 Calvin puts forth the narrative of King Josiah, just as 1 Several specialists see Calvin as explicitly emphasizing his aptness as commentator particularly in his method, which takes out the theological excursus from the commentary, this being in fact the reason for the contents of the Institutes, and lightening the commentary so as to make it more digestible to the reader. 2 Calvin seems to consider well-formed character as a constant, but allows for the malleability of youth which makes necessary good training and care at that stage. Again, this is something he had seen already in his discussion of Seneca: ‘Seneca means that Roman affairs had been in great jeopardy before Nero had established a sure way of life; in other words when he had not yet displayed any proof of natural disposition, from which one might infer an upright character. For that age is indeed changeable and slippery, which easily stumbles through inexperience and is also misled by others’ advice, and finally sinks from right and honorable discipline to ease and pleasure, says Herodian [1.3.1].’ A further remark helps understand how Calvin thought of the constancy of character, at least in his youthful years, when in the same commentary he writes: ‘Therefore a moderation should be exercised which will be capable of distinguishing between curable and hopeless characters.’ (Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia). Erasmus in his Letter on the Education of a Prince, had affirmed that Charles V had an innately solid character: ‘You have the inborn nature, the soundness of mind, the force of character, and you have received a training under the most reliable preceptors’ (Erasmus: 1516).

A Reformer’s Twilight

289

Bucer would do in Edward the VI’s case, as the example of God’s call to a young prince to lead in reformation. Calvin affirms God chose young Josiah to put to shame the old: He ‘choose rather to present the noblest instance of pious instruction in a boy, that he may reprove the indolence of the aged.’3 Some will consider this precocious wisdom unseasonable in a boy, but why withdraw the remedy to so many moral dangers menacing the prince? In considering these dangers Calvin is particularly preoccupied by the sensual pleasures of the Court, the gaiety of which corrupts even servants. The Reformer refers to luxuries and delicacies which dissolve character into lasciviousness. He speaks of the difficulty of retaining chastity unpolluted; thus the prince must regard everything which produces love of pleasures as a poison. If the prince already feels the allurements of those things which stifle continence and temperance, what will he not covet as an adult? Indeed the future king Henry would be known for his amorous passions, yet beloved for his simplicity, a fact in good measure due to his father’s insistence on having him raised as a normal country boy. A great care for the body is a neglect of virtue, Calvin affirms, quoting Cato to that effect: ‘I am greater and am born to greater things, than to be a slave to my body; the contempt of which is my true liberty.’ In spite of all this, Calvin does not favor an absolutely ascetic view of life. Rather, he exhorts to the dismissal of excessive rigor which takes all enjoyment of life, seeing in it ‘a form of security and self-indulgence which easily descends into licentiousness of profligacy.’4 Calvin’s sense of moderation in the emotions, which derives from his humanistic background and from his knowledge of stoicism, does not entail a complete suppression of emotion. Indeed, scholarship has demonstrated that he is well aware of the distance between stoic apatheia, which he considers stubbornness, and the faithbased perseverance or the Christian (cf. Torrance Kirby: 2003). As he believes Christian grief must be mixed with consolation, so too Calvin does not deny the need of human joy, just that this emotion must be controlled in sight of the dangers involved in a rush to sensuality (cf. Leithart: 1994, 63). Thus Calvin recommends moderation as the remedy to excess.5 This is not only valid in the case of sensuality, but also for the contamination which flattery

3 Translation from ‘The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection,’ 2000 Ages Software, Inc. 4 Likewise Erasmus had recommended that the preceptor of a prince take a middle road between strictness and laxity. 5 This was by no means the only attempt to further moderation as a criterion to regulate authority. Writes Oberman referring to the Preface to the Institutio dedicated to Francis I: ‘Calvin comes well prepared to design his appeal to Francis I as the preface to his Institutio and to sketch the ‘humanitatis et civilitatis officia’ in its concluding section about power and justice in a Christian society. Without the hermeneutical tool of the Seneca commentary, Calvin’s early political theology could be misunderstood as a rhetorical device to win the clemency of Francis I rather than as a programmatic effort to acknowledge and regulate royal absolutism

290

Aurelio Garcia

produces in a ‘disposition so gentle and well-regulated.’ Flattery could lead such a disposition into brutality and ferociousness, he states; one is reminded of Seneca as tutor to Nero, and perhaps also of the older Luther, a prey to sycophants. Thus Calvin states it is necessary to be vigilant. Doubtless this theme of the danger of flattery is a constant in Calvin. In his preface to the Psalms commentary he had disclosed his interiority, stressing his timidity: ‘Being of a disposition somewhat unpolished and bashful, which led me always to love the shade and retirement, I began to seek some secluded corner where I might be withdrawn from the public view…’ (cited in Cottret: 2000, 67). At this very point the Reformer had been suddenly thrust into public attention by the unexpected call of God. In addition, Calvin always showed himself very sensitive to criticism. He had also resented his close friend Bullinger for not supporting him fully in the predestinarian controversy. Taking into account the prominence of fame in the humanistic valuesystem, fame for which Calvin strove from early on through his Seneca commentary, it is interesting to note how the reformer shows himself now to be as well aware of Fame’s pitfalls as he had been of its benefits. As he had clearly stated in his discussion of the Christian life in the Institutes: ‘On the other hand, wherever denial of ourselves does not reign, there either the foulest vices rage without shame or if there is any semblance of virtue, it is vitiated by depraved lusting after glory.’(Inst. 3.7.2).6 Calvin continues promoting moderation with another humanistic saying: ‘He is not to be praised who has never seen Asia, but he who has lived modestly and continently in Asia.’ Yet this stoic virtue is supported by one of Calvin’s favorite Biblical models: King David, who declares that the precepts of God are his counselors. Besides, the prophet declares of King Hezekiah in his eulogy that ‘the fear of God shall be his treasure.’ Indeed, Calvin had begun his epistle affirming of the prince that ‘God has inspired you with such magnanimity that you have never swerved form the sincere and ingenuous profession of the faith.’ And then Calvin had put forth the temper of the young prince’s mother as an example of her ‘manly character’ which shows such zeal for the propagation of the doctrine of Christ and of pure faith and piety, and is utterly estranged from the corruptions of Religion. ‘You truly, most Illustrious Prince, need not seek a better example, for the purpose of molding your own mind to the perfect pattern of all virtues,’ he adds. She conducts herself with such modesty that few would have thought her capable of enduring the violent attacks of others. Clearly fame, a classical ideal, was never away from Calvin’s thought. While one may be swayed by flattery and by slander, yet the inner nature of character must remain modest, between the boundaries of human ‘aequitas’ and the sovereignty of God as ‘rex regum.’, Oberman: 1994. 6 Battles’ translation, 1960.

A Reformer’s Twilight

291

constant in purpose, moderate, and amiable of disposition. Calvin has not strayed too far away from the values of the Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia even at this stage. Truly the essence of this character affirming formation is to keep eyes on the Gospel, something which in the prince’s particular context requires ‘the heroic disposition which shines forth in you.’ One cannot but be reminded of the armor of the Christian in Ephesians, and also of Erasmus’ Enchiridion. Calvin thus states directly his goal: ‘in sending forth this book to the public under your name, my desire is that it may effectually induce you more freely to profess yourself a disciple of Christ.’ Calvin has been drawing on his own experience and trials to propose a model of formation for the prince.7 The reformer had been raised among nobles and thus kept a noble sense of social superiority. He was well aware of his fine education.8 But for him, it is the essence of character that makes the man or woman. The opinions of others are not the basis for action, even though they do have an impact upon us: in spite of their lure, one must strive to keep eyes on the goal, which is the Gospel of Christ. Thus Calvin recommends Genesis for two reasons: first, it contains the narrative of the formation of the world, which of itself is attractive to youth, and which had been mostly forgotten by all human families except that of Abraham. But more importantly, the book contains the narrative of the church’s origin. In particular, it presents the knowledge of true worship to be upheld. Thus it will guide the prince in the present in cleaving to the truth and in promoting the reformation of the French church.

7 It would be wise to consider whether Seneca did not function as a model for Calvin’s strategy in his dedicatory prefaces. In his Commentary on the Roman stoic’s work, he examines the philosopher’s strategy for educating and moderating the Emperor’s character: ‘Skillfully therefore does Seneca propose to write about clemency in such a way that Nero may recognize the reflection of his own clemency in the description of that virtue. Thus, under the guise of praise he gets a favorable hearing for his hortatory oration. He says therefore he does not so much intend to instruct and educate Nero by precepts, as to show him a mirror with the image of virtue, in which he can recognize himself and contemplate his own gifts. For as a mirror displays a man’s face to himself, so in the description of strength does a strong man recognize something of himself; in that of prudence a prudent man; in that of justice a just man. It is in this roundabout way that Seneca insinuates himself into Nero’s good graces.’ The image of the mirror describes Seneca’s pedagogy for Nero; the mirror as well describes Calvin’s pedagogy for the Duke. Does it not also work as a reflection of Calvin’s self-understanding of his own virtues in a text in which he is clearly aware of his finitude? It is quite plainly conceivable. 8 In this sense Alexandre Ganoczy mentions a letter to Bucer of 1534, in which Calvin describes the character of a French exile in order to defend him and states the man ‘conducted himself in a way agreeable to the men of our order,’ by which Ganoczy understands ‘of the same rank to which Calvin himself belonged, probably the Christian humanists’ (Ganoczy: 1987).

292

Aurelio Garcia

2 Beza’s Preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Ezekiel also dwells extensively both on the character of the prophet and on the character of the magistrate who is to lead in the reformation of the Church and to protect it from its enemies. The work is dedicated to the Admiral De Coligny who at the time was a paramount defender of the Reformed church in France. Beza establishes that the subject of the dedication was chosen by Calvin himself, who also had written in the preface to his works that he trod in the footsteps of Paul, who salutes some persons by name in his Epistles with this special intention, that he might set before the Churches certain chosen men to be looked at by the rest, by whose example they might be excited to true piety and to other virtues. (Calvin: 1949)

Thus, Beza understands that Calvin had an appreciation for the personal virtues of De Coligny. This hopeful view of the character and intentions of the Admiral contrasts with some modern readings of his character. In fact, while being one of the most moderate and consistent supporter of the Reformation in high office, a careful analysis of his endeavors rather shows the Admiral to have also been more strongly motivated by political self-promotion than by devotion.9 Beza also tells the Admiral that Calvin ‘in your absence admired and plainly perceived those surprising endowments of both body and mind, of which I was myself an eyewitness during twenty months, both in peace and war.’ But beyond the formalities of praise inherent to this genre of the dedicatory preface, Beza is more acutely concerned about the welfare of the Reformed churches in France. These are championed not only by the extraordinary civil defenders such as De Coligny, but especially by ministers and prophets also commissioned by God. In speaking of the book of Ezekiel, Beza establishes a contrast between historic and prophetic books. In historic writings ‘the events of the future are not falsely conjectured, as mankind are accustomed to do, from an observation of past events (…)’ No doubtful counsels are taken, no events are obstructed by a chance coincidence of second causes. Rather, one enters into the very plans of the Almighty, beholding the true causes, the beginning, the progress and the end of all changes. While the prophets do have their enigmas, those who carefully compare all things with the events themselves and who know the idioms of the prophets, can see everything as clearly as if they were seeing from God’s per9 As J. Shimizu concludes, ‘Coligny’s ‘modesty’ in his relation to the Huguenots and his moderation in advancing the demands of the Huguenots to the royal government were not unrelated to his ambition to be the first adviser of the French Crown. His moderate religious policy was an effort to solve the conflict of loyalties and perhaps the conflict of interest also’ (Shimmizu: 1970). However, not all critics are in agreement.

A Reformer’s Twilight

293

spective. In contrast with Calvin, who sees Genesis as containing human history which reveals God’s covenant and salvation, Beza affirms that the prophetic books are preferable in that they provide a clearer glimpse into God’s purposes.10 They treat not of trite events, but of the greatest kingdoms, whose kings were not averse to consulting the prophets. While defending the distinction between the two kingdoms, civil and churchly, Beza wishes to emphasize the role of prophets in advising kings as something pertinent to the church of his day. Fashions change, but the essentials of divine Providence and God’s mercy towards the righteous remain constant, reflecting perpetual and invariable laws of development. For Beza, Calvin has been prophetic. When dedicating his Lectures on Daniel to the French churches, after the Council at Poissy and at a moment in which things seemed to be turning all for the better, he warned the churches to prepare for greater calamities to come. He exhorted them to obey the laws of the Master of the human race, who supplies the strength to do so. He thus prophesied not from deceptive astrology, but through the interpretation of the prophetic books. This notion of Calvin as a prophet originates in Calvin’s self-understanding. Jon Balserak in his book on Calvin’s lectures on the Minor Prophets shows how the presence of this conception in Calvin has been explored and validated by several scholars (Balserak, 2011). According to Balserak, in Calvin the prophet interprets the text without adding to it, and speaks with the authority of God to the Church. Yet also, ‘foretelling plays little importance in Calvin’s conception of the work of the prophets.’ For Beza, in contrast, the emphasis rather runs in the opposite direction: Calvin and other Reformation leaders are proven prophets inasmuch as they anticipated the fore coming dangers to the church. However, this conception cannot be read to mean divination. It rather seems to imply an acute gift of discernment of the historical circumstances on the one hand, and of their parallelism to the archetypal human historical patterns instanced in Biblical events on the other.11 That is to say, Beza does not imply there is a timeless clue in the books, a specific and mechanical foretelling of events to come; rather he believes there is an analogy and parallelism between the situations described in the books and the present circumstances of the Reformed church in France. Furthermore, Beza also draws a parallel between Calvin and Luther. Luther foresaw the slaughter in Germany, although he was not as keen as Calvin, for he failed to detect the causes. In this correlation between contemporary events and their Biblical paradigms, it is the moral failings of France that explain the divine punishment that has been brought about. In this sense Beza shared Calvin’s perspective: ‘Calvin appears to have come to believe that the state of the Christian 10 For a survey of Calvin’s exegetical principles see: Zachman: 2002. 11 History is Christ-centered in Calvin, cf. Edmonson: 2005.

294

Aurelio Garcia

church was even more serious that he had previously realized and that its condition was now extremely grave.’ For Beza, the moral faults lie particularly in the ongoing defense of notorious superstitions and manifest idolatries; not just the sins of the supporters of the Papacy, rather he is particularly shocked by the rise of Epicureanism, that is, skepticism and atheism. Once more, Beza reads the times as very critical. Beza affirms that many teachers whose task had been to overcome the threats to doctrine and morals have recently passed away: luminaries such as Melanchthon, Peter Martyr, Musculus and Hyperius have perished.12 It is as if the chastising hand of God had moved from north to south in Europe. Now few great leaders survive: only Bullinger, Farrel and Viret still live. But while the giant Calvin was alive everything seemed bearable, ‘these calamities were lightened.’ Even though we are not followers of men, Beza states citing Paul’s mention of Cephas, Paul or Apollos, Calvin was ‘far superior to others’ and incomparable in meetings, lecturing and writing. Calvin was briefer in teaching, yet more solid. He was happier in solving difficulties (by which he probably means reconciling texts), more vehement in reproving, sweeter in consoling and more correct in confuting errors. In the grief of his loss two things do console us: Calvin is present by his remarkable teaching and his wonderful presence, and he assists us by beautiful examples of sayings and doings until we ourselves are conveyed to the divine port. According to Beza, Calvin’s commentaries assist us greatly in reading scripture. Had he enjoyed two or more years of life he could have led us in understanding the more difficult works he had not dealt with yet. In the midst of such crisis, Beza prays that De Coligny become a means to correct the serious faults of the King, for the Admiral is endowed with the sacred prudence of God’s Spirit, and zeal for piety and justice.13 By his counsels so many faults may be seriously corrected, and a holy and just government happily instituted by the sacred Word of God and the authority of the royal majesty. The insertion of this meditation on Calvin’s death in the midst of the praise of De Coligny’s character is not haphazard; rather it responds to the fact that Beza sees the defenders of the faith raised by God to correspond to the civil on the one 12 This formulation he took from a letter by Bullinger to him, in which the Antistes laments Calvin’s death and enumerates the leaders taken in the last few years. The passages agree quite literally. Cf. COO, Letter 4128 ( June 1564). Also in letter 4100 of the 19th April, Bullinger to Beza. 13 In 1560, upon the death of Francis II, Catherine of Medici became regent on behalf of her tenyear-old son King Charles IX. In 1564 the king and tutor mother initiated a two-year tour of the realm in order to bring kingdom and king into closer contact. Charles IX would come under the strong influence of Coligny after 1570. The Admiral would be assassinated by the Guise party two years later. The king’s health both physical and mental would deteriorate rapidly (he died in 1574), as also did the conditions of the French state, which continued in internecine religious wars until Henry IV’s conversion and crowning.

A Reformer’s Twilight

295

hand, and the pastoral/prophetic offices on the other. De Coligny is expected to continue to defend the Reformed churches from his position of influence, but this depends in great measure on his Christian character and his pliability to God’s will. The expectation is that Coligny can further the ends of God’s Kingdom in leading the Christian humanistic character formation of the French King.14 For Beza, then, Calvin’s death has accentuated the critical nature of the moment. Deprived of such a special resource, the French Churches can keenly feel the strain of this juncture in time. Yet time is ruled by divine providence, and Calvin’s writings remain as an abiding form of the reformer’s presence. De Coligny must beware of all the dangers to his life and maintain his standing as a counselor to the crown in order to lead the king into a more holy and just government, by which we must understand greater tolerance of the Reformed faith, if not its official establishment. Beza considers this commentary the swan song of Calvin, which increases a sorrow which is lawful to indulge in. God had raised many excellent defenders of his church in the military realm, such as is De Coligny. But Beza also wishes to point out the excellence of the teachers in the faith God has raised, for Calvin’s death signals the passing away of a valiant generation of which he was the greatest. Thus Beza’s examination of Calvin’s character and legacy is based in part on Calvin’s view of himself and of his exegetical qualities; Calvin is seen as an excellent commentator on Scripture with a special gift for applying its historical lessons to the contemporary French situation. On the other hand, in his praise of Calvin Beza is not interested in dwelling on the nature and formation of his antecessor’s character: he rather defines him as a gift of God, a more preeminent figure among many exceptional ones that Divine Providence provided for a crucial era. He can thus praise Calvin freely without fear of incurring in flattery, for he in fact is praising God’s provision. The issue of the nurture and constitution of character is presented in the discussion not of Calvin, but of his foil, De Coligny, for Beza is contrasting two genres of divinely appointed servants, the civil magistrate and the prophet, of which the latter is the more important. It is also particularly present in the exhortation to De Coligny to lead in the Christian formation of the King. In these two short dedicatory prefaces we see two perspectives on the Reformer’s personality in the light of his final moments. In the first, the reformer by 14 ‘I pray God that He would spiritually endue his Majesty the King with all holy virtues, which, since it is partially accomplished, all hope and which may be continued… I pray God to grant him many counselors like thee and a few others, endowed—I say it without flattery—with the sacred prudence of his Spirit, and zeal for piety and justice, which is the symbol of royal majesty, by whose counsels so many faults may be seriously corrected, and a holy and just government happily instituted by the Sacred Word of God and the authority of the Royal Majesty.’ Calvin: 1949, xliv–xlv.

296

Aurelio Garcia

way of his exhortation to the young duke reveals what his values and his experience provided in terms of an understanding of Christian virtue and formation. Consciously close to death, the reticent Calvin indirectly lets us see what his understanding of a Christian life in the midst of the manifold influences of the twilight of the Renaissance was, and indirectly reveals his own character struggles, values and goals. Through Beza’s dedicatory preface we can see Calvin’s death in the context of the crisis of the Reformed churches in France, the passing of a generation and the search for an abiding legacy for the future.

Bibliography Balserak, J. (2011), Establishing the Remnant Church in France. Calvin’s Lectures on the Minor Prophets, 1556–1559, Leiden: Brill. Calvin, John (1949), Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, by John Calvin, T. Myers, Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society. Cottret, B. (2000), Calvin: A Biography, Grand Rapids/Edinburgh: William B. Eerdmans/ T & T Clark. Edmonson, S. (2005), Christ and History: Hermeneutical Convergence in Calvin and its Challenge to Biblical Theology, in: Modern Theology, 3–35. Erasmus, D. (1516), The Education of a Christian Prince (http://www.stoics.com/erasmus_s_education_of_a_chris.html) (08.06.2016). Ganoczy, A. (1987), The Young Calvin. Philadelphia: Westminster. Hugo, A.M. (1957), Calvijn en Seneca. Groningen, Jakarta: J.B. Wolters. Knecht, R.J. (2008), The French Renaissance Court, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Leithart, P. (1994), Stoic elements in Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, Part III: Christian Moderation, Westminster Theological Journal, 59–85. Oberman, H. (1994), Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation, in: W.H. Neuser, Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 113– 154. Shimizu, J. (1970), Conflict of Loyalties. Politics and Religion in the Career of Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 1519–1572, Genève: Librairie Droz. Torrance Kirby, W. (2003), Stoic and Epicurean? Calvin’s Dialectical Account of Providence in the Institute, in: International Journal of Systematic Theology, 309–322. Zachman, R.C. (2002), Gathering Meaning from the Context: Calvin’s Exegetical Method, in: The Journal of Religion, 1–26.

Pierrick Hildebrand

Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17 The Covenant Conditions

Introduction Despite what the title of this short essay implies, the issue I am addressing is more than just a matter of exegesis. The question of how Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) and John Calvin (1509–1564) interpreted the very first verses of the 17th chapter of the book of Genesis has important ramifications for dogmatics, and as a matter of fact on the history of doctrine as well. Of course for every reformer committed to the sola scriptura, as were Bullinger and Calvin, the modern separation between exegesis and systematic theology would be anachronistic. An exegetical issue is often, if not always, simultaneously a matter of doctrine. That is especially the case here. Genesis 17, namely God’s covenantal promise to Abraham, plays a key role in Bullinger’s theology. Looking from here back to Adam and forward to Christ, the covenant motive can arguably be said to be controlling his theological reasoning on the biblical narrative as Heilsgeschichte.1 According to Büsser, he is the first theologian in the history of theology to write an entire theological treatise on the covenant (cf. Büsser: 2004, 226), namely De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno (henceforth De testamento).2 This fundamental writing basically relies on Genesis 17. The vast majority of Reformation scholars agree that the beginnings of Reformed covenant theology go back to Bullinger and the decisive impetus that Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) gave the Reformed tradition before him.3 In the ongoing debate concerning two different Reformed traditions4 rooted respectively in Bullinger and Calvin, both Reformer’s understandings of the 1 Some have recently raised some doubts about this ‘one-sided’ covenantal perspective on Bullinger. Cf. Spijker: 2004, 573–592. 2 Bullinger: 1534. See also the english translation of McCoy/Baker (1991, 101–138). Lillback’s (1985, 499–527) translation has as its basic text the edition of 1549 which has some textual variants to the 1534 edition. Cf. Mock: 2013, 10f. 3 Zwingli’s priority regarding the development of reformed covenant theology is here assumed, although not relevant for the following exposition. For a recent challenge, see Mock (2012, 26– 39). 4 Cf. Baker: 1980. See also Venema’s (2002) recent rebuttal.

298

Pierrick Hildebrand

covenant motif appear to be of critical importance. According to this thesis, also known as the Trinterud-Baker-Thesis,5 the bilaterality and conditionality in Bullinger’s covenant theology is seen contrasting with Calvin’s view of a unilateral and unconditional covenant that is a testament, which rests on his emphasis on election. The scope of this essay does not address this issue systematically in a direct sense but proposes an exegetical and thus indirect entry into this discussion of the history of doctrine. Because, if the thesis about two distinct reformed traditions is correct, we would expect profound disagreement here. Given the centrality of Bullinger’s interpretation of Genesis 17 for his theology, it is suprising that little attention has been paid to Calvin’s exegesis of the same biblical text so far. Only Lillback has compared, on four pages of his extensive monograph6 The binding of God (2001, 162–165) Calvin’s exegesis of Genesis 17 with Bullinger’s De testamento and has concluded: ‘Calvin’s exposition of covenant conditionality and mutuality conforms with the prevailing Swiss theology’ (Lillback: 2001, 165). While I totally agree with his conclusion, Lillback’s case is built on a limited range of sources in respect to Bullinger, of which only his main covenantal writing has been taken into account. My contribution here, as a part of a larger work in progress about the development of early reformed covenantal thinking, seeks to broaden the textual evidence by making use of a source as yet unconsidered even in Bullinger research. This short essay should not be seen as a revision, but rather as more of a consolidation of Lillback’s previous observations. My exegetical approach rests predominantly on the very first verse of Genesis 17, a passage notably relevant to the discussion mentioned above.

1. Sources If one would like to compare the exegesis of Genesis 17 of Bullinger and Calvin, he is at once confronted with at least one difficulty. Bullinger, in contrast to Calvin in 1554 (cf. Calvin: 1882), never wrote any commentary on the first book of Moses. Now, one can—as Lillback did—rely on De testamento or another treatise of a more doctrinal genre. The closest we come to the category commentary by Bullinger are two bundles of autographic materials on nearly the whole book of Genesis including Genesis 17. On one hand there are Predigtskizzen or sermon drafts (ms. car III 203) and on the other hand Homilien (ms. car III 195a) that are 5 Cf. Lillback: 2001. This thesis, held by Trinterud (1951, 37–57), reiterated by Baker (1980) goes further back to the end of the 19th century. Cf. Gooszen: 1887. 6 See also Lillback’s later paper on Vermigli (Lillback: 2004, 70–96), where he reiterates his previous comparison.

Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17

299

homilies.7 Both are written in Latin. We know from Bullinger’s diary, his Diarium (cf. Bullinger: 1904, 24f.; see also Büsser: 1985, 146ff.), that he began in 1536 to preach in lectio continua on the book of Genesis. The Predigtskizzen are dated from the 23rd April 1536 to the 4th of November, 1537 confirming and complementing thereby the Diarium entry. The Homilien are undated but the diary, which is meticulously kept and allows us to quite precisely reconstruct Bullinger’s preaching chronology (cf. Büsser: 1985, 146ff.), never mentions any other series of sermons on the book of Genesis. We could therefore infer that these homilies are subsequent elaborations or the outworking of the former Predigtskizzen, which served as their basis, and so date them in the same time frame. But we must admittedly say that in respect to the 17th chapter of Genesis Bullinger does not stringently follow them at all. Because the sermon draft on Genesis 17 is succinct and less relevant for the question discussed here, I will, in this essay, only go back to the much more elaborate homily on the same text. At this point it should be mentioned that Calvin also held a sermon series on the book of Genesis in 1559–1560, including Genesis 17, that has been preserved but that I did not consider in this short essay either, as I wanted to limit the scope of my research to two main sources for the sake of clarity (cf. Calvin: 2000, 876–947).

2. Exegesis Bullinger entitles the whole of Genesis chapter 17: ‘The commemoration of the holy covenant with Abraham’ (Ms. Car III 195a, N4r: ‘Commemoratio foederis sanciti cum Abraham’). Of the two parts or stipulations contracts usually have, God’s self-revealing name ‘Ani El Schadai’ (Ms. Car III 195a, N4r is the first one: that is, his own part. Bullinger interprets the name as ‘Dei promissio’ (Ms. Car III 195a, N4v), in that God will use his power as to be men’s ‘sufficientia’ (Ms. Car III 195a, N4v). Zwingli (1963: 99f) in his commentary on Genesis of 1527 and Pellican8 already translated El Schadai as ‘omnisufficientia’, and thus left aside the traditional translation of the Vulgata of ‘omnipotens’. 7 Bullinger has left us two different autographs on the book of Genesis 17. First, ms. Car. III 203 (Zürich: Zentralbibliothek), dated 23 April 1536–4 November 1537 and encompassing chapters 1–49 and of which there is also a transcript ms. B 26 (Bern: Burgerbibliothek) from Wolfgang Haller (1525–1601) dated 1545. These drafts are quite loose in respect to the ductus of Genesis 17. Second, ms. Car III 195a (Zürich: Zentralbibliothek), undated and encompassing the chapters 1–4 and 14–48, which is the one source I am using here and referring to in the main text because Bullinger follows the narrative in respect of the 17th chapter. 8 Pellican’s translation of El-Shaddai as ‘omni sufficientia’ is found in his famous Commentaria bibliorum on the whole OT, written in Zurich between 1532 and 1535. He himself refers to Maimonides‘ translation. Cf. Pellican: 1532–1535, 20v. El-Shaddai will even be left untranslated

300

Pierrick Hildebrand

Now comes the second stipulation of the covenant which concerns Abraham, namely to walk with God. That is, one has to conform his life in accordance to God’s will—so writes Bullinger.9 There is another ‘conditio’ for Abraham to fulfill, namely to be perfect! 10 Bullinger makes thereafter an interesting theological move here which he does not in De testamento. He links God’s command to the loci of election with the ones of justification followed by sanctification.11 He begins by saying that God’s command is related to the integrity of the soul in opposition to hypocrisy.12 So far this follows a basic pattern already known from De testamento.13 But then he writes: We should be holy and irreproachable before God. [According to] Ephesians 1 [we are] Elected before [the creation of] the world to be unblamable. The foundation of the covenant is the gratuitous admission. It requires then faith, so that we become perfect by faith. We should understand [here] the absolute perfection of Christ, which is imputed to us. Thereupon we are regenerated into integrity through the whole life.14

So even the second part of the covenant aiming at the integrity of men could be understood not so much as a command, but as God’s gift, the gift of Christ’s perfection imputed through faith to the ones elected into the covenant. This is remarkable in our discussion because it sounds very much like a unilateral testament of God towards men as Baker would define it and which he attributes to Calvin against Bullinger’s theology of a bilateral covenant.15

9 10 11 12 13

14

15

in the new latin translation Biblia sacrosancta by the Prophezei’s scholars, which Pellican edited in 1543. Cf. Pellican: 1543, 6v. Robert Estienne (1499/1503–1559) printed in Geneva the new Latin OT-translation form Zurich renaming it Tralatio nova in 1545 and 1546. Cf. Opitz: 2008, 15. Calvin does explicitly compare his translation of Genesis 17:4 in his commentary with the one of the Tralatio nova. Cf. Calvin: 1882, 236; see also Lane (1999, 215.243). The Commentaria bibliorum were available at the Genevan academy. Cf. Ganoczy: 1969, 195. It is therefore likely that Calvin also consulted this work. Interestingly enough although Calvin must have become acquainted with both sources, he still preferred to have El-Shaddai translated as omnipotens. Cf. Ms. Car III 195a, N4v: ‘Ambulat coram Deo qui vitam instituit ad voluntatem Dei’. Cf. Ms. Car III 195a, N4v: ‘Alia conditio Esto perfectus’. I am not saying that election is absent in De Testamento, but that it is never explicitly stated or linked to the covenantal conditions on men’s part as is the case in this autograph. Cf. Ms. Car III 195a, N4v: ‘Anima integritas intelligitur et opponitur hypocrisi’. Cf. Bullinger: 1534, 15v: ‘Caeterum quae illa Dei voluntas sit, et quomodo coram Deo possimus ambulare denuo clariorib[us] exponit verbis, his, Et esto integer. Nam fidei constantia et synceritas denique vitae innocentia ac puritas, illa est integritas et via recta qua coram Deo ambulant sancti’. Ms. Car III 195a, N4v: ‘Simus sancti et irreprehensibile coram Deo. Ephes.I. Electi ante mundum ut inculpati sumus. Fundamentum foederis est gratuita receptio. Requirit tum fidem et ut ex fide perfecti simus. Comprehendamus perfectionem Chri[sti] absolutam quae impertetur nobis. Deinde renovemur per omnem vitam in integritate’. Baker writes in regard to Calvin’s understanding of the covenant conditions that ‘the condition of faith was fulfilled for the elect, who were then responsible to live a godly life’. Baker:

Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17

301

We move now to Calvin’s commentary from 1554. I will take the previous observations on Bullinger’s exegesis as the starting point for a comparison. Verse one is, for Calvin as well as for Bullinger, God’s entering into covenant with Abram ‘summatim’ (Calvin: 1882, 234), that is, as an abstract of what follows. He translates El-Shaddai with ‘Deus omnipotens’ (Calvin: 1882, 234) but specifies thereby that God wants to make Abraham confident in the sufficiency of his power to protect and save him. Calvin also sees a promise in God’s declaration of his own name and links, similarly to Bullinger, God‘s ‘potentia’ with his ‘sufficensia’.16 ‘Ambula coram me’ is the required servant’s obedience. Calvin writes: The foundation, indeed, of the divine calling, is a gratuitous promise; but it follows immediately after, that they whom he has chosen as a peculiar people to himself, should devote themselves to the righteousness of God.17

Calvin speaks of obedience as the condition, the lex for adoption.18 He explicitly describes it as a two-sided-covenant.19 But unlike Bullinger, Calvin does not interpret the second clause of the covenant explicitly christologically in this context. It’s not so much the foreign or justifying righteousness of Christ imputed through faith, but the sanctifying righteousness men have to cultivate20 in response to God‘s gratuitous condescension in a mutual covenant: ‘ad mutuum foedus’ (Calvin: 1882, 235). And how is faith involved here? Calvin explains that Abram’s falling on his face shows his acceptance of the two stipulations of the covenant. Calvin adds: let us therefore remember, that in one and the same bond of faith, the gratuitous adoption in which our salvation is placed, is to be combined with newness of life.21 (emphasis added)

16

17 18 19 20 21

1980, 195. But obviously here Bullinger argues in a similar pattern and does not depart from Calvin’s view. Or how could Bullinger subordinate blamelessness to election (cf. Eph 1) if the required faith is not somehow fulfilled for the elect? We can admittedly see a nuance in emphasis. Whereas Bullinger underscores the idea that God wants to use his power to be men’s saving sufficiency, Calvin strongly affirms God’s omnipotence to point out that there is nothing which can oppose God’s will to save men. Calvin comes in the 4th book of his institutes very close to the Zurichan translation of ElShadai. Cf. Calvin: 1864, 977: ‘Ubi Dominus circumcisionem Abrahae servandam mandat, praefatur se illi et semini illius in Deum fore; addens penes se affluentiam sufficientiamque esse rerum omnium (…)’ (Emphasis added). Calvin: 1984, 444. Cf. Calvin: 1882, 235: ‘Fundamentum quidem vocationis divinae gratuita est promissio: sed hoc continuo post sequitur, ut Dei iustitiae se consecrent, quos ipse sibi deligit in populum peculiarem’. Cf. Calvin: 1882, 235: ‘Nam hac lege filios sibi adoptat (…)’. Cf. Calvin: 1882, 235: ‘Diximus bimembre fuisse Dei foedus cum Abram’ (Emphasis added). Cf. Calvin: 1882, 235: ‘(…) exhortatio ad sincerum colendae iustitiae studium’. Calvin: 1984, 445. Cf. Calvin: 1882, 235: ‘Meminerimus ergo uno et eodem fidei complexu gratuitam adoptionem, in qua salus nostra posita est, cum vitae novitate iungendam esse’.

302

Pierrick Hildebrand

This adoption is gratuitous because it results from God’s calling, God’s election. Just as for Bullinger, election secures the free grace of God in Calvin’s thought. But unlike him, Calvin resolves the tension between grace and the conditionality of covenant more pneumatologically than christologically,22 namely with the help of a twofold calling. He distinguishes a general calling based on the externum verbum from the vocatio efficax which is to be understood as the internal inworking of the external calling in the elect through the Holy Spirit.23 The result is the prerequisite of faith in the covenant, which is—as we have heard— always bound to a sanctified life in rightousness.

3. Conclusion Our comparison has shown great similarities with respect to the mutuality and conditionality of the covenant by Bullinger as well as by Calvin. In respect to the sources used here, there is much more continuity between both reformers than the Trinterud-Baker thesis posits. The categorical opposition lying at the root between testament and covenant, unilaterality and bilaterality must be seriously questioned. The condition of men‘s sanctification as an integral and even conditional part of the covenant in Genesis 17 is assumed by both reformers, without thereby threatening the monergistic foundation of salvation.24 But in the sources used here there is indeed a stronger emphasis on election and the holy spirit by Calvin in contrast to Bullinger, who is more christological in his exposition.

I want to add one final note. This comparison cannot be a final conclusion in the debate. If we look beyond our sources, we observe a significant difference between Bullinger and Calvin in relation to the systematic use of Genesis 17. Whereas Bullinger always relates the one and eternal covenant with Genesis 17— especially verse one—as its sustaining text, Calvin’s use of Genesis 17 in his work is quite succinct, especially in regard to the covenant. After what we have seen in his commentarius in genesin, we would expect to find substantial material in chapters X and XI of the second book of his Institutes, which are about the similarities and differences between both testaments or covenants. But surprisingly there is but one reference to the passage and not even to the first verse.25 It is 22 Bullinger also differentiates in De Testamento—but interestingly not in the autograph considered here—between a spiritual Israel and a carnal one but still speaks of corporate Israel as the people of God. Cf. Bullinger: 1534, 9v–11v. 32v–34v. See further Mock: 2013, 18f. 23 Calvin: 1882, 238: ‘(…) promissio non generaliter accipitur pro externo verbo, quo Deus suam gratiam tam reprobis quam electis conferebat, sed ad efficacem vocationem quam intus obsignat per spiritum suum restringi debe’ (Emphasis added). 24 As Woolsey pointed out: ‘The insistence on making a rigid and absolute distinction between unilateral and bilateral aspects as a presupposition to the study of the covenantal idea has caused much confusion. The very nature of a covenant implies that there is a two-sidedness to it. […] The divine initiative calls for man’s response. Man is responsible for exercising the repentance, faith, obedience, and love required of him, but unlike a human covenant, what is required was also given in the covenant of grace’. Cf. Woolsey: 2012, 77f. 25 Cf. Calvin: 1864, 281: ‘Iam vero (quae pars erat secunda promissionis) ipsos de Dei be-

Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17

303

in book IV, Chapter XVI about infant baptism that you find the most quotations from Genesis 17.26 Calvin seems therefore to see the usefulness of this scriptural passage as more of a rationale for infant baptism than as a rationale for the covenantal relationship between God and men. Nevertheless even this discovery does not fundamentally threaten or alter our results.

Bibliography Baker, John Wayne (1980), Heinrich Bullinger and the covenant: The other reformed tradition, Athens, Ohio: Ohio Univ. Press. Bullinger, Heinrich (undated), Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose, Zürich: Zentralbibliothek (ms. Car. III 195a). — (1534), De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno, Zürich: Froschauer (VD 16 B 9722). — (1536–1537), Predigtskizzen, Zürich: Zentralbibliothek, (ms. Car. III 203). — (1545), Predigtskizzen, transcribed by Wolfang Haller, Bern: Burgerbibliothek (ms. B 26). — (1904), Diarium (Annales vitae), Emil Egli (ed.), Basel: Basler Buch- und AntiquariatsHandlung. — (1985), Of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God: A Brief Exposition, in: Peter A. Lillback (transl.), The binding of God, PhD-Thesis: Westminster Theological Seminary, 499–527. — (1991), A brief exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, in: Charles Sherwood McCoy/Joseph Wayne Baker (transl.), Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 101–138. Büsser, Fritz (1985), Wurzeln der Reformation in Zürich, Leiden: Brill. — (2004), Heinrich Bullinger: Leben, Werk und Wirkung, vol. 1, Zürich: TVZ. Calvin, Jean (1864), Institutio Christianae Religionis, in: Edouard Cunitz/Johann-Wilhelm Baum/Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss (ed.), Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2, Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke. — (1882), Commentarii in quinque libros Mosis, in: Edouard Cunitz/Johann-Wilhelm Baum/Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss (ed.), Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 23, Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke. — (1984), Commentary on the book of Genesis, John King M.A. (ed. and transl.), 4th reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. — (1986), Unterricht in der christlichen Religion: Institutio Christianae religionis, Otto Weber (transl.), 4th edition, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. nedictione extra terrenae vitae limites erga se proroganda, clarius etiamnum confirmabat: ero Deus seminis vestri post vos (Gen. 17, 7)’. 26 If we follow Weber’s ‘Stellenregister’ there are 14 of 25 quotations from Genesis 17 in book IV, Chapter XVI. Cf. Calvin: 1986, 1060.

304

Pierrick Hildebrand

— (2000), Sermons sur la Genèse: Chapitres 11,5–20,7, in: Jean Engammare (ed.), Supplementa Calviniana, vol. XI/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Ganoczy, Alexandre (1969), La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin: Le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements, Genève: Droz. Gooszen, Maurits Albert (1887), Bijdrage tot de kennis van het gereformeerd protestantisme, in: Geloof en Vrijheid 21, 505–554. Lane, Anthony N.S. (1999), Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. Lillback, Peter Allan (2001), The binding of God: Calvin’s role in the development of covenant theology, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. — (2004), The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the Context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin, in: Frank A. James III (ed.), Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European reformations: Semper reformanda, Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 70–96. Mock, Joe (2012), Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: New Insights, MTh-Thesis: Australian College of Theology. — (2013), Biblical and Theological Themes in Heinrich Bullinger’s ‘De Testamento’ (1534), Zwingliana 40, 1–35. Opitz, Peter (2008), Calvin as Bible Translator: From the Model of the Hebrew Psalter, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9–26. Pellican, Conrad (1532–1535), Commentaria bibliorum, Zürich: Froschauer (VD 16 B 2598). — (1543), Biblia sacrosancta, Zürich: Froschauer (VD 16 B 2619). Spijker, Willem van ’t (2007), Bullinger als Bundestheologe, in: Emidio Campi/Peter Opitz (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger: Life—Thought—Influence. Zurich, Aug. 25–29, 2004 International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), vol. 2, Zürich: TVZ, 573–592. Trinterud, Leonard J. (1951), The Origins of Puritanism, in: Church History 20, 37–57. Venema, Cornelis P. (2002), Heinrich Bullinger and the doctrine of predestination: Author of ‘the other reformed tradition’?, Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic. Woolsey, Andrew A. (2012), Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Grand Rapids: Reformed Heritage Books. Zwingli, Huldreich (1963), Farrago annotationum in Genesim ex ore Huldryei Zwinglii per Leonem Iudae et Casparum Megandrum exceptarum, in: Künzli Erwin (ed.), Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 13, Zürich: Verlag Berichthaus.

R. Ward Holder

Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture John Calvin’s Antidote to the Council of Trent

John Calvin famously attacked the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, taking an almost gleeful approach in the satire of his antidote to the decrees. In the same year that the first session adjourned, Calvin constructed a polemic that both re-produced the canons and decrees, and supplied the theological argumentss for resisting them (CO 7.365–506). In the course of his assault, Calvin marshaled the authority of his favorite doctor, Augustine of Hippo.1 Calvin wrote, How much wiser is Augustine who, from his singular modesty, indeed bestows no small honor upon Councils, and yet ceases not to observe the moderation which I have described. Writing against the Arian, Maximinus, he says: ‘I ought neither to adduce the Council of Nicaea, nor you that of Ariminium, as if to prejudge the question. I am not determined by the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Founding on the authority of Scripture not peculiar to either, but the common witness of both, fact contends with fact, plea with plea, reason with reason.’ So much liberty does this holy man concede to himself and others, that he will not allow the Council of Nicaea to operate as a previous judgment, unless the truth of the case be plainly established from Scripture.2

The trap seems to have sprung, with Calvin using the authority of one of the greatest Latin doctors to denigrate the authority of councils and the church’s 1 No other patristic or medieval author comes close to the number of citations that Calvin dredged up from Augustine’s corpus and placed within his own work. This is not to say that Calvin was simply an Augustinian, a devilishly difficult term to grasp in the late medieval and early modern periods. See Steinmetz: 2001; and Saak: 1997. Calvin could and did depend upon other sources, depending on the theological locus and the particular needs of the argument. For comprehensive tables, see (R.J. Mooi: 1962). 2 Beveridge, v. 3, 30. CO 7.379. ‘At quanto Augustinus prudentior? qui pro singulari quidem sua modestia, non mediocrem conciliis honorem defert: illam tamen, quam dixi, moderationem non propterea retinere desinit. Nam adversus Maximinum Arianum scribens: Neque ego synodum Nicenam, inquit, nec tu Ariminensem debes, tanquam praeiudicaturus, afferre. Nec ego huius autoritate, nec tu illius detineris. Scripturarum autoritatibus, non quorumcunque propriis, sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione certet. Tantum sibi et aliis libertatis sanctus vir concedit, ut ne ad praeiudicium quidem valere Nicenum concilium velit, nisi causae veritate ex scripturis bene perspecta.’

306

R. Ward Holder

tradition in favor of the purity of scripture. But would Calvin follow that model himself ? This article will argue that Calvin not only did not maintain this stance in his consideration of the Council of Trent itself, but would continue to establish more of his doctrine upon the ecclesiastical tradition, though he would call it ‘pure,’ or ‘true,’ or sound religion. Calvin’s own engagement with the ecclesiastical, theological and liturgical tradition demonstrate the manner in which he was defining a new model of theology that took tradition seriously, while preserving the approach to doctrine most popular among the evangelicals, and the concomitant turns to scripture that entailed. In attacking Trent, Calvin explicitly demanded a clearer definition and circumscribed role for tradition in ecclesiastical and theological matters. He sought, whether knowingly or not, a return to a model of tradition that had characterized the first centuries of the Christian era, and one that had long-since passed out of fashion. Therefore, while Calvin frequently attacked tradition, it was in the service of a rightly ordered doctrine of tradition, rather than its simple abandonment. Therefore my argument contains three sections. The first is brief but necessary —Calvin attacked tradition in his Acts of the Council of Trent, but that attack hid the fact of Calvin’s growing engagement with tradition as a source and a touchstone of authority. The second will also be brief, but more significant— Calvin developed a relationship to the catholic tradition between 1536 and 1547 that while cautious, went far past the purity of the Word of God that he would occasionally argue. The third section lays out the reason for both Calvin’s attack on Trent and his expanding use of the catholic tradition for the substance of his theology. Calvin had developed a theory of apostolic tradition that mimicked the Vincentian canon, that orthodoxy was that which was believed everywhere, always, and by everyone. In so doing, Calvin subverted the theories of tradition that were common in Roman Catholic thought in the sixteenth century. But if we would understand Calvin, we must recognize that he was arguing for a theory of tradition with scripture, rather than the purity of scripture that should be a relic of a bygone historiographical age.

1. Calvin’s Jeremiad Against Tradition Calvin attacked tradition in his Acts of the Council of Trent with Antidote. Calvin’s Antidote only covered the first years of the Council, from 1545–1547, but that meant that he had the Fourth Session, with its statement of the equality of tradition and scripture as authorities in the church, squarely in his sights.3 In 3 This session and its two decrees have been the subject of frequent consideration over the last

Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture

307

considering whether the legates were truly following the will of the Holy Spirit, Calvin set up the (politically impossible) test that the Spirit of God would rule over the council, only if the council condemned their own, and their fathers’ abominations.4 It was the polemical Calvin at his nastiest, an outstanding hater, setting up a rhetorical cul-de-sac from which his opponents would have difficulty extracting themselves.5 Calvin would continue his assault on tradition in his consideration of the Roman attack on the evangelicals. Various Roman writers had condemned the evangelical reforms as simply a manner of exalting sinning. Calvin called out especially Antonius Marinarius.6 Marinarius had claimed that abolishing vows, jettisoning celibacy, rejecting fasting and denying the customs of the fathers were simply pure examples of impure intentions—the Refomers sought a libertine lifestyle, and to cover it with a specious theology.7 Calvin turned the question to the issue of the apostolic witness. He wrote, What kind of life, then, did the Apostles lead? They knew nothing of the celibacy for which the Papists contend; under them there was not mention of vows; they laid no burden on the conscience as to the choice of meats. Contented with the rule which their Lord had prescribed, they attempted not to fetter any by laws and traditions. (traditionum) 8

Calvin’s logic and tactic was clear—to attack the reformers for these ‘offenses’ was to implicate the apostles themselves.9

4 5 6 7 8

9

few centuries. Many Roman Catholic thinkers believe that Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation that came out of Vatican II, and was promulgated by Paul VI on November 18, 1965, was an effort to clarify, if not modify, Trent’s doctrine of tradition’s authority and its relationship to that of scripture. See Congar: 1966; O’Malley: 2012; 2013; Webster: 2005. Beveridge, 42, CO 7.389. ‘hac nota discerni oportere, numquid suae synodo praesideat Dei spiritus, si suis patrumque abominationibus damnatis ad veram resipiscentiam conversi fuerint.’ Bruce Gordon coined the term ‘outstanding hater,’ and it fits Calvin well. Gordon: 2009, vii. Marinarius was a Carmelite, who was the provincial of Apulia. Jedin lists him as a frequent preacher at the Council. See Jedin: 1961, esp. 454–465. Beveridge, 45. CO 7.392. ‘Atqui votis abrogatis, refracto caelibatu, sacris precibus contemptis, calcatis ieiuniis, reiectis patrum institutionibus, arripuimus occasionem peccandi, quasi vitae ducem.’ Beveridge, 45. CO 7.392. ‘Qualis igitur apostolorum fuit vita? quibus ignotus fuit caelibatus, pro quo dimicant papistae: sub quibus nulla fuit unquam votorum mentio: qui nullam in ciborum delectu necessitatem imposuerunt conscientiis: qui contenti ea regula, quam Dominus praescripserat, nullos unquam legum aut traditionum laqueos iniicere tentarunt.’ Calvin seems to have been sorely struck by this charge, for he returned to its refutation only a few pages later. Beveridge, 47. ‘I say nothing of those charges which will be better discussed in their own place. Only there is one which ought not to be omitted, viz., that all we aim at is under the pretext of the primitive and apostolic Church, to set up the carnal daughter of old Adam and the spouse of Satan, instand of a pious Reformation, is to introduce confusion into the Christian commonwealth, and procure license for all kinds of vice; and to leave us no defense,

308

R. Ward Holder

Calvin contined his assault on tradition, using the patristic witness, specifically Cyprian and Gregory the Great, against Ambrosius Catharinus, who had claimed that the occupant of the See of Rome was necessarily the Vicar of Christ, and the universal bishop of the church.10 In short, there are several passages spread throughout the treatise that on one’s initial reading, seem to indicate Calvin’s total antipathy toward tradition. Even when Calvin is quoting the fathers, it is to ensnare his opponents in a trap too difficult to escape.

2. Calvin’s Own Use of Tradition Prior to 1547 However, when we begin to put Trent in a more secure historical context, a different, more nuanced picture arises. From the late 1530s, Calvin used tradition as giving the framework for his argumentation. It is somewhat counterintuitive, but in accepting the necessity of speaking to the authority and issue of tradition, Calvin implicitly accepted its role. Further, by accepting the role of tradition in the rhetorical struggles of his age, Calvin subtly influenced his own theological development. We see the herald of this in his moves in 1536 alone. Calvin attacked the role of tradition in his first edition of the Institutes, published in 1536 in Basel.11 In October of that same year however, Calvin accompanied Guillaume he adds, that all this has been proved by the event.’ CO 7.393–394. ‘Alia convicia non attingo, quae ipsa rerum tractatione melius discutientur. Nisi quod unum praetermitti non debet: nos nihil moliri aliud, nisi ut veteris et apostolicae ecclesiae praetextu carnalem veteris Adae filiam Satanaeque sponsam erigamus: piae reformationis loco, christianae reipublicae perturbationem vitiorumque omnium licentiam ingeramus. Atque ut omnem defensionem nobis praecidat: hoc totum addit, eventu iam compertum esse.’ Further, it became clear that for Calvin the apostolic witness was all about Christian freedom. Calvin clearly read the role of the apostles through Paul, and especially through Galatians. Interestingly, Calvin allows for a kind of apostolic tradition, believing the apostles did have a message from the Lord, and they sought to bring that to the world. But the basic message of that tradition was Christian liberty, rather than the binding of the consciences or the ecclesiastical laws. 10 Beveridge, 48–49. CO 7.395. ‘Fieri, inquit, aliter non potest, quin Christi sit vicarius, qui romanam sedem occupat.’ Beveridge, 49. ‘To Christ alone belongs the universal bishopric, whie each single pastor, as Cyprian tells us, possesses part of the undivided whole. The appellation of Universal Bishop, if conferred on a man, Gregory everywhere testifies to be blasphemous, nefarious, accursed, and the forerunner of Antichrist.’ CO7.395. ‘Unius enim Christi est universalis episcopatus, cuius partem in solidum singuli sibi pastores vindicant; ut est apud Cyprianum. Haec vero appellatio si in hominem conferatur, Gregorius sacrilegam, et nefariam, et scelestam, praenunciamque Antichristi fore, passim testatur.’ 11 Calvin, (Battles: 1975, 192): ‘…we freely inveigh against this tyranny of human traditions which is haughtily thrust upon us under the title of the church. For we do not scorn the church (as our adversaries, to heap spite upon us unjustly and falsely declare); but we give the church the praise of obedience, than which it knows no greater.’ CO 1.213. ‘Hac ratione in istam humanarum traditionum tyrannidem, quae sub ecclesiae titulo superciliose nobis ingeritur, libere invehimur. Non enim, quod nostri adversarii ad faciendam nobis invidiam inique

Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture

309

Farel and Pierre Viret to the Lausanne Disputation. On October 5, 1536, one of the Roman Catholic speakers accused the reformers of contempt for the authority of the fathers (Greef: 2008, 137). Calvin famously replied that the church fathers were on the side of the evangelicals. He went on to impress many of those assembled with the specificity of his erudition and recall. Consider the move that Calvin had made in a single year. While in writing the Institutes he had defined the true church against the use of the tradition, and instead in its adherence to scripture; now he was willing and even eager to set out the ways that the doctrine and habits of the evangelicals were substantiated by the tradition of the fathers.12 We see the continuation of this model in Calvin’s thought in his 1539 reply to Sadoleto (Greef: 2008, 139). Calvin again took up the nature of the Church as a clear battlefield, both from his own desire and from Sadoleto’s choosing. But once again, instead of turning both polemically and rhetorically to a stance that founded the Church wholly upon scripture, Calvin turned frequently to the traditions of the Church. Sadoleto had argued that thirteen hundred years of demonstrated truth must outweigh the innovations of the past quarter century. Sadoleto presumed a doctrine of implicit faith, and a kind of doctrine of semper eadem, that the Catholic Church had always believed what it presently believed. This constancy, he argued, was guaranteed by the one Spirit of Christ, which had negated the possibility of dissension.13 mentiuntur, ecclesiam ludibrio habemus; sed obedientiae laudem, qua maiorem nullam agnoscit, illi tribuimus.’ This sentence was taken directly into the final Latin edition of 1559 at 4.10.18 12 Calvin cited Tertullian against Marcion, the Athanasian Creed, and several citations to Augustine, among others. See ‘Two Discourses on the Articles of Lausanne,’ in J.K.S. Reid (ed.): 1954, 40–43. CR 9.53. 13 Olin: 2000, 40–41: ‘The point in dispute is whether is it more expedient for your salvation, and whether you think you will do what is more pleasing to God, by believing and following what the Catholic Church throughout the whole world, now for more than fifteen hundred years, or (if we require clear and certain recorded notice of the facts) for more than thirteen hundred years approves with general consent; or innovations introduced with these twenty-five years, by crafty or, as they think themselves, acute men; but men certainly who are not themselves the Catholic Church? For, to define it briefly, the Catholic Church is that which in all parts, as well as at the present time in every region of the world, united and consenting in Christ, has always and everywhere directed by the one Spirit of Christ; in which Church no dissension can exist; for all its parts are connected with each other, and breathe together.’ CO 5.378. ‘Quam remita agam et proponam, quasi habeam vos adhuc deliberantes, necdum animi certos, quorum potius aut voluntatibus obsequi, aut consiliis credere debeatis. Disceptatio est, utrum vestrae saluti magis expediat, gratiusque Deo vos facturos existimetis, si ea credideritis eritisque sequuti, quae ecclesia catholica cunctum per orbem terrarum annos iam mille et quingentos amplius, aut (si claram certamque rerum gestarum memoriam et notitiam quaerimus) annos iam amplius mille et trecentos, magno consensu comprobat: an haec quae vafri homines, atque, ui sibi ipsi videntur, acuti, adversus tot saeculorum usum et contra perpetuam ecclesiae autoritatem, his annis quinque et viginti innovaverunt: qui certe ipsi

310

R. Ward Holder

Calvin attacked, but not with the pure scripture he so frequently lauded. He wrote, Now if you can bear to receive a truer definition of the Church than your own, say, in future, that it is the society of all the saints, a society which, spread over the whole world, and existing in all ages, yet bound together by the one doctrine and the one Spirit of Christ, cultivates and observes unity of faith and brotherly concord. With this Church we deny that we have any disagreement.14

What is fascinating about this definition is that the ‘one doctrine and one Spirit of Christ’ has to take the place of the scripture. Calvin did not return simply to scripture, but to a stance that was at least one intellectual step away from the Bible. While he may have chosen this language in order to answer Sadoleto in the terms the cardinal had set, Calvin did not set himself upon the Lydian stone of scripture that he had lauded elsewhere in his reply.15 Another instance of this comes from Calvin’s editing and lengthening of his own material. While instances can be multiplied, brevity demands a single example.16 In the 1543 edition of the Institutes, Calvin added significant augmentation to the Institutes, and especially from the Cistercian monk, Bernard of Clairvaux (see Lane: 1976; Raitt: 1981). But not all the material Calvin imported into his own work from the Cistercian father represented a deep engagement with Bernard, or his thought. In the 1543 edition, Calvin gave the following citation (CO 1.754). Christ, he [Augustine] says, will reign forever in his servants. God has promised this; God has said this; if that is not enough, God has sworn it. Therefore, since the promise is firm not according to our merits but according to his mercy, no one ought to proclaim with misgiving what he cannot doubt. Also Bernard wrote: ‘Who can be saved?’ the disciples of Christ ask. But Jesus replies, ‘With men this is impossible, but not with God.’17

14

15 16

17

catholica non sunt ecclesia. Est enim catholica ecclesia, ui breviter definiamus,quae in omni anteacto et hodierno tempore, omni in regione terrarum, in Christo una et consentiens, uno Christi spiritu ubique et semper directa est, in qua nullum potest dissidium exsistere: omnis enim ea inter se connexa et conspirans est.’ Olin: 2000, 61–62; CO 5.394. ‘Nunc si definitionem ecclesiae tua veriorem recipere sustines, dic posthac, societatem esse sanctorum omnium, quae per totum orbem diffusa, per omnes aetates dispersa, una tamen Christi doctrina et uno spiritu colligata, unitatem fidei ac fraternam concordiam colit atque observat. Cum hac esse nobis quidquam dissidii negamus.’ CO 5.393. Calvin had previously used this classical reference only once, in a letter to Nicholas Duchemin. See CO 5.267. Much of what follows has been covered in my Calvin and Tradition: Tracing Expansion, Locating Development, Suggesting Authority (Holder: 2009). Other examples would include Calvin’s re-working of the Romans commentary, Romans 7.14–24; and his sacramental theology in Institutes 1536–1543. Battles’ translation, 1960, ICR III.xiii.4, CO 2.562. ‘ In aeternum, inquit, regnabit Christus in servis suis; hoc promisit Deus, hoc dixit Deus; si parum est, hoc iuravit Deus: quia ergo non secundum merita nostra, sed secundum illius misericordiam firma est promissio, nemo

Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture

311

Yes, Bernard did write that, in one of his sermons.18 But it’s an extraordinarily stark quotation of Matthew 19. Calvin could have gained the same doctrinal emphasis through scripture, and arguably the words of the Lord would have been of greater weight than those of even a revered reformer of monasticism such as Bernard. In this particular instance, Calvin’s use of Bernard stood in place of the appeal to scripture. Nothing that is particularly Clairvallian is added, in fact, Bernard is actually being added onto an earlier quotation from Augustine. Perhaps that is the reason—Calvin built a line from fifth-century North Africa to twelfth-century France to sixteenth-century Geneva. He proved the orthodoxy of his claim, by placing it in a genealogy of unimpeachable authority. But it added no dialectical weight to his argument.19 My point is simple. By the time he took up his pen to storm the gates of Trent, Calvin had formed a habit of arguing from both the scriptural and patristic witness. Further, that habit had moved far beyond the simple tendency to quote patristic sources. Calvin used the orthodox writers as authorities, as conversation partners, and as guides to the correct interpretation of scripture.20 If that can be accepted, the most interesting question is what Calvin was actually doing in his Antidote to Trent. He is not subverting evangelical faith and practice by adopting a Roman Catholic attitude toward either the hierarchy or the unwritten traditions. Instead, Calvin sought to find a way to use the ecclesiastical and doctrinal traditions authoritatively, while subordinating them to the scripture.

3. The Two Traditions The key to unlock the difference between Calvin’s practice and his statements about tradition actually comes in the Antidote to Trent. Calvin had been working out the nature of his theology for roughly twelve years. This transformation occurred as Calvin considered the nature of the church, and the nature of the debet cum trepidatione praedicare de quo non potest dubitare. Bernardus quoque: quis poterit salvus esse? dicunt discipuli Christi; at ille, apud homines impossibile hoc est, sed non apud Deum. 18 Bernard, Sermons on the Dedication of a Church, sermon 5, MPL 183.523. 19 See also Lytle: 1981, in which he argues that the first half of the sixteenth century saw the breakdown of the usefulness of universities as guardians of orthodoxy. 20 This last point cannot be emphasized enough. Many modern scholars assume that because the question is about the final interpretation of scripture, something like the purity of scripture is being preserved. In fact, by Calvin’s century, the discussion was quite different. John Driedo, a theologian at Louvain whose greatest work was published in 1533, and who had a significant impact at the Council of Trent, wrote in that work that scriptural interpretation had to be guided by orthodox fathers, and guided by the hierarchical church. See his De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, discussed in Murphy: 1959.

312

R. Ward Holder

‘principles of religion’ that he implicitly expressed as being taken from scripture, but were not scripture themselves.21 Time and again he found himself pressed with the fact that the visible church existed in time, and changed, even while carrying a changeless core. Calvin sought to establish a position on the authority of tradition that might well have been limned by the Vincentian canon, but had firmly passed out of style in the Roman church by the early sixteenth century. The Vincentian canon was named for Vincent of Lerins, who stated that the tradition was that which was believed everywhere, always, and by everyone.22 We can see Calvin take this approach in the Reply to Sadoleto, as well as other writings prior to 1547. But this model of recourse to tradition’s authority is extraordinarily restrictive. It requires both great historical accuracy, and the willingness to be invalidated by the historical record. It is likely that this is part of the reason that Catholic theologians had left this behind centuries prior to Calvin’s polemic against Trent. While the earliest sources that bear on the issue hold that scripture and the unwritten traditions are simply one and the same, the concept of tradition developed beyond that ideal.23 We see Calvin moving in this direction in the Antidote to Trent. He took up tradition in his response to the Fourth Session. Calvin pointed out that the Roman church was setting up a kind of rhetorical-dialectical game in which the rules already decreed that Rome had won (CO 7.411–412). Making clear that he did not accept these rules, Calvin then turned his attention to the Roman idea of tradition. He noted that he was aware the ancient authors mentioned the traditions ‘not infrequently’ (non raram), but never with the intent of carrying the faith past the scriptures.24 Instead, Calvin argued that the ancients did receive 21 See Calvin’s introductory epistle to Grynaeus in his Romans commentary. Calvin: 1960, 4; Calvin: 1981, 4. 22 ‘Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus.’ Commonitorium ii. 3; cf. xxvii. 38. 23 A.N.S. Lane called this the ‘coincidence’ view (Lane: 1975, 39). Compare Congar, who agreed, arguing that it was the 14th and 15th centuries which were to blame, (Congar: 1966, 142ff). 24 CO 7.412–413. ‘Quod ad traditiones attinet: scio illarum non raram fieri mentionem a vetustis scriptoribus: sed non eo consilio, ut fides nostra extra scripturas excurrat, in quibus ipsam perpetuo includunt. Ritus tantum quosdam apostolis referunt acceptos: quorum pars ab illis videtur habere originem: pars autem illis autoribus indigna est. Et tamen omnes quos attingunt, et numero pauci sunt, et genere tolerabiles. Nunc vero quidquid Romanensibus libuerit obtrudere, id ex apostolorum traditione fluxisse credi volunt: adeoque nihil habent frontis, ut quae non ita pridem inter ignorantiae tenebras obrepserunt, in illum ordinem, sublato discrimine, referant. Ergo, ut illis demus, instituta quaedam posteris apostolos Domini per manus tradidisse, quae scriptis nunquam mandaverint: primum, hoc nihil ad fidei doctrinam, ut apiculum unum inde eliciant: sed tantum ad externos ritus, vel decoro, vel disciplinae servientes: deinde probare necesse habebunt, traditionem esse apostolicam, quamcunque hoc titulo commendabunt. Proinde, non est quod putent, hoc sibi quidquam suffragari, vel ad tyrannidem legum suarum stabiliendam, quibus conscientias misere excarnificant: vel ad suas superstitiones obtegendas, quas consarcinatas esse ex vitiosis omnium

Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture

313

traditions from the Apostles, but that they only touched on a few points. He contended that this method had recently been expanded by Rome to force belief for anything that it wanted, even those items that came from the ignorant darkness (inter ignorantiae tenebras) of relatively recent past. Calvin’s attack on the Roman doctrine of tradition grasped the council’s definition that this tradition rested upon an uninterrupted succession in the church, as it was dictated by the lips of Christ or the Holy Spirit. Calvin immediately implicitly accepted the semper eadem character of the Catholic tradition, even as he attacked those who did not abide by it. Calvin accepted tradition. However, he set two rules upon its use. First, the tradition could not add or subtract from the doctrine of the faith. It could supply items for discipline or good order, but nothing regarding items of the basic doctrine of the gospel could be drawn from the tradition alone.25 Second, Calvin limited the amount of tradition by requiring a high standard of apostolicity.26 He wrote, ‘it will be necessary to prove that the tradition is apostolic, before it can be proffered with this title.’27 Tradition would not be able to be an extraordinarily useful source of material that the church might wish to establish. Instead, there would have to be clear and explicit apostolic evidence that such was believed and taught. That was an extraordinarily lofty standard, and Calvin knew it. He was arguing that the extraordinary claim for authority—that the Holy Spirit had dictated this to the apostles, should be matched by an extraordinary level of evidence—that it would be clear to all that these items actually were apostolic.28 While this was polemically useful in setting an obstacle for the use of an adversary’s stratagem, that was not the whole of Calvin’s effort. If Calvin’s legal training in humanism, and thus the effort at using the sources of antiquity to

25

26

27 28

saeculorum gentiumque ritibus constat. Praecipue vero repudiandum illud, quod doctrinae certitudinem ex iis, quae vocant (unwritten—Greek word ‘agrapha) non minus quam ex scripturis pendere volunt. Tenendum enim semper est illud Augustini: Fidem ex scripturis conceptam esse.’ CO 7.413. ‘Ergo, ut illis demus, instituta quaedam posteris apostolos Domini per manus tradidisse, quae scriptis nunquam mandaverint: primum, hoc nihil ad fidei doctrinam, ut apiculum unum inde eliciant: sed tantum ad externos ritus, vel decoro, vel disciplinae servientes:’ Here, Calvin was arguing for the acceptance of the semper eadem quality of tradition. He explicitly was denying some theories of tradition that others held, and that would be developed in Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine. Elsewhere, I argue that this theory was active in Congar’s historical imagination, and was the root of his ability to see strong evidence of a history of tradition. ‘…deinde probare necesse habebunt, traditionem esse apostolicam, quamcunque hoc titulo commendabunt.’ See Backus: 2003, 52–129, for a consideration of Calvin’s historical abilities. Backus is more conservative in her estimation of Calvin’s dependence on the fathers for his doctrine. See 110– 118 especially.

314

R. Ward Holder

clarify issues in a Christian society is taken seriously—then validating the foundational pillars of controversial assertions must be allowed or even required (Oberman: 2009, 52–53). This restrictive model of tradition was common among the ante-Nicene theologians.29 However, the church had found the need for more flexibility. It may well be that later developments arose from the famous dictum lex orandi, lex credendi. While none of the early patristic thinkers suggest that doctrine can be built wholly upon the authority of oral tradition, many note the existence of liturgical traditions that are only attested in oral tradition.30 In any case, the view that tradition could also supplement scripture strengthened throughout the medieval period in the West.31 At points, it even became a model wherein the ecclesiastical teaching contradicted scripture.32 The problematic character of such theories made the supplemental theory even more orthodox by comparison. Further, supplemental theories suggested a further development—if there was a need to supplement scripture, then the case could be made that in some sense scripture was not wholly sufficient.33 By the sixteenth century, there were certainly orthodox theologians ready to argue that in the opposition of scripture and the Church, the rightful authority was the Church.34 Nicholas of Lyra wrote that scripture is not of the essence of the church, as Christ instituted the church without the letter.35 John Driedo taught that the church believed exactly what the 29 See Congar: 1966, part 1, chapter 2, esp. 23–44. Among others, Irenaeus is significant in his Adversus Haereses IV, 33, 8. By Irenaeus’ day, the effort to establish doctrine upon the authority of oral tradition alone was passing out of fashion. 30 Lane: 1976, 41. Tertullian, De corona 3f. Congar: 1966, 117. He asserts, considering the medievals, that, ‘Ever since they began discussing these matters, consistently affirmed that Scripture by itself cannot adequetely present its true meaning; it is only understood correctly in the Church and in its tradition’ (emphasis added). 31 Lane: 1976, 41–42. That is not to say that all medievals sought to escape the strictures of scripture. Gratian’s Decretum in distinctions 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 19, 20; makes it clear that scripture as the source and norm of faith bound even the highest ecclesiastical authority. See Schuessler: 1981, 56. 32 Lane: 1976, 42. He cited Wycliffites and Lollards among other heretics who claimed that the Church was denying the truth of scripture. 33 Congar: 1966, 142ff. After Congar goes to great length in Excursus A I.107–118 to demonstrate that the medievals universally held for the ‘Sufficiency of Scripture,’ he admits that the 14th and 15th centuries opposed the teachings of the Church and Scripture, and suggested the insufficiency of scripture. Lane: 1976, 42–44. 34 Congar: 1966, 161–164. An interesting case comes in the figure of John Driedo, also known as John Nys of Turnhout, who taught at Louvain from 1512 to 1535. While John L. Murphy finds his doctrine of scripture and tradition to coincide in Driedo’s thought, he notes that ‘It may well be that later theologians were influenced by a rapid reading of Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus. It must be admitted that certain phrases, taken quite apart from the entire thought of Driedo, could easily give the impression that he held to two entirely distinct sources of revelation.’ See Murphy: 1959. 35 Nicholas of Cusa, Epist. VII (Opera, Basle, 1565, 857); Congar: 1966, 100.

Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture

315

Apostles had taught, and stated that ‘… we come to know the ancient faith from the church.’36 He went so far as to turn Luther’s theory of scripture interpreting scripture upside down. Now instead of the clearer places giving clarity, the concentration is upon the less clear places demanding an official arbiter—the hierarchy.37 Alphonsus de Castro in 1546 at the Council of Trent would declare that, ‘That which is greatest among us is the authority of the Church, thus some claim it to be of greater strength than the sacred books.’38 Whatever was the majority position at Trent, all scholars of the council will acknowledge that there were voices at Trent that saw the scriptures and tradition as two sources of revelation which did not wholly mimic each other. Such figures were moving in their doctrine toward a living theory of tradition that would necessitate finding the voice of tradition in persons, rather than historical records. Therefore, when Calvin sought to forge a theory of tradition that was subject to historical ratification and subordinate to scripture, he engaged in a primitivistic movement. He was attempting to institute a return not only to the sources, but to a particular manner of handling them. In doing so, he was swimming against the stream. While fully developed theories of the development of doctrine that would support and justify such expansive models of tradition would not be worked out for centuries more, the Roman Church had already begun to exploit the usefulness of such ideas. It is hardly surprising that the bishops and theologians of 36 ‘For even if the apostles themselves had left us no scriptures, it was neverthless necessary, says {Irenaeus}, that we follow the order of the tradition of the church, and that we come to know the ancient faith from the church.’ Driedo, 238vD: ‘Nam et si ipsi apostoli nullas scripturas nobis reliquissent, tamen et oportebat, inquit, nos sequi ordinem traditionis ecclesiae, et veterem fidem ex ecclesia cognoscere.’ See also 234vD and 52vD–53rA. Murphy: 1959, 110. 37 ‘Then what seems to have been expressed most clearly in one passage of scripture now and then becomes obscure through another scripture which seems contrary to it, since even in certain most clear passages the scriptures seem to contradict one another. Hence nothing is said so well, so clearly, so openly in one passage of scripture that it is not occasionally distorted into another meaning by ill-disposed interpreters by using other scriptures understood falsely. Thus the Arians by a malicious interpretation distorted all the scriptures which indicate that Christ is true God and man, and the Novatians distorted all the scriptures which indicated that the sacrament of reconciliation is to be given to those hwo have relapsed after baptism. They took occasion for their maliciousness from other scriptures.’ Driedo, 267vA, B: ‘Deinde quod manifestissime in uno videtur loco scripturae expressum, per aliam scripturam quae videtur illi contraria, interdum fit obscurum, cum etiam in locis quibusdam manifestissimis videntur scripturae inter se contrariae. Proinde nihil tam recte, tam dilucide, tam aperte in uno scripturae loco dicitur, quod non interdum a malignis interpretibus per alias scripturas perperam intellectas in alienum sensum depravatur. Sic Arriani omnes scripturas indicantes Christum esse verum Deum et hominem, et Novatiani omnes scripturas indicantes post baptismum relapsis dandum esse reconciliationis sacramentum, maligna interpretatione depravabant: ex aliis scripturis accipientes suae malignitatis ansam.’ Murphy: 1959, 113. 38 Alphonsus de Castro, 4th Session, 18 February 1546; CT, I, 484, 16–17. ‘Quae Ecclesiae auctoritas tanta apud nos est, ut aliqui eam maioris roboris quam sacros libros esse sentiant.’

316

R. Ward Holder

Trent would have rejected Calvin’s polemic—what is interesting is that they would have done so because it represented a purely antiquarian interest.

Bibliography Backus, Irena (2003), Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–1615), Leiden: Brill. Calvin, Jean (1863–1900), Calvini Opera, G. Baum/August Eduard Cunitz/Eduard Reuss, (eds.), Brunswick: C.A. Schwetschke. — (1960), The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, Ross Mackenzie (trans.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. — (1975), Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 edition, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. — (1981), Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, T.H.L. Parker, (ed.), Leiden: Brill. Congar, Yves (1966), Tradition and Traditions: An Historical Essay and a Theological Essay. London: Burns and Oates. Gordon, Bruce (2009), Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press. Greef, Wulfert de (2008), The Writings of John Calvin, Expanded Edition: An Introductory Guide, Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Holder, R. Ward (2009), Calvin and Tradition: Tracing Expansion, Locating Development, Suggesting Authority, in: Toronto Journal of Theology 25, 215–226. Jedin, Hubert (1961), A History of the Council of Trent, Ernest Graf (trans.), St. Louis: B. Herder. Lane, A.N.S. (1975), Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey, in: Vox Evangelica 9, 37–55. — (1976), Calvin’s Sources of Saint Bernard, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 67, 253–283. Lytle, Guy Fitch (1981), Universities as Religious Authorities in the Later Middle Ages and Reformation, in: Guy Fitch Lytle (ed.), Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church, Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 69–97. Mooi, R.J. (1962), Het Kerk-en Dogmahistorisch Element in de Werken van Johannes Calvijn, Wageningen: H. Veenman. Murphy, John L. (1959), The Notion of Tradition in John Driedo, Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitatis Gregorianae. Oberman, Heiko (2009), John Calvin: The Mystery of His Impact, in: H. Oberman (ed.), John Calvin and the Reformation of the Refugees. Geneva: Droz, 51–68. Olin, John C. (ed.) (2000), A Reformation Debate. New York: Fordham University Press. O’Malley, John S.J. (2012), The Hermeneutic of Reform: A Historical Analysis, in: Theological Studies 73, 517–546. — (2013), Trent: What Happened at the Council. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Raitt, Jill (1981), Calvin’s Use of Bernard of Clairvaux, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 72, 98–121.

Of Councils, Traditions, and Scripture

317

Saak, Eric Leland (1997), The Reception of Augustine in the Later Middle Ages, in: Irena Backus (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, Leiden: Brill, 367–404. Schuessler, Hermann (1981), Sacred Doctrine and the Authority of Scripture in Canonistic Thought on the Eve of the Reformation, in: Guy Fitch Lytle (ed.), Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church, Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 55–68. Steinmetz, David C. (2001), Luther and Staupitz: The Unresolved Problem of the Forerunner, in: Timothy Maschke/Franz Posset/Joan Skocir (eds), Ad Fontes Lutheri: Essays in Honor of Kenneth Hagen’s Sixty-fifth Birthday, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 270–280. Webster, John (2005), Purity and Plenitude: Evangelical Reflections on Congar’s Tradition and Traditions, in: International Journal of Systematic Theology 7, 399–413.

Luka Ilic´

Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography To Wim Janse on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday.

In 1556 a former student of Calvin’s from his Strasbourg days, Caspar von Nidbruck (1525–1557), approached the Genevan Reformer with a request. Nidbruck, an imperial counselor and librarian at the Vienna court, was helping his former teacher Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520–1575) 1 who was preparing at that time a project that would relate ecclesiastical history from the birth of the church to the present from a Lutheran perspective. Before the methodology for the envisioned project was decided by Flacius and his collaborators in Magdeburg, Flacius wanted to inquire about Calvin’s opinion concerning the matter and asked Nidbruck to act as an intermediary. The following inquiry focuses on Calvin’s input on this particular example of Lutheran historiography that later became known as The Magdeburg Centuries, primarily through examining the correspondence that evolved between Nidbruck, Calvin and Flacius on how church history from a Protestant viewpoint should be arranged. Additionally, select remarks on the opinion Calvin and Flacius respectively held of each other are presented. During the early 1550s Matthias Flacius was working on organizing a historical project that later resulted in two works: Catalogus testium veritatis (with the first edition published in Basel in 1556) and the multi-volume publication Ecclesiastica Historia, which came to informally bear the name The Magdeburg Centuries. The latter was a massive undertaking that was supposed to be a ‘summation of the history of the church from the time of Christ ‘to the present time’, the first of its kind since Eusebius’ (Diener: 1978, 5–6). It was in the phase of preparation undertaken by Flacius and his co-workers in Magdeburg—a group called the collegium—that Flacius asked Calvin’s opinion about the plan2, the socalled Methodus historiae ecclesiasticae. 1 For his theological biography see Ilic´: 2014a. An older work from the nineteenth century still offers a detailed account of Flacius’ life and times: Preger: 1859/1861. For a compact biography see Ilic´: 2014b. 2 Cf. Scheible: 1966 for his investigation on the plan of the Centuries in his Heidelberg doctoral dissertation.

320

Luka Ilic´

One of the earliest recorded plans and ideas by Flacius concerning what church history from a Protestant viewpoint should look like is to be found in the letter that he wrote to Hartmann Bayer (1516–1577), the superintendent of Frankfurt am Main, on March 7, 1553. In it he explains what the Catalogue of true witnesses of faith should consist of: ‘a catalogue of all those who before the Reverend Lord Doctor Martin Luther, of pious memory, wrote, said, or thought anything against the Pope and his errors.’3 Around the same time that Flacius was planning and beginning to organize the project—or became its spiritus rector as Martina Hartmann calls him (Hartmann: 2008, 1 n.1),—he took the side of Joachim Westphal (1510–1574) in the socalled ‘second sacramentarian controversy.’4 This controversy began in 1552 when Westphal, a pastor from Hamburg, issued a written attack upon Calvin as well as on Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) in Zürich and on Johannes à Lasco (1499–1560) in Frankfurt (Westphal:1552). Flacius therefore did not deem it appropriate to approach Calvin directly in writing. That is why he asked his former student, friend and supporter, Nidbruck, to take on the role of go-between, to send Calvin a plan for the project and to inquire about his views on it sometime in 1555.

1. Nidbruck Caspar von Nidbruck [Nidepontanus] 5 was born into a noble family in today’s Boulay (Bolchen) in Moselle-Lorraine (Lothringen) in 1525. Through his studies in a number of European cities, Nidbruck received an education in jurisprudence but under the influence of humanism also absorbed the teaching of other university faculties. In 1539 while he was a student in Strasbourg he attended Calvin’s lectures on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and became acquainted with the Reformer personally. Calvin taught from 1538 till 1541 at the newly founded Protestant Gymnasium in Strasbourg (Schola Argentoratensis) that was led by Johannes Sturm (1507–1589). Nidbruck also later met Calvin at the imperial religious colloquium (Reichstag) in Regensburg in 1541.6 Nidbruck’s education 3 ‘Primum cupio catalogum conscribi omnium eorum, qui ante R[everendum] D[ominum] D[octorem] Martinum Lutherum piae memoriae aliquid scripserunt, dixerunt, aut senserunt, contra Papam eiusque errores.’ For a transcription of the letter and the critical apparatus see, Bollbuck: 2012. 4 For the context and a brief overview of the Lutheran-Reformed debates on the Eucharist see, Ilic´: 2007. 5 For Nidbruck’s biography see Holtzmann: 1906. 6 Flacius traveled through Regensburg in April of 1541[he was on his way to Wittenberg from Tübingen] at the time of the colloquium but there is no record that he personally met either Nidbruck or Calvin.

Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography

321

continued in Orléans (1544) and in Wittenberg (1546) 7, where he was a student of Philipp Melanchthon’s as well as of Flacius. He attended Flacius’ lectures on the Politics of Aristotle (Heldelin: 1575, Aa iij r). When the Wittenberg University closed on November 6, 1546 because of the Schmalkaldic War, he transferred to the University of Erfurt. In the spring of 1547 he left for Italy in order to study in Padua and Bologna and there he received a doctorate in law. In October 1550 he was appointed counselor to the Habsburg court in Vienna and served Emperor Ferdinand I (1503–1564) as well as his son, king Maximillian II (1527–1576), who was of the same age as Nidbruck. In the summer of 1556 he visited Flacius and his collaborators, the Centuriators, in Magdeburg. He died suddenly at the age of 32 in the night between September 26 and 27, 1557 in Brussels while he was on a mission to the Netherlands to negotiate with Philipp II of Spain (1527–1598) regarding the French wars. It was suspected that he was poisoned. A comprehensive biography of Nidbruck’s including his complete and edited correspondence is still a desideratum of scholarship in the field of sixteenth century research. Nidbruck was neither on the Lutheran, nor on the Reformed side, but he was a sympathizer and helper of both confessions. Alexandra Kess has called him ‘the undercover Protestant with a vital influence at the Habsburg courts’ (Kess: 2008, 136). In the 1550s he kept contact equally with both of the opposing Lutheran camps: the Wittenberg circle, which included Caspar Peucer (1525–1602),8 Melanchthon,9 Paul Eber (1511–1569) and Joachim Camerarius (1500–1574); and with the Gnesio-Lutheran network in Magdeburg, such as Johannes Wigand (1523–1587),10 Marcus Wagner (1528–1597),11 Flacius, and the superintendent in Regensburg (ca. 1516–1570), Nicolaus Gallus. Additionally, he corresponded with the Hussite Brethren and many well-known personalities, including his relative Johannes Sleidan (1506–1556),12 Martin Bucer (1491–1551) and his 7 See Foerstermann: 1841, 235a, where he matriculated as ‘Caspar a Neytbruck Lottaringus’ in July 1546. 8 Clemen: 1942, 168–169 published a portion of Nidbruck’s letter to Peucer, dated May 2, 1556 from Vienna. 9 For Nidbruck’s role in imperial politics and his correspondence with Melanchthon see Wengert: 1998; Bibl: 1897. 10 After 1556 the correspondence between Wigand and Nidbruck regarding The Magdeburg Centuries intensified because Flacius found less and less time for the project due to the number of theological controversies he was involved in, and because of his duties at the University of Jena. Several letters between Wigand and Nidbruck have been edited by Roland Diener in his dissertation and newly by Harald Bollbuck. See Bollbuck: 2014, 626 (August 18, 1556); 635–636 (May 5, 1557). 11 Some of Nidbruck’s letters to Wagner were published by Marcus Wagner (1593), including the ones from June 9 and July 12, 1557, and a recommendation letter for Wagner by Nidbruck from June 14, 1557, in Wagner: 1593, A 2r–v, L2. Reprint in Schulte: 1877, 111–115. 12 Sleidan was married to Jola von Niedbruck, a daughter of Caspar’s uncle Johann von Nid-

322

Luka Ilic´

longtime assistant Hanns Segger, Junior von Messenbach,13 Konrad Hubert (1507–1577) 14 and Johannes Sturm in Strasbourg; the humanist and poet laureate Caspar Bruschius (Kaspar Brusch, 1518–1577) (Horawitz: 1874, 217–229); Conrad Gesner in Zurich (1516–1565);15 Andreas Gerhard Hyperius (1511–1564);16 the French diplomat from Burgundy (1519–1581) Hubert Languet;17 the former Catholic bishop and later advisor to Duke Christoph of Württemberg (1497– 1565), Pietro Paolo Vergerio;18 Georg Cassander in Cologne (1513–1566); Johannes Basilius Herold (1514–1567) (Burkhardt: 1967, 95 n. 3), the jurist Simon Schard (1535–1573);19 the rector of the university in Basel, Bonifacius Amerbach (1495–1562);20 the professor and pastor Wolfgang Wissenburg (1494–1575),21 and the printers Heinrich Petri (1508–1579) 22 and Johannes Oporinus in Basel (1507– 1568); the Englishman John Bale in Wesel and Basel (1495–1563); the Czech humanist and professor of Greek in Prague, Matthias Collinus [Matousˇ Kalina] (1516–1566);23 the pastor in St. Joachimsthal ( Jáchimov) in West Bohemia, Johannes Mathesius (1504–1565);24 the Greek scholar from Brabant in the Habsburg Netherlands who was active in Ferrara, Arlenius Arnold (ca. 1510–ca. 1574);

13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24

bruck (1490/95–1558), who was a diplomat and was also known as Hans von Metz. For more about him see Winckelmann: 1906. The correspondence between Caspar von Nidbruck and Sleidan from the years 1553–1557 has been published in Baumgarten: 1881, 264–265; 272–274; 277–280; 283–295; 296–304; 307; 320–321; 324–325; 328–329. Kess: 2008, 204 mentions a letter from November 24, 1556. There is a correspondence with Hubert in Strasbourg dated on July 28, 1554 (letter from Nidbruck to Hubert) plus a number of other letters. See Adam: 1937, 220. According to Harald Bollbuck, there are eleven letters from Nidbruck to Hubert and six from Hubert to Nidbruck that are still preserved today at Austrian National Library in Vienna. See, Bollbuck: 2014, 161 n. 297. The Swiss humanist and polyhistor dedicated his Appendix Bibliotheca Universalis (1555, Zürich, Christoph Froschauer, VD16 G 1702), *2r-*3r, to Nidbruck on March 9, 1555 in Zurich. Josias Simmler (1530–1576) was a co-author of the work. See Hyperius’ letter to Nidbruck from Marburg, dated September 11, 1555 in Krause: 1981, 50–52. See Bollbuck: 2014, 541–544 for a letter from December 1, 1553. Hubert: 1893, 84; 270, mentions Vergerio’s letter to Nidbruck from Reutlingen, dated on September 26, 1555. They corresponded on account of the Centuries. Nidbruck’s letter to Schard from March 31, 1556 is kept in Austrian National Library in Vienna. See Burckhardt: 1967, 53 n. 5. In 1561 Shard dedicated a work to the Augsburg mayor Johann Baptist Haintzel (VD16 E 4318). Schard and Flacius published a work together in Basel in 1566 (VD16 S 2279). See Nidbruck’s letter to Amerbach, dated in Strasbourg, on July 6, 1554 in Jenny: 1983, 363– 367. Burckhardt: 1967, 22 n. 10, says that he was a go-between man for Flacius and Nidbruck in Basel. Wissenburg (1557) dedicated his work, which was published in March 1557, to Nidbruck. See Burckhardt: 1967, 29 n. 39, for two letters from Petri in 1555. Scheible: 2003; Mencˇik: 1914; Krofta: 1916, 458–465. Loesche: 1890, 32–33; 49; 57–60; Mencˇik: 1897; Loesche: 1895, 223–327.

Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography

323

the Spanish humanist and Protestant Franciscus de Enzinas (1518–1552), also known as Dryander;25 the Hungarian humanist Sigismund Jordan Geleus [Gelous] (1518–1569); the astronomer and mathematician Johann Hommel (1518– 1562), who was a professor in Leipzig and the son-in–law of Camerarius; Johann Baptist Haintzel (1524–1581), the mayor of Augsburg;26 Paul Skalich (1534–1575) from Croatia;27 a Habsburg emissary in Russia, Sigismund von Herberstein (1486–1566);28 the astronomer Balthasar Sartorius from Breslau (†1581);29 King Maximillian II, the court historian Wolfgang Lazius (1514–1565) and Georg Tanner (ca. 1515/20–1580) in Vienna; Bishop of Passau Wolfgang von Salm (ca. 1514–1555); and so on.

2. The Flacius-Nidbruck-Calvin Correspondence In one of the first preserved letters of the Flacius-Nidbruck-Calvin correspondence from 1556, Flacius complains to Nidbruck that he has not yet received an answer from the person marked with the Greek letter φ (standing for φίλος = Friend, and referring to Calvin). The letter is marked as originating in the city of Cologne (Köln). A more likely explanation is that Flacius purposefully put down the name of a Catholic city so that if the letter were intercepted on its way to Vienna, Nidbruck would not be compromised for exchanging letters with a wellknown Protestant. Because Flacius signed a number of letters from Cologne, Harald Bollbuck believes that he stayed there for a period of time (Bollbuck: 2014, 178–179)—an assumption that is not supported by any other evidence. Instead, Flacius’ decoy strategy fits into a larger pattern aimed at misleading his opponents. In a similar way, he signed other letters to Nidbruck as originating in Catholic cities such as Mainz or Leuven, even though he most certainly was not writing from these locations. He also did not sign this particular letter to Nidbruck, even though the text is indisputably written in his hand. Many similar letters that Flacius wrote during that same time period were signed with pseudonyms such as Petrus Pan, Theodorus Henetus or Titius Hoppius. Using pseudonyms was not something uncommon to Flacius, since between 1548 and 1549, 25 Boehmer: 1883, 21–23. Two letters from August and October 1550 that Nidbruck wrote to Enzinas while the latter was in Strasbourg are published in this volume. 26 Schulte: 1877, 110–111; 119–120 contains two letters from 1556 and one from 1557. 27 Schulte: 1877, 116–117. A letter from Skalich to Marcus Wagner dated in Regensburg on March 24, 1557 shows that he was part of the circle around Nidbruck. 28 The letters from March 9 and July 12, 1555 are preserved at the Austrian National Library in Vienna. Bollbuck: 2014, 161 n. 296, 235–255. 29 Towards the end of 1554 Sartorius received instructions from Nidbruck to collect sources for the Centuries in the libraries of Poznan´ and Cracow. Bollbuck: 2014, 573.

324

Luka Ilic´

when he defied the imperial printing ban regarding publications against the Augsburg Interim, he wrote numerous pamphlets using six different names altogether.30 In one letter that Nidbruck wrote to Flacius in that same time period he even advised Flacius not to use his own name: ‘Many people will be appalled if they see your name on the front. I am writing these things, not because I am jealous of your fame, but to advise you of this matter. … be very, very careful that you do not make yourself suspect. That will happen if you are anxious to tell too much… For as you know, in history writing, above all, reliability is required’ (Bibl: 1899, 111f.). As far as the correspondence can be reconstructed, Nidbruck wrote to Calvin at least twice before he received the first reply. Calvin’s preserved communication to Nidbruck, dated on March 20 [April 13], 155631 is a letter where he tactfully renews their friendship and is trying to recruit Nidbruck to his Reformed cause so that he can be his advocate at the court of Vienna with ‘the princes and the king’. However, in the same letter he also complains about the Gnesio-Lutherans Gallus and Westphal. Immediately after receiving Calvin’s letter, Nidbruck wrote to Calvin again on March 31, 1556 and this time he mailed Calvin the plan (scheda) of the Centuries one more time.32 Calvin’s second letter to Nidbruck dated on February 13, 1557,33 almost a year later than the first reply, comments in detail on the plan of the Centuries and offers his suggestions for the work. In the beginning Calvin apologizes to Nidbruck very politely for not replying sooner and admits that he has received a second copy (alterum exemplar) of the plan for writing a church history. Generally, Calvin is very positive regarding the plan and says that it is obvious that it was written by very experienced professors, but states that it will ‘demand much work’ (incredibilis erit labor). He is afraid of even thinking about undertaking such a burdensome project and says that he would rather give up writing altogether than take such a magnanimous undertaking upon himself. However, he already rejoices at anticipating the fruits of such valuable and noble labor.34 30 Among Flacius’ pseudonyms were: Joannes Waremundus ( John the Truthful), Theodorus Henetus (Theodor the Wend [a historical name for Slavs]), Johannes Hermanus, Christianus Lauterwar (Christian the Pristine), Carolus Azarias [Azarias =Abednego, a name taken from the Book of Daniel 1:7], and Aesquillius Publius, reminding the reader of the custom of attaching satirical writings to the Roman statue of Pasquil. 31 CR 48 (= CO 20), 445–447, Nr. 4179. The German translation of the letter is published in Schwarz: 1909, 2.138–139. Schwarz corrects the date of the letter in Corpus Reformatorum from April 13 to March 20, 1556, because Nidbruck wrote Calvin on March 31. This letter is clearly a response to Calvin’s writing. 32 Austrian National Libray in Vienna, Cod. Pal. Vind. 9737k, 53r; CR 44 (= CO 16), 86–87, Nr. 2419. 33 See my translation of the letter into English in the appendix. 34 CR 44 (= CO 20), 448–450, nr. 4181: ‘Quanquam autem incredibilis erit labor, spem tamen aliquam incomparabilis huius thesauri nobis fieri vehementer gaudeo, (…)’ (449).

Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography

325

After these cordial and flattering statements, Calvin proceeds to his suggestions and a mild critique of the scheda. He is not sure that devoting a separate volume devoted to each century is the best way to proceed. Chronological division might prove to be cumbersome and repetitive since it is possible that in a period of one decade there might be more historical material than in a whole century. Also it might not be very practical to tie each volume to a single century and it might even tire the reader. Rather, the material should be separated according to diverse topics and the authors should work on adjusting it according to how much substantive data they have collected. Nevertheless, if history is written in such a manner as the plan suggests, Calvin expresses his confidence in the integrity of the results and accords the undertaking his approval. It is very possible that if Flacius and the editorial board, the Centuriators, had received Calvin’s recommendation in time, the whole Ecclesiastica Historia might have looked differently. Unfortunately, by the time Calvin’s reply reached Magdeburg a large part of the work on the first three centuries had already been completed.35 Therefore, the division according to each hundred years remained in place as did an identical structure of chapters for each century. There were sixteen chapters in each century. Even though Calvin’s advice might have brought some improvement to the plan, the fact remains that The Magdeburg Centuries served the dogmatic and historical purposes of its Lutheran scholars well. The work became a pioneer in the field of modern church history and soon after it was issued, more historical works followed. For example, an Italian cardinal and ecclesiastical historian, Caesar Baronius (1538–1607) wrote a counter-attack to the ‘Philistines of Magdeburg,’ as he called the authors of the Centuries. He published a Roman Catholic version of history called Annales Ecclesiastici in an attempt to prove Flacius and his group wrong and to show how they have misrepresented the Catholic Church. Calvin was not the only person to whom Flacius sent his plan for the Centuries and from whom he wished to receive input. Among those that replied to his request were a Flemish jurist, François Baudouin (1520–1573), in Heidelberg at the time, who approved the plan and the topical (loci) arrangement (see Lyon: 2003); the Marburg theologian Andreas Gerhard Hyperius, who suggested that periods of fifty years would be more appropriate; a professor of Greek from Vienna, Georg Tanner, who recommended the traditional four-monarchy order from the book of Daniel. Conrad Gesner, by contrast, did not approve the method. Hubert Languet, on the other hand, was also helpful to Flacius for his history project.36 35 The first three centuries were published as a single volume by Johannes Oporinus in Basel in 1559 (VD16 E 218). 36 In 1553 Flacius gave a handwritten copy of Catalogus to Hubert Languet asking him to send it

326

Luka Ilic´

3. The Reformed-Lutheran Conflict One of the central issues of protracted disagreement between Lutheran and Reformed theologians, in which both Calvin and Flacius participated, concerned the Lord’s Supper. This controversy possibly prevented Calvin from a deeper involvement in the historiographical project proposed by Flacius. The first time Flacius took part in the Eucharistic debate was when he wrote his Subscriptio37 to the Magdeburg declaration on the Holy Supper, together with fifteen other ministers from the city who signed it.38 The declaration formed part of the collection of letters and confessions on Holy Communion from the churches of Saxony, which was published by Joachim Westphal in 1557 in response to Calvin’s second treatise, which he had dedicated to the Saxon churches. What is important to note is that Flacius did not use his pen to write against the Reformed at that time, as some of his colleagues, including Matthaeus Judex (1528–1564), had. Even though Flacius disagreed with some of Calvin’s theology, he nevertheless respected him. This is clearly seen from the fact that Flacius asked for Calvin’s opinion and advice on the publishing plan of The Magdeburg Centuries via Caspar von Nidbruck. Flacius also used Calvin’s work from 1548, Admonitio de reliquiis, and quoted part of it without crediting Calvin for it in his 1565 argumentative survey with a very descriptive title: On the sects, dissensions, contradictions and confessions of the doctrine of papal religion, papal authors and doctors of the church (Flacius: 1565a). Another indication of agreement between Calvin and Flacius was their shared critique of the imperial Augsburg Interim law of 1548. Calvin’s Interim adultero germanum was issued in a German translation in Magdeburg in 1549 by the publisher Michael Lotter (ca.1499–1556). It is most likely that Flacius, who worked for Lotter as an editor, influenced Lotter to have this work printed in the city that was widely referred to as ‘Unseres Herrgotts Kanzlei’ for its role as a center of publishing materials opposing the Augsburg Interim (Kaufmann: 2003). In 1565 Flacius published a hermeneutical and grammatical book that contained thirty reasons why the presence of Christ is distributed through his body and blood at the Coena Domini (Flacius: 1565b; here I am using the version published in Flacius: 1567, 101–170). Already on the first page under demonstratio prima Flacius mentions Calvin and gives him credit for recognizing the differentiation between the body and the blood of our Lord, and then he quotes to Nidbruck. See Mirkovic´: 1960, 261. Languet also traveled around Europe and collected manuscripts on behalf of Flacius and his historical enterprise (263). 37 For the original text of Flacius’ theological statement regarding the Eucharist see, Ilic´: 2014, 129. 38 Under the following title, Pastores ac Ministri Ecclesiae Magdebvrgensis proprijs manibus subscripserunt.

Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography

327

Calvin’s words from the commentary on 1 Corinthians 11. This formed a purposeful part of Flacius’ strategy, because he wanted to begin with positive comments, showing that there was some common ground, before he launched an attack on what he considered to be incorrect interpretations by Reformed thinkers. Nevertheless, the fact that Flacius quoted Calvin shows that he had read his works and at times agreed with his biblical interpretation.

4. Concluding Remarks The theological debate on the Lord’s Supper, which was a central issue of disagreement at the time, blocked and thereby made difficult cooperation between Lutherans and Reformed. This difference of viewponts impacted even a broad church history project, such as the one envisioned by Flacius. As evidenced by the published works by Calvin and his correspondence, he did not write a single tract against Flacius or issue any criticism in print of the man who was staunchly opposed to aspects of Reformed theology. In a letter to the French reformed pastor in Frankfurt, Valérand Poullain (known as Pollanus, ca. 1520–1558) in March 1556, Calvin even reports how he received respectful greetings from Flacius.39 The same is true the other way around, as Flacius never singled out Calvin, but wrote politely of him, occasionally cited him, and wanted to receive his advice. This is highly unusual behavior for the man, who otherwise wrote fiery polemics against almost everyone with whom he disagreed. The considerations in this article can be seen as a point of departure for more comprehensive research into the relationship between Calvin, Flacius and the Gnesio-Lutherans; a relationship whose further development would remain thwarted by the irreconcilable differences that arose from standing on opposite sides of a confessional divide.

Bibliography Adam, Jean (1937), Inventaire des Archives du Chapitre de St.-Thomas de Strasbourg, Strasbourg: Imprimerie Alsacienne. Baumgarten, Hermann (1881), Sleidans Briefwechsel, Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner. Bibl, Viktor (1897), Melanchthon und Nidbruck. Aus der Handschriften 9737 b, i und k der k.u.k. Hofbibliothek in Wien, in: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 18, 34–47. 39 CR 44 (= CO 16), 62–65, Nr. 2405: ‘De Illyrico miror, qui proxima aestate as Robertum Stephanum scribens reverenter me salutavit, (…)’ (64).

328

Luka Ilic´

— (1899), Der Briefwechsel zwishen Flacius und Nidbruck. Aus dem Handschriften 9737 b, i und k.u.k. Hofbibliothek in Wien, in: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 20, 83–116. Boehmer, Edward (1883), Bibliotheca Wiffeniana, Spanish Reformers of Two Centuries from 1520, vol. 2, Strasbourg and London. Bollbuck, Harald (2012) (ed.), Historische Methode und Arbeitstechnik der Magdeburger Zenturien. Edition ausgewählter Dokumente, Wolfenbüttel: Herzog August Bibliothek http://diglib.hab.de/edoc/ed000086/start.htm (last accessed on July 3, 2015). — (2014), Wahrheitszeugnis, Gottes Auftrag und Zeitkritik. Die Kirchengeschichte der Magdeburger Zenturien und ihre Arbeitstechniken (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 138), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Burckhardt, Andreas (1967), Johannes Basilius Herold. Kaiser und Reich im protestantischen Schrifttum des Basler Buchdrucks um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 104), Basel/Stuttgart: Verlag von Helbing & Lichenhahn. Clemen, Otto (1942), ‘Unbekantte Briefe, Drucke und Akten aus der Reformationszeit’, in: Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen Beiheft 73, Leipzig: Harrasowitz. Diener, Ronald E. (1978), The Magdeburg Centuries. A Bibliothecal and Historiographical Study, PhD diss, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School. Foerstermann, Carl E. (ed.) (1841), Album Academiae Vitebergensis, vol. 1, Leipzig: Tauchnitz. Flacius, Matthias (1565a), De sectis, dissensionibus, contradictionibus, et confessionibus doctrinae religionis, scrriptorum et doctorum Pontificiorum, Basel: Paul Queck (VD16 F 1496). — (1565), Demonstrationes evidentissimae XXX. Praesentiae, distributionisque corporis ac sanguinis Christi in sacra coena hactenus multis minus cognitae, Ursel: Nikolaus Henricus (VD16 F 1340). — (1567), Omnes libelli Matthiae Fl. Illyrici, hactenvs in sacramentaria controversia editi, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Braubach (V16 F 1397). Hartmann, Martina (2008), Matthias Flacius Illyricus, die Magdeburger Centuriatoren und die Anfänge der quellenbezogenen Geschichtsforschung, in: Arno Mentzel-Reuters/Martina Hartmann (eds), Catalogus und Centurien: Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Matthias Flacius und den Magdeburger Centurien [Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 45], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1–17. Heldelin, Caspar (1575), Eine Christliche predigt vber der Leiche des Ehrnwuerdigen vnd hochgelerten Herrn/ M: Matthiae Flacij Jllyrici/ Weiland getrewen Dieners vnd bestendigen Merterers Jesu Christi/ fromen hertzen zu gut gestellet/ Durch M. Gasparem Heldelinum Lindauiensem. Jtem/ Summarischer Bericht/ der Handlungen vnd Streitsachen Herrn Matthiae Flacij Jllyrici/ von jm selbst verzeichnet, Oberursel: Nikolaus Heinrich d.Ä. (VD16 H 1563). Holtzmann, Heinrich (1906), Niedbruck, Kaspar von, in: Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliographie 52, 621–629. Horawitz, Adalbert (1874), Caspar Bruschius. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Humanismus und der Reformation, Prague/Wien: F.A. Brockhaus. Hubert, Friedrich (1893), Vergerios publizistische Thätigkeit nebst einer bibliographischen Übersicht, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography

329

Ilic´, Luka (2007), Beza and Flacius in the Sacramentarian Controversy, in: Irena Backus (ed.), Théodore de Bèze (1519–1605). Actes du colloque de Genève (septembre 2005) [Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 424], Genève: Droz, 353–365. — (2014a), Theologian of Sin and Grace. The Process of Radicalization in the Theology of Matthias Flacius Illyricus [Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz: Abteilung für Abendländische Religionsgeschichte 225], Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. — (2014b), ‘Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520–1575)’, in: Irene Dingel/Volker Leppin (eds), Das Reformatorenlexikon, Darmstadt: Lambert Schneider Verlag, 116–122. Jenny, Beat Rudolf (ed.) (1983), Die Amerbachkorrespondenz IX/2: 1. Juli 1554–Ende 1555, Basel: Verlag der Universitätsbibliothek. Kaufmann, Thomas (2003), Das Ende der Reformation. Magdeburgs ‘Herrgotts Kanzlei’ (1548–1551/2), (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 123), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kess, Alexandra (2008), Johann Sleidan and the Protestant Vision of History [St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History], Aldershot/Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Krause, Gerhard (1981), Andreas Gerhard Hyperius Briefe 1530–1563 (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 64), Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck. ˇ eský cˇasopis historický 22/3, 458–465. Krofta, Kamil (1916), C Loesche, Georg (1890), Der Briefwechsel des Mathesius, in: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 11, 32–60. — (1895), Johannes Mathesius. Ein Lebens- und Sitten-Bild aus der Reformationszeit, Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes. Lyon, Gregory B. (2003), Baudoin, Flacius and the Plan for the Magdeburg Centuries, in: Journal of the History of Ideas 64/2, 253–272. Mencˇik, Ferdinand (1897), Caspar Nydbruck’s Verhältnis zu den Calixtinern in Böhmen, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Oesterreich 18, 48– 55. — (ed.) (1914), Dopisy M. Matousˇe. Kollina z Choteˇrˇiny a jeho prˇátel ke Kasˇparovi z Nydbrucka, tajnému radovi krále Maximiliána II. [Die Briefe von Mag. Matthäus Collinus von Choterina und seiner Freunde an Kaspar von Nydbruck, Geheimrat König ˇ echách, na Maximilians II.] (Sbírka pramenuv ku poznání literárnniho zˇivota v C ˇ eská Akademie. Moraveˇ a v Slezsku II/20), Praha: C Mirkovic´, Mijo (1960), Matija Vlacˇic´ Ilirik [Djela Jugoslovenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 50], Zagreb: Izdavacˇki zavod Jugoslavenske akademije. Preger, Wilhelm (1859/1861), Matthias Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit, 2 vol. Erlangen: Theodor Blässing; [reprint 1964], Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Scheible, Heinz (1966), Die Entstehung der Magdeburger Zenturien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der historiographischen Methode (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 183), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. — (2003), ‘Collinus, Matthäus’, in Heinz Scheible/Christine Mundhenk (eds): Melanchthon Briefwechsel. Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe 11: Personen A–E, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Verlag Frommann-Holzboog, 298f. Schulte, Wilhelm (1877), Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Magdeburger Centurien, in: Bericht der Philomathie in Neisse 19, 50–154.

330

Luka Ilic´

Schwarz, Rudolf (1909), Johannes Calvins Lebenswerk in seinen Briefen: Eine Auswahl von Briefen Calvins in deutscher Übersetzung. Zweiter Band: Die Briefe bis zum Jahre 1564, Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck. Wagner, Marcus (1593), Thu(e)ringer Ko(e)nigreichs / das es fu(e)r und nach Christi geburth in Pagos getheilet gewesen / wahrhafftiger /… Mit einer beglaubten Vorrede M. Cyriaci Spangenberg, Durch Marcvm Vvagnervm Frimariensem Historicvm, Jena: Tobias Steinmann (VD16 W 132). Wengert, Timothy J. (1998), Philip Melanchthon’s Gift to Caspar von Niedbruck, Lutheran Quarterly, n.s., 12, 485–489. Westphal, Joachim (1552), Farrago confvsanearvm et inter se dissidentivm opinionum de Coena Domini … [Farrago of Confused and Divergent Opinions on the Lord’s Supper], Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger (VD16 W 2287). Winckelmann, Otto (1906), ‘Niedbruck, Johann Bruno von’, in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 52, 618–621. Wissenburg, Wolfgang (1557), Dominici Marii Nigri Veneti …, Basel: Heinrich Petri (VD16 N 1751).

Appendix John Calvin to Caspar von Nidbruck (Letter translated into English by Luka Ilic.) Geneva, February 13, 1557 Manuscript: Austrian National Library in Vienna, Codex Palatinus Vindobonensis 9737k, 174r–v. Calvin’s autograph Transcription: Corpus Reformatorum 48 [Calvini Opera 20], pp. 448ff., Nr. 4181.2. Braunschweig: C.A. Schwetschke, 1863. Translation into German: Schwarz: 1909, 164f. When I traveled to Frankfurt last fall I took the letter with me that I had received from you, in which you outlined the plan for writing a church history (historia ecclesiastica). I thought that because of the book fair I would find it convenient to send you a letter from this city. I beg you, illustrious and from my heart venerated Sir, please do not ascribe the fact that you still did not receive a letter of reply from me only to the many engagements that occupied me continually and without any ceasing. May I also excuse myself because the message that you were absent from Austria with the date of your return undetermined made me reluctant to write—a feeling that did not leave me until my departure from Frankfurt. You might say that this was not sufficient reason for my procrastination and I do not even want to deny this; rather, I wanted to report honestly to you what prevented me from fulfilling my obligation back then. Now that I have received a second copy of the plan [for writing the church history] from you I feel sorry that you have had to exert double effort by writing another letter, especially because it is not possible for me to honor your request completely.

Calvin, Flacius, Nidbruck, and Lutheran Historiography

331

You wish me to give you my detailed and precise assessment of this project, but I think because it is quite a large and difficult task and I have never dealt with the topic myself, I do not consider myself to be a competent evaluator. Therefore, I do not venture to issue a verdict, so that I would avoid being accused of thoughtlessness. I may have wanted to express something about it in a confidential conversation, but I will refrain from a written statement because I have not given the question—which requires extended study—thorough enough consideration. I would rather do this than take on a task that terrifies me already at first sight. In addition, the plan that you sent me reveals the hand of a skillful master, so I would be afraid of ruining it if I wanted to hone and smooth something in it. So that you do not think I will flatly deny your entire request, I will not conceal the fact that I like the plan very much—with a few exceptions. If the history were already written according to the arrangement you describe, the reliability of this structure and its clever construction would speak for themselves. Although it will be a truly incredible effort, I already rejoice greatly at hoping for such an incomparably valuable work. By the way, while I agree with you on everything else, I simply do not know whether it is advisable to treat each century in one book, since it can happen that one decade offers richer historical material than an entire century. Therefore, if I am not mistaken, it will be impractical to be bound by a certain number of years in each volume in advance. The greatest historians have already taken the liberty to divide their books according to the wealth of substance at hand and not according to chronology. You seem to have noticed this yourself, since you enclose a suggestion for changing the time periods that have been selected for a particular reason; but my advice is probably not superfluous and inappropriate. The distinction of subject areas that you suggest is indeed useful, but I fear that it forces repetition on the reader and thereby tires and bores him. You cannot talk about the expansion of the church, the nature of its teaching and its errors without mentioning its protagonists at the same time. It would also be absurd to make no mention of the church councils, as you point out in the second section. So the author will have to pay attention to avoiding unpleasant repetitions. The best way for getting around this would perhaps be if the writer, whoever he may be, always had the introduction to the chapter in mind, as you have wisely and carefully observed. Nevertheless, he would have to link together and weave the course of the narrative in such a way that he does not slavishly divide naturally interrelated and concurrently occurring events from one another and thus bore the readers and spread darkness instead of light. You in your wisdom know well that a hidden or seemingly neglected image sometimes results in a clearer representation than one that has been meticulously selected. Since, incidentally, the sequence of the chapters laid down by you is arranged in a way that would enlighten the historian’s mind and intention, I would like precisely this chapter to be placed at the beginning, as an objective that always draws the reader’s eye to itself. However, I do not insist that you concur with me on this; it is enough for me to have fulfilled your wish at least in some respect. Farewell, highly esteemed, very dear man. [May the Lord protect and guide you and] enrich you with all His blessings. Geneva, February 13, 1557 Yours, John Calvin

Sun-kwon Kim

L’union mystique chez Calvin

1. Introduction Pour Calvin l’union avec Christ constitue le rapport du salut accompli et du salut appliqué. Celui-là concerne: ‘qui est Jésus Christ et ce qu’il a accompli pour nous.’ Celui-ci se rattache au fait que le ‘salut accompli’ se réalise en nous par l’Esprit. Les biens que Christ a accomplis et eus, sont nôtre par l’union mystique. Calvin ecrit: ‘Rien de ce qu’il possede ne nous appartient… jusqu’a ce que nous soyons faits un avec luy’ (Inst. 3.1.1). Chez Calvin, le salut accompli est devenu le salut appliqué par l’union mystique. L’union avec Christ constituant le rapport entre le salut accompli et le salut vécu, serait le principe contrôlant la sotériologie du réformateur. D’ailleurs, le but de toute l’œuvre littéraire, ecclésiale et pastorale de Calvin ne serait autre chose que l’union avec Christ. Celle-ci serait au cœur de sa théologie et de sa piété. En comparant les écrits du jeune Calvin à ceux du théologien matûre, nous constatons que l’union à Christ joue, de plus en plus, un rôle essentiel dans toutes ses idées théologiques.

2. Une analogie entre l’union des deux natures en Christ et l’union du chrétien et du Christ A. Ganoczy souligne l’importance de la christologie dans la théologie calvinienne en ces termes: ’Cette christologie a une importance capitale pour toute la structure de la théologie calvinienne (…) Calvin, en effet, est un auteur essentiellement christocentrique. Donc, tout ce qu’il enseigne ou n’enseigne pas de Jésus-Christ aura une grande influence sur l’ensemble de sa doctrine’ (Ganoczy: 1964, 97). La sotériologie calvinienne a l’air de suivre la formule de sa christologie. Dans cette perspective, nous pourrons découvrir une vraie compréhension à l’égard de l’union entre Christ et le chrétien, dans l’unité des deux natures du

334

Sun-kwon Kim

Christ en tant que une personne. Le Christ qui est ‘le vrai Dieu et le vrai homme,’ reste une seule personne unie, non la personne confusément mêlée. Le Fils de Dieu a été fait fils d’homme, non point par confusion de substance, mais par unité de personne. On appelle cela l’union hypostatique. Pour l’expliquer, Calvin recourt aux deux notions théologiques, la communicatio idiomatum et l’extra carnem, autrement dit le soi-disant extra calvinisticum. Je souhaite appliquer ces deux notions à la notion de l’union entre Christ et nous: parce que l’union entre le chrétien et Christ me semble avoir un caractère semblable à l’union entre l’humanité et la divinité du Christ. Chez Calvin, l’unio hypostatica qui est expliquée d’une part par la notion de la communicatio idiomatum, d’autre part par celle de l’extra calvinisticum, est l’arrhe de notre union avec Christ (Inst. 2.12.2). Christ a fait ouverture de son Royaume à notre nature corrompue. Du sermon de Calvin, nous citons le passage suivant: Le Fils de Dieu est apparu en sa personne Dieu et homme, ou bien, Dieu manifesté en chair: et qu’il a este faict chair, comme il est dict au premier chapitre de S. Iean: mais ç’a este pour nous monstrer comme nous sommes vrayement conjoints à luy, que nous sommes os de ses os, et chair de sa chair. Si nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ n’eust prins un corps humain, ou bien qu’il eust tenu sa divinite comme separee, où seroit auiourd’huy toute nostre felicite? (CO 46.110)

Ce passage témoigne que d’une part l’union hypostatique prépare l’union d’un chrétien avec Christ et d’autre part elle suppose la possibilité de l’interprétation analogique sur notre union à Christ.

2.1. Communicatio idiomatum et Unio mystica Selon Wendel, ‘Calvin ne rejette point la communication des idiomes comme telles’ (Wendel: 1950, 177–178). Pour Calvin cette doctrine joue un rôle majeur dans la christologie calvinienne (Willis: 1966, 65). Il pense que le titre ‘Christ’ est attribué à Christ lui-même par la communicatio idiomatum.1 Toutefois, il l’a acceptée discrètement. En fait, il n’insiste pas beaucoup sur cette affirmation dogmatique, puisque cette doctrine peut permettre de se plonger dans ce genre de spéculation. C’est pourquoi elle se circonscrit autour de l’Ecriture. A la différence de Zwingli, pour Calvin, elle n’est pas simplement rhétorique, mais ontologique pour autant qu’elle ait la fonction sotériologique. Je cite: Car combien qu’il ait été en unité de personne Dieu et homme ensemble, il ne s’ensuit pas toutefois que tout ce qui était propre à sa Divinité, ait été communiqué à la nature humaine,

1 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur la première épître aux Corinthiens, 10,9.

L’union mystique chez Calvin

335

mais, en tant que besoin était pour notre salut, le Fils de Dieu a tenu sa puissance Divine comme cachée.2

Selon ce commentaire, tout ce qui est propre à sa divinité n’a pas été communiqué à la nature humaine, et vice versa. C’est-à-dire, ce n’est pas que la propriété de nature humaine et divine n’ait pas été communiquée, mais qu’elle ait été communiquée selon ce qui était nécessaire à notre salut. En plus, même dans cette communication, chaque propriété des natures n’est jamais détruite et mélangée: Nous sçavons que en Christ les deux natures ont tellement esté conjointes en une personne, que chacune d’icelles n’a pas laissé d’avoir sa propriété: et mesmement la Divinité s’est tenue comme cachée, c’est-à-dire, n’a point démonstré sa vertu toutes fois et quantes que pour accomplir l’office de Médiateur, il a esté besoin que sa nature humaine besongnast à part selon ce qui luy estoit propre.3

Une des propriétés de la nature divine est omnisciente. Elle ne pourrait pas ignorer la date de la parousie. Mais pour l’office de Médiateur, elle s’est tenue comme ‘cachée.’ Ainsi, Jésus humain était ignorant sur sa date. Si elle est cachée, il nous semble, parce qu’elle est communiquée par celle de l’humanité. Mais, son ignorance concernant le dernier jour, ‘cela ne déroge non plus à sa nature divine que d’avoir été mortel.’4 Cela revient à dire que le Fils de Dieu s’unit à nous au point que la propriété de la nature divine et celle de la nature humaine communiquent réciproquement pour notre salut. La divinité et l’humanité de Jésus-Christ se rencontrent dans une union parfaite. L’union entre Christ et le chrétien apparaît à la lumière de cette union hypostatique. Du même que la divinité et l’humanité de Jésus-Christ sont devenues l’union parfaite, ainsi il serait possible d’appliquer l’analogie de l’union des deux natures en Christ à l’union du chrétien et du Christ. Premièrement, cette vision de la communicatio idiomatum constitue, à nos yeux, la continuité entre le Christ et le croyant. Par rapport aux natures humaine et divine en Christ, avant de parler de leur distinction, Calvin fait ressortir prioritairement leur unité: avant de parler de la distinction entre Christ et nous, Calvin souligne, dans la même perspective, en priorité l’union totale entre Christ et nous. Le Christ est venu établir cette continuité, de façon à pouvoir surmonter la rupture qui s’est opérée entre Dieu et l’homme à la suite du péché. La communicatio idiomatum revient à dire l’immanence divine dans la personne du Christ. Dans l’union hypostatique, il n’y a pas de séparation et de division entre l’humanité et la divinité: en raison de l’union hypostatique, il n’existe pas également de séparation et de division dans l’union entre Christ et nous. 2 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’Evangile de Luc 2,40. 3 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’Evangile de Matthieu 24,35. 4 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’Evangile de Matthieu 24,36.

336

Sun-kwon Kim

Deuxièmement, la communicatio idiomatum est la source de l’échange de la personne et de celui de la possession qui a réellement lieu entre nous et Christ. Comme la propriété de la nature humaine et celle de la nature divine du Christ sont capables de se communiquer dans sa personne, notre personne et la personne christique sont ainsi communiquées. L’échange de la personne entre Christ et nous, advint déjà antécédemment dans l’unité de la personne christique. Troisièmement, ainsi cette communicatio idiomatum se rattache finalement à la confirmation de l’élection et à l’assurance du salut. Se fondant sur la communication des idiomes, notre union n’est autre chose que la certitude du salut. Car si nous sommes ses membres, et que nous le tenions pour nostre chef, comme il s’est allié avec nous, et qu’il y a ceste union sacrée, laquelle ne peut iamais estre rompue quand nous croyons à son Evangile, il faut que nous venions là à fin d’estre asseurez de nostre salut.5

Le fidèle uni au Christ est assuré de marcher vers le ciel. Parce que le Christ a été humilié, afin de nous élever en haut.6 L’union avec Christ en tant qu’assurance du salut revient à dire que d’une part, prouve que l’on est élu à salut, que d’autre part Jésus-Christ (son Esprit) a en garde le salut des fidèles: selon Calvin, Christ promet à ceux qui ont une fois été conjoints à lui-même, qu’ils auront aussi la vie éternelle avec lui.7 Calvin affirme que l’Esprit Saint qui nous unit au Christ poursuit en nous sa grâce et efficace jusqu’à la fin, en sorte qu’il y a ici une persévérance ferme et constante. C’est de ces trois manières que l’union de l’humanité et de la divinité du Christ dont la communicatio idiomatum parle, correspond à notre union au Christ. La caractéristique de la doctrine calvinienne de la communicatio idiomatum est ontologique mais non rhétorique: les propriétés divines et humaines en Christ ne se communiquent que dans et par son union hypostatique, mais elles restent préservées et intactes dans leur réalités et leurs données propres (Gisel: 1990, 93). A la différence de Luther, sur ce point, Calvin n’insiste jamais sur la communicatio idiomatum en dehors la personne du Christ, pour ainsi dire, la communication par et de la nature elle-même. Car cela procure le mélange des natures divines et humaines. C’est pourquoi l’union entre Christ et nous, cela veut dire que tout en soutenant leur propriété, l’échange de la personne et de la possession se produit entre deux êtres. Telle idée se dévoile davantage dans le principe de

5 Calvin, CO 51. 282. Et voir CO 42.158: ‘Toutesfois ce n’est pas à dire que nostre foy soit tellement dissipée, et corrompue, que nous soions tellement aliénés de Iesus Christ qu’un chacun se retire appart, que nous soions là comme les membres d’un corps descirés par pieces, mais nous avons cette union sacrée et inviolable, par laquelle nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ nous ha receus tous en sa garde, et nous ha mis et conioints à luy comme en un corps (…).’ 6 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’Evangile de Jean 17,3. 7 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur la première épître aux Thessaloniciens 4,17–18.

L’union mystique chez Calvin

337

l’extra calvinisticum, qui met en lumière la distinction pour éviter toute confusion.

2.2. Extra calvinisticum et Unio mystica Après avoir mentionné la communicatio idiomatum, nous devons parler du principe extra calvinisticum. Même dans l’union hypostatique, la nature de la divinité conserve ses propriétés, plus spécialement son ubiquité et son immuabilité. Selon notre Réformateur, la divinité du Christ n’a pas abandonné la puissance de son infinité, pour se rétrécir dans l’humanité. Pour lui, l’union de la divinité et de l’humanité dans la personne du Christ, ne permet pas que la divinité subisse le moindre changement dans son essence aussi bien que dans son mode d’activité: ‘Le Christ, il est vrai, s’est abaissé jusqu’à nous en prenant la nature humaine, mais il n’a rien quitté de sa majesté, ni ne s’est amoindri ou diminué en sa gloire éternelle’ (cité par Wendel: 1950, 167). Etant donné que l’extra calvinisticum montre le fait qui doit soutenir la propriété divine du Christ, cela permet de parvenir également jusqu’à soutenir la propriété humaine du Christ. Même après sa résurrection, la propriété de l’humanité du Christ dans une localisation reste intacte.8 D’autant que le ‘corps glorifié du Christ’ garde la caractéristique du corps humain, pour Calvin, la doctrine de l’ubiquité du corps du Christ porte atteint à la doctrine des deux natures à la fois unies et distinguées. Cela revient à dire que chacune des deux natures a retenu leur propriété. Le soi-disant extra calvinisticum exprime aussi bien le soutien des propriétés de la nature humaine du Christ que la transcendance de sa nature divine. Il en est de même pour le rapport entre Christ et nous. Comme si la divinité et l’humanité avaient retenu chaque propriété, il faut que l’identité du chrétien luimême demeure avec celle du Christ. Après l’union entre Christ et nous, notre personnalité n’est pas absorbée dans celle du Christ et de Dieu, et les deux personnalités ne sont pas fusionnées. Wendel exprime bien:

8 ‘Or nous tenons pour certain et infallible, combien que la nature humaine de nostre Seigneur Iesus soit coniointe avec sa Divinité, pour establir en luy vraye union de personne: toutesfois qu’icelle nature humaine retient sa qualité et condition, et ce qui luy est propre. Tout ainsi doncques que nostre Seigneur Iesus a prins un corps passible, aussi a il eu sa grandeur et mesure, et n’a pas esté infiny. Nous confessons bien quand il a esté glorifié, qu’il a changé de condition, pour n’estre plus subiect à nulle infirmité: mais si a-il retenu sa substance, car autrement la promesse qui nous est donnée par la bouche de S. Paul (Phil. 3,21) seroit abolie, que les corps que nous avons maintenant corruptibles et caduques seront rendus conformes au corps glorieux de Iesus Christ.’ Calvin, Confession de Foy, CO 9.770.

338

Sun-kwon Kim

Il ne s’agit pas, lorsque Calvin parle d’union ou de communion avec Christ, d’une absorption en Christ ou d’une identification mystique qui diminuerait tant soit peu la personnalité humaine ou qui tirerait le Christ à nous (…) Mais la communion avec Christ n’en est pas moins des plus étroites, tout en laissant subsister intégralement les propriétés de l’homme et celles du Christ (Wendel: 1950, 176–177).

Nous répondons ici à notre question lancée en commençant cette discussion. Si la personne du Christ est une, l’unité entre Christ et nous devient-elle une personne? Calvin a eu beau ne pas en parler directement, en suivant son point de vue, nous parvenons à la conclusion suivante: la personne du Christ et notre personne subsistent et se distinguent encore, même dans l’union de deux êtres. Comme Christ qui unit en lui le divin et l’humain, accomplit par l’union de personne toute la rédemption pour l’humanité, l’être humain s’approprie efficacement sa rédemption dans l’union de deux êtres. Dire que les propriétés de l’homme et celles du Christ demeurent intégralement dans cette union, cette intimité et cette intériorité, revient en effet à dire que se conserve finalement la transcendance divine par laquelle Dieu prend sa distance avec l’être humain. La transcendance divine est offerte dans et par la communicatio idiomatum: car il n’y a point eu de communication de Dieu avec les hommes sinon au moyen du Médiateur qui va de Dieu à nous et de nous à Dieu. Mais même dans ‘le Christ offert’, la transcendance divine est en même temps ‘secrète’ (extra calvinisticum) (Malet: 1977, 321). Ces éléments se montrent dans l’union mystique avec Christ, de même que dans l’union hypostatique du Christ. Dieu se donne à nous par Christ, en même temps il nous dépasse, il est au-delà nous: quand nous rencontrons Christ (Dieu), ceci se répète. Car après notre union au Christ, le rapport d’une asymétrie entre Dieu et nous se poursuit. Ainsi, nous avons saisi que le principe de l’extra calvinisticum concerne et affecte l’union mystique. Premièrement, l’extra calvinisticum nous paraît avant tout lié à l’épistémologie théologique. Dieu se révèle et se connaît dans ‘notre Médiateur’: il s’approche de l’homme en lui. Calvin peut ainsi écrire: ‘depuis la ruine d’Adam, nulle connaissance de Dieu n’a pu profiter à salut sans médiateur’ (Inst. 2.6.1). ‘Nous n’avons aucune communication avec Dieu sinon par Christ.’9 Pour ce qui est de la connaissance de Dieu, il faut distinguer l’extra carnem et l’extra Christum. Il est certain que nous n’avons pas de connaissance de Dieu ‘en dehors du Christ’ (extra Christum), mais Calvin ne dit pas qu’il y a pas de sa connaissance ‘en dehors de la chair de Jésus’ (extra carnem). Pour le dire plus clairement, Dieu se fait connaître principalement à la fois ‘dans la chair et en dehors de la chair’ (in carne et extra hanc carnem), bien que Calvin parle peu du ‘Verbe préexistant’ d’autant que celui-ci a tendance à conduire à la spéculation excessive. Mais Dieu ne se connaîtra jamais extra Christum, 9 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’épître aux Romains 8,9.

L’union mystique chez Calvin

339

puisque un ‘logos ensarkos’ (le Verbe en la chair) et un ‘logos asarkos’ (le Verbe hors la chair) désignent par conséquent un Christ: ‘Ceux qui conçoivent en leur esprit la majesté nue de Dieu hors du Christ, ont une idole au lieu de Dieu’, insiste Calvin.10 Le ’Christus in carne et extra canem’ ne dit pas que deux Christs existent pour autant: le ‘Christ en la chair’ et le ‘Christ hors la chair’, c’est ‘un seul Christ.’ Ce fait que se trouve la connaissance de Dieu en dehors de la chair, nous permet de révéler la caractéristique de cette connaissance divine. Notre Médiateur a fait connaître Dieu: grâce à cette révélation, l’homme est orienté vers Dieu. Mais cette connaissance n’est toutefois pas Dieu lui-même. La connaissance divine par la révélation ne saurait s’identifier à Dieu, même si elle est véritable et intégrale. Qu’est-ce que l’idolâtrie? C’est assimiler la connaissance divine à Dieu lui-même: c’est enfermer Dieu dans sa connaissance.11 Car personne ne peut s’approprier absolument Dieu lui-même. Voici ce que l’extra de Calvin veut dire: la connaissance de Dieu est à portée de notre être, mais elle n’est pas fermée, mais au contraire ouverte en permanence à nouveau.12 Deuxièmement, l’extra calvinisticum revient à refuser tout lien direct de la réalité du Christ au croyant. Après sa résurrection et son ascension, le corps du Christ a beau d’être glorifié, la propriété de l’humanité comme localisation est, telle quelle, soutenue. Le soi-disant extra calvinisticum offre une exaltation cachée sous le régime d’humiliation (le Christ humilié), en même temps une sorte d’humiliation au cœur de l’élévation (le Christ glorifié) (Gisel: 1990, 87–90): la première selon la propriété de la divinité du Christ, la seconde selon la propriété de l’humanité.13 En raison de la propriété de l’humanité du Christ, Calvin refuse tout lien direct de la réalité du Christ au croyant. C’est la critique de Calvin sur Osiander. Aux yeux de Calvin, toute la communion d’un chrétien avec Christ n’a lieu que par l’Esprit Saint. A cause de l’intervalle entre Christ au ciel et nous sur la terre, 10 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’Evangile de Jean 14,6. 11 Sur le même plan, Richard Stauffer écrit: ‘Calvin relève à plusieurs reprises que les hommes ne peuvent ‘enclore’ la puissance de Dieu ni dans leur cerveau, ni dans le monde qui s’offre à leurs yeux’ (Stauffer: 1980, 230–231). 12 ‘Mais il (Paul) touche ensemble et la force de ceste révélation, et le profit ou avancement que nous sentons en cela tous les jours. Car il a usé de ceste similitude à cause de ces trois choses. Premièrement, qu’il ne faut point que nous craignions l’obscurité, quand nous venons à l’Evangile: car là Dieu se descouvre à nous face à face. En après, qu’il ne faut point que ceste contemplation soit morte: mais que par icelle nous soyons transformez en l’image de Dieu. Tiercement, que l’un ne l’autre ne s’accomplit pas en nous tout en un moment: mais qu’il nous faut croistre par succession continuelle, tant en la cognoissance de Dieu qu’en la conformité de son image.’ Calvin, Le Commentaire sur la deuxième épître aux Corinthiens 3,18. 13 Le Christ qui est à la droite de Dieu, est subordonné au Père jusqu’à terminer la tâche médiatrice: Quand il aura remis le Royaume à Dieu et Père (I Cor. 15,24), sa tâche médiatrice sera achevé. En ce sens, après son ascension, le Christ reste pour Calvin essentiellement ‘vrai homme.’ Gisel: 1990, 88.

340

Sun-kwon Kim

pour cela, il faut l’œuvre du Saint Esprit comme médiation qui doit s’effectuer sans cesse. L’Esprit en tant que ‘lien’ entre Christ et nous, s’est souligné en qualité de celui qui réalise cette communion.14 Chez Calvin, l’Esprit est le moyen par lequel Christ habite en nous.15 C’est pour cela que l’union entre Christ et nous est obligée de se réaliser en permanence. Quand le croyant s’unit à Christ, cette union est complète, absolue: elle n’est ni déficiente ni incomplète. Mais en même temps le Christ qui est capable de se tenir ‘hors de la chair’ dépasse cette union. C’est pourquoi cette union est d’essence à la fois statique et dynamique. Troisièmement, l’extra calvinisticum ne provoque pas la déification ellemême de l’être humain. Même dans le Christ (extra calvinisticum), il est interdit de ‘mêler ciel et terre,’ à plus forte raison Calvin n’a jamais toléré la divinisation. Néanmoins, Todd Billings prétend que utilisant ces mots ‘participation,’ ‘greffe,’ ‘adoption’ et ‘union,’ Calvin a enseigné une ‘déification d’une sorte particulière’ (Billings: 2005, 316). Mais cette notion elle-même n’est pas claire pour Billings. Ses affirmations sont fondées sur le fait que Calvin utilise en maint endroit le terme de substance. Mais comme nous avons déjà dit, il faut se garder de prendre ce terme et se souvenir de son ambiguïté. Carl Mosser, dans un article qui s’intitule: ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,’ affirme que Calvin a connu et a confirmé la déification des croyants. Son article soutient que la déification est également présente dans la théologie de Calvin (Mosser: 2002, 36–39). Selon Mosser, chez Calvin la déification se définit comme ‘rien de plus excellent ne peut être pensé,’ (quo nihil praestantius cogitari potest) ce qui donne à penser la phrase très célèbre, très souvent citée d’Anselme ‘Rien de plus grand ne peut être pensé’ (quo nihil maius cogitari potest) (Mosser: 2002, 40). En dépit des recherches de Mosser sur la déification et ses images, nous devons noter le fait que Calvin a utilisé peu en fait la terminologie ‘déification.’ Dans l’Institution chrétienne, outre que cette terminologie n’est jamais employée au regard du salut de l’être humain, il se sert de ce terme dans le sens négatif, comme la déification des créatures en tant qu’une conséquence de la superstition et de l’idolâtrie au lieu de Dieu (Inst. 1.12.3; 2.8.26). Il est vrai que Calvin a mentionné certes une seule fois le problème de la déification lorsqu’il commente le verset 4 du premier chapitre de la deuxième épître de Pierre, l’expression ‘participants de la nature divine.’ Je cite: Notons donc que la fin et but de l’Evangile est, que nous soyons un jour faits conformes à Dieu. Or cela est quasi être déifié, s’il faut ainsi parler, c’est-à-dire être fait Dieu. Au reste ce mot de nature, ne signifie pas yci la substance, mais la qualité.16 14 ‘Spirit-mediated union with Christ is an articulating motif in Calvin’s soteriology (…)’ McClean: 2009, 136. 15 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’épître aux Romains 8,10. 16 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur la deuxième épître de Pierre 1,4.

L’union mystique chez Calvin

341

Selon ce passage, ‘le participant de la nature divine’ signifie de devenir (presque) Dieu. Cette expression ‘déification’ implique l’hyperbole, comme T. Billings le dit (Billings: 2007, 55). Parce que l’homme sera déifié, s’il faut ainsi parler. Après l’avoir dit, Calvin précise d’emblée que la déification concerne la participation à la nature divine: par ailleurs cette nature divine ne signifie pas ici la ‘substance’ mais la ‘qualité.’ Calvin fait la distinction entre l’essence (substance) divine et la qualité divine. Selon lui, nous serons participants de la qualité divine, mais non de l’essence divine. Ce n’est pas, à proprement parler, une ‘participation ontologique’ qui agit de l’essence divine, celle qui devient le Dieu tel qu’il est. C’est une ‘participation ontique’ qui a trait à la qualité divine et laisse donc le lieu d’extériorité en Dieu. C’est l’ ‘unité ontique.’ L’affirmation de Mosser que Calvin a affirmé la déification des croyants revient, à nos yeux, au thème de l’union mystique, comme Charles Partee le note: ‘mystical union and deification in Calvin are not two doctrine but one’ (Partee: 2008, 168). Mais si pour Calvin ces deux doctrines sont égales, pourquoi n’a-t-il pas utilisé directement le terme de la déification ou de la divinisation comme celui de l’union mystique? Au sermon 1 de Pentecôte, nous lisons: ‘il est question que l’image de Dieu soit réparée en nous, que nous recevions ceste semence incorruptible 1. pour parvenir à la gloire celeste, 2. pour estre compagnons des Anges, 3. pour estre transfigurez mesmes en la gloire et immortalité de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, et 4. estre participans de sa nature Divine, comme S. Pierre en parle’ (CO 48.626). Selon ces lignes, ‘participer de la nature divine,’ la soi-disant ‘déification’ est seulement une des représentations qui révèlent l’état de la gloire. ‘Participer de la nature divine’ est, pour l’essentiel, de ‘participer de la vie céleste.’17 D’après notre Réformateur, la souveraine félicité qui sera en notre résurrection, reste ‘quelque ressemblance’ entre l’homme et Dieu.18 La ressemblance n’est pas l’identification. Si nous voulons toutefois parler de la déification calvinienne, nous pourrions dire que les chrétiens seront comme Dieu, mais ils ne seront pas Dieu. Nous connaîtrons une sorte de déification, mais non la déification elle-même (Lee: 2010, 284). Parce que Christ est Dieu et le Fils par nature et les croyants sont toujours des dieux et des fils par la grâce.19 Si nous insistons sur la déification

17 Calvin, Sermon 14e sur l’épître aux Galates, CO 50, 443. 18 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’épître aux Hébreux 4,10. 19 ‘Ce que nous sommes enfans de Dieu, ce n’est pas de nature: mais seulement par adoption et par grace: entant que Dieu nous veut reputer telz. Mais le Seigneur Iesus, qui est engendré de la substance de son Père, et est d’une mesme essence, à bon droict est dict Filz unique (Ephes. 1,5; Iehan 1,14; Hebr. 1,2). Car il n’y a que luy seul qui soit naturel.’ Calvin, Le Catéchisme de Genève, CO 6.23.

342

Sun-kwon Kim

jusqu’à supprimer la distance existant entre le Créateur et la créature, nous tombons dans le panthéisme et il n’y a plus ‘déification calvinienne.’ En conclusion, si la communicatio idiomatum révèle le visage gracieux de Dieu en Christ ensuite la possibilité de notre union à Christ et, le soi-disant extra calvinisticum, soulignant la distance entre Dieu et l’homme, montre cependant la réalité asymétrique et transcendante qui reste encore entre Dieu et l’homme. L’homme en Christ est marqué par la tension entre la proximité et la transcendance entre l’unité et l’altérité. Dans cette optique, l’union avec Christ, bien qu’elle soit déjà commencée, attend encore son achèvement. Enfin, la communicatio idiomatum et l’extra calvinisticum ont pour but d’expliquer l’union hypostatique. Dans la christologie calvinienne, ces deux motifs coexistent et se complètent. Voici un schème à propos de cela: Séparation et division → Communicatio idiomatum → Union (‘Christ lui-mème’ et ‘Christ et nous’) Confusion et mélange → Extra calvinisticum → Distinction (‘Christ lui-mème’ et ‘Christ et nous’)

3. L’union en tant que ‘processus’ et ‘progrès’ La problématique de la continuité et de l’asymétrie nous permet d’apprendre quel est le caractère de l’union avec Christ. La continuité concerne l’ ‘assurance du salut,’ et l’asymétrie est conçue comme un ‘processus et un progrès.’ Calvin affirme ainsi une croissance spirituelle progressive, en considérant l’union avec Christ comme à la fois la prémisse et le but de la vie chrétienne. Comme nous l’avons déjà noté, l’union chez Calvin est à la fois un point de départ et un point d’arrivée du salut.20 Par la connaissance de l’Evangile et l’illumination du Saint-Esprit, ils ont été appelés en la compagnie du Christ, la vie éternelle est commencée en eux. Puis le Seigneur achève son œuvre qu’il a commencé en eux, jusqu’au jour de Jésus-Christ (Inst. 3.18.1).

L’union connaît la ‘conjonction progressive.’ Iesus Christ est entre deux (c’est-à-dire, le présent et le jugement dernier) pour nous mener petit à petit à une pleine conionction (Inst. 2.15.5).

C’est pourquoi, dans la pensée calvinienne, ce processus de salut exige toujours la progression. La notion calvinienne de l’unio mystica est saisie d’une façon dy20 ‘Par la connaissance de l’Evangile et l’illumination du Saint-Esprit, ils ont été appelés en la compagnie du Christ, la vie éternelle est commencée en eux. Puis le Seigneur achève son œuvre qu’il a commencé en eux, jusqu’au jour de Jésus-Christ.’ Calvin, Inst. 3.18.1.

L’union mystique chez Calvin

343

namique. Le fidèle régénéré se trouve en face d’une ‘ambiguïté’ de son existence terrestre. Son existence chrétienne est marquée par la tension entre un ‘déjà là’ et un ‘pas encore.’ Cette union est un ‘fait accompli mais jamais parfait dans ce monde,’ comme David Willis l’a indiqué.21 Christ commence à régner dans la personne de fidèle, mais son royaume y est caché et il est en attente de la manifestation de Christ: ‘Notre vie est maintenant cachée en Christ et demeurera comme ensevelie, jusques à ce qu’il apparaisse du ciel.’22 C’est la raison pour laquelle le chrétien ‘dresse son œil en haut’, en attendant la Parousie du Christ. Le chrétien est l’homme du progrès par Dieu et pour Dieu. L’homme ne doit jamais se croire arrivé, il est toujours en chemin, toujours en route sur la voie de l’achèvement. Calvin parle en maint endroit de la nécessité de ‘croître,’ d’ ‘augmenter,’ d’ ‘enrichir,’ ‘de plus en plus,’ ‘de marcher toujours plus oultre’ (cité par Boisset: 1965, 101). Pour cette raison, les chrétiens ont à avancer vers la perfection. Pour Calvin, leur effort et leur entraînement sont requis en vue du progrès, mais celui-ci n’arrive fondamentalement que par la grâce de Dieu. Après la régénération, les chrétiens ont en permanence besoin de la grâce de Dieu vis-à-vis leur incapacité, afin de tenir ferme ce qu’ils ont déjà reçu: ils ont un constant besoin du renouvellement du cœur, que leur esprit soient illuminés par le Saint Esprit. La vie spirituelle aspire à la ‘rénovation progressive’: en d’autres termes, l’ ‘accroissement continuel du règne de Dieu’ apparaît dans la vie des chrétiens (Inst. 3.20.42). Avant tout, il est capital que ce soit la communion (union) avec Christ qui provoque cette perfection. Apprenons donc cependant que nous sommes en ce monde, qu’il nous faut iournellement estre conformez en ceste société spirituelle que nous avons avec nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, et que ceste union soit coufermee de plus en plus: car sans cela il ne nous profitera rien que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ ait esté crucifié…. Mais quand par foy nous communiquons avec luy, nous ratifions la grace qui nous a esté acquise. Et ainsi notons bien que pour estre participans du fruict et de la vertu de la mort et passion de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, il faut que par foy nous soyons unis à luy de iour en iour, et que nous profitions en ceste union sacrée, et que nous y croissions iusques à tant que ce que maintenant nous avons en partie, nous l’ayons du tout, et en perfection.23 21 Willis: 1984, 298: ‘an accomplished fact but never perfect in this life.’ Le fidèle est entre-deux, entre l’ombre et la réalité, entre le voilement et le dévoilement, entre le dénuement et la possession. 22 Calvin, Le Commentaire sur la première épître de Pierre 1,7. 23 Calvin, Sermon 48e sur le Deutéronome, CO 27.376. ‘C’est pourquoi, quelque excellence que nous ayons, poursuivons toujours et tâchons de profiter.’ Le Commentaire sur l’épître aux Ephésiens 1,16. ‘Ainsi donc Dieu enseignera les siens, mais ce n’st pas à dire que du premier iour il les illumine, et qu’ils connoissent en perfection tout ce qui est requis, nenni non, mais il leur donne telle mesure, qu’il connoist estre bon pour leur salut, il les conduit comme en un chemin, il les avance de iour en iour, tellement qu’ils aperçoivent qu’il se rend plus familier à eux, en la fin il les ameine en leur perfection, mais c’est en les tirant de ce monde (.)… mais si faut il que nous marchions plus outre tous les iours iusques à ce (dit-il) que nous vestions

344

Sun-kwon Kim

L’union avec Christ en tant que processus et progrès laisse une possibilité eschatologique en vue de l’achèvement. On espère l’union ultime, complète avec Christ qui aura lieu dans l’au-delà. Calvin de dire: Il accomplira ce que nous oyons yci, quand il nous aura recueillis à soy en ceste union celeste à laquelle nous aspirons maintenant (CO 46.798). Contentons-nous donc d’avoir un tel tesmoin de Dieu, qui nous declare que les Anges ont rendu tesmoignage de la naissance de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, afin que, cognoissans comme il a este fait homme, voire qu’il s’est anéanti pour nous, nous soyons ravis pour aspirer au Royaume des cieux, afin d’adhérer à luy en vraye union de foy.24

Le fidèle qui s’inscrit dans une tension entre le ‘déjà là’ et le ‘pas encore’ trouve dans l’attente eschatologique l’accomplissement total de l’union entre lui-même et Christ. La résurrection est le but suprême pour le chrétien. Les promesses en la félicité éternelle sont d’ailleurs pour Calvin un élément essentiel de la vie chrétienne, et il estime que méditer sur la vie future durant sa vie terrestre, était déjà participer à la vie céleste par la foi.25

4. Conclusion Le mode de l’union du Christ et du croyant est christologique. Cette union semble avoir un caractère semblable à l’union de l’humain et du divin en Christ. Chez Calvin, cette dernière se conçoit dans deux perspectives théologiques: la communicatio idiomatum et l’extra calvinisticum. La première met en lumière l’unité de sa personne dans sa signification véritable. Elle constitue la continuité entre Christ et le fidèle, autrement dit, cela permet d’ouvrir la possibilité de leur union et de certifier la continuité entre eux. Il s’agit de l’échange de la personne, la confirmation de l’élection et de l’assurance du salut. En revanche, la terminologie extra calvinisticum désigne le maintien des propriétés des natures du Christ, en particulier la transcendance de la nature divine. Cela affirme que la nature humaine assumée par Christ incarné est tenue à Iesus Christ, que nous parvenions tellement en aage d’homme, qu’en la fin nous soions pleinement unis à luy par foy, et que de la foy nous soions amenés à cette revelation qui nous est promise, c’est à dire que nous voions face à face, ce que maintenant nous ne voions sinon que comme par un miroir.’ Calvin, CO 42.161. 24 Calvin, CO 46.92. ‘Nos âmes ne sont point repues pour un jour seulement, mais nourries en l’espérance de l’immortalité bienheureuse, d’autant que le Seigneur commence l’œuvre de notre salut, afin qu’il la parfasse jusqu’au jour du Christ.’ Calvin, Le Commentaire sur l’Evangile de Jean 6,27. 25 Ainsi, dans son Commentaire sur l’épître aux Romains 5,2: ‘Or nous nous glorifions en l’espérance de la gloire de Dieu. Et certes, voici pourquoi l’espérance de la vie éternelle sert et use comme s’égayer la tête levée, c’est qu’étant comme jeté un bon fondement nous nous sommes tenus fermes à la grâce de Dieu .(…) comme s’ils le gardaient en leur sein’.

L’union mystique chez Calvin

345

distance de la nature divine. Etant unis le Christ et le chrétien, même dans cette union, chaque propriété doit encore être maintenue. L’identité du chrétien luimême demeure avec celle du Christ. Si l’humanité du Christ est tenue à distance de la divinité, à plus forte raison le chrétien est tenu à distance de tout ce qu’il y a de divin en lui. Pour cette raison la conformité du croyant au Christ ne se mélange ainsi jamais. L’extra calvinisticum montre qu’il y aurait asymétrie entre Christ et le croyant, dans sa théologie du salut. Pour Calvin, il importe de ne pas supprimer la condition de créature. Il faut tenir fermement l’idée de l’altérité de Dieu. En raison de l’absence corporelle du Christ sur la terre cette distance est davantage soulignée. La notion calvinienne à propos de l’union avec Christ insiste à la fois sur ‘le salut qui a été opéré une fois’ et sur le ‘processus de ce salut.’ Car cette union est à la fois le départ puis l’aboutissement de la sotériologie calvinienne. Pour Calvin, elle est un fait accompli mais jamais parfait dans ce monde présent. Ainsi, il faut qu’elle croisse journellement. Elle connaît le progrès et s’oriente vers lui. En outre, en tant que processus et progrès, elle laisse une possibilité eschatologique d’accomplissement. Le chrétien espère l’union ultime, parfaite et totale avec Christ qui se trouvera dans l’au-delà.

Bibliographie Billings, J.T. (2005), United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification, in: Harvard Theological Review 98. — (2007), Calvin, Participation and the Gift: The Activity of Believes in Union with Christ, Oxford: Oxford University press. Boisset, Jean (1965), Jean Calvin et la souveraineté de Dieu, Paris: Seghers. Ganoczy, A. (1964), Calvin. Théologien de l’Eglise et du ministère, Paris: Cerf. Gisel, P. (1990), Le Christ de Calvin, Paris: Desclée. Lee, Yang-Ho (2010), Calvin on Deification: A Reply to Carl Mosser and Jonathan Salter, in: Scottish Journal of Theology 63. Malet, Nicole (1977), Dieu Selon Calvin, Lausanne: l’Age d’homme,. McClean, John (2009), Perichoresis, Theosis and Union with Christ in the Thought of John Calvin, in: Reformed Theological Review 68. Mosser, Carl (2002), The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification, in: Scottish Journal of Theology 55. Partee, Charles (2008), The Theology of John Calvin, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Stauffer, Richard (1980), Interprètes de la Bible: Etudes sur les Réformateurs du XVIe Siècle, Paris: Editions Beauchesne. Wendel, F. (1950), Calvin: sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse, Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

346

Sun-kwon Kim

Willis, D. (1966), Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of so-called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Leiden: Brill. — (1984), A Reformed Doctrine of the Eucharist and Ministry and Its Implications for Roman Catholic Dialogues, in: Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21.

Jeannette Kreijkes

The Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias as an Indication that Calvin Read Chrysostom in Greek

Introduction The Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias, (CO 9.831–838) which John Calvin wrote probably in 1538, is important for our understanding of Calvin’s view on John Chrysostom as a fourth-century exegete. Calvin intended to publish a translation of a number of Chrysostom’s homilies. Although we do not know if he ever realized this ambition, Calvin’s Latin preface to his intended translation illustrates Chrysostom’s unique position in Calvin’s reception of the Early Church. As far as we know, Chrysostom is the only Church Father whose homilies Calvin intended to translate. In the Praefatio, Calvin states that he appreciates Chrysostom—who had studied theology in Antiochia—because of his commitment to the simple sense of the Bible. It is important to have a clear view of the Chrysostom editions Calvin used. Calvin’s use of the Latin Chevallon edition (1536) to get acquainted with Chrysostom is considered proven. That is why the prevailing view has been that he read Chrysostom only in Latin. In this paper, I want to explore whether Calvin might have read Chrysostom also in Greek, by answering two sub questions: (1) Into and from which language did Calvin want to translate Chrysostom’s homilies? Attention will be paid to what Calvin himself said about this in the Praefatio and to his knowledge of the Greek language. (2) What light does the availability of Greek Chrysostom texts during Calvin’s stay in Basel shed on the arguments for Calvin’s dependence on exclusively Latin Chrysostom editions?

1. Source and Target Language The first question is whether Calvin intended to translate Chrysostom’s homilies into Latin or into French. If Calvin wanted to translate into Latin—since the Praefatio is in Latin—, like other Humanists such as Erasmus did, then his use of

348

Jeannette Kreijkes

a Greek source is evident. If he intended to translate into French, then the questions arise why he wrote the Praefatio in Latin and whether he used a Greek or a Latin source. The title of the manuscript of the Praefatio illustrates the confusion about the source and the target language: Praefatio in editio[nem] Hom(i)liarum Chrysostomi a D[octore] Calv[ino] medidatam q[uae] tam[en] n[on] extat. Interponit [aut]em hic suu[m] tu[m] de Chrysostomo tu[m] de ali[qu]is quos illi comparat ecclesiae doctorib[us] iuducium appositum. Hazlett translates this title, which is written in a different handwriting than Calvin’s, as follows: ‘The preface to an edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies contemplated by Master Calvin, but which does not exist. Here however he puts forward his due opinion both on Chrysostom and on other doctors of the Church, whom he compares to him.’ After the word editionem (‘edition’) the word gall[icam] (‘French’) was added, but later crossed out (Hazlett: 1991, 129–130; CO 9.831). The fact that Calvin wrote the preface in Latin does not necessarily mean that he also intended a Latin translation. Calvin could have had various reasons to write it in Latin. Hazlett assumes that the Praefatio was a first draft. Calvin wrote it in Latin because of the formal structure that characterizes the Latin language and intended to translate it into French afterwards, like he did with other writings. Alternatively, Calvin, who was strongly aware of the propriety of both languages and the social and cultural differences between his readers, may have written a Latin preface for his educated readers to convince them of the value of his translation (Hazlett: 1991, 130f). When we look closely at the Praefatio, we see two indications for a translation into French. The first isthat Calvin called the translation inusitatum (‘unconventional’): ‘Considering that this kind of work which I am now publishing is unconventional, I think it will be worth my while to explain briefly the point of my project.’1 A Latin translation could not be unconventional in comparison with the many Latin patristic editions that had been published by Erasmus, Oecolampadius, Capito, Musculus and many others. French patristic editions were really unconventional (Hazlett: 1991, 130). The second indication is Calvin’s statement that ‘those charged with the ministry of the churches are [not always] sufficiently versed in Greek and Latin as to be able to understand the ancient writers in the original’ (Hazlett: 1991, 130).2 Calvin wanted to avoid both Greek and Latin, which points to a French—and not to a Latin—translation. The question whether Calvin read Chrysostom in Greek 1 CO 9.831 (Praef. In Chry. Hom.): ‘Quia inusitatum adhuc est hoc lucubrationis genus quod nunc in publicum edo, videor mihi operae pretium facturus, si consilii mei rationem breviter exponam’; translation: Hazlett: 1991, 138. 2 CO 9.833 (Praef. In Chry. Hom.): ‘Huc etiam accedit quod non semper ita bene nobiscum agitur, ut qui ecclesiarum administrationi praesunt ita sint in graeca latinaque lingua exercitati ut veteres illos scriptores sua lingua loquentes audire queant’; translation: Hazlett: 1991, 143.

The Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias as an Indication

349

or in Latin remains. In order to answer this question the last quotation is crucial as well. Firstly, because it shows that Calvin considered a translation as a solution to the problem of the clergy’s insufficient knowledge of the classical languages. Calvin intended to bring the clergy into contact with the patristic writings, which they without translation would have neglected. The explicit mention of Greek combined with sua lingua (‘in their own language’) supports the fact that Calvin did not take for granted that a Latin translation was used to get acquainted with the Greek Church Fathers. Secondly, Calvin seems to consider himself capable of listening to the ancient writers speaking in their own language. Otherwise, he could not render a service to the clergy who were insufficiently versed in Greek. Yet, the prevailing view has been that Calvin did not read the Oriental Fathers in Greek, because there is no evidence that he knew Greek well enough to do so. Thus, the fact that Calvin certainly used Latin translations of the Greek Fathers, has led to the conclusion that he only used Latin translations, besides anthologies of course. Lane in John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers rightly nuances this by showing that from the fact that Calvin normally read the Greek fathers in Latin it does not follow that he could not read them in Greek or that he never did so. This can be illustrated by a Greek quotation from Gregory of Nazianzus, followed by a Latin translation, in the 1539 edition of the Institutes (Lane: 1999, 48f., 83, 85f.; Inst. 1.13.17; CO 2.104). However, the prevailing view on Calvin’s use of the Greek Church Fathers is based on Calvin’s assumed incapability in Greek, as expressed by Todd in his dissertation The Function of the Patristic Writings in the Thought of John Calvin. Let us discuss Todd’s main arguments for this claim. The first argument is that Calvin’s translation of Chrysostom’s homilies never appeared (Todd: 1964, 75f., 252–257). However, there could be many reasons for this, for example lack of time. Furthermore, the question arises why Calvin intended to translate Greek homilies, if he was hardly versed in Greek. The second argument is that Calvin was not able to learn German during his stay in Strasbourg and so he was not able to learn Greek either during the two years he tried to do so with Wolmar and Danes (Todd: 1964, 76). Todd does not explain the similarity between these two languages nor between the circumstances in which Calvin studied these languages. The third argument is that Calvin’s philological and grammatical use of the Greek New Testament indicates that his knowledge of Greek was limited to New Testament Greek (Todd: 1964, 76f.). One could ask why philological and grammatical knowledge of New Testament Greek is insufficient to translate a Greek patristic text. In any case, Calvin was able to translate New Testament passages by heart while he was preaching (Van Veen: 2006, 97f.). New Testament Greek and patristic Greek are so related to each other that it is improbable that Calvin was not able to translate Chrysostom’s homilies from Greek (Kelly: 1995, 81f.). Moreover, Calvin himself considers Chrysostom’s language as plain talk and easy

350

Jeannette Kreijkes

to understand for the common people: ‘(…) unless both the title [of his work] and [its] style of language deceive, this man specialized in sermons which he delivered to a wide public. Accordingly he plainly adjusts both [his] approach and language as if he had the instruction of the common people in mind.’3 Backus, also, asserts that Calvin, to the best of her knowledge, ‘only ever had recourse to the Latin translation of the works of John Chrysostom, published by Chevallon in Paris in 1536.’ She regards this as somewhat paradoxical, because in the Praefatio Calvin highly values the knowledge of the Biblical languages for sound exegesis. He esteems Chrysostom for his New Testament exegesis, but criticizes him for his Old Testament exegesis, which is less sound because of his limited knowledge of Hebrew.4 Backus concludes that if Calvin intended a LatinFrench translation—which her assumption that Calvin only used the Chevallon text implies—Calvin considered knowledge of Greek and Hebrew ‘as indispensable for preachers who wanted to correctly interpret and translate the Bible’, but ‘not essential for preachers (including Calvin himself) who wished to have access to ancient commentaries on it.’ Backus describes this as Calvin’s ‘lack of linguistic rigour’ (Backus: 2000, 256f.). One could ask whether the distinction between preachers who wanted to correctly interpret and translate the Bible and Calvin as a preacher who wished to use ancient commentaries, is as strict as she suggests. Most probably, he was able to do both.

2. The Availability of Basel Chrysostom Editions The pressing question is: was the Chevallon text Calvin’s only possible recourse? This brings us to our second sub question about the availability of Greek Chrysostom editions. Since the publication of Ganoczy and Müller’s Calvins handschriftliche Annotationen zu Chrysostomus, on the basis of Calvin’s underlinings and handwritten notes in the Chevallon text, the prevailing view has 3 CO 9.833 (Praef. In Chry. Hom.): ‘(…) nisi et titulus et orationis compositio mentitur, quos ad universum populum sermones habuit hic complexus est. Ita certe et rerum tractationem et dictionem attemperat, quasi hominum multitudinem instituere velit’; translation: Hazlett: 1991, 142. 4 CO 9.834 (Praef. In Chry. Hom.): ‘Sunt autem homiliae, quae quum variis partibus constent, primum tamen in illis locum tenet scripturae interpretatio, in qua Chrysostomum nostrum vetustos omnes scriptores qui hodie exstant antecedere nemo sani iudicii negaverit. Praesertim ubi novum testamentum tractat. Nam quominus in veteri tantum praestaret, obstabat hebraicae linguae imperitia.’ Translation: Hazlett: 1991, 143: ‘Although homilies are something which consist of a variety of elements, the interpretation of Scripture is, however, their priority. In this area no one of sound judgment would deny that our Chrysostom excels all the ancient writers currently extant. This is especially true, when he deals with the New Testament. For the lack of Hebrew prevented him from showing so much expertise in the Old Testament.’

The Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias as an Indication

351

been that Calvin especially used this text for his knowledge of Chrysostom. However, there are differences between Calvin’s quotations of Chrysostom in his commentaries and the passages referred to as published in the Chevallon edition (cf. Walchenbach: 2010).5 Calvin’s use of the Chevallon text does not exclude his use of other editions. Therefore, it is very important to know which Chrysostom editions were available in Calvin’s network during his stay in Basel—when he most probably wrote the Praefatio—and to pay attention to the distribution of Greek Chrysostom texts from Basel. Basel was of great significance to the publication of Chrysostom editions, as a quotation from a letter of Capito to Erasmus in 1517 illustrates: ‘(…) since this summer Chrysostom takes up pretty well all Froben’s presses (…)’ (Hirstein: 2007, 34).6 Since 1513, Johannes Froben had managed one of the most important print shops in Basel during the 1500s. He produced many patristic editions in cooperation with Erasmus (Dill: 2008, 255) Although Froben was technically skilled to operate the presses, he was hardly versed in the classical languages and he had no academic background. Members of the sodalitas Basiliensis (‘the Basel association’) had remedied these deficiencies since 1515. The sodalitas Basiliensis was a group of scholars, the most prominent of whom was Erasmus, but Johannes Oecolampadius, Caspar Hedio, Wolfgang Capito and Bonifacius Amerbach also belonged to the association. The group played such an important role in academic printing, that it was seen as part of the university over time (Hilgert: 1971, 141; Augustijn: 1995, 108).7 In 1519, Erasmus proposed a Greek Chrysostom edition to Francis Asulanus, but the time was not yet ripe (Walchenbach: 2010, 118–119).8 It was not until 1525, that Froben printed the first Chrysostom editions with a Greek text. This concerns De Orando Deum (Greek-Latin) and De Sacerdotio (Greek). Other editions followed (Dill: 2008, 262–264).9 Around 1530, a collective work was published in Latin. Erasmus wrote the Praefatio and Vita Chrysostomi (Dill: 2008, 257–258, 263; Walchenbach: 2008, 119–120). It was Erasmus’s most important Chrysostom 5 Walchenbach compared Calvin’s references to Chrysostom in his commentary on 1 Corinthians to passages referred to in the 1530-Basel edition, which was adopted in the Chevallon edition. 6 Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami 3.600, 9: ‘(…) quando hac aestate praela Frobenii Chrysostomus ferme occupat (…)’; translation: CWE 5, Ep. 600. 7 Gerard Lyster, Bruno Amerbach, his brother Basilius Amerbach, Beatus Rhenanus, Johann Froben, Wilhelm Nesen, Heinrich Glareanus, Johannes Oecolampadius, Nikolaus Gerbel, Hieronymus Artolf, Konrad Brunner, Ludwig Baer, Lukas Klett, Gerard de Lupabus and Johannes Fabri belonged to the sodalicium as well (Hirstein: 2007, 22, 26). 8 Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi 5, Ep. 1349, 252: ‘Si excuderit opera Chrysostomi Grece, praeserta ea que versa non sunt, esset vt maxime vendibilia.’ 9 Cf. Coniunculae perquam elegantes sex de fato & providentia Dei (1526, Greek), In epistolam ad Philippenses homiliae duae (1526, Greek-Latin), Libellum perquam elegantem D. Ioannis Chrysostomi Graecum, de Babyla martyre (1527, Greek) and Aliquot opuscula (1529, Greek).

352

Jeannette Kreijkes

edition and it was adopted almost word-for-word in the Chevallon edition, including Erasmus’s preface (Ganoczy/Müller: 1981, 4–5). Although for the time being, Calvin’s use of Chrysostom editions from the early 1500s has not yet been proven, his use of Erasmus’s edition of Augustine’s Opera omnia (1528–1529) proves that he had access to Erasmus’s early-16th century, Basel patristic editions (Gilmont: 1997, 212). Also, Cratander produced Chrysostom editions in the first half of the 1500s. His most important translator was Oecolampadius, who translated at least four Chrysostom editions between 1523 and 1531.10 Hedio, another member of the sodalitas Basiliensis, provided Oecolampadius with a Greek Chrysostom manuscript. Before Oecolampadius became controversial, as a result of his association with Luther’s doctrine of justification since 1522 and his commitment to the Basilea reformata, he had worked at Froben’s print shop (Hilgert: 1971, 160–161; Ganoczy/Müller: 1981, 6). In Basel, Calvin probably did not meet Oecolampadius who had died in 1531, nor Erasmus—translator of at least ten Chrysostom texts11—who died in 1536. Nevertheless, Calvin participated in their knowledge-based network. He struck up a friendship with Capito (Gilmont: 1997, 27), who had already translated two Chrysostom editions from Greek into Latin12 and cooperated with Hedio for the Basel Reformation (Hilgert: 1971, 149). At Capito’s request, Calvin left Basel for Strasbourg in 1538 (De Greef: 2006, 33–34). He also came into contact with Bonifacius Amerbach, the son of John Amerbach, the former owner of Froben’s

10 Psegmata quaedam (1523), Comparatio regis et monarchi (1523), In totum Geneseo¯s librum sexagintasex (1523) and Commentatorium in Acta apostolorum homiliae quinquagintaquinque (1531, in cooperation with Erasmus). 11 De orando deum libri duo (1525), Quod multae quidem dignitatis, sed difficile sit episcopum agere, dialogi sex (De sacerdotio) (1525), In epistulam ad Philippenses homiliae duae, Libellus elegans Graecus, in quo confert verum monachum cum principibus, divitibus ac nobilibus huius mundi (1526), Lucubrationes aliquot non minus elegantes quam utiles (Adversus Iudaeos conciones V; De Lazero et divite conciones V; de beato Philogonio deque digne sumenda eucharistia concio I; Homiliae in epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses II; De orando deum conciones II; Commentariorum in acta apostolorum homiliae III; De dignitate et onere episcopi libri VI) (in cooperation with Germanus Brixius, 1527), Commentarius in epistulam ad Galatas (1527), Tria nova dabit hic libellus, Epistolam Erasmi, de modestia profitendi linguas. Libellum perquam elegantem D. Ioannis Chrysostomi Graecum, de Babyla martyre. Epistolam Erasmi Roterodami in tyrologum quendam inpudentissimum calumniatorem (1527), Aliquot opuscula (1529), Opera with Erasmus’s Praefatio and Vita Chrysostomi (1530–1531), Commentarium in Acta apostolorum homiliae quinquagintaquinque (in cooperation with Oecolampadius, 1531), Aliquot homiliae ad pietatem summopere conducibiles (1533) (Dill: 2008, 262–264). 12 Homilia de eo, quod dixit Apostolus: Vtinam tolasseretis paululum quiddam insipientiae meae and Paraenesis prior Theodorum lapsum (Dill: 2008, 260).

The Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias as an Indication

353

print shop (De Greef: 2006, 28). This contact lasted until at least 1550.13 Thus, Calvin had access to Greek manuscripts via members of the sodalitas Basiliensis. Basel also played a role in distributing Greek Chrysostom editions. In Paris, the Hellenist Germanus Brixius translated—at Erasmus’s request—Chrysostom’s De sacerdotio from Greek into Latin in 1526. This translation was based on a Greek edition that had been printed a year before at Froben’s. Between 1530 and 1533, Brixius translated the first eight homilies from In Epistulam ad Romanos Homiliae in Paris. The source was a Basel manuscript, which he obtained via Erasmus’s network as well (Augustin: 2011, xii). Greek Chrysostom manuscripts in Swiss libraries were only found in the collections of Basel and Geneva in 1886. In the Basel (Bibliothèque de l’Université) collection, 6 out of 90 manuscripts contain homilies of Chrysostom (6.5 %). In comparison: in the Genevean collection, 3 out of 35 manuscripts contain homilies of Chrysostom (8.5 %). According to Omont, they were collected in the 16th century (Omont: 1886, 404–452). The 1572 catalogue of the Genevean Academy Library contains two Greek Chrysostom editions: Chrysostom’s Liturgia (Basel, 1526) and the Opera Chrysostomi, graece, In Paulum (Verona, 1529). Besides these Greek editions, it contains the 1536 Chevallon edition, in which the 1530 Basel edition and translations based on other Greek manuscripts were adopted (Ganoczy: 1969, 41–42, 167, 170–171, 176, 182; Ganoczy/Müller: 1981, 4–5). So, the availability of many Chrysostom texts indicates that Calvin should have been able to use other editions as well, particularly during his stay in Basel.

3. Conclusion Because Calvin translated the New Testament off the top of his head while preaching, he should have been capable of reading patristic writings in Greek. The Greek Chrysostom editions, which circulated particularly in the sodalitas Basiliensis with which Calvin was in touch, indicate that Calvin was not exclusively dependent on Latin Chrysostom editions. These facts, combined with the information from the Praefatio, make it possible, or even probable, that Calvin intended to translate Chrysostom from Greek into French. These findings legitimize further research on how Calvin dealt with the available Greek Chrysostom editions. Did he use them and—if he did—how? Or did he consciously lay them aside and—if so—why? 13 CO 13.64: ‘Quanquam nihil de te sum promeritus, eam tamen benevolentiam erga me semper exhibuisti, ut te mea causa plus facturum confidam quam verecunde abs te petere ausim.’ and n. 1: ‘Calvinus saepius Basileae commoratus facile eum propius cognoscere potuerat.’

354

Jeannette Kreijkes

Bibliography CWE: Collected Works of Erasmus, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974– Augustin, P. (2011), Codices Chrysostomici Graeci VII, Codicum Parisinorum, pars prior, Paris: CNRS Éditions. Augustijn, C. (1995), Erasmus: His Life, Works and Influence, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Backus, I. (2000), Calvin and the Greek Fathers, in: Robert J. Bast/Andrew C. Gow (ed.), Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History, Leiden: Brill, 253–276. Dill, U. (2008), Johannes Chrysostomos im Basler Buchdruck des 16. Jahrhunderts, in: Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte Eines Kirchenvaters, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 255–265. Erasmus (1906–1958), Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, P.S. Allen/H.M Allen (ed.), Oxford: In Typographeo Clarendoniano. Ganoczy, A. (1969), La bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin: Le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements, Genève: Droz. Ganoczy, A./Müller, K. (1981), Calvins handschriftliche Annotationen zu Chrysostomus: ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik Calvins, Wiesbaden: Steiner. Gilmont, J-F. (1997), Jean Calvin et le livre imprimé, Genève: Droz. Greef, W. de (2006), Johannes Calvijn: zijn werk en geschriften, Kampen: Kok. Hazlett, W.I.P. (1991), Calvin’s Latin Preface to His Proposed French Edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies: Translation and Commentary in: James Kirk (ed.), Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400–1463, Cambridge: Blackwell, 129–150. Hilgert, E. (1971), Johann Froben and the Basel University Scholars, 1513–1523, in: The Library Quarterly 41 (vol. 2), Chicago, 141–169. Hirstein, J.S. ( 2007), Wolfgang Capito and the Other Docti in Johann Froben’s Basel Print Shop, in: E. Rummel/M. Kooistra (ed.), Reformation Sources: The letters of Wolfgang Capito and His Fellow Reformers in Alsace and Switzerland, Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 19–46. Kelly, J.N.D. (1995), Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom: Ascetic Preacher, Bishop, New York: Cornell University Press. Lane, A.N.S. (1999), John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd. Omont, H. (1886), Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de Bibliothèques de Suisse in: Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen III, Leipzig, 385–452. Todd, W.N. (1964), The Function of the Patristic Writings in the Thought of John Calvin, New York: Union Theological Seminary, ThD thesis. Veen, M.G.K. van (2006), Calvijn, Kampen: Kok. Walchenbach, J.R. (2010), John Calvin as Biblical Commentator, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock [reprint of diss. 1974].

Jonathan Lett

‘God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!’ Pneumatology and Participation in the Theology of John Calvin

Introduction There is no question that John Calvin is to be considered a ‘theologian of the Holy Spirit’ (Warfield: 1956, 484). The identity and work of the Spirit in Calvin’s theology, however, remain subject to debate. Scholars tend to read Calvin in one of two directions. They either present the Spirit as a bridge over which information and benefits cross the gap between God and humanity, or they imagine the Spirit drawing humanity into intimate participation within the triune life.1 This divide illustrates what Rowan Williams has called the problem of ‘conceiving any structural necessity for a second mediatorial presence except as some kind of continuator of the Logos’ revealing activity’ (Williams: 2000, 114f.).2 If trinitarian reflection is formulated in response to the question of revelation—i. e., how do we know God or God’s presence in this world?—then the Spirit is often reduced to the provider of salvific information or experience of Christ (cf. Williams: 2000, 110). Conversely, if a trinitarian dynamic centers on the question of how God makes human creatures fit for eternal fellowship with God, then the Spirit tends to mediate the union that enables humanity to share in the fellowship of the Father and Son. In short, the pneumatological apple does not fall far from the trinitarian tree. 1 For a brief summary of this divide in Calvin scholarship, cf. Eugene Rogers: 2003, 245–248. Notably, Rogers names Werner Krusche and Thomas F. Torrance as exceptions that prove the rule. 2 I follow Eugene Rogers’s observation that this split in Calvin scholarship nicely illustrates Williams’s (2000) documentation of the struggle to understand the identity of the Spirit in the relation of God to all that is not God. Julie Canlis agrees with Rogers’s (2003) overall assessment, but adds that these fault lines can be traced back to Calvin’s own inconsistencies concerning the relation between God and God’s creation (cf. 2010, 152–153). I will contend that Calvin may soft-pedal the Spirit but he does, indeed, conceive of the Spirit as a second mediator who invites the believer to participate within the life of God.

356

Jonathan Lett

I will argue that, for Calvin, the Spirit does indeed carry out the work of revelation (where revelation itself may not be reduced to doctrinal consent), but this function is a subset of the Spirit’s primary identity as ‘the bond that unites us to Christ’ (Inst. 3.1.1). When we approach Calvin’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit within the wider context of his trinitarian program, the Spirit’s primary work and identity come to the fore. The Spirit, who simultaneously unites and distinguishes the Father and the Son in the inner relations of the triune God, is the selfsame Spirit who simultaneously unites humanity to God and maintains the integrity of each. Thus, the Spirit is the constitutive reality that enables the Creator and creature to share in fellowship with one another. This pneumatological union incorporates human beings into the trinitarian life of God by participation in the humanity of Christ. To unpack this weighty claim, I will trace the ways in which Calvin’s trinitarian program is on display in his polemic against Andreas Osiander’s essential righteousness and in Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s Supper. But first we need to get our trinitarian bearings from Calvin’s doctrine of divine appropriations before we can survey the pneumatological terrain of these two areas.

1. Calvin’s Doctrine of Divine Appropriations The trinitarian life of God is at the heart of Calvin’s theology. Calvin’s affection for the Trinity stems from his conviction that humanity has to do with God himself in God’s self-revelation as Father, Son, and Spirit. Calvin insists that our speech about God ought to be disciplined by Scripture’s witness to the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit. Accordingly, Calvin’s doctrine of divine appropriations is based on the peculiar qualities of the divine persons that he observes in Scripture. Calvin writes, ‘To the Father is attributed the beginning of activity, and the foundation and wellspring of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things; but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity’ (Inst. 1.13.18). Although Calvin locates the beginning of activity in the Father, he warns that we must not interpose any temporal markers into these eternal relations: ‘We must not seek in eternity a before or an after’ (Inst. 1.13.18). While Calvin chastens speculation into the life of God, he also makes clear that the doctrine of appropriations is ‘not meaningless or superfluous’ for speaking of God (Inst. 1.13.18).3 3 Calvin thinks Augustine has set a good example in De Trinitate: ‘Indeed, it is far safer to stop with that relation which Augustine sets forth than by too subtly penetrating into the sublime mystery to wander through many evanescent speculations’ (Inst. 1.13.19). Calvin also warns against extrapolating beyond the distinctions named in Scripture. ‘Here, indeed, if anywhere in

‘God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!’

357

For Calvin, the peculiar qualities of the persons carry within them the order that maintains the unity of God’s ousia without compromising the divinity of each hypostasis (cf. Inst. 1.13.20).4 These appropriations cohere with the procession of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which Calvin describes as mutually indwelling one another. Calvin links the divine appropriations to the Filioque as the basis of this distinction-in-unity. He explains, [T]his distinction is so far from contravening the utterly simple unity of God as to permit us to prove from it that the Son is one God with the Father because he shares with the Father one and the same Spirit; and that the Spirit is not something other than the Father and different from the Son, because he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For in each hypostasis the whole divine nature is understood, with this qualification—that to each belongs his own peculiar quality (Inst. 1.13.19).

Here, Calvin connects the oneness and mutuality of God with the Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son. The Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son enables each divine hypostasis to contain the whole divine nature without losing the peculiar quality of each by the mutual indwelling of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Calvin writes, ‘The Father is wholly in the Son, the Son wholly in the Father, even as he himself declares: ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’ [ John 14:10]’ (Inst. 1.13.19). This mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son in which each hypostasis contains the whole of the other without losing the peculiar quality that distinguishes them comports with Calvin’s divine appropriations. As the efficacy of the Father and Son (cf. Inst. 1.13.18), the Spirit simultaneously unites and distinguishes the Father and the Son as the dynamic bond of the Father and Son (cf. Inst. 1.13.19).5 the secret mysteries of Scripture, we ought to play the philosopher soberly and with great moderation; let us use great caution that neither our thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself extends. For how can the human mind measure off the measureless essence of God according to its own little measure (…) Indeed, how can a mind by its own leading come to search out God’s essence when it cannot even get to its own? Let us then willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself. For, as Hilary says, he is the one fit witness to himself, and is not known except through himself. But we shall be ‘leaving it to [God]’ if we conceive him to be as he reveals himself to us, without inquiring about him elsewhere than from his Word’ (1.13. 21). Calvin does not rule out any speech about God in se; rather, he demands that speech about God in se not drift from God’s self-witness in Scripture. 4 Philip Butin argues that Calvin’s decision to make the external works of God characteristic of a particular hypostasis differs from the Thomistic notion of ‘appropriation of essential attributes to the persons’ (Butin: 1997, 42). 5 Notably, Calvin concludes his discussion of the oneness and threeness of God’s ousia by stating that we know that the word ‘God’ means a single, simple essence, in which we comprehend three persons. “But because the peculiar qualities in the persons carry an order within them (…) the name of God is peculiarly applied to the Father. In this way, unity of essence is retained, and a reasoned order is kept, which yet takes nothing away from the deity of the Son and the Spirit” (1.13.20). This shows that Calvin is keen to discipline all speech about God

358

Jonathan Lett

For Calvin, these divine appropriations describe not only the immanent Trinity but also God’s activity toward us, ad extra (Inst. 1.13.18).6 This trinitarian pattern can be discerned in the structure of the divine-human relationship itself. Just as the Father is the beginning of the activity of the Son and the Spirit, so, too, is the Father the initiator in the trinitarian activity of creation.7 Calvin’s definition of piety assumes this fact, for ‘reverence joined with love of God’ flows forth from the recognition that we ‘owe everything to God, that [we] are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of [our] every good’ (Inst. 1.2.1). This intimate relationship between God and humanity is best understood in filial terms, as the Father’s love for his children (cf. Comm. Acts 17:28).8 Calvin’s order of redemption perhaps best showcases his trinitarian order, which is again inflected in a filial key. According to Calvin, the Mediator comes for reconciliation in order to end hostility so that ‘those who were aliens might be adopted as sons’ (Comm. 2 Cor 5:19). The language of adoption signals a change in identity, from estranged to belonging. The Father sends the Son to reveal that God is our Father, and the Spirit incorporates us into the familial communion of the Father and Son (cf. Comm. Matt 3:17). This schema follows Calvin’s divine appropriations: the Father initiates adoption, Christ mediates sonship, and the Spirit efficaciously engrafts the adopted into the body of Christ. Our sanctification comes through our adoption in Christ; all that the Son has from the Father, he shares with us through the Spirit (cf. Comm. John 16:15). Our union with Christ is best understood as our adoption by the Father in the Son, through the Spirit. ‘The Father has embraced us in his beloved only-begotten Son to become a according to this order within God’s ousia. For a helpful reading of Inst. 1.13.19, cf. Chung: 2009, 46. 6 This trinitarian order is crucial for a doctrine of the Spirit, because the Spirit is not merely a function of salvation but rather integral to the inner life of the Triune God, which serves as the pattern for the Holy Spirit’s work ad extra. 7 Calvin upholds continuity between God’s opera ad extra and ad intra in order to maintain the distinction-in-unity of the Trinity: ‘[T]he Father created all things through the Word [ John 1:3; Heb. 11:3]. This he could not have done without being somehow distinct from the Word. Furthermore, it was not the Father who descended upon the earth, but he who went forth from the Father; the Father did not die, nor did he arise again, but rather he who had been sent by the Father’ (Inst. 1.13.17). For Calvin, God’s works are only intelligible within an account of God’s inner activity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Calvin writes, ‘When we mark the relation that the Son has with the Father, we rightly make the Father the beginning of the Son’ (Inst. 1.13.19). Again, this beginning is not chronological or biological, but only pertains to the relational distinction between the Father and the Son. As for the work of creation itself, Calvin thinks all three persons are indivisibly involved in the work of creation, but their involvement follows a certain taxis: the Father creates through the Son by the Spirit (Inst. 1.13.24). 8 Calvin here draws a distinction between sons in general and those sons adopted by the Spirit. Each human being can be called a son in general because he or she possesses the image of God, but the Spirit’s adoption of a person, which restores the tattered image of God, increases the resemblance between creature and Creator (cf. Inst. 1.15.4).

‘God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!’

359

Father to us’ (Inst. 3.1.3). The Spirit does more than just testify to our adoption; the Spirit constitutes the reality of our new identity in Christ. In other words, the Spirit is not just the guarantor of knowledge, but the dynamic bond of fellowship with God. It is important to recognize that the divine-human relationship has always required mediation and is not just a postlapsarian consequence (cf. Canlis: 2010, 53–88; Huijgen: 2011, 238–244; Crisp: 2013, 38–41). Calvin states, ‘Even if [humanity] had remained free from all stain, [their] condition would have been too lowly for [them] to reach God without a Mediator’ (Inst. 2.12.1). His emphasis here falls not on the insignificance of humanity, but on the fundamental distinction between Creator and creature. Julie Canlis also points to Calvin’s telling letter to Polish nobles in 1561, where he addresses the necessity of mediation between God and humanity (2010, 56): ‘Certainly the eternal λόγος [logos] was already mediator from the beginning, before Adam’s fall and the alienation and separation of the human race from God’ (Tylenda: 1973, 147). The logos mediates God’s relationship with humanity because the Father made all things by the Son, and all things exist by God through the Son (Comm. John 1:3). It is this fundamental distinction between creator and creature that Calvin’s trinitarian pneumatology seeks to uphold in his debate with Osiander, to which we now turn.

2. The Nature of Our Union with Christ: Calvin’s Debate with Osiander Calvin’s dispute with Osiander is a crucial site to examine how Calvin’s pneumatology preserves the appropriations of the persons of the Trinity while at the same time uniting humanity to Christ. According to Calvin, Osiander argued that Christ infuses righteousness to the believer so that Christ’s divine nature mingles with our human nature, thus divinizing the human (cf. Inst. 3.11.5). Calvin agrees that ‘we are one with Christ, and we in turn with him,’ but denies that God ‘transfuses himself into us,’ mixing Christ’s essence with our own to make us part of himself (Inst. 3.11.5). Calvin takes issue not with humanity’s oneness with Christ, but with Osiander’s deficient pneumatology. Calvin opines, ‘Now it is easy for us to resolve all his difficulties. For we hold ourselves to be united with Christ by the secret power of the Spirit’ (Inst. 3.11.5). Osiander cannot imagine a transformative union unless Christ’s divine essence mingles with ours because he suffers from pneumatological myopia for two reasons. First, Osiander’s eyes fail to perceive the Spirit’s union with Christ. When sundered from the Spirit, Christ’s divinity overwhelms his humanity, and his earthly obedience—and thus his righteousness—becomes a function of his

360

Jonathan Lett

divinity. Therefore, Osiander locates the source of our righteousness in the divine nature of Christ, assuming that only his divinity can heal a broken humanity. But Calvin’s recognition of the unique gift of the Spirit to constitute unions that maintain difference enables him to conceptualize a fully human and fully divine Jesus. In his humanity, Jesus really was tempted, given to the weaknesses of flesh, but the Spirit enabled him to say ‘Yes’ to the will of the Father (cf. Inst. 2.16.12). Calvin writes, ‘Although the divine power of his Spirit remained hidden for a moment to give place to weakness of flesh, we must know that the trial arising from the feeling of pain and fear was not contrary to faith’ (Inst. 2.16.12). This claim implies the ever-present help of the Spirit for Jesus to render perfect obedience to the Father. Notice that Calvin feels compelled to explain the ‘hiddenness’ of the Spirit, not the invisibility of Jesus’ divinity.9 Calvin stresses that Jesus’ human obedience is the basis for our reconciliation with God: ‘Our Lord came forth as true man and took the person and name of Adam in order to take Adam’s place in obeying the Father to present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to God’s righteous judgment, and, in the same flesh, to pay the penalty that we had deserved’ (Inst. 2.16.5). Second, Osiander’s pneumatological cataracts blind him to the Spirit’s mediating work to unite us with the humanity of Jesus. Osiander claims that God transfuses himself into us to make us part of God—and God transfuses righteousness to us through Christ’s divine nature. These pneumatological maladies plaguing Osiander’s doctrine of essential righteousness stem from a pathological doctrine of the Trinity, namely, a flimsy construal of the inner trinitarian relations. In claiming that all three indwell the believer, Osiander obliterates the appropriations of the mutually indwelling persons of the Trinity, conflating all three persons into an undifferentiated Godhead. His God is trinitarian in name only, for the differentiation of the three persons lacks little formal, let alone material, import for God’s relationship to humanity. The dislocated Spirit hovers passively outside of a divine Jesus who has no need for the Spirit. The overemphasized divinity of Christ vitiates the identity of the Son, for, as Calvin claims, it is precisely Christ’s human nature, peculiar only to the office of the Son, that distinguishes him from the Father and the Spirit (cf. Inst. 3.11.8). This flat, bland God lacks any mediatorial space for the Third Person of the Trinity as the dynamic bond that maintains the distinctions of the divine persons and holds the divine persons together in a union of mutual indwelling. In the end, Osiander’s 9 In a key passage on Jesus’ humanity and temptation, Calvin says that Jesus obeyed his Father ‘not, indeed, without a struggle; for he had taken upon himself our weakness, and in this way the obedience that he had shown to his Father had to be tested!’ (Inst. 2.16.5) Admittedly, Calvin does not say here, as I have, ‘in the power of the Spirit.’ But based on Calvin’s treatment of temptation in Inst. 2.16.12, it is safe to assume that Jesus renders obedience in the power of the Spirit.

‘God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!’

361

tenuously trinitarian God can neither justify nor sanctify humanity without compromising the integrity of both God and humanity. In contrast, Calvin’s economy of salvation presupposes a thick trinitarian pattern in which the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all work together to redeem humanity. Calvin insists that justification and sanctification are the ‘common task’ of the three divine persons (cf. Inst. 3.11.8). The Father ‘assigns to the Son the office of justifying’ (Inst. 3.11.8). The Father elects to send the Son, and the Son lovingly accepts this role, ‘taking the form of a servant’ (Phil. 2:7). The Father also sends the Spirit to anoint Christ for his mission to bring humanity back into communion with God (cf. Inst. 2.15.3).10 The Spirit unites us to Christ so that ‘he may supply what is lacking in his members’ (Inst. 3.11.12). Moreover, Calvin makes explicit exactly what Osiander neglected to consider, namely, the manner by which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indwell a believer. ‘[T]he Father and the Spirit are in Christ, and even in the fullness of deity dwells in him [Col. 2:9], so in him we possess the whole of deity’ (Inst. 3.11.5). Christ mediates the union between God and humanity and the Spirit preserves the inner relations of the trinitarian persons, while at the same time uniting human beings to God through the humanity of Christ.

3. The Lord’s Supper and the Spirit’s Union At this point, the exact nature of this union with Christ and the work of the Spirit are open to interpretation in several different directions. Is this union ontological (cf. Billings: 2009),11 nonontological, non-substantial (cf. Canlis: 2010),12 or even ‘substantial’ in Calvin’s nonontological eucharistic sense of the term’ (Muller: 10 Calvin attributes agency to the Spirit as well, ‘for the Spirit has chosen Christ as his seat, that from him might abundantly flow the heavenly riches of which we are in such need’ (Inst. 2.15.5). The Spirit is not a passive bond or ‘go between’ of the Father and the Son, but rather the Spirit chooses Christ. 11 Cf. Billings: ‘[T]he main purpose of Calvin’s language of ‘substantial participation’ is to differentiate his view from accounts of ‘imitating’ Christ which do not involve union with Christ. In faith, believers are united to Christ by the Spirit—forming the Body of Christ—and becoming ‘one substance’ with Christ. Incorporated into the Triune life, the oneness of believers with Christ and with other members of his Body is the same oneness by which the Son is united to the Father. Within this redemptive and ecclesial process, believers partake of the substance of Christ, receiving all that the Father has given to the Son. This participation is ontological and objective, even though the mode of participation is always by the power of the Spirit, thus not subject to circumscription’ (Billings: 2009, 64–65). 12 Admittedly, these distinctions in terminology may not represent incommensurate conceptual architectures. For example, Canlis believes that, despite differing terminology, she and Billings are ‘saying much the same thing’ (Canlis: 2010, 14).

362

Jonathan Lett

2012, 216f.)? 13 Here, I suggest that we follow Calvin’s own lead to help clarify the nature of the union and work of the Spirit. Calvin links Osiander’s neglect of the Spirit to a Eucharistic fallacy: just as Osiander dissolves the Creator-creature distinction by God’s ‘essential indwelling,’ he conflates the bread and wine with the physical body and blood of Jesus (cf. Inst. 3.11.10).14 Calvin realizes that the Spirit’s bond is the key to grasping both of these unions rightly. Furthermore, for Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is the primary way by which we understand union with Christ as a pneumatological reality. According to Calvin, the Supper of Christ figures in ‘visible signs best adapted to our small capacity this mystery of Christ’s secret union with the devout’ (Inst. 4.17.1). Although this incomprehensible union lies beyond the reach of our intellect, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper images our oneness with Christ so that we may understand it. Christ’s body is not locally or spatially present because Christ’s body, like all human bodies, is ‘limited by the general characteristics common to all human bodies, and is contained in heaven’ (Inst. 4.17.12). Here, again, Calvin’s commitment to a fully human Mediator—an ascended Jesus who takes his fully embodied humanity with him—sets the parameters within which the Spirit binds us to Christ: Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure. What, then, our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things separated in space (Inst. 4.17.10; italics JL).

Here we notice two things. First, the Spirit, not bound to the limits of corporeality, transcends the confines of time and space to form a concrete, effectual union, which Calvin calls ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’ (cf. Inst. 3.11.10; 4.17.1).15 For Calvin, the Supper is a pneumatological event in which our intimate fellowship with Christ—both our union with him and his presence at the Supper—are pneumatological realities. In this mysterious, secret work of the Holy Spirit, we are 13 This quotation from Muller continues: ‘as indicating something fully bestowed and ‘nourishing.’’ 14 This link between Osiander’s infirm pneumatology and the Supper affirms Billings’s (2010) suggestion that Calvin’s response at this particular moment in history was triggered by Westphal and Heshusius’s accusations that Calvin’s eucharistic theology was Osianderian. Calvin wished to safeguard his theology of the Lord’s Supper from being lumped in with the discredited Osiander. 15 Calvin recognizes the limits of human knowledge and speech to articulate the mystery of our union with Christ in which ‘there is no need to draw Christ to earth that he may be joined to us’ (Inst. 4.17.31). He confesses, ‘I rather experience it than understand it’ (Inst. 4.17.32). This subjective tenor resonates with the inward working of the Spirit. Calvin’s experiential account of the mystical union may also refer to the fact that the whole person, not just the intellect, participates in this union.

‘God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!’

363

lifted up to heaven to be joined with Christ. Calvin asserts that that this union is no less ‘spiritual and, hence, actual’ than our eternal salvation (Inst. 4.17.33). Without the secret work of the Holy Spirit, actual fellowship with God is not possible.16 Either this union will compromise the nature of both God and humanity, or real communion will have to remain but a promise for the future. Second, Calvin’s apophatism, which elsewhere tells us to reject speculation into the inner trinitarian life, now runs in the opposite direction: do not let the inability to speak of the Spirit limit the scope of the pneumatological union. When Calvin says that Christ’s union is ‘immeasurable by our measure,’ he means that we should not construe the ‘space’ that the Spirit ‘overcomes’ in crude physical terms (Inst. 4.17.10).17 Recall that Calvin has already described to Osiander union with Christ in spatial terms to emphasize the oneness of Christ with the believer—Christ is within the believer and the believer within Christ (cf. Inst. 3.11.10). Likewise, Calvin’s description of the Spirit’s work in the Supper is set in an ontological or metaphysical register in order to express the relation between Creator and creature. The Spirit, the bond that can hold together the Father and the Son so that each may enjoy a fellowship of unity and difference, the One who truly unites things separated by space, conjoins humanity to Christ in a mysterious union. Such a description of the identity and work of the Spirit renders Calvin’s commentary on John 17:21 intelligible: To comprehend aright what it meant that Christ and the Father are one, take care not to deprive Christ of his person as mediator. But consider Him rather as He is Head of the Church, and join Him to His members. Thus the connexion will be best preserved; that, if the unity of the Son with the Father is not to be fruitless and useless, its power must be defused through the whole body of believers. From this too, we infer that we are one with Christ; not because He transfuses His substance into us, but because by the power of His Spirit He communicates to us His life and all the blessings He has received from the Father (Comm. John 17:21; italics JL).

16 Our inability to conceive of God’s relation to material reality and humanity, according to Calvin, results from weak pneumatology: ‘Those who conceive of no presence of flesh in the Supper unless it lies in the bread…leave nothing to the secret working of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us’ (Inst. 4.17.31). 17 Calvin uses this concept of measuring God by human measure in his warning against speculation into the inner life of God. The ‘ground of all heresy’ is the overextension of human language beyond those limits established by the Word of God. ‘For how can the human mind measure of the measureless essence of God according to its own little measure’ (Inst. 1.13.21). Calvin’s point regarding space is not that some spiritual crossing between humanity and God is possible, but rather that spatial dimensions do not set the terms for union. Thus, the Spirit’s mediation is not of space per se, but of discrete beings. Billings (2010) rightly reads Calvin’s reference to distance in ‘metaphysical’ terms. The issue for Calvin is the relation of the Creator and the creature, and how to think about the question of God’s transcendence (cf. Billings: 2010, 137–139).

364

Jonathan Lett

Because the Spirit makes the Father and Son one, we can infer that believers, too, are made one with Christ by the power of the Spirit. The Spirit’s mediatorial work to unite believers with Christ is a continuation of the Spirit’s own mediatorial work within the life of God to unite Father and Son. Therefore, the Spirit allows for real—or, in Calvin’s parlance ‘spiritual’—communion with the Father through the Son. How is this possible? Calvin cannot say with absolute certainty, for he recognizes that language disintegrates as it approaches the inner trinitarian unity of Father and Son into which the Spirit draws humanity. Thus, he invites believers to come to the table of the Sacred Supper, which gestures toward the pneumatological reality of this inscrutable union.

Bibliography Billings, J. Todd (2009), Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Butin, Philip (1997), Revelation, Redemption, and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Calvin, John (2009), Calvin’s Commentaries, Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844–1855, repr. 22 vol., Grand Rapids: Baker. Calvin, John (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J.T. McNeill, translated by F.L. Battles, 2 vol., Philadelphia: Westminster. Canlis, Julie (2010), Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Chung, S. Paul (2009), The Spirit of God Transforming Life: The Reformation and Theology of the Holy Spirit, New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Crisp, D. Oliver (2013), Revisioning Christology: Theology in the Reformed Tradition, Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Huijgen, Arnold (2011), Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assessment, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Muller, Richard (2012), Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Rogers, Eugene (2003), The Mystery of the Spirit in Three Traditions: Calvin, Rahner, Florensky or, You Keep Wondering Where the Spirit Went, in: Modern Theology 19, 243–260. Tylenda, Joseph (1973), The Controversy on Christ the Mediator: Calvin’s Second Reply to Stancaro, CTJ 8, 131–157. Williams, Rowan (2000), On Christian Theology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Karin Maag

Calvin’s Impact in Elizabethan England

On 17 November 1558, Queen Mary Tudor died. She had been in power in England only since 1553, and in that six-year period, she had worked to restore Catholicism to England, following the equally brief reign of her Protestant halfbrother, Edward VI, and the longer rule of her father, Henry VIII, who had been responsible for the break between the Catholic Church and the Church of England. During Mary’s reign, about three hundred Protestants were put to death, and over a thousand fled into exile, finding places of safety in the German lands and particularly in Zurich and in Geneva. At Mary’s death in 1558, the religious situation in England was once again in flux, because the Catholic queen Mary was succeeded by her Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth. The religious exiles returned, bringing with them their ardent hopes for a restoration of Protestantism along the lines that they had experienced on the continent. Yet their hopes for a Genevan or Zurich-style Reformation were continually dashed, as Elizabeth strove to carve out a moderate middle way that matched her own preferences and that would not alienate too many of her subjects, whose confessional views spanned a wide spectrum (cf. Guy: 2013, 150–185). It is in this complicated and often (to them) frustrating religious context that a number of publishers, printers, and translators labored to bring the works of John Calvin to the attention of the English-speaking public. In the fifty-year period between 1560 and 1610, London printers published at least forty-two different works by John Calvin for an English-speaking readership.1 This total does not include the numerous reprints in English translation of certain popular works by Calvin, especially his catechism and his Institutes of the Christian Religion. This contribution will examine more closely the networks of printers, publishers, translators, and patrons that provided the impetus for such a major undertaking. The links between many of those active in 1 These forty-two works compare with sixteen different works by Heinrich Bullinger translated into English in the same period, five by Peter Martyr Vermigli, and only two by Martin Bucer. This data has been assembled from the Early English Books Online (EEBO) database.

366

Karin Maag

bringing Calvin’s works to print in English highlights both their financial interest in getting these texts to market and their confessional commitment to Reformed Protestantism. Why did translators and publishers put so much effort into making Calvin’s writings available to vernacular readers in England? One of the best sources to answer this question is the dedicatory letters that regularly appear at the start of these early modern English translations (cf. Voss: 1998, 733–756). By analyzing these letters, this contribution will explore both the aspirations of those who promoted Calvin’s works in English to their potential patrons, and their assessment of the value of Calvin’s works for an English audience. Above all, these prefaces and dedications show that Calvin’s writings were a vital tool used by the Reformed wing of English Protestantism in making their case for what they perceived as the crucial further reform of the English church and state. An initial survey of the printers, publishers, and booksellers who worked to produce Calvin’s writings in English between 1560 and 1610 very quickly shows that a small number of men (and a very small number of women, usually widows of men in the business) did the bulk of the work. It should be noted that printers were the ones who carried out the actual task of typesetting and pressing the inked characters onto the paper, whereas the publishers and booksellers were the ones who financed the operations and ensured that the books were brought to market. Particularly in the 1560s, however, it was entirely possible for someone to be a printer-publisher, in other words, to ensure the entire course of a book’s production from typesetting to sale (Bennett: 1965, 259). In the early 1560s, the main printer involved was Rowland Hall, who brought out five works by Calvin in the space of three years. Hall himself had gone into exile after the death of Edward VI, and spent the years of Mary’s reign in Geneva ( Johnson: 1824, 562– 563). The most prolific printer of Calvin’s works, beginning in the late 1570s, was Thomas Dawson, who printed fourteen different works by Calvin between 1577 and 1585. Other printers specialized in reprints of one particular text: for instance, John Kingston and his heirs ensured that Calvin’s catechism was continuously available in English in seven editions between 1560 and 1598. On the publishing and bookselling side, in the 1570s and 1580s, the main men who focused on Calvin were George Bishop and Lucas and John Harrison. Jointly or separately, Bishop and the Harrisons brought out twenty different works by Calvin between 1571 and 1585, two-thirds of the total during this high point of production of Calvin’s works in English. Their consistent and very-recognizable title-pages gave a sense of unity to their Calvin texts. Thirteen of the twenty works published by Bishop and/or one or other of the Harrisons were printed by Thomas Dawson (cf. Bennett: 1965, 272). Thus it seems that the circle of those interested in printing and publishing English translations of works by Calvin was a relatively small one.

Calvin’s Impact in Elizabethan England

367

Assessing the reasons why these men felt it worthwhile to invest in English translations of Calvin’s writings is more difficult, largely due to the relative lack of sources from the printers and publishers explaining their motivations. However, in a few cases, printers and publishers did lay out the case for producing these works in letters to the reader that appeared at the start of their texts. In 1561, printer-publisher Rowland Hall gave a beautifully clear rationale for his decision to print Calvin’s Four Godly Sermons against the pollution of Idolatries: There be thre causes specially that moveth me to printe these sermons of maister Jhon Calvine the faithful servant of god and the apostle of our time. Th’one is the worthiness of the matter set furth in these sermons. The other is the plaines and simplicitie that thys great clarke useth in all his sermons to the people. The third is the reverent handling of the scriptures, without tauntes, skoffes, or jestes, or any trifling tales, whereby our English nacion may se & judge what power the word of god hath of it self, whe[re] it is most naked & bare and void of that painted sheathe that men would put upon it (Calvin: 1561a, Aii r.).

Hall highlighted Calvin’s critique of idolatry, a major concern in 1560s England given the recent move from Catholicism under Mary back to Protestantism under Elizabeth. Indeed, those who sought further reformation in the worship practices of the English Church were looking for as much support as possible to move away from any aspects of worship that seemed too Catholic, including candles and vestments. As John Guy (2013: 182–183) noted, however, Elizabeth herself favored a more ornate style of worship, and insisted on having a crucifix and candles on the altar in the Chapel Royal. Calvin’s clear style and his direct focus on Scripture also won Hall’s support. Two decades later, in 1583, publisher Thomas Woodcocke laid out his rationale for bringing to press Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy. Beginning with an acknowledgement of the long-standing grace of God in maintaining England’s Protestantism, Woodcocke went on to lament many Englishmen and women’s hardness of heart, ignorance of God’s word, and dissolute lifestyles. He offered Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy as a remedy, particularly for the use of the godly: al states and conditions of men may out of the same [work] fetch many profitable points for their instruction both in faith and obedience towards God and man: so particularly if a man would overthrow Atheists, or confute Papists, and other Heretikes, or wound the wicked, or encourage the fainthearted, or comfort the afflicted conscience cast downe with the sight of sinne, or performe any other service towards God (…) Wherefore I would advise thee (good Reader) to get it speedily, to reade it diligentlie, to remember it faithfullie, and to expresse it fruitfullie in thy conversation, to the glorie of God, the profite of his people, and the salvation of thine owne soule through Christ (Calvin: 1583a, ii. v.).

Notwithstanding the fact that Woodcocke had a business interest in selling as many copies of the Sermons on Deuteronomy as he could, his sales pitch focused

368

Karin Maag

primarily on the spiritual benefits of acquiring and reading Calvin’s work in the context of what Woodcocke saw as the ongoing struggle in England between the godly and the ungodly. This theme of the English population’s disregard for the true faith and its teachings, and the need of Calvin’s writings as a remedy to encourage the godly, teach the ignorant, and confute religious opponents, occurs as a leitmotiv throughout the dedicatory letters and prefaces. Apart from printers and publishers penning letters to the reader, the best source for information about the motivations for bringing Calvin’s writings to the English readership is the letters of dedication written by translators. Almost every single edition of Calvin’s works in English beginning in the late 1560s includes such a letter.2 These texts vary in length from a single folio side to extensive treatises of twenty pages or more. The translators themselves, like the printers and publishers, were from a relatively narrow circle. Some only translated one text, albeit so successfully that their version was reprinted throughout the fifty-year period, as in the case of Thomas Norton, who translated the Institutes for its first English edition in 1561 (cf. Higman: 1996, 91). Some were wellknown translators of a range of classical and contemporary texts, as in the case of Arthur Golding. Known today primarily for his translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Golding was a prolific translator of Calvin, producing seven different texts between 1567 and 1580, many of these being major and extensive works, including Calvin’s Psalms commentary (1571) and his sermons on Galatians (1574), Ephesians (1577), Job (1580), and Deuteronomy (1583) (cf. Bennett, 105– 111; Higman, 92–93; Wortham: 1949, 339–341). Some, such as Christopher Featherstone, Thomas Stocker, Thomas Tymme, and Robert Vaux were clergymen, and could be expected to have a personal and professional interest in disseminating key religious texts that matched their own theological outlook. Other translators are only known by their initials, thus making the work of assessing their perspective and motivations in translating Calvin much more difficult to measure against their personal context. As for the recipients of the dedications, most fit into one of two categories: members of the clergy or members of the nobility. Among the clergy dedicatees were Edmund Grindal (the Archbishop of Canterbury), John Aylmer (Bishop of London), Gabriel Goodman (Dean of Westminster), and a trio of London and Essex clergymen whom Robert Vaux honored in his 1581 translation of Calvin’s commentary on Colossians. Of these, Grindal in particular was known as a supporter of further reformation in the Church of England (cf. Higman: 1996, 94). The list of noble recipients of dedications is much more extensive. Earls were 2 The exception is Calvin’s catechism, which goes straight into the text of the catechism with no prefatory material, in all likelihood because of the nature of the text as a teaching tool for generalized use.

Calvin’s Impact in Elizabethan England

369

most likely to have a work dedicated to them, largely because of their closeness to the center of power and to the queen’s court. Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester) and Henry Hastings (Earl of Huntington) each had three works by Calvin dedicated to them by various translators over the fifty-year period (cf. Rosenberg: 1955). Other powerful recipients of these dedications included William and Robert Cecil, and Sir Francis Walsingham, who served as Elizabeth’s principal secretary. Across the board, the choice of noblemen as dedicatees was motivated largely by the need to secure patrons who shared the translators’ religious outlook, and who could be expected to support the aim of moving the Church of England in a more Reformed direction (cf. Bennett: 1965, 34). Women appear rarely among the dedicatees, and then mostly as minor players. Elizabeth, daughter of James VI, was named as a dedicatee alongside her much more powerful brother, Henry, Prince of Wales, in Clement Cotton’s 1609 translation of Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah (Calvin: 1609, fol. 3 r.). On four occasions women were listed alongside their husbands, underscoring the role played by women in helping to maintain faith in the family setting. In two cases, the translators dedicated their labors to women alone: in 1560, translator A.L. (Anne Locke, the only woman among the translators) dedicated her translation of Calvin’s sermons on Hezekiah to Katherine, Duchess of Suffolk (cf. Higman: 1996, 89), and in 1585, Christopher Featherstone dedicated his abridged translation of Calvin’s Institutes to Lady Judith Pelham (cf. Higman: 1996, 94–95). In their prefaces and dedications, the translators laid out a number of reasons that motivated them to focus on putting Calvin’s works into English. According to Francis Higman, the aim in translating some of Calvin’s writings for the English market had been to provide mainstream Protestant doctrinal instruction, as in the case of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, for instance. Higman also argues that a second group of more radical translators sought to use Calvin’s writings in their campaign to make substantive changes in the worship and doctrines of the Church of England, and in doing so placed significant weight on Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. He concludes, ‘One sees here the evolution of Calvinism, under the tension of the debates within the Church of England, towards that stress on predestination as central which characterized Presbyterianism for centuries’ (Higman: 1996, 99). Yet a broader-based analysis of the translators’ perspective as articulated in their prefaces and letters of dedication paints a somewhat different picture, not highlighting predestination as much as drawing a portrait of a doctrinally-divided England, in which Calvin’s writings were expected to tip the scales in favor of the godly. Christopher Rosdell, who translated Calvin’s commentary on Romans in 1583, saw a need for Calvin’s text in spite of competing Reformed commentaries already in print. In his eyes, the merits of Calvin’s approach outweighed the

370

Karin Maag

dangers of over-saturating the market with similar types of works. In his dedication letter to the Earl of Hertford, Rosdell noted, And this is …the onely cause hath moved mee to set foorth this translation upon the Epistle to the Romanes, which thing perhaps will seeme unto many needlesse and unnecessary, considering that the Commentaries of master Peter Martyr were already in English upon the same matter….For besides that none hath dealt more sincerely in expounding the holy scriptures, and more faithfully in drawing foorth the true sense of deepe mysteries, then M. Calvine, hee hath this as peculiar to himselfe, alway to match his faithfull sinceritie with a plaine briefnesse. So that men may without any great losse of time find that with him which would cost them much seeking in others (Calvin: 1583b, fol. c/ 5 v.)

Like Rowland Hall twenty years earlier, Rosdell admired Calvin’s clear style and brevity, as well as his faithful interpretation of Scripture. Rosdell’s praise for Calvin’s approach also implicitly critiqued the more long-winded approach of other commentators, including Vermigli. Ultimately, Rosdell highlighted the importance of having commentaries that were faithful to Scripture and that expounded ‘the true sense of deepe mysteries’, presumably in contrast to other works that would lead readers astray. Those translating works in the earlier decades had an advantage over later translators, in that some of the former could claim personal acquaintance with the Reformer, who died in 1564. A translator who knew Calvin personally could make a strong case for the relevance and significance of his teachings, as did Goddred Gilby, for instance, in his preface to the reader accompanying his translation of Calvin’s Admonition against astrology. Highlighting first God’s condemnation of ‘sothsaiers and stargazers’, and then noting the recent calamities that had affected England including famine, the loss of Calais, and various major fires and other disasters, Gilby continued, ‘Therfore am I bold thogh I be but a child to offer to the world such things concerning the curiositie of that art, and the abuse of the same, as I bothe learned at the mouth of maister Calvine and red in his bokes.’ (Calvin: [1561b], fol. Ai v.). Based on what he had heard and read from Calvin, Gilby felt the Genevan Reformer could speak to the contemporary English situation. Another translator in the 1560s, Arthur Golding, also made a key connection between Calvin’s teachings and the sometimes tenuous state of religious belief and practice in the first decade of Elizabeth’s reign. In his preface dedicated to the Earl of Bedford for his 1567 translation, A little booke of John Calvines concernynge offences, Golding wrote, Whereunto this treatise written by that excellent instrument of God, maister John Calvine, very much avayleth, for in it he purposely entreateth, of such Offences & stumbling blockes, as at this daye make many men either to feare, or to abhorre the doctrine of the Gospell, it serveth wel for this our countrie in this light of truth offered, to convince the obstinate, to confirme the weeke, to stay the wavering, to instruct the ignoraunt, and to occasion all men with reverence to receive the glad tidings of the Gospell, and that without delay, least for our

Calvin’s Impact in Elizabethan England

371

unthankfulnesse the publique profession thereof beynge taken awaye, it be to late for us to seeke oyle, when we should be readie to enter with the Bridegrome (Calvin: 1567, fol. *iiii r.– v.).

In other words, according to Golding England was in danger of losing the only recently-acquired benefits of being an officially Protestant nation unless the population paid more serious attention to the teachings of the faith. Golding’s reference to the parable of the wise and foolish virgins offers a good example of the centrality of Scripture in the mindset of the godly, and linked the teachings of Calvin to the coming reign of Christ. Other later translators also placed great emphasis on the need for Calvin’s writings in the context of the ignorance and apathy of English Christians of their day. In his preface to Three Propositions, or speeches by Calvin, dedicated to Richard Knightley and his wife Elizabeth in 1580, translator Thomas Wilcox lamented at length what he saw as the long-standing spiritual ignorance, superstition, and rebellion of the English population. Wilcox rhetorically asked, Is it not both straunge and pitifull, and yet in my persuasion, I take it to bee for the most parte very true, that after twenty yeeres publique preaching & professing of the Gospel under our gracious soveraignes raigne, the people are verie litle, or no whit at all edified in the knowledge of fayth, & lesse builded up (if lesse can bee) in the fruites of obedience and holy life? Not that I deny the Gospell, to have taken good roote in sundrye mens hartes, but this I meane, that that number is very small, yea even as it were a cottage in a vineyard, or lyke a Lodge in a Gardeyne of Cucumbers, or like a besieged Citie (Calvin: 1580, fol.*3 r.–v.).

Wilcox’s perspective deserves further analysis. On the one hand, one could assume that his assertions about the miserable state of English faith and practice were simply a rhetorical device common to all reformers who felt that their expectations for a transformed Christendom resulting from the coming of the Reformation had not been realized. However, readers could then well wonder why godly pastors continued to preach sermons and translators and publishers persistently expended such efforts on bringing Calvin’s texts to press, given the seemingly minimal results, even after twenty years. On the other hand, one could argue that the more Wilcox and his colleagues trumpeted that the English population was spiritually ignorant and needing instruction, the more they provided a ready-made justification for the need for texts by Calvin and other leading Reformers to remedy the situation. In other words, by decrying the indifference of the majority, and offering Calvin’s insights as a cure, Wilcox was ensuring that a market for these works would persist, at least among the godly who shared his mindset. For his part, Nathaniel Baxter, who translated Calvin’s sermons on Jonah in 1578, articulated at length in his dedication to Sir Francis Walsingham, Sir John Broket, and Sir Henrie Cocke how dire the situation of the English population

372

Karin Maag

was vis-à-vis the life of faith. His analysis is also worth examining in some detail. The story of Jonah called to prophesy to proud and corrupt Nineveh was ideally suited for Baxter’s rather negative perspective on faith in contemporary England. Focusing on his own day, Baxter asked, Are not the ministers contemned, their preachings discredited, and their ministery skorned by papists and Ruffians…? Are not prophane Comedies and tragedies (most of them being monstrosities) with great pompe celebrated, when the holy worde of God the foode of our soules (being preached) ought with reverence to be heard? It is certainly true. We have right honorable in many places the tables and tennis in steede of the Testament, the cards in steede of the Catechisme, the boules in steed of the Bible: yea and that more is, men think they have made a very good change (Calvin: 1583c, fol. Aii v.).

Baxter’s use of alliteration and his lively style suggest he had good prospects as a writer. He then went into an extended critique of the printing industry’s pandering to the English reading public’s desire for romances and other fiction, offering a great insight into what the English book market’s best-sellers at the time may well have been. He continued his trenchant analysis of the printing business, stating that in contrast to the fast-selling romances, ‘…if any good booke be written, it lieth in the printers hands, smally regarded, seldome enquired after: so that the printer is scarce paied for the paper that goeth to the booke’ (Calvin: 1583c, fol. Aiii r.). Having laid out in detail his concerns about the contemporary situation of England, Baxter finally articulated his rationale for making Calvin’s text available in English: I have caused that Divine Doctor of the Church, John Calvine, the Lordes vigilant watchman, even in our owne tongue to sound the trumpe, if by this meanes eyther he or I may geve them warning before their fall, to eschew these baytes of wily Sathan, who knoweth whether the Lorde by this meanes wil open the eyes of some men to see their owne sinnes and to be sory for the same? But if they be never the better, but rather the blynder, my conscience is discharged, and these few lines shalbe unto their consciences a witnesse that they are from henceforth without excuse before the throne of God (Calvin: 1583c, fol. Aiii v.).

Like Thomas Woodcocke, Baxter saw his work in bringing Calvin to print in English as a significant contribution to the struggle between the godly and their opponents in England. If one could speak without anachronism about the culture wars in late sixteenth-century England, it would be readily apparent that Baxter’s translation of Calvin’s sermons on Jonah was ideally suited as a tool in the armory of the godly to make telling parallels between the situation of ancient Nineveh and contemporary England. These dedications and letters to the reader represent only a sampling of the prefatory material available for analysis in these sixteenth-century translations of Calvin’s works. Indeed, the same sort of study could be carried out for different

Calvin’s Impact in Elizabethan England

373

Reformed authors in the same time period or for Calvin’s writings after 1610. Taken together, information about networks of printers and booksellers, translators and their patrons, coupled with the content of the dedications, shows that getting Calvin in print in English was a concerted effort. English translations of Calvin’s works were motivated both by the clear demand among readers, and by a conviction that Calvin’s sermons, commentaries, and treatises offered a pathway for the further reform of England, a cause to which many of these same printers, booksellers, translators, patrons, and readers were personally deeply committed.

Bibliography Bennett, H.S. (1965), English Books and Readers, 1558–1603, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Calvin, John (1561a), Four godlye sermons agaynst the polution of idolatries…, London: Rowland Hall. — ([1561b]), An admonicion against astrology judiciall…, London: Rowland Hall. — (1567), A little booke of John Calvines concernynge offences, London: [H. Wykes] for William Seres. — (1580), Three propositions or speeches…, London: Thomas Dawson for George Bishop. — (1583a), The sermons of M. John Calvin upon the fifth booke of Moses called Deuteronomie…,London: Henry Middleton for Thomas Woodcocke. — (1583b), A commentarie upon the epistle of Saint Paul to the Romanes…, London: [Thomas Dawson] for John Harrison and George Bishop. — (1583c), The lectures or daily sermons, of that reverend divine, D. John Calvine, pastor of the Church of God in Geneva, upon the prophet Jonas…, London: [ J. Charlewood] for Edward White. — (1609), A Commentary upon the prophecie of Isaiah, London: Felix Kingston for William Cotton. Guy, John (2013), The Children of Henry VIII, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, John (1824), Typographia: Or the Printer’s Instructor… London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, et al.. Higman, Francis (1996), Calvin’s Works in Translation, in: Andrew Pettegree, (ed.), Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1620, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 88–99. Rosenberg, Eleanor (1955), Leicester, Patron of Letters, New York: Columbia University Press. Voss, Paul (1998), Books for Sale: Advertising and Patronage in Late Elizabethan England, in: Sixteenth Century Journal 29 (3), 733–756. Wortham, James (1949), Arthur Golding and the Translation of Prose, in: Huntington Library Quarterly 12 (4), 339–367.

Balázs Dávid Magyar1

‘The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light’ Portraits of Genevan Family Life in John Calvin’s Sermons on Ephesians

Introduction Almost one hundred years ago, Émile Doumergue, the well-known french expert of the history of reformation, quoted the following statement of Désiré Nisard: ‘The Institutes is the whole of Calvin and the whole of Calvinism’ (Doumergue: 1910, 1). According to this conviction, the Genevan reformer was a man of only one book, and this book was the Institutes. However, William J. Bouwsma criticized Calvin’s portrait on the Monument International de la Réformation in Geneva saying this actual statue depicts the reformer as a stony and rigid man who is so immobile (Bouwsma: 1989, 1–2), still it is not without good reason to clarify how talkative is this statue, because Calvin holds not his Institutes, but his Bible. Therefore, Calvin was a man of only one book, and this book was the Word of God (Selderhuis: 2007). By no means is it surprising to start with the thesis: Calvin’s ideas cannot be understood only from his Institutes. All of his works— the Institutes, commentaries, sermons, letters, and treatises—can pave the way for the right understanding of his social and ethical legacy. This paper intends to scrutinize one aspect of John Calvin’s social thoughts, namely his views on family life and Christian marriage expressed in those fortyeight sermons that he delivered on the book of Ephesians. Erwin Mülhaupt and T.H.L. Parker pointed out so bitterly that the examination of Calvin’s preaching is remained undiscussed among Calvin scholars (Mülhaupt: 1931, viii–xx; Parker: 1992, vii–xi). In this contribution, I would like to contribute to the work of Claude-Marie Baldwin (Baldwin: 1988), Robert M. Kingdon, and John Witte

1 It was a great honour to obtain and fulfill the Friends Research Fellowship of H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies (Grand Rapids, USA) in July 2014. I am indebted for the courtesy of Karin Maag and Paul Fields.

376

Balázs Dávid Magyar

(Kingdon: 1995; Witte: 2002; Kingdon/Witte: 2005), who examined very profoundly the written heritage of Calvin from the viewpoint of family life.

1. Social and Personal Background of Calvin’s Preaching on Ephesians Scrutinizing John Calvin’s ethics in his sermons on Deuteronomy, Albrecht Thiel convincingly pointed out how substantial were the current social, political, and economic circumstances of his preaching in Geneva (Thiel: 1999, 2f). He was, first of all, a pastor serving at Saint Pierre, but on the other hand Calvin was a high esteemed moderator of the Consistory, and he took part in the weekly gathering of pastors called Congrégation as well (De Boer: 2004). So Calvin was not ignorant of the great number of moral and sexual crimes of the people of Geneva that made him constantly anxious. According to Karl Barth, Calvin devoted himself wholeheartedly ‘to building up the City of God, the New Jerusalem in Geneva’ (Barth: 1993, 153), therefore he created a brand new alliance between Consistory and Small Council in order to oversee the moral life of the people. Due to this unique, but frequently inconsistent correspondence with the Council of Geneva, the Consistory could control cases of engagement, marriage, fornication, sodomy, and prostitution. Parallel with the operation of the Consistory, the magistrates of the Small Council did not remain at rest, since they put firm restrictions on dancing, gambling, singing, dressing, luxury and license in Geneva (Pfisterer: 1957, 81–85; Staedtke: 1969, 92f.). On the basis of T.H.L. Parker’s chronological chart, the reformer delivered almost fifty sermons on the book of Ephesians between 1558 and 1559 (Parker: 1992, 150ff.). In their several articles, Robert M. Kingdon and William G. Naphy made clear how important the role of the consistorial experience was in Calvin’s life and work. Kingdon argued: ‘Calvin rarely missed the weekly meetings of the Consistory [since these] gatherings provided him with a laboratory to test and refine many of the theological [and ethical] ideas expressed in his Institutes, commentaries, sermons, and statutes’ (Kingdon/Witte: 2005, xv). In brief, Calvin could test and try out the influences of his pastoral advice in the Consistory, but when he recognized that his adequate teaching remained effortless, he devoted very detailed sermons in everyday language to the requested topic. In his comparative study, William G. Naphy scrutinized the Registers of the Consistory of Geneva between 1541 and 1557. According to his figures, the ‘criminal cases’ involving sexual immorality reached its peak just before the start of Calvin’s preaching on Ephesians in 1557 (Naphy: 2003, 179). This is why Calvin depicted the social and spiritual context of his sermons on Ephesians in the following,

‘The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light’

377

painful way: ‘We see some debauched by whoredom and infamy, others are in drunkenness, and other kinds of evil and loose behavior’ (Calvin: 1987, 137). Therefore, it is not surprising that Calvin was explaining the book of Ephesians with special emphasis on household relationships. Nevertheless, in order to grasp the right understanding of Calvin’s ideas on marital and family life, the reader ought to keep in mind that his work in Geneva (1541−1564) was full of tribulation, inward grief, and sorrow. To begin with, he lost his only one surviving child, Jacque, in 1542, then his beloved wife, Idelette, in 1549 (Braekman: 2008; Berg: 2009, 123–133), but the most tragic element of Calvin’s family life was to witness the long and scandalous divorce of his brother, Antoine, and his adulterous wife, Anne LeFert (Doumergue: 1905, 568–576; Kingdon: 1995, 71–97).

2. Distressing Portraits of Family Life in Calvin’s Sermons on Ephesians As we have noted, John Calvin’s basic intention was to reshape the ordinary life of the people in Geneva. Due to his deep seated conviction, he explained Eph 4:6ff in this way: ‘It is certain that the city of Geneva ought to be as a burning lamp to give light to such as are yet far off from the gospel’ (Calvin: 1987, 341). The religious and confessional life for Calvin meant firmly the practical fulfilment of God’s Ten Commandments; therefore he was trying to commit everything to implement the ‘lifelong worship of Christ’ not only in individual, but in family life as well. By doing this, Calvin’s most important method was, first of all, to point out the disturbing conditions of family life in Geneva, unfolding his painful experiences based on the minutes of the Consistory. Preaching on Eph 5:28ff., he said so bitterly that ‘We see what is happening. For let a man look into all households, one after another, and where will he find such amity as may resemble Jesus Christ and his church? Instead, husband and wife are always quarrelling and disagreeing’ (Calvin: 1987, 595f.). But we can see the straightness of his teaching again, when he was saying: ‘if you look at the love that men bear to their wives, you will find scarcely one among a hundred, who could not find in his heart to back down. It is to be seen daily that men storm at their wives, and wives are pert with their husbands. It is a common occurrence in every house, and curses will fly and move around. In short, there is nothing but grief and scorn’ (Calvin: 1987, 612). By no means was it the end of the story, because Calvin broke out over and over again into angry words saying that ‘Nor does the husband consider how he ought to support his wife, how he ought to guide her in the fear of God, and how he ought to love her as a helper (…) Nor does the wife humble herself to her

378

Balázs Dávid Magyar

husband that she may please him, because she perceives that she is expressly given to him to be a help and not a hindrance to him’ (Calvin: 1987, 596). Finally his closing remarks related to corrupted family relations were: ‘but perhaps another man will say that his wife is a drunkard or a glutton, and still, another that his wife is given to gaudiness and extravagance, so that all she can lay hands on goes to dress and adorn herself; and yet another, that his wife is idle and will do nothing’ (Calvin: 1987, 574).

3. Calvin’s Views on Ideal Family Life A. Calvin’s Guidelines on Women’s Duties In his sermons on Ephesians, Calvin began with the interpretation of the women’s duties, namely the obedience to their husbands, the provision of household affairs involving everyday jobs, for example keeping the house clean, and nursing, raising children, showing good example. Obedience to husbands It is not without good reason to point out that the central element of Calvin’s theology on family life was the Christian obedience. The reformer argued that marriage is not only a kind of legal contract, but also a unique, special condition of life, because husband and wife are so closely bound to each other in order to fulfill God’s calling (Witte: 1998). According to Calvin, wives ought to be subject to their husbands in the same manner as the church to Christ. Calvin made clear that Eve was a part of Adam’s body so God has given to the husbands authority over the wives, and this authority is found in Christ, who is the head of the church, just as the husband is of the wife. But Calvin went further, explaining the strong connection between husband and political authorities: ‘God’s establishing of principalities, kingdoms, and states (…) to have some power and authority over us. (…) As much can be said of fathers’ (Calvin: 1987, 561). On the basis in Calvin’s preaching the magistrates are appointed by God to govern the people (Inst. 5.20.1–32). It is to be said of the husbands as well, who ruled over the members of the family (Inst. 2.8.35–38). This is why the reformer continued his preaching in the following way: ‘Now then, let wives look well to their office and understand that when they contend with their husbands, it is just as if they were to reject God, because (…) they should be subject to their husbands’ (Calvin: 1987, 569).

‘The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light’

379

Provision of household affairs Scrutinizing the reformer’s ‘work ethics’, one will find that Calvin was totally harsh with the idleness and negligence of the people (Fazakas: 2009a). He believed, we are born not to laziness, but to work and for action; therefore, nothing is more contrary to the order of our nature, than to consume life in eating, drinking, and sleeping (Calvin: 2009a, 125). As a result, Calvin spoke so sharply against the light-headed indolence and self-centered life of women, for instance in 1548, when he said: ‘There will be foolish women (…) who (…) will do nothing but sigh mutter till noon. (…) They will rid themselves of all domestic affairs; and having returned home, if they do not find everything arranged to their wish, they will disturb the whole family by outrageous cries’ (Calvin: 2009b, 124). Almost ten years later, Calvin returned to this subject in one of his sermons on Ephesians pronouncing that man often says: ‘his wife is given to gaudiness and extravagance, so that all she can lay hands on goes to dress and adorn herself; and yet another, that his wife is idle and will do nothing’ (Calvin: 1987, 574). So the reformer’s thundering preaching made clear: nothing is more unseemly for a wife, when she is idle and good for nothing and seems born only to talk, dress, eat, and drink.

Nursing, raising children: Showing good example William J. Bouwsma illuminated how relevant the role of Scripture was in John Calvin’s ideas. The biblical stories are true schools for learning how to order our lives, but they are ‘filled with examples of both ethical and unethical behavior that can be admirable or shameful [so the holy] history can teach ethics more effectively then philosophy itself ’ (Bouwsma: 1988, 90). Calvin wanted the city of Geneva and her people to become a ‘burning lamp’, a suitable example to give light. Besides material and spiritual (e. g. teaching Pater Noster, Credo) care of children (Pitkin: 2002; Spierling: 2005), Calvin emphasized two peculiar ways of the women’s exemplary life. The first was the moderate use of dress, make-up, and jewels. Commenting Tit 2:3 in 1548, Calvin payed attention to people who have burning affection for excessive dressing: ‘We very frequently see, that females advanced in age either continue to dress with the lightness of youthful years, or have something superstitious in their appearance, and seldom hit the golden mean’ (Calvin: 2009b, 311). After a decade the reformer furiously took the stand against the reign of current fashion trends in Geneva, stating ‘there are also very provocative clothes, so that it is very hard to discern whether they are men or women. They appear in new dresses and trinkets, so that every day some new disguise is seen. They are decked in peacock-tail fashion, so that a man cannot pass within three foot of them without feeling, as if there were a windmill sail

380

Balázs Dávid Magyar

swirling by him’ (Calvin: 1987, 497). This is, why Calvin emphasized in his Institutes that: ‘a youth wearing excessively wanton and dainty clothing that it does not matter in what manner he is unchaste, (…) God requires modesty in us (…) so let neither your heart burn with wicked lust within, nor your eyes wantonly run into corrupt desires, nor your body be decked with bawdy ornaments’ (Inst. 2.8.44; see more in 3.10.3). As a result of Calvin’s thoughts on the modest way of life, the Small Council put firm restrictions on singing, dressing, luxury and license in 1558 (Pfisterer: 1957, 84). But it seems, these sumptuary laws remained effortless, therefore in 1560 and 1564 the magistrates gave effect to new ordinances concerning dresses, bracelets, silver belts, golden ornaments, and rings (Rivoire/Berchem: 1927–1935, 3.106–107). in order that the poor were not to be insulted, shamed, or frustrated (Fazakas: 2009b). The women’s second peculiar duty was to live in an honest, and modest way without dancing and singing illicit, dissolute songs; showing adequate example for future generations. Just a few years before his preaching on Ephesians, Calvin delivered fifty-five sermons on Paul’s first epistle to Timothy (1554−1555) (Parker: 1992, 151). In his sermon on 1 Tim 2:1f., the reformer devoted long sentences to the risk of dancing: ‘There was a law made [in Geneva], that there should be no dancing among the people (…) the reason was good, because dance has no purpose, but to be a provocation to whoredom. Men and women do not always play whoremongers and whores when they dance, I accept: but if we consider well what the nature of dances is, we shall say that is but a knack of bawdry, and if dances be licensed, it opens a door for the Satan’ (Calvin: 1983a, 144). Calvin reflected upon the matters of dancing in his sermons on Eph 5:3–5 again: people who want dances not to be forbidden ‘proclaimed themselves to be proxies and advocates of the devil, to infect and poison the whole world’ (Calvin: 1987, 497). It is not surprising that parallel with the ‘Scripture’, the magistrates of Small Council condemned dances as well. According to city registers, dancing was forbidden (except at weddings) as early as 1539 (Rivoire/Berchem: 1930, 2.348). But ten years later the magistrates declared: ‘no one dares (…) to sing indecent songs or dance in any manner whatever’ (Rivoire/Berchem: 1930, 2.530). This is why Calvin preached so harshly on Eph 5:11−14, revealing: ‘most men and women (…) stop their ears at the things that they might well hear. (…) They would rather go and pollute their gowns and coats with other people’s dung filthiness, than expose their vice. In short, everyone in effect plays the bawd, by concealing his neighbour’s vice’ (Calvin: 1987, 529). But what was the reformer’s motivation for commenting these verses in a furious way? Calvin definitely remembered the long-standing dispute of Antoine Lect, who celebrated the wedding of his daughter, Jeanne in 1546. The invited partygoers were dancing, but they agreed that the best approach was to deny everything before the Consistory:

‘The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light’

381

Calvin was of course incensed by this apparently premeditated duplicity (Naphy: 2003, 96f.). Nevertheless, Calvin discovered a very close relation between dancing and singing, because ‘ribald songs are a part of the dancer’s behavior’ (Calvin: 1987, 497). The reformer believed, our Lord not only ‘has given us tongues to communicate (…) but He has ordained our tongues to be devoted wholly to his service as well’ (Calvin: 1987, 462). As a consequence, he made a strong, exact distinction between the lewd and spiritual songs (Garside: 1979). The idle songs most frequently used are almost always on trifling subjects, and very far from being chaste—argued Calvin, so ‘if a [young] female accustoms herself to singing foolish love songs, she will become a whore, even before she knows what whoredom is. (…) so the devil gets possession of her before she knows what it is to be chaste, and how horrible a thing it is to prostitute herself to such lewdness’ (Calvin: 1987, 464). To make it clear, Calvin believed illicit songs were deadly plagues that corrupt the whole world (Calvin: 1987, 464f); therefore the Council issued several moral edicts against indecent songs (cf. Höpfl: 1982, 197–199; Innes: 1983, 274–278).

B. Calvin’s Guidelines on Men’s Duties The reformer was taking pains to unfold the men’s duties as well, namely to cover the material support of the family, to discipline and train the children, and finally to live with good chastity, showing good example concerning eating, drinking, and gambling. To support the family As God distributed offices among his angels, every member of the family has a special calling related to their status. First of all, as wives keep the house clean, fathers have to guard and support their families that means equity and mutual assistance in family life. The strong affection which a husband ought to cherish towards his household, especially toward his wife, is exemplified by the unity that belongs to marriage. Calvin required from husbands that they ought to imitate Christ, who loved His church and scrupled not to die for her (Calvin: 1987, 600). So the spiritual union between Christ and His church is treated as to illustrate not only the theological, but the ethical mystery of the common law of marriage. According to Calvin, the husbands are called to sustain the family, therefore in his sermon on Deut 21:18–21 he was so disappointed, saying: ‘Must it not needs be that men are struck blind, when they make more account of some other thing in their house, than of their own children? Some have more care of their cattle,

382

Balázs Dávid Magyar

oxen, or horses, than of their children’ (Calvin: 1983b, 755). Nevertheless, he was delivering a similar preaching on Eph 5:28ff, rebuking the negligent parents: ‘If each one of us gave himself to consider what care he has for his own person, how tenderly he nourishes all the parts of his body even to the little toe of his foot. (…) I say, every one of us ought to do likewise to our neighbours. And much more does this bear upon the attitude of the fathers to their children (…) and to their wives’ (Calvin: 1987, 598). So Calvin’s basic intention was to explain to his congregation: among earthly blessings of God, Scripture speaks in the highest terms of the gift of offspring (cf. Lk 1:25). So idle parents are nothing more than brutal animals: they are monsters who pollute the very name of the faith. Calvin intended to reinforce family cohesion in Geneva, therefore he insisted that husbands ought to look after their own parents as well: ‘Scripture shows us as well as nature teaches every man what to do. For we have it engraven in us and we cannot wipe it out. (…) married people do not cease to always be subject to their fathers and mothers [in supporting them]’ (Calvin: 1987, 608). To discipline and train the children It is not plausible to argue that husbands’ second important calling was to discipline and train their children. According to Calvin, a father should keep his eyes upon his children, and keep them in check. It is far from being allowed by the fathers that children become wanton and unruly, since they ought to be brought up in the fear of God. So children have to know ‘that God has not left them destitute of government and law, but that he has given them superiors to rule their life’ (Calvin: 1987, 622). But in performing this duty, fathers are exhorted by the Scripture not to irritate their children by unreasonable severity. Only a kind and liberal way of treatment has a tendency among children to cherish reverence and appreciation for their parents, and to intensify the activity of their obedience. But a harsh and unkind manner drives them into obstinacy which tears up the natural affections toward their parents, and leads them to utter ruin (Calvin: 1987, 618). This is why Calvin put particular emphasis on the matter of forgiveness in family relations, especially in the case of children: ‘The wild beasts do not make war against one another. For one wolf does not eat other wolves. (…) men are altogether unnatural, and despise God and nature, they are like cats and dogs and every man is like a wolf or a fox to his neighbor (…) So if you are so far out of love with your son that you are unwilling to see him, and disdain to talk with him, and he can find no way to come to be reconciled to you, what cruelty it is! For he is your flesh and blood’ (Calvin: 1987, 592f.). As André Biéler convincingly revealed, the city of Geneva was a trading and financial center (Biéler: 2005, 42–59). Just before Calvin’s return from Strasbourg, the economy and the political order was in crisis in Geneva (McGrath:

‘The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light’

383

2000, 86–95 and 222–233). The prices of basic foodstuffs were high, meanwhile the entire job-market collapsed (Monter: 1975, 157–164). To prevent social unrest, the magistrates did everything to moderate rising prices (Innes: 1983, 272). But it seems, their work remained effortless, since in his sermon on Eph 5:28ff, the reformer took advantage of rebuking the traders, saying: ‘Although a merchant may be accounted a man of good skill, yet he will have a store of tricks and wiles, and they will be like nets laid for the simple and those who are without experience, who do not perceive them. (…) Again with regard to prices, there is no trusting in the sellers. It is all the same to them, as long as they sell their wares, for they think that anything is lawful for them’ (Calvin: 1987, 452). Though, Calvin did not bequeath a completely elaborated, systematized ‘work ethics’, it is evident that the proper trades and occupation are intended to the well-being of the whole society. Consequently, the reformer explained Eph 4:26ff. in this way: ‘Let us consider for a moment how many occupations there are in the world, which serve for nothing but corruption, and to rake in the money. (…) For it is not enough when a man can say ‘Oh, I labor, I have my craft, or I have such a trade.’ That is not enough! But we must see whether it is good and profitable for the common good, and whether his neighbours may fare the better by it’ (Calvin: 1987, 456f.). This is why Calvin was saying that fathers are obliged to train children for a proper occupation. So it was a central element of the fathers’ calling to find a profitable and serviceable vocation for their children. ‘When a man comes to consider’—said Calvin continuing his sermon on Eph 4:26ff.—’by what trade his son may best earn his living and provide for himself and his family (…) let him also see to it that he serves his neighbours, and that the use of his skill and occupation may redound to the common profit of all men’ (Calvin: 1987, 458).

To live with good chastity As a third pillar of fathers’ obligations, Calvin mentioned the necessity to live with good chastity concerning eating, drinking, and gambling. Because of the several distressing conditions of family life, unfolded by the Consistory, the reformer devoted an entire sermon to the importance of moderate use of meals and drinks (Calvin: 1987, 535–548). Calvin believed that God appointed meat, drinks, and all other things to strengthen us, therefore ‘we must be so temperate in our eating and drinking, and use the good things so (…) as not to be sufficiently fed without making ourselves brute beasts’ (Calvin: 1987, 544). However, the reformer accepted the moderate use of wine, still he determined that drunkards ‘cannot find excuse one way or another (…) to acquit them before God’ (Calvin: 1987, 547). So Calvin condemned drunkards, because all of them are confusing their state of mind after drinking and ‘become brutish losing all

384

Balázs Dávid Magyar

reason and manhood, it is an utter perversion of the order of nature’ (Calvin: 1987, 549). Besides this, the reformer set out to clarify the adequate use of meals as well. Explaining Eph 5:15−18, he emphasized: ‘we have to remember from this passage that we must be sober and temperate in our eating and drinking, (…) we must be so discreet in taking our repasts that our meat and drink do not lead to trouble. For it is an idea that cannot be wiped out, that we must eat and drink to live, not live to eat and drink’ (Calvin: 1987, 546). It is not surprising that probably as a result of Calvin’s preaching on Ephesians, in 1558 and in 1560, the Small Council issued strict, detailed regulations on courses at banquets (Rivoire/Berchem: 1933, 3.86; 3.106f). But four years later, the magistrates published new, more austere ordinances on banquets (Innes: 1983, 276). After commenting matters of eating and drinking, Calvin’s second target was the burning issue of gambling. In spite of numerous regulations accepted by the magistrates, gambling in secret was quite popular in Geneva (Naphy: 2003, 109; 179). Due to the risk for family and social life, gambling was forbidden as early as 1490 (Innes: 1983, 274). Almost fifty years later limited gambling was permitted only for adults while forbidden to schoolchildren and to those who are unable to conduct themselves (Innes: 1983, 276; Höpfl: 1982, 197ff.; Naphy: 2003, 30). In order to prove the necessity of these regulations, Calvin asserted in his sermon on Eph 4:11−14 that ‘we know that those who make a business of that game must furnish themselves with a store of tricks, for there is neither honor nor honesty in it. It is true, (…) all dicers are deceivers, insomuch that the simplest of them longs for the cunning to beguile his opponent. It is true that not all of them are so skilled in sleight-of-hand play as to rob others of their goods, but for all that, we see it is the general and universal manner of that game to be full of guile’ (Calvin: 1987, 458).2

4. Summary This conference paper intended to point out that John Calvin’s theological and spiritual heritage could not be reduced only to his Opus Magnum, the Institutes. To be sure, Calvin’s pastoral calling made him first of all an intellectual and ethical reformer of his times. In order to renew the social, political, and economic life of the people of Geneva, he delivered sermons; and through the Consistory, he 2 Calvin believed, there is a close relationship between gambling and interest, because the ‘winners’ earn money without daily labor. This is why Calvin wrote to the young banker, Claude Sachin that it is not unlawful ‘lending money to interest [but] I disapprove of anyone engaging in usury as his form of occupation.’ Calvin: 1991.

‘The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light’

385

transformed the Western theology and law of sex, and family life. Building on his detailed sermons on Ephesians, Calvin put into action a comprehensive new marriage theology and law that made marital formation and dissolution, family cohesion and support, sexual sin and crime essential concerns for both church and state. Besides this, Calvin implemented his moral convictions related to improper dances, dresses, songs, meals, drinks, and games that were deeply rooted in the Holy Scripture.

Bibliography Baldwin, Claude-Marie (1988), Marriage in John Calvin’s sermons, in: Robert V. Schnucker (ed.): Calviniana. Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 121−129. Barth, Karl (1993), Die Theologie Calvins, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Berg, Machiel A. (2009), Friends of Calvin, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Biéler, André (2005), Calvin’s Economy and Social Thought, Genève: World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Boer, Alexander E. de (2004), Calvin and Colleagues. Propositions and Disputations in the Context of the Congrégations in Geneva, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, Genève: Librairie Droz, 331−342. Bouwsma, William J. (1989), John Calvin. A Sixteenth Century Portrait, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braekman, Emile Michel (2008), Idelette de Buré épouse de Jean Calvin, Lyon: Olivétan Editions. Calvin, John (1983a), Sermons on the Epistles to Timothy & Titus, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. — (1983b), Sermons on Deuteronomy, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. — (1987), Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 4th ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. — (1991), Letter to Claude Sachin, in: Benjamin W. Farley (trans.), Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advice, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 139−143. — (2009a), Commentaries on the Book of Genesis, Grand Rapids: Baker Books. — (2009b), Commentaries on the Epistle to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Doumergue, Emil (1905), Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses de son temps, vol. III, Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie Éditeurs. — (1910), Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses de son temps, vol. IV, Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie Éditeurs. Fazakas, Sándor (2009), Kálvin szociáletikája, in:, Sándor Fazakas (ed.), Kálvin ido˝szeru˝sége. Tanulmányok Kálvin János teológiájának maradandó értékeiro˝l és magyarországi hatásáról, Budapest: Kálvin Kiadó, 104–139.

386

Balázs Dávid Magyar

— (2009b), ‘Mert a szegény nem fogy el a földro˝l…’ Kálvin társadalmi etikájának kialakulása és gyakorlati jelento˝sége, in: Studia Theologica Debrecinensis 2, 91−105. Garside, Charles (1979), The Origins of Calvin’s Theology of Music: 1536−1543, Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. Höpfl, Harro (1982), The Christian Polity of John Calvin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Innes, William C. (1983), Social Concern in Calvin’s Geneva, Alliston Park: Pickwick Publication. Kingdon, Robert M. (1995), Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kingdon: Robert M./Witte, John (2005), Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. McGrath, Alister E. (2000), A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture, 7th ed., Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. Monter, E. William (1975), Calvin’s Geneva, New York: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Mülhaupt, Erwin (1931), Die Predigt Calvins, ihre Geschichte, ihre Form und ihre religiösen Grundgedanken, Berlin/Leipzig: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co. Naphy, William G. (2003), Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 2nd ed., Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Parker, Thomas Henry Louis (1992), Calvin’s Preaching, Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Pfisterer, Ernst (1957), Calvins Wirken in Genf, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Pitkin, Barbara (2002), Children and the Church in Calvin’s Geneva, in: David Foxgrover (ed.), Calvin and the Church, Grand Rapids: CRC Product, 144−165. Rivoire, Emile/Berchem, Victor van (eds) (1927−1935), Les Sources du Droit du Canton de Genève, vol. I−IV., Arau: H. R. Sauerlander. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2007), Calvin’s View of the Bible as the Word, in: Reformed World 57, 270−289. Spierling, Karin E. (2005), Making Use of God’s Remedies: Negotiating the Material Care of Children in Reformation Geneva, in: The Sixteenth Century Journal 36, 785−807. Staedtke, Joachim (1969), Johannes Calvin. Erkenntnis und Gestaltung, Göttingen: Musterschmidt Verlag. Thiel, Albrecht (1999), In der Schule Gottes. Die Ethik Calvins im Spiegel seiner Predigten über das Deuteronomium, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Witte, John (1998), Between Sacrament and Contract. Marriage as Covenant in John Calvin’s Geneva, in: Calvin Theological Journal 33, 9−75. — (2002), The Meanings of Marriage, in: First Things 126, 30−41.

Joe Mock

Justification, Sanctification, and Participation in Christ A Comparison between Calvin and Bullinger

Many reams of paper have been directed to the study of union with Christ in Calvin with the result that Richard Muller refers to the emergence of a ‘cottage industry’ (see Muller: 2012, 202f. for an extensive bibliography). Nonetheless, this modest paper seeks to compare and contrast how Calvin and Bullinger understood justification and sanctification in the context of union with Christ.1

1. Union with Christ a. Calvin and Union with Christ Charles Partee was somewhat over-enthusiastic in declaring that ‘union with Christ’ is the central dogma in Calvin (Partee: 2008, 3–4, 25, 27, 40–41). Many have rightly pointed out that seeking to find a central dogma in Calvin is methodologically fraught with problems (Muller: 2012, 62–64). However, the listing by Dennis Tamburello of references to ‘union with Christ’ in the 1559 Institutes together with selected commentaries and sermons reveals an extensive array of terms that were used by Calvin over a considerable period of time.2 It can only be concluded that ‘union with Christ’ is a constant underlying theme in his works (see Garcia: 2008, 15–16, n. 13 for an extensive bibliography on Calvin and union with Christ). Moreover, many of his extant prayers refer to union with Christ. Thus, Todd Billings states that participation in Christ is a ‘weighty concept’ in Calvin’s thought (Billings: 2008, 19). For Calvin the summum bonum for mankind is union with God (Inst. 3.25.2; cf. Doyle: 1986, 293). Indeed, following Cyril of Alexandria in citing Ephesians 5:30, Calvin declared that union with Christ is a 1 For a recent comparison between Calvin and Bullinger see Campi: 2012. 2 Tamburello: 1994: insero / insitio, communion / communico, societas, arcanus / incomprehensibilis / mysterium, caro in carnem Christi / coniungium, coniunctio spiritualis, unio mystica, coalesco, adoptio, regeneratio, participes.

388

Joe Mock

‘sacred marriage’ (Inst. 3.1.3). Furthermore, in his sermon on Ephesians 1:19–23 he stated intriguingly that it is God’s ‘will to have us joined to him, yes, even on the condition that he should be perfected (accompli) in us by being united in that manner. As if a father should say, My house seems empty to me, when I do not see my child in it. A husband will say, I seem to be only half a man when my wife is not with me’ (Calvin: 1979, 122). That union with Christ is central in Calvin’s thought can be ably demonstrated by the following quote from his sermon on Titus 1:7ff.: When the apostle defines the Gospel, and the use of it, he says that we are called to be partakers of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to be made one with Him, and to dwell in Him, and He in us; and that we may be joined together in an inseparable bond (cited in: Wallace: 1953, 143).

Perhaps the term that most requires scrutiny in the context of his understanding of union with Christ is unio mystica. The most important occasion Calvin referred to unio mystica is to be found in the Institutes 3.11.10. In this passage, aimed to refute the views of Osiander, Calvin juxtaposed ‘joining together’ (coniunctio) with Christ, ‘indwelling’ (habitatio) of Christ, ‘mystical union,’ (mystica unio), ‘sharers’ (consortes) with Christ, ‘engrafted’ (insiti) into Christ’s body, being made ‘one with Christ’ (unum nos secum) and ‘fellowship of righteousness’ (iustitiae societatem) with Christ. Calvin’s understanding of union with Christ was thoroughly Trinitarian. He described the working of the Holy Spirit to effect union with Christ as ‘the secret energy of the Spirit’ and that ‘the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectively unites us to himself ’ (Inst. 3.1.1). Indeed, it is through the Holy Spirit that the believer comes ‘to enjoy Christ and all his benefits (bonisque eius omnibus)’ (Inst. 3.1.1). The phrase omnia bona, or its equivalent, occurs frequently in Calvin in the context of the gift of salvation through the gift of Christ’s righteousness. This is evident in the Institutes where Calvin referred to the certainty of salvation because of ingrafting into Christ (Inst. 3.2.24), in his discussion on baptism (Inst. 4.15.6), in his discussion of the Eucharist (Inst. 4.17.5), in his commentary on 1 Corinthians (CO 49.395) and in the Antidotes (CO 7.451). As Calvin repeatedly underlined that our righteousness is not in se but, rather, in Christo he therefore explained: ‘You see our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, that we possess it only because we are partakers in Christ; indeed, with him we possess all its (better translated ‘his’) riches (omnes eius divitias cum ipso possidemus) (Inst. 3.1.1). The use of this particular terminology is clearly linked to Calvin’s understanding of the reversal of the Fall as he declared that in God ‘each of us may recover those good things (ea bona recuperet) which we have utterly and completely lost’ (Inst. 2.1.1). Calvin’s frequent reference to receiving omnia bona and receiving Christ himself through union with him appears to parallel Bul-

Justification, Sanctification, and Participation in Christ

389

linger’s reference to God as cornucopia and Christ as omnis plenitudo and Bullinger’s frequent references to ‘all Christ’s blessings’ in the sermons on the sacraments in The Decades. Calvin’s understanding of the gospel reflects how he understood the prelapsarian status of mankind where ‘it was the spiritual life of Adam to remain united and bound to his Maker’ (Inst. 2.1.5). Calvin further taught that an integral part of God’s plan to call the elect is so that they grow in union with Christ: ‘Not only does he cleave to us by an indivisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion, day by day, he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us’ (Inst. 3.2.24). He also declared that ‘Christ stands in our midst, to lead us little by little to a firm union with God’ (Inst. 2.15.5). Thus, Wilhelm Niesel sums up Calvin’s perspective on union with Christ as follows: ‘Christ united himself to us that we might be faithful to him; hence we must without question obey him when he commands us’ (Niesel: 1980, 126; citing CR 28.415). This emphasis on obeying or hearing Christ is similar to Bullinger’s use of Matthew 17:5.

b. Bullinger and Union with Christ Unlike Calvin, Bullinger did not appear to use the phrase unio cum Christo. But he did employ several phrases in common with Calvin to express union with Christ such as participate in, engrafted, adopted and God (or Christ) pouring himself into the believer. As was his practice in all his works, Bullinger cited Matthew 17:5 on the title page where he used placata rather than placita. Significantly, Bullinger used placatus rather than placitus as many as six times in sermon IV.1 of The Decades which represents Bullinger’s exposition of the gospel. There is thus a constant reminder in Bullinger that true reconciliation with God is only possible if one were to be in Christ. In this connection, Peter Opitz notes that Bullinger’s understanding of Matthew 17:5 ‘characterizes also his exegesis of Romans. But listening to Christ means having faith in Christ, which is possible only in pneumatical union with Christ, that is, in participation in Christ’s spirit of love’ (Opitz: 2008a, 155). Although the theme of union with Christ is more prominently referred to in the sermons on the sacraments in The Decades, this theme clearly undergirds sermon IV.1 This is indicated by the use of phrases such as ‘by faith we are made partakers of Christ’ and ‘by faith we are partakers of all the good of Christ.’ In his earlier treatise on the covenant, De testamento (1534), Bullinger explained that the aim of the covenant is not so much the blessings of the covenant but that God gives himself for the good of the elect. God ‘poured out his entire self for us’ and ‘offers himself for their (i. e. the elect’s) benefit.’ In De testamento Bullinger

390

Joe Mock

repeatedly referred to God as copiae cornu, ‘the horn of plenty’ (Bullinger: 1534, 11v–12r3). His point is that with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in the age of the new covenant, Christ, who is omnis plenitudo dwells in the heart of the believer and, thereby, God (copiae cornu) is united to the believer who thus receives his blessings. This theme is reiterated in Sermon I.8 of The Decades, where Bullinger stated: ‘Ever since, he (Christ) poured out his Holy Spirit into us, the abundance of all good things (omnium bonorum copiam), and he communicates himself wholly to us and joins ourselves to him with an imperishable bond’ (Opitz: 2008b, 99). A window into how Bullinger understands union with Christ may also be gleaned from the Consensus Tigurinus where Articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 19 clearly refer to union with Christ (Campi/Reich: 2009, 258–267). Bullinger emphasised that the righteousness of the believer is extra nos. Yet, at the same time, it is a case of Christus intra nos vivens.

2. Union with Christ and the sacraments a. Calvin’s Understanding of Union with Christ and the Sacraments Because of his conviction of a sine qua non link between the sacraments and union with Christ, Calvin described the connection between the two as follows: ‘To effect this union, the Holy Spirit uses a double instrument, the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments.’4 Mark Garcia thus concludes: ‘For Calvin, union with Christ in his flesh and blood is the res of the sacraments’ (Garcia: 2008, 151). Indeed, Calvin viewed the sacraments as actually ‘providing’ and ‘passing on’ (apporter et communiquer) what they signify (CO 9.764). His understanding of the sacraments is best described as ‘instrumental symbolism’ (Gerrish: 1982). Although he was scathing about Rome’s understanding about baptism, nonetheless, he himself commented in his Antidotes on Canon V on Baptism of the Seventh Session of Trent by declaring that there is an intimate link between baptism and the actual gift of salvation through union with Christ (CO 7.499). Moreover, in Institutes 4.15.6 he appears to be making union with Christ dependent upon reception of baptism.5 For Calvin, ‘the sacraments are compared to the steps of a ladder’ by which the believer ascends to feed on Christ in heaven.6 Although Calvin does state that it is ‘incomprehensible’ how the believer feeds on the body of Christ in the Eucharist, nonetheless, in Calvin’s 3 4 5 6

‘Ego sum Deus omnisufficientia plenitudo et copiae cornu.’ Sermon on the Ministry of Word and Sacraments as cited in Doyle: 1986, 301. Wendel: 1973, 321; cf. Calvin’s comment on Acts 22:16 in Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. XIX. 303. Sermon on 2 Samuel 6:1–7 cited in Canlis: 2010, 160.

Justification, Sanctification, and Participation in Christ

391

mind there is no doubt that the believer actually and really feeds on the body of Christ in the Eucharist (in coena) and, thereby, grows in union with Christ. Wim Janse explains that, for Calvin (following Melanchthon), ‘Christ is not present in the elements as such, but in actu, only in the celebration of the Supper, not outside it or after it, for believers’ ( Janse: 2012, 147). It is not so much that Christ descends from heaven but that through the mysterious power of the Holy Spirit the believer is raised to heaven to feed on Christ there (Inst. 4.17.36). Because of this, Calvin frequently emphasized the significance of the epiclesis and the sursum corda.7 Only true believers are raised by the Holy Spirit to feed on Christ in heaven. This understanding appears to be reflected in John à Lasco. Calvin, thereby, rejects the Lutheran manducatio impiorum. The central aspect of the Eucharist for Calvin is that it is a meal that believers feed on as they grow in union with Christ (Rozeboom: 2012, 149; Wolterstorff: 2014). Hence, Calvin was keen, very logically, for the Eucharist to be celebrated frequently, weekly, if possible. But he was denied permission to do so. Moreover, Calvin’s strong stance on excommunication as a means of church discipline was also linked to his belief of ongoing union with Christ through the Eucharist.

b. Bullinger’s Understanding of the Sacraments and Union with Christ Despite being a signatory of the Consensus Tigurinus, Bullinger’s view of the Eucharist was markedly different from that of Calvin. Bullinger primarily viewed the sacraments as covenant signs and seals given by God to bind and cement his relationship with the elect. For Bullinger, the celebration of the sacraments were opportunities for both remembering what God had done in Christ and what is yet to be fulfilled in Christ, but also an opportunity for covenant renewal. Bullinger emphasised more the grace of God in gathering around himself his chosen people upon whom he intends to continually shower his blessings. Much more so than Calvin, Bullinger made a point to emphasize the parallels between the sacraments of the old covenant with the sacraments of the new covenant. Bullinger emphatically stated that Christ is not present corporally in either Baptism or the Eucharist. Nonetheless, Bullinger is in no doubt that, in the Eucharist, the true believer has a heightened experience of union with Christ (Opitz: 2008b, 1015). Repeatedly in sermon V.7 (on the sacraments) of The Decades and in sermon V.9 (on the Eucharist) Bullinger referred to union with Christ. In contrast to Calvin, Bullinger’s understanding of union with Christ and the Eucharist was informed by his exegesis of John 6. 7 See Huijgen: 2012 for a discussion of sursum in Calvin. Calvin appears to allude to sursum corda at the Institutes (Inst. 2.7.1). See also Kim: 2013, 166–171.

392

Joe Mock

The celebration of the Eucharist in Zurich was held three times a year which appears to mirror the three times a year all males in Israel under the old covenant were required to gather before Yahweh in Jerusalem. There was neither an epiclesis nor sursum corda, but Psalm 113, the first of the Hallel psalms was recited to indicate the connection with the Passover. Significantly as well, the church in Zurich did not practise excommunication as did the church in Geneva.

3. Justification and Sanctification a. Calvin’s Understanding of Justification and Sanctification Many studies have discussed how Calvin understood justification and sanctification, especially that both are given simultaneously as benefits of the duplex gratia through faith-union with Christ. Calvin’s frequent reference to being clothed with the righteousness of Christ indicates that, for Calvin, righteousness is in Christo and not in se. Calvin’s understanding of justification is systematically set forth in the 1559 Institutes where he refuted Osiander’s concept of ‘essential righteousness’ and the errors of Rome. For Calvin, justification and sanctification (his preferred term is ‘regeneration’ (regeneratio) and occasionally ‘repentance’ (poenitentia)) are the two benefits of the duplex gratia that the elect receive through faith-union with Christ. Both are given simultaneously and are inseparable. Nevertheless, they are to be distinguished and not confused (distinctio sed non separatio). The duplex gratia was also referred to in the Antidotes in Calvin’s response to the decrees of the Sixth Session of Trent (CO 7.448). Furthermore, it would be incorrect to conclude that, for Calvin, justification is the ‘source’ or ‘cause’ of salvation. Much recent literature has been concerned to identify an ordo salutis in Calvin. In many ways, an ordo salutis was not high on Calvin’s priorities. He did discuss sanctification before justification in the Institutes, primarily for didactic reasons (ordo docendi) but also to address the Roman claim that justification by faith alone through the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness is ‘legal fiction.’ Nonetheless, he termed justification the ‘first’ benefit of union with Christ whereas sanctification is the ‘second’ benefit. Indeed, an ordo salutis appears to be expressed in Article 3 of the Consensus Tigurinus, which predates the 1559 Institutes by some ten years (Campi/Reich: 2009, 260). However, Wendel wisely cautions against making any conclusion about any ordo salutis in the Consensus Tigurinus (Wendel: 1973, 256–257, citing Inst. 3.16.1). In his Antidotes against the decrees of Trent, Calvin particularly opposed the fact that Trent took the view that justification ‘includes both renovation and sanctification.’ In other words, he was strongly opposed to any merging of jus-

Justification, Sanctification, and Participation in Christ

393

tification with sanctification. Thus Calvin opposed the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in tandem with inherent or imparted righteousness linked to a concept of ‘formed faith’ because this necessarily implies merit through human participation in the process of salvation. However, in addition to duplex gratia Calvin also referred to a ‘double acceptance’ (Inst. 3.17.4). This concept of double acceptance is linked to that of double justification in that the good works that God works in the elect are the ‘inferior cause’ of their justification (Inst. 3.17.5; CO 7.458; Inst. 3.14.21). Commenting on Calvin’s reaction to Article 5 of Ratisbon (Regensburg), Anthony Lane identifies that Calvin embraced the concept of ‘double righteousness,’ that is, imputed and inherent righteousness (Lane: 2004). The concession at Regensburg was terminological—to use the term ‘inherent righteousness’ of sanctification (Lane: 2004, 216). However, some see in the concept of double acceptance and double justification that Calvin believed that the believer becomes righteous at the existential level rather than just being declared righteous and clothed with the alien righteousness of Christ (Hunsinger: 2006). Indeed, Calvin’s True Method of Giving Peace (1548) states that ‘we are never reconciled to God without being at the same time presented with inherent righteousness (inhaerente iustitia)’ (CO 7.594–595). Calvin’s commentary on Romans (1540) appears to provide the grid for the successive editions of the Institutes. Nonetheless, over the years he continued to struggle coming to terms with some aspects of justification and sanctification. Charles Raith points out that Calvin and Aquinas differ in understanding Romans 2:13 (Raith: 2014). For Aquinas, Christ’s work occurs in and through the sinner, whereas, for Calvin, Christ’s work occurs for and to the sinner. Furthermore, ‘for Aquinas, the reception of the alien justice has the effect of transforming the sinner into a just person through the soul’s participation in Christ’s justice’ (Raith: 2014, 52). However, Calvin was emphatic that the believer’s righteousness is in Christo and not in se. Likewise, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians Calvin appeared to wrestle in understanding 1 Corinthians 6:11 and concluded that Paul makes use of the terms ‘washed,’ ‘sanctified’ and ‘justified’ ‘to express one and the same thing…’ (Calvin’s Commentaries, 20.211). This is almost tantamount to an about-face on his emphasis on distinctio sed non separatio. Of particular note is Calvin’s commentary on Ezekiel which was written just prior to his death in which he revisited the ‘struggle’ he had with Romans 2:13 in his Romans commentary. In the Ezekiel commentary Calvin was comfortable referring to a reward for the just (Coxhead: 2008). Furthermore, he was willing to use the word iustus for the believer. He became, therefore, open to the idea that the believer is righteous in se. In this he defined justice in terms of faithful obedience to the law (Calvin’s Commentaries, 12.220, 236). It is in this context that Calvin discussed ‘double righteousness,’ that is, the righteousness of the law

394

Joe Mock

and the righteousness of faith. The righteousness of faith which believers obtain from Christ is, according to Calvin, ‘improperly so called’ because ‘justification by faith, as it is called, is not properly righteousness.’ The point that Calvin sought to make is that only Christ can fulfil the law (the ‘proper’ righteousness). But because no one is able to do the righteousness God requires then one must ‘fly’ to Christ ‘that we may embrace the righteousness of Christ by faith, and so become just, by another righteousness without us’ (Calvin’s Commentaries, 12.237). Calvin further described a concept of the justification of works by gratuitous imputation (Calvin’s Commentaries, 12.238). Calvin, therefore, ultimately subscribed to a subordinate but legitimate doctrine of justification by works. But this is intimately linked with the believer’s union with Christ.

b. Bullinger’s Understanding of Justification and Sanctification Bullinger dedicated sermon I.6 of The Decades to discuss justification, whereas sermon IV.1 focuses on the gospel and, therefore, has much to say about justification. For Bullinger justification is clearly sola gratia. In sermon IV.1, for example, gratia appears in the title of the sermon and as many as 94 times throughout the sermon while mera gratia occurs 6 times. What is particularly striking is the number of marginal comments that mention gratia. Furthermore, Bullinger clearly affirmed the forensic aspect of justification as he emphasized iustitia extra nos posita several times. Bullinger not only affirmed the forensic nature of justification but he also squarely placed the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alongside the believer’s relationship with and participation in Christ. For Bullinger it was iustitia Christi extra nos, sed Christus in nobis (Burrows: 1987). That the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was foundational to Bullinger’s understanding of justification is also evident from The Second Helvetic Confession where Bullinger also agreed that it is proper and appropriate to describe the believer who is in union with Christ as iustus this side of glory. The connection between justification, sanctification and union with Christ or participation with Christ in Bullinger is so striking that Burrows views Bullinger as ‘merging the doctrines of justification and sanctification’ in the context of ‘his fusion of the justification and sanctification doctrines.’ However, in our opinion, Burrows has overstated the close connection that Bullinger often placed between justification and sanctification. Like Calvin, Bullinger also saw justification and sanctification in terms of distinctio sed non separatio. It also needs to be noted that ‘sanctification’ that is on view in The Decades often translates beatificatio which Bullinger used with the same meaning as sanctificatio. The juxtaposition of justification with sanctification in Bullinger is also clearly to be seen in sermon I.6 (Opitz: 2008b, 68ff.). Furthermore, in sermon III.9 Bullinger declared: ‘Truly

Justification, Sanctification, and Participation in Christ

395

grace or works and also justification and sanctification (sanctificatio) are inseparably joined; therefore what corresponds to one coincides with the other’ (Opitz: 2008b, 435). Significantly also, three times in sermon V.7 sanctification is paired with justification where sanctification precedes justification. In sermon III.6 which has an extended discussion on circumcision Bullinger referred to sanctification before justification when he described the elect as ‘those whom, having sanctified, he wills to justify (quos velit sanctificatos iustificare)’ (Opitz: 2008b, 348). In his recent monograph, J.V. Fesko has sought to argue incorrectly, in our opinion, that Bullinger’s understanding of justification, sanctification and union with Christ reflects that of Calvin (Fesko: 2012, 173–187). He further concludes that Bullinger’s thought is consistent with Calvin’s ordo salutis in highlighting what Fesko would argue to be the priority of justification over sanctification. Fesko argues that ‘Bullinger does not teach a temporal or chronological order but a logical or theological order’ (Fesko: 2012, 183). However, he fails to refer adequately to those sections of The Decades where sanctification is referred to prior to justification when the two are juxtaposed. Such a section is to be found, for example, in sermon V.7 where sanctificare/sanctificari is mentioned side by side with iustificare/iustificari (Opitz: 2008b, 925). Linguistically, Bullinger presents us with a challenge if we are to interpret him accurately and seek to grasp his intended nuances. No scholar doubts Bullinger’s constant emphasis on sanctification in terms of good works, vivification and mortification. The key to understanding Bullinger is to fully appreciate the terminology he employs. Burrows points out that in the early 16th Century fromgheit and gerechtigkeit were essentially interchangeable so the piety of Christ is imparted to the believer. Hence, Burrows concludes that, for Bullinger, ‘the righteousness which God gives us is precisely what makes us pious’ (Burrows: 1987, 54, n. 19). The Decades has no separate focus on sanctification. Neither does Bullinger’s Antithesis et Compendium Evangelicae et Papisticae Doctrinae (1551). It is also significant to note that The Second Helvetic Confession has no separate section on ‘sanctification.’ Hence, Bullinger’s approach was markedly different from that of Calvin who treated sanctification in detail in the Institutes before discussing justification and who, in all his works, was emphatic that justification must not be coalesced into or merged with sanctification. Because Bullinger viewed justification and sanctification as two sides of a coin in addition to regarding them as the twin benefits of union with Christ he may appear to merge justification with sanctification. But he does not actually merge the two as it is a case of distinctio sed non separatio. Bullinger was more concerned for the event of salvation in toto rather than focusing on its identifiable component parts. In using beatificatio as a synonym for sanctifcatio Bullinger saw both a proleptic as well as a progressive

396

Joe Mock

understanding of sanctification (akin to John Murray’s understanding of ‘definitive sanctification’ and ‘progressive sanctification’). The fact that Bullinger used iusti to describe the present state of believers in Christ, specifically in The Decades and The Second Helvetic Confession, indicates that, for him, it was truly a case of simul iustus et peccator. It might well be argued that for other reformers it was more accurately a case of simul iustificatus et peccator.

Conclusion The reformers were comfortable using the term iustificare for δικαιόω even though philologically it means ‘to make righteous.’ If they had deemed this term unsuitable or misleading they would have jettisoned it and employed another. The reformers were also eager to use the term imputare that was introduced by Erasmus to translate λογίζεται, particularly as they stressed the forensic nature of justification.8 Both Calvin and Bullinger stressed the forensic aspect of justification through the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness to the believer in faith-union with him. Both viewed justification and sanctification as distinctio sed non separatio. Calvin stressed more that they are the simultaneous benefits of union with Christ whereas Bullinger stressed more the ‘realised’ dimension of sanctification as the believer can rightly be regarded as iustus. Both affirmed the participational aspect of justification though this is more pronounced in Bullinger. Only Calvin appeared to refer to a ‘justification of works’ according to gratuitous imputation whereas Bullinger emphasized more living integer or living faithful to the covenant guidelines.9 Calvin especially centred his thoughts on union with Christ. His very first theological work, Psychopannychia (1534), illustrated (contra the Anabaptists) that he could not conceive of life separated from Christ in any way. Union with Christ in this life must be continuous with union with Christ in the life to come. The development of Calvin’s understanding of the Eucharist must be viewed in the context of his understanding of it as the means of growing in union with Christ. Bullinger’s understanding might be understood as growing in covenant relationship with God. Calvin understood ‘proper’ righteousness in terms of keeping the law whereas Bullinger focused more on the believer living in covenant faithfulness because God who is cornucopia has graciously acted in salvation history to enter into a restored relationship with the elect.

8 See the helpful discussion in Christ-van Wedel: 2001, 145–153. 9 Though Bullinger did use the term conditiones (see Mock: 2013).

Justification, Sanctification, and Participation in Christ

397

Bibliography Billings, J. Todd (2008), Calvin, Participation and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bullinger, Heinrich (1534), De testamento, Zürich. Burrows, Mark S. (1987), ‘Christus intra nos Vivens’—The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification, in: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 98, 48–69. Calvin, John (1979), Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Campi, Emidio (2012), Probing similarities and differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Clarissimus Theologus: Papers of the Tenth International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 94–117. Campi, Emidio/Reich, Ruedi (eds) (2009), Consensus Tigurinus: Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, Zürich: TVZ. Canlis, Julie (2010), Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Christ-van Wedel, Christine (2001), Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a New Christianity, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Coxhead, Steven (2008), John Calvin’s Interpretation of Works Righteousness in Ezekiel 18, in: Westminster Theological Journal 70, 303–316. Doyle, Robert C. (1986), The Preaching of Repentance in John Calvin—Repentance and Union with Christ, in: P.T. O’Brien and D.G. Peterson (eds), God Who is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to D.B. Knox, Homebush West: Lancer Books. Fesko, J.V. (2012), Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–1700), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Garcia, Mark A. (2008), Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology, Milton Keyes: Paternoster. Gerrish, Brian A. (1982), Sign and Reality: The Lord’s Supper in Reformed Confessions, in: The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 118–130. Huijgen, Arnold (2012), The Dynamic Character of Accommodated Revelation: The Metaphors of the Ladder and the Pilgrim’s Way, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Clarissimus Theologus: Papers of the Tenth International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 326–336. Hunsinger, George (2006), A tale of Two Simultaneities: Justification in Calvin and Barth, in: C. Raynal (ed.), John Calvin and the Interpretation of Scripture: Calvin Studies 10– 11, Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 223–245. Janse, Wim (2012), Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, in: Perichoresis 10/2, 137–163. Kim, Sun Kwon (2013), L’Union avec Christ chez Calvin: Être sauvé et vivre en Christ (PhDthesis), Université de Strasbourg. Lane, Anthony N.S. (2004), Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification?, in: Mark Husbands/Daniel J. Treier (eds), What’s at Stake in the Current Debates: Justification, Downers Grove: IVP, 205–224. Mock, Joe (2013), Biblical and Theological Themes in Heinrich Bullinger’s ‘De testamento’ (1534), in: Zwingliana 40, 21–23.

398

Joe Mock

Muller, Richard (2012), Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation, Grand Rapids: Baker. Niesel, Wilhelm (1980), The Theology of Calvin, Grand Rapids: Baker. Opitz, Peter (2008a), Bullinger on Romans, in: Kathy Ehrensberger and R. Ward Holder (eds), Reformation Readings of Romans, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. — (2008b), Heinrich Bullinger Theologische Schriften, Band 3 Sermonum Decades quinque de potissimus Christianae religionis capitibus, Zürich: TVZ. Partee, Charles (2008), The Theology of John Calvin, Louisville: Westminster. Raith III, Charles, Aquinas and Calvin on Romans: God’s Justification and Our Participation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rozeboom, Sue A. (2012), Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: Calvin’s Theology and Its Early Reception, in: J. Todd Billings/I. John Hesselink (eds), Calvin’s Theology and Its Reception: Disputes, Developments and New Possibilities, Louisville: John Knox. Tamburello, Dennis E. (1994), Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard, Louisville: Westminster. Wallace, Ronald S. (1953), Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, Tyler: Geneva Divinity School Press. Wendel, François (1973), Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, London: Collins. Wolterstorff, Nicolas (2014), Calvin, in: Lee Palmer Wandel (ed.), A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Leiden: Brill, 101–102.

Wim Moehn

‘Repos’ Focus on a Neglected Lemma in Calvin’s Sermons

Introduction The eminent theologian Willem Balke once invited me as student to participate in the edition of Calvin’s 44 sermons on Acts 1 to 7. In 1994 these have been published as volume 8 in the series Supplementa Calviniana. Exactly after 20 years a reprint is available by Droz in Geneva. Starting with a rough transcription of the sermons, we had at hand as our model Rodolphe Peter’s splendid edition of the Sermons sur les Livres de Jérémie et des Lamentations. One of the editorial tasks was the compilation of the ‘Index of subjects’—not arranged as an alphabetical list of keywords, but as a list of representative quotations in order to show the user the context of a keyword. This job was done by hand: I read the sermons and marked interesting words and phrases. The Index of subjects is the subjective result of my view of the text on that moment, and not the result of a computerized process. What struck me in those sermons more than twenty years ago? What did I see, and—more important—what did I neglect? A specimen of such a neglected lemma in the sermons on Acts (SC 8) is ‘dextre de Dieu’. I discovered this omission during my research on Ascension in Calvin’s sermons, while I prepared the edition of the Plusieurs Sermons (Moehn: 2008, 117 n. 82). Another neglected keyword is ‘repos’ together with ‘acquiescer’. The Index of subjects in SC 8 jumps from ‘Repentance’ to ‘Résurrection’. At first glance the lemma ‘repos’ is not obvious. I only remember Max Engammare’s article on ‘Calvin the Workaholic’ (Engammare: 2011). We know that he was restless busy with meetings, lessons, writing letters to friends and princes, sermon preparation, composing commentaries, refining his Institutes and so on. In short, he had or took scarcely time to rest. But at the end of the editorial work on Plusieurs Sermons de Jean Calvin, I recognized that repos could be an interesting keyword to explore. I am strengthened in this view through a stimulating article of Hermann-Joseph Sieben on Augustine and rest (Sieben: 2012). In his book on the

400

Wim Moehn

eternal predestination Calvin could say: ‘Augustinus totus noster’.1 But what does this claim mean for his use of repos? Within the many genres of Calvin’s scriptural legacy, I will concentrate in this article on homiletic sources and within the large amount of sermons on the sermons on Acts and the Plusieurs sermons which I have edited. Let us consider it as a first step towards a greater project, which will also comprise the Institutes, commentaries, treatises (among others the Psychopannychia and the questions relating to the sleep of the soul) and his letters.

1. Calvin’s Use of Repos on the Pulpit—a First Inventory Sermons on Acts—Supplementa Calviniana In the 44 sermons on Acts Calvin talked about repos in 5 sermons: number 8, 12 and 13, followed by a period of silence during half a year and finally in sermon 40 and 43. This low number provides the possibility of a close reading to see in which context Calvin preached on the topics of rest and peace. Sermon 8, Acts 3:17–19 At the end of this sermon Calvin is very gloomy about the reformation in Geneva. The more God’s judgment is brought to the attention of the wicked, the more they abandon themselves to their vanities and follies. (…) The brothel has to be open to all comers, and the trumpet must be sounded everywhere to summon everyone to the brothel in Geneva. ‘Where is the reformation that is supposed to be among us?’, Calvin laments. From the perspective of the preacher the Genevan magistracy remains negligent: Let those who are responsible for establishing order look more closely at the situation, and let us—that means preacher and hearers—ask God to keep us from the hardness of heart that would prevent us from perceiving his judgment so that we may completely govern our lives according to his word, so that when Jesus Christ returns we will not be condemned but given eternal rest with him in the glory of his Father.2

The final paragraph of this sermon shows in what way Calvin connects the life of Christians here and now with the perspective of hope and the final resurrection. 1 Calvin: 1998, 30: ‘Porro Augustinus ipse adeo totus noster est, ut, si mihi confessio scribenda sit, ex eius scriptis contextam proferre abunde mihi sufficiat.’ See also Lange van Ravenswaay: 1990. 2 Serm. 8, Acts 3:17–19, SC 8.71.36–40 (ET, 107f.): ‘(…) mais pour nous donner ung repos eternel avec luy en la gloire du Pere.’

‘Repos’

401

It is a ‘repos eternel avec luy’. This means that the central notion of the communion with Christ is also at issue. Sermon 12, Acts 4:21–26 Repos is used in this sermon in the context of the explanation of Psalm 2:1–2: ‘Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed.’3 For Calvin it was evident that the confession of the Name of Jesus Christ and persecution are most intimately connected. Also in this sermon, he expresses his concern about the idea his hearers had, that it would be possible to have a ‘peaceful Gospel’. Because of this idea, the audience places itself opposite to Christ instead of serving Him. Our Lord declares therefore in His Word, that we shall never find rest in this world, if we want to serve Jesus Christ and follow him. And now we want to convince ourselves that we have peace. And would that not mock Him and His Word? 4

The criticism develops into an exhortation to change these ideas. The audience is being prepared for martyrdom, in whatever form. The preacher does not abandon them, but encourages them through paraphrasing Romans 8:31 ‘If God is for us, who is against us?’ His Kingdom cannot be conquered by evil. In the midst of the many enemies which threaten it, the Christian congregation is called to live in accordance with its confession. Calvin expresses again the idea of the communion with Christ. The relating keywords are ‘paix’ and ‘ung Evangile paisible’. There is a direct line from ‘Peaceful Gospel’ and the so-called Nicodemism.5 The desire for a peaceful life conflicts with the message of the Gospel. Sermon 13, Acts 4:24b–31 This is the sermon which Calvin preached on Whit Sunday 1550. Like in the preceding sermon the persecution of the believers in Jerusalem is a central theme. The disciples asked: ‘Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness’ (Acts 4:29). Calvin explains: 3 The English translation is taken from the NETBibel (New English Translation) on Internet at . 4 Serm. 12, Acts 4:21–26, SC 8.101.24–29 (ET, 159): ‘Voicy donc nostre Seigneur qui nous declare par sa parolle que jamais nous ne serons en repos en ce monde, si nous voulons servir à Jesuchrist et le suyvre. Et nous voulons maintenant nous persuader que nous aurons paix.’ 5 See Moehn: 2001, 130f. with n. 31–33. Within this context we not only have to pay attention to rest, but also to false rest.

402

Wim Moehn

It is not that they are seeking their ease and rest in this world. It is quite true that recognizing their weakness, they ask God to strengthen and fortify them with his power. But in addition they considered a greater and more excellent thing, namely that Jesus Christ rules over everything so that he may be magnified through the teaching and by the signs and wonders done in his name. And that is what we must do. (Serm. 13, Acts 4:24b–31, SC 8.110.10–14 = ET, 172f.)

It is a temptation for believers to desire an easy life on earth. This is a recurring theme in the sermons on Acts. In Sermon 33 Calvin asks: ‘If our Lord maintains us here in a state of ease without struggles (entretenir en bon repos), what good would that do? We would think that there is no blessedness apart from this world, and few would look to God for help’ (Serm. 33, Acts 7:23–31, SC 8.296.36–38 = ET, 463). Applying the theophany in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2, Acts 7:30) to his audience, Calvin comforts them: ‘If God leaves us in the midst of the fire and the flame of this world’s persecutions, we are then like people who have been devoured. But he delivers us from them when he knows the time is right and does not allow us to be consumed.’ An interesting spiritual application of the burning bush which Moses saw in the desert! Repos is again closely related to the Christian life and the relation of present and eschatological era. God will maintain ‘en bon repos’ in the future—after this earthly life. Sermon 43, Acts 7:55–58 We skip for a moment sermon 40, because in the 43th sermon ‘repos’ is also related to persecution. Living in relative peace behind the city walls of sixteenth century Geneva, Calvin is always well aware of the situation of the brothers and sisters elsewhere in Europe and especially his native land France. If we are now in the time of rest, well, it is a moment of respite God is providing. But we see our brothers being persecuted for witnessing to the gospel. Every day we see the plots against us. We see the threats of our enemies and we see even their power, and we do not know what God will allow them to do, either to chastise us for our sins or to test our patience, so that those who are true believers may come under scrutiny. We do not know what God has in mind, but our responsibility is to get ready beforehand so that we will not be caught unawares.6

Here ‘repos’ means the time of preparation before persecution will break out. This aspect of ‘repos’ we also encounter in the Excuse aux Nicodemites and the first sermon of the Quatre sermons: it is necessary to be ‘premunis d’heure’.7 6 Serm. 43, Acts 7:55–58, SC 8.394.1–7 (ET, 619f.): ‘Si maintenant nous sommes à repos, et bien, c’est quelque relasche que Dieu nous donne.’ 7 Serm. 1, Quatre sermons (CO 8.378): ‘Et pource que nous ne sçavons pas ce qui nous peut

‘Repos’

403

Sermon 40, Acts 7:45–50 In this sermon Calvin used ten times the noun ‘repos’ and one time the verb ‘reposer’. It is by far the highest score in the sermons on Acts. The frequent use of our keyword can easily be explained: Stephen quoted Isaiah 66:1–2 in his long speech to the Sanhedrin: ‘Or where will my resting place be?’ In his explanation Calvin does not use the term accommodation, as the prophet talks about God in a human way. God, being spirit, must have spiritual worship. ‘But as concerns the words ‘seat’ and ‘rest’, we are not to imagine God as seated in human fashion.’ Calvin points to the evil that since the creation of the world, men want to understand God from a material standpoint (charnellement). Now, a critical clause follows with regard to the Papacy, their worship and the embellishing of their churches. This does not, however, prevent the preacher to criticize his Genevan audience: ‘God has favoured us by delivering us from all that nonsense. When we come to this place, we come to hear the teaching, and then we offer communal prayers and administer the sacraments appropriately. Do we all those things? If we do, we fail to take advantage of them’ (Serm. 40, Acts 7:45–50, SC 8.369.35–39 = ET, 579). Calvin even says: ‘Geneva seems a food paradise, but if someone takes a good look at the way things are, he will discover it is a hell.’ As we already saw, repos has a strong ecclesiological connotation and is linked to the preacher’s view on reformation. It is not enough to have ‘quelque apparence exterieure’: ‘When he adds, ‘Where is the place of my rest?’, he means that God wants to dwell among us, provided that we live strictly for him.’8

Sermons on the Gospel and Acts—Plusieurs Sermons The critical edition of the Plusieurs sermons—except the sermons on Isaiah (Calvin: 2012, 42–150) and the text of a congregation on John (Calvin: 2014, 27– 56)—can be seen as a supplement to the series on Acts. I started with the sermons on Acts; later, the other New Testament sermons in the Plusieurs sermons were added to constitue a complete volume. Do these sermons shed new light on ‘repos’? The first sermon in this volume is the Christmas sermon of 1552. Calvin starts his sermon with a remarkable Christ-centred sentence: ‘We know that it is our advenir, ni à quoy Dieu nous reserve, il est bon que nous soyons premunis d’heure, à fin qu’en quelque lieu que nous venions, ou de quelques tentations nous soyons assaillis, nous ne declinions point de la pure parolle de Dieu.’ 8 Serm. 40, Acts 7:45–50, SC 8.370.27f. (ET, 580): ‘Quand à ce qu’il adjouste: Quel sera le lieu de nostre repos? (Isa. 66:1–2), ce n’est pas à dire que Dieu ne veulle avoir son repos entre nous, voire moyennant que nous vivions à luy purement.’

404

Wim Moehn

good, our joy and rest to be united with the Son of God. As he is our Head, we are his body, so also from him we hold our life and our salvation and all good. In fact, we see how miserable our condition would be unless we had our refuge in him, to be maintained under his keeping.’9 Rest depends of the communion with Christ. The language of the sermon is also coloured by Paul’s metaphor of the head and the body, as expressed in Colossians 1:18—‘And he is the head of the body, the church’.10 The angel brought ‘good news that will cause great joy for all the people.’ The first lesson for believers is, that they seek their joy in Jesus Christ. Falling back on the first sentence of the sermon, Calvin introduces a new aspect of ‘repos’: ‘Even though we had all kind of delights and luxuries (…) our conscience will never have rest.’11 Other sermons also have the combination of (un)rest and conscience. In sermon 5 on Peter and the cock, Calvin says: ‘As when God touches us with anguish, we must be tormented in our hearts after having offended him. For such unrest is to lead us to real rest and such sorrow is to make us rejoice both before God and before Angels’ (Serm. 5, Matt 26:67–27:11, COR 5.8.89, 280–283 = ET, 106). And in sermon 8 on Christ’s death as a perpetual sacrifice: Do we wish to have certainty that God is Father to us? Do we wish to have liberty to call upon him? Do we wish to have rest in our consciences? (…) Let us abide in Jesus Christ and not wander here or there, and let us recognize that he is wherein rests all perfection.12

When for a moment we look to the Institutes, we discover in Benoît’s ‘Table analytique des matières’ that ‘repos de conscience’ is an important item (Calvin: 1957–1963, vol. 5, 167f., 337f. See also Millet: 1991, 21–37). Several times Calvin is invited by the text of his sermon to say something on rest. With regard to the disciples, who could not keep watch with their master, he remarks: To be sure, it is a sovereign good to have rest, or else we would be tired out. Nevertheless it is very necessary that necessity press us to be vigilant. (…) What is said only once to his disciples pertains to all of us in general, since in our lives we must always be ready to meet many temptations. For the devil is our perpetual enemy, if we are members of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 Serm. 1, Luke 2:1–14, COR 5.8.6, 35–40 (ET, 35f.): ‘Nous sçavons que tout nostre bien, nostre joye et repos c’est d’estre conjoints avec le Fils de Dieu.’ 10 Edmondson: 2004, 139: ‘[T]he primary image that Calvin uses to describe the unity of believers with Christ is the head/body language that he finds in Paul’. 11 Serm. 1, Luke 2:1–14, COR 5.8.16, 353f. (ET, 45): ‘(…) nostre conscience n’aura jamais repos.’ 12 Serm. 8, Matt 27:45–54, COR 5.8.153 413–419 (ET, 162): ‘Voulons-nous avoir liberté de l’invoquer? Voulons-nous avoir repos en nos consciences? Voulons-nous estre plenement certifiez que nous sommes tenus pour justes, afin d’estre agreables à Dieu? Demourons en Jesus Christ et ne vaguons ne çà ne là, et cognoissons que c’est là où gist toute perfection.’

‘Repos’

405

And a few lines further: ‘Let us learn, then, although the believers desire to have rest, nevertheless, they must not desire to be here at their ease. (…) It is, I say, the condition of all the children of God to battle in this world, because they cannot serve God without opposition.’13 Such quotations give us some insight in Calvin’s spirituality. Till yet a definition of ‘repos’ is missing. Calvin gives a kind of definition when he applicate Christ’s answer ‘I am he’ to his hearers: So then, it is in this word I am he that we may know, when it will please our Lord Jesus to manifest himself as he does to all his believers, that in this word he declares to us why he calls us to himself, why he had descended to us, and why he dwells in us by the power of his Holy Spirit, and that is wherein consists all our good and all our rest.14

Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the new week also gives an opportunity to Calvin to say something on the Sabbath as a day of rest.15 In other sermons he elaborates extensively on this theme. I only mention the sermons on Genesis 2:3, Jeremiah 17 and his exposition of the fourth commandment (Calvin: 2000, 80–91; Calvin: 1971, 128ff.; Serm. 34, Deut. 5:12–15, CO 26.283–308). Finally we have to look at God’s rest in heaven. In Sermon 18 on Acts 2:22–24, Peter says: ‘This man ( Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge’. It is necessary to underscore the word ‘conseil’. It is true that some will speak well of the providence of God, but they will have only a foolish notion of it; for they think that He is resting high in the sky, and yet he leaves change or nature to rule here below. On the contrary it is here declared to us that God ordains everything and disposes of things just as it pleases him.16

From Institutes 1.14.1 we know that Calvin’s theological reflections on God’s being and eternity is marked by sobriety and an aversion of curiosity: ‘It is neither lawful nor expedient for us to inquire why God delayed so long [the creation of 13 Serm. 3, Matt 26:40–50, COR 5.8.45, 117–125 (ET, 69): ‘Vray est que c’est un bien souverain d’avoir repos, mais il nous semble que jamais nous ne serons à repos, sinon estans comme abbrutis’, and idem, 5.8.46, 144–155 (ET, 70): ‘Apprenons donc, combien que les fideles et enfans de Dieu desirent d’avoir repos, que neantmoins il ne faut pas qu’ils desirent d’estre yci à leur aise.’ See Hall: 1968. 14 Serm. 3, Matt 26:40–50, COR 5.8.56, 471–476 (ET, 79): ‘Ainsi donc en ce mot Ce suis-je (…) il nous declare pourquoy il nous appelle à soy, pourquoy il est descendu à nous, et pourquoy il habite en nous par la vertu de son sainct Esprit, et voylà où consiste tout nostre bien et tout nostre repos.’ 15 Serm. 10, Matt 28:1–10, COR 5.8.184, 113f.: ‘Car les Juifs retenoyent le sabmedi, qu’ils appeloyent ‘Sabbath’, pour le jour du repos, comme aussi le mot le signifie’. 16 Serm. 18, Acts 2:22–24, COR 5/8, 305, ll. 256–261 (ET, 286): ‘Il est vray qu’aucuns parleront bien de la providence de Dieu, mais ils n’en auront qu’un fol cuider, car ils pensent qu’il se repose là-haut au ciel, et que cependant il laisse dominer yci-bas fortune ou nature. Or au contraire, il nous est yci declaré que Dieu ordonne tout, et dispose des choses ainsi qu’il luy plaist.’

406

Wim Moehn

the world, W.M.] (…). And it would not even be useful for us to know what God himself, to test our moderation of faith, on purpose willed to be hidden’ (Inst. 1.14.1 = OS 3.152.25–153.4; see also Meijering: 1980, 40–42).

2. A Restlessly Working Preacher Talking about ‘Repos’—Some Remarks, Conclusions and Lines for Further Research This article is based on the reading of at about sixty sermons. We can conclude that Calvin’s theological reflection on repos is primarily determined by the biblical text underlying the sermon. The use of a concordance will be helpful to combine the text of the Bible with Calvin’s sermons and, in a later stage, his commentaries. From the selected sermons we could determine some different contexts of ‘repos’: 1. Repos in combination with the communion with Christ. 2. Repos and its eschatological and ecclesiological dimension. Repos is in contrast with the situation of the Christian soldier in this live. However, we did not encounter the specific theme of the rest or sleep of the soul as Calvin wrote on it in his Psychopannychia. 3. Repos, the seventh day and the relation with daily work. 4. Repos in relation with one’s conscience. I started with the article of Sieben. There is much affinity between Calvin and Augustine: eternal and eschatological rest, the seventh day and so on. But I have also some questions: 1. For Augustine and many other theologians quies is the technical term for the monastic live. Did Calvin also use repos in this context (Sieben: 2012, 165; see also Sieben: 1986)? 2. To rest in God and the union of the soul with God are important themes in the medieval mystical tradition. At time Calvin speaks of our mystical union with Christ. What are the similarities and the differences of Calvin’s thoughts and the mystical tradition in the centuries before (see Sieben: 1986 and Mossman: 2010, esp. 263–266). 3. In what way is Calvin’s view on the intermediate state determined by the tradition before him? Research into the history of the exegesis of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man seems fruitful.17 17 Zahnd: 2009, 38: ‘Puis, la parabole du riche et de Lazare l’amène à un excursus étendu sur la signification du terme quies, qui atteint son apogée dans l’éloge de la tranquillité de l’âme, laquelle consiste à anticiper la jouissance de Dieu et à espérer la résurrection.’

‘Repos’

407

To my knowledge a monograph on repos is still lacking. What I could find are some lines or a paragraph but no profound study of Calvin’s vision on ‘repos’.18 Time has come to start a comprehensive study of Calvin’s use of ‘repos’ and its Latin equivalent ‘quies’.

Bibliography Balke, W. (2003), Calvijn en de zondagsheiliging, in: idem, Calvijn en de Bijbel, Kampen: Kok, 128–139. Biéler, A. (1961), Le travail et le repos, in: idem, La pensée économique et sociale de Calvin (Publications de la faculté des sciences économiques est sociales de l’université de Genève 13), Genève: Georg, chap. V, par. 1. Bohatec, J. (1950), Budé und Calvin. Studien zur Gedankenwelt des französischen Frühhumanismus, Graz: Hermann Böhlaus. Boisset, J. (1959), Le thème de la tranquilité devant la mort, in: idem, Sagesse et sainteté dans la pensée de Jean Calvin. Essai sur l’Humanisme du Réformateur français (Bibliothèque de l’école des hautes études—sciences réligieuses 71), Paris: Université de France, 263. Calvin J. (1957–1963), Institution de la religion chrestienne, J.-D. Benoît (ed.), 5 vols. (Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques), Paris: Vrin. — (1971), Sermons sur les Livres de Jérémie et des Lamentations, R. Peter (ed.) (SC 6), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag. — (1980), Sermons on the Saving Work of Christ, selected and translated by Leroy Nixon, Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press. Formerly published under the title: The Deity of Christ, Grand Rapids (MI): Eerdmans, 1950. — (1994), Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles, W. Balke/W.H.Th. Moehn (eds) (SC 8), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994 (Reprint Genève: Droz, 2014). — (1998), De aeterna Dei praedestinatione / De la predestination eternelle, W.H. Neuser (ed.), texte français établi par O. Fatio (COR 3.1), Genève: Droz. — (2000), Sermons sur la Genèse Chapitres 1,1–11,4, M. Engammare (ed.) (SC 11.1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. — (2008), Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles, chapters 1–7. Forty-four sermons delivered in Geneva between 25 August 1549 and 11 January 1551, translated by R.R. McGregor, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. — (2011), Plusieurs Sermons de Jean Calvin, W.H.Th. Moehn (ed.) (COR 5.8), Genève: Droz. — (2012), Sermon sur Esaïe Chapitres 52,1–59,21, M. Engammare (ed.) (SC 4.1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Theologie. — (2014), Congrégations et disputations, E.A. de Boer (ed.) (COR 7.1), Genève: Droz. Edmondson, S. (2004), Calvin’s Christology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 18 See e. g. Balke: 2003; Faber: 1999; Kaiser: 1996; Gaffin: 1998; Biéler: 1961; Boisset: 1959; Bohatec: 1950, 402–405; Tavard: 2000.

408

Wim Moehn

Engammare, Max (2011), Calvin the Workaholic, in: I. Backus/Ph. Benedict (eds), Calvin and His Influence, 1509–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–83. Faber, E.-M. (1999), Ewigkeit in der Zeit, in: idem, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch. Die responsorische Struktur von Vermittlung in der Theologie Johannes Calvins, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 137–139. Gaffin, R. (1998), Calvin and the Sabbath. The Controversy of Applying the Fourth Commandment, Ross-shire: Mentor. Hall, Ch.A.M. (1968), With the Spirit’s Sword. The Drama of Spiritual Warfare in the Theology of John Calvin (Basel Studies of Theology 3), Zürich: EVZ-Verlag. Kaiser, J. (1996), Ruhe der Seele und Siegel der Hoffnung. Die Deutungen des Sabbats in der Reformation (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 65) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lange van Ravenswaay, J.M.J. (1990), Augustinus totus noster. Das Augustinverständnis bei Johannes Calvin (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 45), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Meijering, E.P. (1980), Calvin wider die Neugierde. Ein Beitrag zum Vergleich zwischen reformatorischem und patristischem Denken (Bibliotheca Humanistica & Reformatorica 29), Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf. Millet, O. (1991), Le thème de la conscience libre chez Calvin, in: H.R. Guggisberg/F. Lestringant/J.-C. Margolin (eds), La liberté de conscience (XVIe–XVIIe siècles). Actes du Colloque de Mulhouse et Bâle (1989) (Études de Philologie et d’Histoire 44), Genève: Droz. Moehn, W.H.Th. (2001), ‘God Calls Us to His Service.’ The Relation Between God and His Audience in Calvin’s Sermons on Acts (THR 345), Genève: Droz. — (2008), ‘Heden zijn voor ons de hemelen geopend.’ Calvijn en Hemelvaart, in: W. Balke/ S. Hiebsch/W. Janse (eds), Verbum Dei manet in Aeternum. Luther en Calvijn in hun Schriftverstaan, Kampen: Kok, 93–117. Mossman, S. (2010), Marquard von Lindau and the Challenges of Religious Life in Late Medieval Germany. The Passion, the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary (Oxford Modern Languages and Literature Monographs), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sieben, Hermann-Joseph (1986), ‘Quies’ et ‘Otium’, in: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, vol. 12/ 2, Paris: Beauchesne, 2746–2756. — (2012), Augustinus zum Thema ‘Ruhe’ unter Berücksichtigung der Termini quies und requies. Ein chronologischer und systematischer Überblick, in: Theologie und Philosopie 87, 161–192. Tavard, G.H. (2000), The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids (MI): Eerdmans. Zahnd, U. (2009), Calvin, l’âme humaine et la philosophie classique (Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 23), Genève/Lausanne/Neuchâtel.

Jeannine Olson

A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches Beza and Nicolas Des Gallars Collaborate against John Morély

In an age when absolutist monarchy was about to gain the ascendancy in Continental Europe, Calvin was no democrat, but he was no autocrat either. He preferred rule by the knowledgeable few rather than by the many. In the case of Reformed churches, this ruled out repeated popular election of officers. Thus Calvin opposed Jean Morély, who advocated democratic procedures and a greater degree of congregational autonomy in his Treatise on Christian Discipline and Polity (Morély: 1962).1 Whatever the form of government, Calvin was concerned that those who rule check and restrain each other. He said, “Men’s fault or failing causes it to be safer and more bearable for a number to exercise government, so that they may help one another, teach and admonish one another; and, if one asserts himself unfairly, there may be a number of censors and masters to restrain his willfulness” (Calvin: 1559, 1493–1494).2 Calvin described well the grabeau, the regular meeting of Genevan committees, civil and ecclesiastical, for mutual criticism and correction. These assumptions held by Calvin and colleagues help to explain a struggle against democracy in the early Reformed churches, the so-called Morély Affair, in which Theodore Beza and Nicolas Des Gallars were heavily involved during Des Gallars’ years in Orleans (1563–1568), where he and those who supported his anti-Morély stance were arguably more influential than the Genevan Company of Pastors in changing the minds of Protestant nobility in France who favored Morély and his ideas.

1 Thank you Rhode Island College Faculty Research Committee for financial support. 2 Thanks for Latin throughout to classicist Mary Preus Ph.D. This essay does not repeat original transcriptions in Latin or French published elsewhere .

410

Jeannine Olson

The Morély Affair In 1562, a minor reformed nobleman, Jean Morély, sieur de Villiers, (1524?– 1594?), published his Treatise on Christian Discipline and Polity, in which he advocated democratic procedures in the Church (cf. Denis/Rott: 1993). Unremarkable as Morély’s ideas appear today, the Genevan practice was not democracy. The procedure in Geneva was for the incumbent pastors, elders, and deacons to select their successors when a vacancy occurred, much like the officers of the American Calvin Society today. Wherever Reformed churches multiplied, the Genevan pastors preferred that the Genevan method of co-option of church officers be followed although in newly-formed congregations in France, all congregational members could select the first slate of officers. Morély felt the system was too hierarchical. He opposed national synods having too much power although he allowed collective organization beyond the congregational level with limited power. For Morély, ultimate decision-making power in the Church should rest with congregations. Then the true apostolic Church would be restored. Morély dedicated his book to Pierre Viret, who might have inspired some of Morély’s ideas. At least Viret did not condemn him (cf. Denis: 1992). Democratic procedures and weak judicatories were contrary to what Calvin and church leaders inspired by Geneva wanted, especially with the outbreak of civil war in France (1562), when cohesion among newly-formed French Reformed congregations was necessary: (1) to avoid the splintering off of churches into different sects, (2) to maintain the educational level and quality of the pastors, and (3) to facilitate recruitment to Huguenot armies. Although Morély’s treatise might have been innocently conceived, he faced opposition and was excommunicated by the Genevan Church (September 1563). His ideas were condemned by several synods of the Reformed churches of France, for instance, Synods of Orleans (1562), Paris (1565), La Rochelle (1571), and Nîmes, (1572) (cf. Denis: 1996). Seemingly surprised by opposition, Morély attempted to set himself right with the Genevan Venerable Company of Pastors (cf. Morély, 1564). He retracted his teachings and apologized, but whatever Morély did, he could not ingratiate himself with the Genevan pastors because of prior indiscreet behavior. He had compromised them, especially Calvin and Beza, by passing on a rumor that they had given advance approval to the Conspiracy of Amboise (March 1560). Morély’s ideas were attractive elsewhere, especially to those who resented the Genevan influence on Reformed churches, some of whom accused Geneva of replacing the pope with an oligarchy of pastors. Des Gallars wrote to Beza on 12 August 1566: “They [Morély and his partisans] harass us in the name of oligarchy

A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches

411

and act under the pretext of democracy, so that in the future we should have instead of one tyrant, many” (Des Gallars: 1566a, 196, 197nn.12 and 14). Time was changing the circumstances of the French Reformed churches. In the 1550s and early 1560s the French recruited Reformed pastors outside France, from Geneva and Lausanne, for instance, but during the first war of religion in France (1562–1563), Orleans became headquarters of the Reformed cause. A school of theology was initiated. Individuals as highly placed as Odet de Coligny, Cardinal of Châtillon, supported the school. A chronology of Orleans reform claimed his support included professors’ salaries (cf. Billard: 1), which would have included Des Gallars. Claude de la Grange reported Châtillon to have provided scholarships for as many as one hundred students (cf. Weiss: 1911; Kingdon: 1967, 100n.2). By the mid-1560s French churches no longer depended only on academies outside France to train pastors. By August 1566, Reformed education in Orleans was so successful that Beza correspondence editors commented: “The new Academy of Orleans was as solicited as that of Geneva for furnishing pastors” (Des Gallars: 1566a, 197n.2).

Support for Morély among Nobility Despite opposition of Genevan pastors and pastors trained there, Morély’s popularity spread in France. He had the sympathy of important French nobles, including Odet de Coligny, who made his feelings known on Morély in a letter to the provincial synod of the Reformed churches of the Ile de France, meeting 5 July 1565: “It is not proper thus to hammer away at and ridicule people in the Church” (Kingdon: 1967, 72n.3). The Synod decided to allow Morély to take Communion, with the understanding that he would “satisfy more amply by letter the Consistory and the Seigniory of Geneva” (Mallot: 1565). Two months later Morély was not reconciled with the Genevan Consistory. Beza wanted the matter brought before a general synod of Reformed churches (cf. Beza: 1565). Beza’s wishes were granted. A synod of French Reformed churches (Paris, 25 December 1565) decided Morély could not “be received at Communion” until “after he was reconciled with the Genevans” (Le Synode). Des Gallars presided, evoking Morély’s ongoing resentment. In the Paris region in 1566, the Queen of Navarre selected Morély to replace Antoine François de La Gaucherie, deceased tutor of her son, Henry. Nancy Roelker stated: “The alarm of the pastors rose to a fever pitch when Jeanne put Henri in Morély’s charge” (Roelker: 1968, 250). Henry would inherit the Kingdom of Navarre after Jeanne d’Albret, at forty-four, died 9 June 1572, likely of tuberculosis (cf. Roelker, 390–392). Henry, a Prince of the Blood through his father,

412

Jeannine Olson

Antoine de Bourbon, inherited the French throne after the Valois line died out (1589).

Morély’s Defamatory Letters In 1566 matters came to a head in Orleans. Morély had vented his feelings in letters to an Orleans pastor, Hugues Sureau, called Du Rosier, who did not destroy the letters when he left to participate in a debate, 9 July 1566 to 7 August (cf. Beuzart: 1939; Kingdon: 1962, 1967, 84n.1). August 4, before Du Rosier returned, another Orleans pastor, Monsieur Le Maçon, Seigneur de la Fontaine, wrote to Beza, urging him to contact the Orleans Consistory. Morély was gaining supporters, Du Rosier, who, in turn, “attracted to his opinion… Monsieur Baron,” Orleans pastor (Le Maçon: 1566, 191). La Fontaine had been secretary of the third National French Reformed Synod (Orleans 1562) that condemned Morély’s book (cf. Le Maçon: 1566, 192n.1). Du Rosier’s habitation was searched. Letters from Morély were found in which “Geneva is called the seat of Antichrist,” and Beza “the Jupiter of Lake Geneva” (Des Gallars: 1566d, 257). In late December 1565 Morély had described Des Gallars: “Oh the liar and false face of your de Saule, the deceitful eyes, the tongue and speech counterfeiting well the modesty and honesty…made-up and lying” (Morély: 1565–1566; Béroald, 1566; Denis/Rott: 301). Morély’s letters were more than defamation of character. Morély seemed genuinely discouraged by rejection. His overriding criticism was of the dominance of Geneva: O cruel and insupportable tyranny, but rather impiety. What is that, if not to be seated in the temple of God and reigning like God? May the Lord seek to pay heed to his holy habitat and deliver his Church, which he has redeemed with his blood, from the tyranny of Geneva, as he has redeemed it from the tyranny of the Roman Antichrist (Des Gallars, 1566 h, 314n.7).

We have no precise date as to when the defamatory letters were found. Denis and Rott suggested June 1566 (cf. Denis/Rott: 1993, 296n.8). Editors of the Beza Correspondence considered La Fontaine’s 4 August 1566 letter “the first veiled allusion to the discovery of the Morély-Du Rosier correspondence” (Le Maçon: 1566, 192n.6). Both dates seem premature unless Des Gallars was uninformed. His letter to Beza, 12 August 1566, did not mention the Morély-Du Rosier correspondence (Des Gallars: 1566a, 195–196). Des Gallars’ next letter to Beza spoke of a letter of Morély: “These things had not become known openly when last I wrote to you; I only suspected them” (Des Gallars: 1566b, 200).

A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches

413

Morély’s opponents considered the letters God’s gift. Des Gallars sent excerpts to Beza, 1 September 1566, with greetings from La Fontaine and to Jeanne d’Albret’s chancellor, the Paris church; and Gaspard de Coligny (Des Gallars: 1566f, 216). The letters were in Latin. The Orleans Consistory wanted a French translation so that elders and deacons could give their opinion. Translation was assigned to Matthieu Béroald, Hebrew Professor at the Orleans Reformed Academy, with “several brothers” as helpers (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 297).

Beza’s Scathing Letter to Pastors of Orleans Not until 25 September 1566 do we have a surviving letter from Beza to Orleans concerning the Morély letters. Beza wrote on behalf of the Company of Pastors of Geneva, addressing his letter to the pastors of Orleans, especially the two who sided with Morély (Beza: 1566, 308–311). Beza’s letter was an articulate expression of the solidarity the Reformed movement desired. The Genevan Company of Pastors had hesitated to write for fear of appearing to take sides. Beza said, “It is against the truth that we want to make of ourselves new popes” (Beza: 1566, 309). But since Du Rosier and Baron, apparently, had trained in Geneva, the pastors felt “some maternal authority toward you if the churches retain some right over those who they send on the part of the Lord (which we always say)” (Beza: 1566, 308). Then followed a scathing indictment. “This Church has not changed, thanks to God, either its doctrine, or its discipline, or its affection” (Beza: 1566, 308–309). If we thought that you would not have moved along in step with your brothers, we would never have sent you. “You ignore the authority of the legitimate synods” (Beza: 1566, 309). Despite what individual conscience might dictate, “if each one would desire to follow his opinion as you do yours, where would be the Church of the Savior” (Beza: 1566, 309)? Beza addressed Du Rosier, you have forgotten “what an ungrateful child owes his parents, a true brother owes his brothers, and for the end, a good conscience owes to God” (Beza: 1566, 310). Beza shifted his attention to the Orleans Company of pastors and made two points: First, conjoin with us in order to lead our two said brothers to the path from which they were diverted. Briefly, very dear brothers, we are acting like a mother who sent to you two of her children, whom she fears have lost their way…The second point is [that] you be united and conjoined in a same spirit, having always before your eyes the doctrine and the discipline through which you have been engendered, nourished, and so happily maintained until the age where you are. Guard you well from all spirit of pride and of fickleness from which proceed the divisions and, finally, the ruin of the churches! Have neither your eyes

414

Jeannine Olson

nor your feet apart, but perceive and make your way with a common accord with the rest of your brothers, according to the course of our vocation, until we will arrive at this true repose to which even we have charge to lead and attract those who are committed to us (Beza:1566, 310–311).

When Des Gallars wrote Beza (30 September 1566), he had not yet received Beza’s 25 September letter. He mentioned Beza’s 5 September letter, now extinct. Des Gallars thanked Beza for an accompanying book, probably the Confirmation de la discipline ecclésiastique (a refutation by Antoine de La Roche-Chandieu of Morély’s book). “I have already received several copies that I have distributed here and there” (Des Gallars: 1566c, 241). He thanked Beza for writing to Jeanne d’Albret (an extinct letter) (Des Gallars: 1566c, 242n.4) for “the Queen of Navarre has made several remonstrances to Morély” (Des Gallars: 1566c, 241). Des Gallars wanted to go there, but “I cannot part from here as I want and would be found very bad if I did it without common consent” (Des Gallars: 1566c, 241), a testimony to the communal spirit of the Reformed companies of pastors. He had received letters from Coligny and the Cardinal of Châtillon disapproving of Morély, a welcome change (Des Gallars: 1566c, 241–242). Eight letters of Des Gallars to Beza are preserved in the 1566 Beza correspondence from 12 August 1566 to 20 December. All mention Morély. All are from Orleans except perhaps one.3 Des Gallars also wrote letters addressed to the Genevan Company of Pastors, 14 July (Des Gallars: 1566 g) and 24 October 1566 (Des Gallars: 1566 h). In the July letter to the Genevan pastors, Des Gallars said he was expecting a letter from Beza to assure his letters had not been intercepted (Des Gallars: 1566 g, 211).

Another Wife for Des Gallars In his 30 September 1566 letter to Beza, Des Gallars stated: “My wife salutes you and yours” (Des Gallars: 1566c, 242). Des Gallars had remarried. His first wife, Gabrielle Morones (Geneva 1544) died in London (spring 1563). Des Gallars could not lead a celibate life. His last letter to Calvin (19 April 1564) revealed his intentions:

3 The letters of Des Gallars to Beza in Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, are (1) letter 488, 12 août, pp. 195–197; (2) letter 490, 16 août if 17 septembre, Des Gallars’ date, is wrong, pp. 200–203; (3) letter 497, 1 septembre, p. 216; (4) letter 498, 2 septembre, pp. 218–219; (5) letter 501, Genève–10 septembre, pp. 229–230. Beza correspondence editors list this letter’s origin as Geneva; the letter’s text reads “d’Orléans, ce Xe de septembre.” 229; (6) letter 504, 30 septembre, pp. 241–243; (7) letter 509, [24 octobre], pp. 256–258; (8) letter 521, 20 décembre, p. 290.

A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches

415

As for what pertains to me [personally], my father, I sense for myself the presence of God day by day, and I feel myself being strengthened both of mind and body and that my strength is increasing, if I were to look at the great weakness by which I was nearly overthrown. O that I could really talk to you face to face as a friend as I once did, so again now, and that it might be possible for me to place matters in your hands. There is one matter in my private affairs that has me worried. Thinking about marriage now concerns me. I had preferred a celibate life, and I had asked for this from God, and I had gone on for a time and had born it as much as I was able, waiting to see if I might be able to attain the ability of going on in this way, but when it was denied to me, I begged of God that if he wanted me to marry, he would give me such a person as my temperament demanded, with whom I might be able to lead the rest of my life tranquilly. How much the Lord has blessed me and my marriage and my whole family at your hand, I cannot remember without deep breaths. Nevertheless, I long that I may receive a not insignificant consolation from this remembrance. Now in truth, since you are not able to help me face to face with your deeds and your advice, I ask this from you earnestly, and again and again, that you would uphold me with prayers before God and always remember me. I shall set out shortly to Castillionum, where the matter of my marriage is being carried on, and if anything happens, I will write to you. Farewell my father. My God restore you to full health and preserve you for us for a long time. I have written you more than I thought I would. Orleans 19 April 1564. Your most humble servant, N. Gallasius (Des Gallars 1564).

We know nothing about Des Gallars’ second wife, whether they had children or what became of her. Des Gallars married again a third time in 1573 in the Kingdom of Navarre. His contract of marriage with Françoise de Contades was dated 7 March 1572, by modern dating 1573 (Lexia: 1572). There are no letters from Des Gallars in the Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze from Calvin’s death until 12 August 1566. The German air force bombed Orleans city center during early stages of World War II, burning the archives, including documents that might have contained information on Des Gallars. What remains are largely letters sent from Orleans preserved elsewhere and information culled from documents before the bombardment.

Des Gallars Proposes a Visit to Jeanne d’Albret On 24 October 1566, Des Gallars thanked Beza for his 25 September letter, which arrived late. Getting hold of Morély’s letters had been difficult: We were scarcely able to effect the reading and transmission of the letters [Morély wrote to Du Rosier] in order to make public what evil and intolerable lies had been fabricated and organized without our knowledge. However, we finally got hold of them, not without wrangling and contention (Des Gallars: 1566d, 256).

Des Gallars had “been trying for four years already to cover over and calm down this business, from the time of the Synod when Morély’s book was condemned

416

Jeannine Olson

[Orleans, April 1562]” (Des Gallars:, 1566d, 256). Des Gallars ended with a greeting and an admonition to Beza to take care of his health, similar to admonitions Des Gallars made to Calvin except Des Gallars addressed Calvin as “father” and Beza as “brother.” Take care of your health, I pray you brother, and look out for yourself and the Church of God lest we be deprived of your assistance in a time of such need and during such a shortage of pastors. The Lord preserve you in good health for a long time…To the faithful servant of Christ, D. Theodore Beza, pastor of the church of Geneva, brother and highly-regarded friend (Des Gallars: 1566d, 257).

In his letter to the Company of Pastors (24 October 1566), Des Gallars wrote he conferred with his “brother and companion, Monsieur de La Fontaine,” who advised him “to send extracts of the same words of Morély” sent to Beza “so that you could see plainly the outrage that is made of you as of us and how insupportable he is” (Des Gallars: 1566 h, 313). Des Gallars chose quotations that expressed resentment of Geneva: I [Morély] am certain in my own mind, even though I am severely pressed day after day by that faction of yours, that they are bringing about the result that our people are no longer able to endure being powerless because of the Genevan dominance and supremacy…What you make of those poor wretches who have nowhere to turn. Do you ask with what sort of expiatory offerings they are trying to placate that Jove of Geneva? What sacrificial victims? …O unhappy Church that must undergo such savage tyranny. May God will to liberate his Church from this new tyrannical Antichrist himself (Des Gallars: 1566 h, 313).

Des Gallars left out other vilification, even Morély’s defamation of character against him. Des Gallars wanted Genevan pastors to notify Geneva’s governing authorities of Morély’s statements so they might alert Jeanne d’Albret: Do you also think that it will be good to notify the Seigneurie of this outrage, which concerns them also and if they have just cause to complain to the Queen of Navarre, it is possible that she will pay more attention [to them] than to the ministers alone. True it is that she has not seen this article or our Consistory also (Des Gallars: 1566 h, 313).

December 9 the City Council decided to pay travel expenses to send Nicolas Colladon to Orleans and to Jeanne d’Albret (Registres du Conseil: 1566; Fatio/ Labarthe, ed., 13n.2). The decision to send Colladon had taken over a month since Des Gallars’ letter. Meanwhile, the Orleans consistory decided to send someone to the Court of Navarre. Des Gallars reported the decision was obtained “with difficulty.” He was pleased that “Monsieur Beroald, who had shown himself to be upright and virtuous in this affair, was chosen” (Des Gallars: 1566e, 290).

A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches

417

Morély’s Letters Exposed before Jeanne d’Albret By 17 November 1566 Béroald had an initial hearing with Jeanne d’Albret. He had the French translation of extracts from Morély’s defamatory letters: By divine providence and God’s fatherly care for the salvation and repose of his churches, [Morély’s letters] had fallen into the hands of a certain minister of the Reformed Church of Orleans (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 296–297).

Subsequently Béroald, was charged to make an extract of the most notable points contained and laid down in the letters of Morély to present to the Queen of Navarre so that neither she nor her family, so honorable and serviceable to God, was infected by Morély’s errors, and also principally that Monsieur the Prince of Navarre…was not spoiled by such a preceptor (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott, 1993, 297).

They decided to meet again so others could attend. Saturday, 23 November 1566, Jeanne d’Albret, Gaspard de Coligny, Odet de Châtillon, and [ Jeanne’s] ministers were present, but not Morély (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 298–299, 310; Jeanne d’Albret: 1566, 281). Béroald said by “an extraordinary miracle and a singular providence of God…the writings of Morély had come to the cognizance of the Church of Orleans,” revealing Morély as a heretic, a “mocker and blasphemer of ministers of the Reformed church,” and a schismatic (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 299). Béroald concentrated on two issues: (1) Morély’s defamatory attack on well-known pastors of the Reformed church, mentioned by name, (2) and Morély’s mockery of the Church and Seigniory of Geneva. As for Des Gallars, Morély wrote he did not question Monsieur de Saules’ doctrine but “his feigned and simulated modesty in his flattering and seductive words” (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 301). What impressed others as Des Gallars’ good manners, Morély found unctuous and insincere. Could he have been influenced by the fact that it was Monsieur de Saules…who had pronounced the sentence [against Morély] because he was president of the Synod [Paris, December, 1565], which was that in order to conserve the union of the churches, that the Synod condemned my book and wanted it to be suppressed? [They] passed condemnation against my conscience [which] was very unjust (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 304–305).

After Béroald finished, Morély was summoned. Béroald repeated his charges. Morély appealed to Jeanne d’Albret that his letters should never have been used in this way. She cut him off, stating the letters had been discovered “by a singular providence of God” (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 310). She directed Morély to respond. He did, in writing, the following Monday, 25 November 1566. When Morély was called to testify, he confessed to having “spoken badly” and that “he

418

Jeannine Olson

was convinced of his errors by the Word of God and by sufficient proofs and reasons” (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 311). In response, The Queen said to him that she was joyous that he had recognized [his errors] and she knew that he had a large family and, however, that she would not leave off supporting him and that he should come to see her sometimes, and that Monsieur the Prince had quite enough to support him although he does him not one service, just as he maintains many people who do not serve him (Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 312).

Morély had seven children. His oldest was eleven, Samuel, baptized in Geneva, 24 April 1555, at St. Pierre. John Calvin godfather (cf. Denis/Rott: 1993, 217). Morély had married Madeleine Braillon just before he enrolled as resident of Geneva.4 She bore seven surviving children by December 1566: Marie, Anne, Jean, Pierre, Madeleine, and baby Thomas (cf. Denis/Rott: 1993, 218–219). An eighth, Jacques, would be born between 1567 and 1572 (cf. Denis/Rott: 1993, 219). Madeleine Braillon died between 20 July 1572 and 30 January 1579 (cf. Denis/Rott: 1993, 34). Béroald stated Morély was replaced as preceptor to the Prince of Navarre (cf. Béroald: 1566; Denis/Rott: 1993, 312). The Genevan dispatch of Colladon was aborted when Beza received a letter from Pierre Hespérien confirming that Jeanne had sent Morély away although in “the most gentle fashion which she little uses.” (Hespérien: 1566; Beza: 1566, 273). He was a good tutor. After a struggle of several months to hold onto his position as tutor to Prince Henry of Navarre, Morély lost his job, thanks to the efforts of Nicolas Des Gallars and pastors of Orleans to bring to light the defamatory letters of Morély. Morély’s letters with their abusive comments turned nobility of France against Morély and persuaded Jeanne d’Albret to fire him. Little of the opposition was argued on the merits of Morély’s ideas, but sixteenth-century people would not have liked his ideas. Few believed in the degree of democracy that Morély supported. To understand the actions of the Reformed leaders against Morély, one needs to understand their conventional wisdom that democracy produces chaos and tyranny. Robert Kingdon suggested the “brutal” dismissal of Morély, Prince Henry’s “favorite boyhood teacher,” might have contributed to Henri never taking “his religion very seriously” (Kingdon: 1967, 117). Antoine de Bourbon, Henry’s father, also influenced Henry. We do not know whether Morély’s dismissal affected Henry’s willingness to convert to the Roman Catholic Church (1593).

4 AEG, RC, particuliers, VIII, (1554) fol. 1v cited in Kingdon, 1967, 44n.2 .

A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches

419

Calvin’s Views on Democracy: Any discussion of polity in Reformed churches hails back to John Calvin’s ideas, which influenced his disciples. Like ancient philosophers, Calvin acknowledged three forms of government: (1) monarchy, rule by one, (2) aristocracy, government composed of people of note, and (3) democracy, popular government in which every person has power. But there were dangers in each. Calvin stated, “The fall from kingdom to tyranny is easy [leaving France unnamed]; but it is not much more difficult to fall from the rule of the best men to the faction of a few; yet it is easiest of all to fall from popular rule to sedition.” No form of government was safe. However, “I will not deny that aristocracy, or a system compounded of aristocracy and politia far excels all others.” Ford Battles translated politia as democracy in his English translation of Calvin’s 1559 Institutes (Calvin: Book IV, 20, 8, p. 1493). Mario Turchetti maintains that if Calvin had wanted to say democracy, he would have used that term as he had before in French, démocratie (Turchetti: 2009). Politia is more accurately translated as republic (republicanism) or as government based on a constitution (constitutionalism). Calvin made a contribution to democracy indirectly. The Genevan Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541), drafted with Genevan city councilors, are riddled with team-building, so, too, are organizational structures of many Presbyterian and Reformed-tradition churches today. Although not the original intent, Protestant reformers’ insistence that everyone be able to read the Bible was an equalizing force in society by enhancing literacy. Calvin’s political legacy was democratic by extension. Group decision-making in Reformed churches expanded over centuries from pastors, elders, and deacons to include entire congregations. Democratic procedures in Reformed churches became a model for secular governments.

Bibliography Beroald, M. (1566), Annex VIII, 1566, 4 December, Orléans, Rapport de Matthieu Béroald sur son intervention contre Morély après de Jeanne d’Albret en novembre 1566, in: Philippe Denis/Jean Rott (1993), Jean Morély (ca 1524–ca 1594) et l’utopie d’une démocratie dans l’Eglise, Geneva: Droz, 297–312. Beuzart, P. (1939), H. Sureau du Rosier, in: Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de protestantisme français 88, 249–268. Beza, T. (1565), Bèze à Jean Mallot, letter 418, Geneva, 6 September, in: Henry Meylan/ Alain Dufour/Alexandre de Henseler (eds) (1965), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 6, Geneva: Droz, 162–164.

420

Jeannine Olson

— (1566), Bèze au nom de la Compagnie à l’Eglise d’Orléans, 25 September, in: Henry Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 308–311. Billard, J. (No Date), Essaie de Chronologie de la Reforme à Orléans 16e et 17e siècle, unpublished manuscript. Calvin, J. (1559), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ford Battles (ed. and trans. 1960), Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Denis, P. (1992), Viret et Morély: Les Raisons d’un Silence, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 4, 395–409. — (1996), Article ‘Morély, Jean’, http://www.oxfordreference.com.helin.uri.edu/view [27th January 2015]. Denis, P./Rott, J. (1993), Jean Morély (ca 1524–ca 1594) et l’utopie d’une démocratie dans l’Eglise, Geneva: Droz. Des Gallars, N. (1564), ‘Gallasius Calvino’, letter 4099, 19 April, Orléans, in CO, vol. 20, col. 294–295. — (1566a), Des Gallars à Bèze, letter 488, Orléans, 12 August, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 195–197. — (1566b), Des Gallars à Bèze, letter 490, Orléans, 16 August, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 200–201. — (1566c), Des Gallars à Bèze, letter 504, Orléans, 30 September, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 241–243. — (1566d), Des Gallars à Bèze, letter 509, Orléans, 24 October, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 256–257. — (1566e), Des Gallars à Bèze, letter 521, Orléans, 20 December, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 290–292. — (1566f), Gallasius à Bèze, letter 497, Orleans, 1 September in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 216–217. — (1566 g), Nicolas Des Gallars à La Compagnie, letter 31, Orléans, 14 July, in: Olivier Fatio/Olivier LaBarthe (eds) (1969), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève, vol. 3, 1565–1574, Geneva: Droz, 211–212. — (1566 h), Des Gallars à la Compagnie des pasteurs de Genève, Orléans, 24 October, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 313–315. Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541) in: J.K.S. Reid (ed./transl.) (1954), Calvin: Theological Treatises, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 56–72. Fatio, O./LaBarthe, O. (eds) (1969), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève, vol. 3, 1565–1574, Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1969. Hesperien, P. (1566), Pierre Hespérien à Bèze, letter 515, Saint-Maur-lès-Paris, 26 and 27 November, 1566, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 272–274.

A Struggle against Democracy in Reformed Churches

421

Jeanne d’Albret, (1566), Jeanne d’Albret à Bèze, letter 518, Paris, 6 December, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 281–283. Kingdon, R. (1962), Genève et les réformés français: Le cas de Hugues Sureau, in: Bulletin de la Société d’histoire et d’archéologie de Genève 12, 77–87. — (1967), Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 1564–1572: A Contribution to the History of Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Le Maçon, N. (1566) Le Maçon, Seigneur de La Fontaine à Bèze, letter 486, Orléans, 4 August, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 190–192. Lexia, M., Notary of Pau, (1572), Contract of marriage between Nicolas Des Gallars, minister, and Françoise de Contades, 7 March. Registre E. 2001, 1570–1573, Archives Départementales des Basses-Pyrénées [today Archives Départementales des PyrénéesAtlantiques], fol. 274v–275v. Mallot, J. (1565), Jean Mallot à Bèze, letter 407, Châtillon-sur-Loing. 8 August, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Alexandre de Henseler (eds) (1965), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 6, Geneva: Droz, 126 n. 20. Morely, J. (1562), Traicte de la Discipline & Police Chrestienne, Lyon: Ian de Tournes. — (1564), Morély aux Pasteurs de Genève, Paris, 8 May, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/ Alexandre de Henseler (eds) (1965), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 6, Geneva: Droz, 227–230. — (1565–1566), Extraits des lettres de Morély au pasteur orléanais Hugues Sureau du Rosier, in: Philippe Denis/Jean Rott (1993), Jean Morély (ca 1524–ca 1594) et l’utopie d’une démocratie dans l’Eglise, Geneva: Droz, 279–295. Registres du Conseil (1566), Archives d’Etat de Genève, vol. 61, fol. 121. Roelker, N. (1968), Queen of Navarre, Jeanne d’Albret, 1528–1572, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. Le Synode de la province d’Orléans à La Roche-Chandieu, La Charité, 11 March, 1566, in: Henri Meylan/Alain Dufour/Claire Chimelli/Mario Turchetti (eds) (1973), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, vol. 7, Geneva: Droz, 296–299. Turchetti, M. (2009), The Contribution of Calvin and Calvinism to the Birth of Modern Democracy, in Martin Hirzel/Martin Sallmann (eds), John Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 195–197. Weiss, N. (1911), Une des premières écoles de théologie protestantes en France (Orléans 1561–1568), in: Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 60, 223.

György Papp

Aspects of Calvin’s Use of Chrysostom-Quotations Concerning the Free Will How Did Calvin Quote Chrysostom in the Chapters Concerning the ‘Free Will’ of His Institutes?

Introduction In Calvin’s Institutes there are about 722 patristic quotations (Mooi: 1965, 384– 385). From these a large amount (about 55 %) is referring to Augustine of Hippo. Calvin quotes 33 ancient theological writers in total, from which nearly 50–50 % are Greek and Latin Church Fathers. Beside these, many names of ancient theological heretics are referred to as well. John Chrysostom, one of the most famous patriarchs of Constantinople, is the third most often quoted church father both with his Opera omnia and his Institute. According to the scholarly opinion in exegetical questions Calvin appreciated Chrysostom more than Augustine, whose theological opinion was more normative in dogmatic questions (cf. Lane: 1999, 39–41). Based on Calvin’s vast knowledge of Chrysostom proved in his works, J.F. Gilmont concludes that Calvin has not even read only once or occasionally the works of Chrysostom, but more frequently (cf. Gilmont: 2005, 161–162). According to Calvin’s own words —in his response to the defamations of Albert Pighius, he did not mutilate the thoughts of Chrysostom but he quoted them word-by-word, as they could be read in his own writings (Calvin/Lane/Davies: 1996, 31). The chapters about the free will include Book 1.15 and Book 2.2–5. As a context of the patristic quotations that are used by Calvin in these chapters, we find it necessary to present Calvin’s approach to the question of free will as briefly as possible. First of all Calvin states that before the Fall, Adam had owned a perfectly free will, which would give him have been able—if he had wanted to choose it— eternal life (Inst. 1.15.8). His will was pliable in either directions and he had a free choice between good and evil until man corrupted his good properties, and destroyed himself. In this way if somebody professes himself to be a disciple of Christ, such a choice could not have arisen from one’s free will.

424

György Papp

On account of the willingness of his disobedience there is no excuse for him to have spontaneously brought death upon himself. In Book 2.2–5 he elaborates in detail what he has already presented concisely in Book 1.15.8. Here he responds to the counter-statements of his theological adversaries, demonstrating that what he is arguing for is biblical truth. The most important elements of his argument are: After having departed from the source of the truth, each part of the human soul came under the power of sin, including his free will. Therefore we can speak about the bondage of the will, or about a servile will. Although the will of man is the ‘slave of sin’, it is important to know that he commits evil not by compulsion, but by free will (Inst. 2.2.7). This willingness also involves a kind of necessity as well, but on the one hand this necessity does not discharge him from the responsibility of crime, on the other hand the willingness does not mean that committing evil could be circumvented merely by the power of his free will (Inst. 3.5.1). Consequently, there is no doubt that human will is not enough to perform good deeds, unless it is assisted by the special grace, which only the elected ones will receive through regeneration (Inst. 2.2.6). Therefore every Christian needs true humility, and it is necessary to keep constant self-examination by looking into the faithful mirror of the Holy Scripture; in order to recognize the righteousness of God, so we may know that we are nothing; we stand only due to the mercy of God, seeing that everything in ourselves is altogether wicked (Inst. 2.2.11). The corruption of free will of the fallen man could not have any other consequence than perdition, but in the elected ones, who are regenerated by grace, God begins and performs the good deeds, so that it is the Lord’s doing that the will conceives the love of what is right, is zealously inclined toward it, is aroused and moved to pursue it. Then it is the Lord’s doing that the choice, zeal, and effort do not falter, but proceed even to accomplishment; lastly, the elected man goes forward in these things with constancy, and perseveres to the very end. (Inst. 2.3.9). In these chapters we could find about 104 patristic quotations and/or references as follows (Mooi: 1965, 387): Name of the quoted Number of quotations/ Percentage author references Augustine 83 79,8 % Chrysostom 11 10,57 % Origene 3 2,88 % Pseudo-Ambrosius 3 2,88 % Hieronymus 3 2,88 % Cyprianus 1 0,989 % Total 104 100 %

Aspects of Calvin’s Use of Chrysostom-Quotations Concerning the Free Will

425

From this statistic we can see: 1. For Calvin the main authority is—of course—the Bible. Augustine is the most important and most often quoted Church Father, his opinion being subordinated to the Bible. 2. In this topic Chrysostomus is the second most often quoted Church Father; 3. The 11 quotations from Chrysostom in these five chapters are nearly 25 % of those Chrysostom quotations that are to be found in the Institute; 4. Calvin considered Chrysostom to be important enough to quote him in such actual question—in spite of the fact, that in nearly all cases (in this topic) he criticizes him.

1. How Did Calvin Use or Misuse the Theology of Chrysostom Concerning the Free Will in His Institutes? Since the confines of our paper are limited, we will not present the detailed analysis of each quotation, but we will illustrate this only by the analysis of three of them, the most important features of Chrysostom’s theology used by Calvin in the chapters on the free will.

1.1. The Context of the Quotations For contemporary research it is very important to compare the context in which Calvin quotes the thoughts of Chrysostom with their original context. This analysis gives us information not only about the fact whether Calvin has interpreted the teachings of Chrysostom rightly or not, but we also get an insight into the methodology of the 16th century’s scientific work. Let us look a a quotation, which illustrates how Calvin took into account the original context of some quotations used by him: Our opponents add an objection, which seems to have been drawn from Chrysostom: if choosing good or evil is not a faculty of our will, those who share in the same nature must be either all bad or all good. (…) Strange that such great men should have been so forgetful! For how did it not occur to Chrysostom that it is God’s election which so distinguishes among men? (Inst. 2.5.3) According to the first print of the Institutes from 1559 the source of this quotation is Chrysostom’s Homily 22 on the book of Genesis. If we take a look at the Chevallon-edition used by Calvin, we can see that in fact the real source was Homily 23 (Chevallon: 1536, 1.37b). Here we do not explore the cause of this

426

György Papp

mistake, because we consider it either a typographical error, or perhaps Calvin quoted from memory and in the marginal note he gave a wrong reference. In this place Calvin states that scholars who are defending the free will argue that if human will ‘possesses not the power of choosing good or evil, all who are partakers of the same nature must be completely good or completely bad’. In this sentence, Calvin saw the danger that according to them, God’s election is not the cause of the qualitative difference among men but the power of free will. Did Chrysostom really state this? As a first step of our investigation let us compare the Latin text of Calvin’s reference, the text of the Chevallon-edition and the Greek text of Chrysostom: Addunt quod ex Chrysostomo sumptum videri potest, quod si haec non sit voluntatis nostrae facultas, bonum aut malum eligere, aut onmes ejusdem naturae participes malos esse oportet, aut omnes bonos (Calvin/Barth/Niesel: 1928, 300).

Nam si hoc non esset situm in voluntate nostra, neque in potestate mentis, neque Deus sui iuris naturam nostram fecisset: oportebat vel omnes malos esse qui naturae nostrae participes sunt, & iisdem obnoxii sunt affectionibus, vel omnes bonos & virtute praeditos (Chevallon: 1536, 1.37b).

Ει᾿ γὰρ μὴ ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει ἡμῶν ἔκειτο͵ μηδὲ ἐν τῇ τῆς γνώμης ἐξουσίᾳ͵ μηδὲ αὐτεξούσιον ἡμῶν τὴν φύσιν ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεὸς κατεσκεύασεν͵ ἐχρῆν ἢ ἅπαντας εἶναι κακοὺς τοὺς τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως κοινωνοῦντας καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς πάθεσιν ὑποκειμένους͵ ἢ πάντας εἶναι ἐναρέτους (Migne PG 53.204)

If we compare the three versions we can identify some differences. The differences between the Greek text and its Latin translation are minor, almost insignificant, because they are limited only in the use of vocabulary and style. For example where Chrysostom says that man was created to be free (or independent —αὐτεξούσιον), the Greek text denotes the Creator as ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεὸς, while the Latin text mentions only Deus. Or at the end of the quotation, where he mentions how the partakers of the same nature should be, the Greek text speaks about virtuous people (ἐνάρετος), while the Latin text uses a paraphrase: good and endowed with virtues (bonos & virtute praeditos). The differences between the text used by Calvin and the text of Calvin are more significant, mainly of hermeneutic nature. Although Calvin used an relatively good translation, he could not transmit the original thoughts of Chrysostom, but showed the real or perceived dangers which he saw in their background. First of all, we could see that Calvin placed them in a different context. In this homily Chrysostom speaks against the negligence towards God and about piety (Chevallon: 1536, 1.37). His goal is to demonstrate that man cannot incriminate anybody (even the devil) for the sins and crimes committed by him or for his fall, but only his own careless and sloppy mind (levem ignavamque mentem). With this argument Chrysostom does not want to palliate the devil, but his primary intention is to exhort Christians to take responsibility. A careful reading of the

Aspects of Calvin’s Use of Chrysostom-Quotations Concerning the Free Will

427

homilies of Chrysostom makes obvious that in almost every homily he exhorts against the negligence and indifference (ῥᾳθυμία), which seems to be a capital sin. Instead of this indifference he sets a positive example for his listeners the willingness and enthusiasm (προθυμία)—in this case, that of Noah (Chrysostom/ Hill: 2001, 100). He asserts about man, that God gave him the freedom of choice, but at the same time he endowed him with responsibility. If people would not be responsible for their own deeds, everyone who possesses this nature, and who is subjected to the same sentiments must be uniform: either good or bad. In order to prevent his listeners from falling into the opposite end of the spectrum, and they should think they are able to perform good deeds without God’s grace, he asserts: At si negligentes fuerimus,1 etiam si nullus sit qui consulat vel supplantet, nostra sponte ad malitiam prosiliemus (Chevallon: 1536, 1.37b).

If we would become negligent, and there would be nobody who could advise or retain us, due to our own capacities we would be drawn towards evil.

God not only advises man, or in some cases retains him from evil, but in order to prevent evil, He has created the man endowed with free will, and He has engrafted the knowledge of good and bad in the human nature, and also Christ became man for us and for our salvation (δι΄ ἡμᾶς͵ καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν) in order to prepare for the believers the way of a more virtuous life (optimae vitae viam—τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας τὴν ὁδὸν). From this short presentation of the context it is obvious that Chrysostom does not speak about the free will as an independent and isolated topic, but in the context of a virtuous and responsible life. Furthermore it is important to know, that he could not speak about the man outside of the community with God. He could not divide his listeners into the group of those who are walking with God, and into those ones who are walking without Him. For him his listeners are people who permanently are paying attention to God’s word, but among them are some whose attention and preparation has abated, and therefore do not perform good deeds. In this situation the main goal of Chrysostom is not writing a philosophical discussion about the free will and other anthropological questions, but he wants to deliver a practical exposition of the Bible, which could help people in performing an attentive self-examination and help them to adjust their lives to the Words of Christ. Having ignored this context, Calvin has reproached that Chrysostom attributes too much to the human will, and ignores God’s gracious election—which makes the difference between believers and unbelievers. Why did Calvin ignore this very clear context? We cannot give an unambiguous answer, only pre1 In the Greek text we find: ῥᾳθυμῶμεν.

428

György Papp

suppositions. Did he not read the homilies of Chrysostom with enough attention? Was he not able or willing to change the image of Chrysostom he had known earlier? Suspecting contradictions among the quotations, had he subordinated every quotation into one, which had seemed to him to be the obvious one? This would have resulted in the picture that Chrysostom—alike many other ancient theologians—had been involved in self-contradiction concerning free will, too.

1.2. The Problem of the Quality of the Latin Translations Another quotation illustrates how the original thoughts are changing if a wrong translation is used: God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; he does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing (Inst. 2.2.4). The source of this quotation is a homily entitled Homilia 1. de proditione Iudae. As a first step of our investigation let us consider the Latin text of Calvin’s reference, the text of the Chevallon-edition and the Greek text of Chrysostom: Calvin: Quoniam bona et mala in nostra Deus potestate posuit, electionis liberum donavit arbitrium: et invitos non retinet, sed volentes amplectitur (Calvin/Barth/ Niesel: 1928, 244).

Chevallon-edition: Quoniam bona atque mala in nostra Deus posuit potestate, electionis liberum donavit arbitrium. Et nos invitos non retinet, sed volentes amplectitur (Chevallon: 1536, 3.117).

Greek text from Migne PG: Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ κυρίους ἡμᾶς ἐποίησε καὶ τῆς τῶν φαύλων καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀγαθῶν πράξεων αἱρέσεως͵ καὶ ἑκόντας εἶναι βούλεται καλούς· διὰ τοῦτο͵ ἂν μὴ βουλοίμεθα͵ οὐ βιάζεται οὐδ΄ ἀναγκάζει· τὸ γὰρ βιασθέντα εἶναι χρηστὸν͵ οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι χρηστόν (Migne PG 49.377).

First of all, it is obvious that the text of Calvin is almost identical with the text of the Chevallon-edition. Hence we can conclude that Calvin has used this edition. The minor differences in word order indicate that Calvin has quoted Chrysostom from memory, or for an easier and more elegant style has changed the word order. In the second sentence instead of ‘et nos invitos non retinet’ we read only ‘et invitos non retinet’: the failure of the plural accusative of the personal pronoun can be explained in two ways: or he has quoted from memory, or he wanted to transform the personal exhortation of the homily into an axiom. The differences between the original Greek text and the text from the Chevallon-edition are more significant. The exact translation of the Greek text is: God has set for us the choice between good and evil, and He requires from us to be good due to our own initiative. If we do not want it, he does not force us, because the forced goodness would not be real goodness.

Aspects of Calvin’s Use of Chrysostom-Quotations Concerning the Free Will

429

Calvin understood from the translation he used that according to Chrysostom man is able to choose freely between good and evil, on the one hand because God gave him free will, and on the other hand because God embraces only the ones who want to draw near God. This interpretation suggests that nearly all instruments to achieve salvation are in the hands of man. On the contrary, Chrysostom states that God has set for man the choice between good and evil because He wants us to be good from our own initiative, as forced good deeds are not really good deeds. It needs to be clarified in which context this is said and how it concerns Chrysostom’s statement. Is it a general axiom, or does it concern only the man before the fall? Or should it be interpreted only in the context of Judas’ betrayal? Reading the closer context of the quotation, it becomes obvious that Chrysostom wants to uncover the motivation of Judas. He does not absolve him saying that Judas did not have any other choice inasmuch that the devil compelled him to betray Jesus ( John 13, 2). On the contrary, he emphasizes that Judas was free to decide what he wanted to do: he had the possibility to withstand the impulse of the devil and not be tempted by money. He rejected the salvation blindly, however, and betrayed Jesus for thirty silver coins. Consequently he cannot accuse Christ of not preventing the betrayal by his divine power. This becomes obvious first of all from the original Greek text of the homily, and remains in shadow in the Latin translation of the unknown translator used by Calvin. Although the motive of the willingness of Judas’ betrayal appears in the Latin translation as well, there it is emphasized that God does not force those who want not to approximate Him, but embraces those who want it. This leads us to believe that Calvin’s conclusion can only be explained on the basis of the Latin translation, which is of bad quality. The original text of the homily makes clear that Chrysostom does not ascribe too much to the human capacities. He only emphasizes that Judas, just like everybody else, is responsible for his own deeds and could not transfer the responsibility to others, at least not to God. Therefore man is not just a puppet in God’s or in devil’s hands, able to do only what his owner dictates, but he is responsible, and in the communion with Jesus he has the possibility to decide on belonging to God and performing good deeds (cf. Jer. 31:31–34—the promise of the New Testament). The analysis of this quotation shows how a wrong translation contributed to the negative estimation of Chrysostom.

430

György Papp

1.3. The Problem of the Authorship A detailed analysis of the authorship shows that from the 11 quotations only nine can be attributed to Chrysostom. Two stem from works which were attributed for a long time to Chrysostom, but their authorship was still questioned in the 16th century (by Erasmus). In the following we will present a quotation attributed to Chrysostom, which has received a positive critique from Calvin—but of which Chrysostom is actually not the author. Before we analyze this quotation we have to see two things very clearly: on the one hand, the number of patristic pseudographs increased in the Middle Ages, on the other hand Calvin regarded the question of authorship as important. For Calvin, Erasmus was the most important authority in matters of authorship, but it can also be demonstrated that in some cases Calvin’s opinion differs from that of Erasmus. In our case the research raises the question: was Calvin aware that he had attributed to Chrysostom a work with a questionable authorship? If he was, according to which criteria had he made his decision? In the chapter where Calvin writes about the measures of human depravity (Inst. 2.2.9), he explicitly appreciates those Church Fathers who have disesteemed the human power and they have attributed the glory of every good deed only to the Holy Spirit. Here he refers to Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, Eucherius and Chrysostom. He quotes a sentence attributed to Chrysostom according to which ‘every man is not only naturally a sinner, but also totally’. The source of this quotation is a homily entitled Homilia prima in aduentu. In the Barth-Niesel edition of the Institutes a footnote mentions that Calvin acknowledged this homily from the Erasmus’ edition of Chrysostom from 1530; because neither in the Chevallon-edition from 1536 nor in the later Savilli-Morelli-Montfaucon edition is it to be found (Calvin/Barth/Niesel: 1928,252). We need to make a minor correction here, because this homily and the quoted sentence can be found in volume 2 of the Chevallon-edition (Chevallon: 1536, 2.258 L). According to recent scholarship the author of this homily is not Chrysostom (cf. Backus: 2003,116; Lane: 1999,70), and it is confirmed by the literature concerning the activity of Pseudo-Chrysostom as well. Homilia prima in aduentu is part of a greater collection with the title Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, which was ascribed to Chrysostom until the first half of the 16th century. In the editions of the works of Chrysostom by humanist scholars this collection is placed after the Homilies on Matthew, as their completion. In 1530, when Erasmus published the Latin translation of Chrysostom, he wrote a preface to the Opus imperfectum, in which he argued that its author is not Chrysostom but an unknown Arian theologian (Oden/Kellerman: 2010, xix). The later humanist editions of Chrys-

Aspects of Calvin’s Use of Chrysostom-Quotations Concerning the Free Will

431

ostom could be counted as the ‘reprint versions’ of the edition of Erasmus,2 and therefore the Opus imerfectum with the preface of Eramus can be found in those. Knowing this, we have to correct the standpoint of Irena Backus, who says that Calvin could not have known that the author of the homily quoted by him was not Chrysostom (cf. Backus: 2003,116). Whereas the Opus imperfectum and its preface by Erasmus can be found in the Chevallon-edition (Chevallon: 1536, 2.185), we could assert that Calvin certainly knew the doubts presented by Erasmus concerning its authorship. Why did Calvin ignore the opinion of Erasmus, if he knew about it? Based on the material we possess, we cannot answer that question straightforwardly. We can only suppose that Calvin did not want to ascribe a thought he accepted as a good one to an unknown Arian author. Therefore, he argued in favor of the authorship of Chrysostom, while he could have know that Chrysostom was in fact not the author. This analysis of the authorship could confirm that Calvin did ascribe this thought to Chrysostom first of all not due to the absence of the adequate evidence, but because he handled his sources arbitrarily, and subordinated the question of authorship according to his own theological and/or rhetorical aims.

2. Conclusions We have mentioned that in the chapters of the Institutes concerning free will there are 11 quotations or references altogether ascribed to Chrysostom. We know that from these 11 quotations only 9 could be ascribed to Chrysostom—two of them are spuria (unauthentic). Chrysostom receives a positive critique from Calvin only once (in case of the 9 authentic quotations), and once again concerning the other two quotations. The analysis of the four quotations has given us an insight into Calvin’s method to use Chrysostom’s theological heritage. In his Institutes he suggests that Chrysostom ascribed too much to the human capacities and to the power of the free will. After reading and analyzing Calvin’s sources, we can conclude that this is not entirely true. It has become clear that Calvin’s critique of Chrysostom is not only rather sharp but at the same time is very warped. During our analysis we have seen that Calvin sometimes misinterpreted the teaching of Chrysostom and ascribed to him what he did not say—and with this approach he has (perhaps unwillingly) assisted in the propagation of a false image of Chrysostom. Chrysostom never spoke about the free will as an independent topic (as did Augustine 2 I say this after comparing some Chrysostom-editions from the 16th century, about which I could confirm that they contain the same text.

432

György Papp

or Ambrose), because in the East it was not the highly relevant question it became some years later in the West. He emphasized only that man must answer responsibly to the call of God, and that his reaction to God’s call depends totally on Him. Obviously, we should not evaluate Calvin’s approach to Chrysostom according to modern scientific requirements, and due to the absence of adequate sources is difficult to interpret it. This is a complex question, and every tentative answer raises more questions. Nevertheless there are some factors that help us to understand and interpret Calvin’s approach of Chrysostom. The first and perhaps the most important factor is that Calvin did not read the original Greek text of Chrysostom’s homilies, but only read these in Latin translation. So, he could not know whether the translation he used was accurate. We have seen in the case of De proditione Iudae how much theological damage had been caused by wrong translation. Furthermore we must see that in nearly 500 years the requirements of scholarship have changed as well. Even nowadays there is a temptation to ignore the proper context of our topic and to quote a thought in a very different context, so—due to the changes of half a millennium we must not judge Calvin’s approach with too much severity. We only have to mention that in some cases ignoring the original context led him to misinterpret the teachings of Chrysostom (and perhaps that of many others as well), and to ascribe to him thoughts he had never taught. Thirdly we must know that Calvin appraised the teachings of Chrysostom according to his own age and theological environment. He condemned the teachings of Chrysostom, because he had seen it to be dangerous for the Reformation of the 16th century. It remains an open question why Calvin, in some cases, deliberately ignored some evidence and supported the proliferation of an inaccurate image of Chrysostom. We have seen this attitude in the case of the quotation from the Opus imperfectum in Mattheum of Pseudo-Chrysostom. I think we have to take a notice of this approach and to handle it as an aspect, mainly apologetic of the 16th century scholarship of the Reformers. Furthermore, we must not ignore that there was a difference between the partial aims of Calvin and Chrysostom. We are convinced that their main goal was the same (practice of true piety), but their method and their audiences were different. Calvin wrote a book of ‘systematic theology’ for persecuted Christians, while Chrysostom focused on the practical application of the divine message to his listeners and did not discuss problems of systematic theology in detail. Therefore different topics of systematic theology appear only embedded in other topics regarding the practice of the Christian life. Such a topic is the question of free will. It seems that Calvin did not know how to handle the thoughts of

Aspects of Calvin’s Use of Chrysostom-Quotations Concerning the Free Will

433

Chrysostom and therefore qualified him as somebody who is not able to teach clearly and accurately regarding this question. In spite of his (sometimes) excessively rigorous evaluation concerning Chrysostom, Calvin did not judge the person, but only his thoughts. In other cases he was able to discover the positive aspects of Chrysostom’s theology. He writes about it as follows: ‘I have always been exceedingly delighted with the words of Chrysostom’ (Inst. 2.2.11), and in another place: Yet I dare affirm this: however excessive they sometimes are in extolling free will, they have this end in view—to teach man utterly to forsake confidence in his own virtue and to be resolute that all his strength rests in God alone. (Inst. 2.2.9)

Bibliography Backus, Irena (2003), Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–1615), Leiden/Boston: Brill. Barth, Peter/Niesel, Wilhelm (1928), Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, Volume III, München: Chr. Kaiser. Calvin, John (1960/2006), Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John McNeill and translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Louisville: Westminster Press. — (1996), The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice Against Pighius, edited by Anthony Lane and translated by Graham Davies, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Chrysostom, John (1536), Tomus primus operum divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, edited by Claude Chevallon, Paris: Apud Claudium Chevallonium. — (1536), Tomus secundus operum divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, edited by Claude Chevallon, Paris: Apud Claudium Chevallonium. — (1536), Tomus tertius operum divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, edited by Claude Chevallon, Paris: Apud Claudium Chevallonium. Chrysostom, John (2001), Homilies on Genesis, Volume 2, Homilies 18–45, translated by Robert Hill, The Catholic University of America. Gilmont, Jean-François (2005), John Calvin and the Printed Book, Kirksville (Missouri): Truman State University Press. Lane, Anthony (1999), John Calvin. Student of the Church Fathers, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Migne, Jean-Paul (1857–1866), Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Paris: Imprimerie Catholique. Mooi, Jan R. (1965), Het kerk- en dogmahistorisch element in de werken van Johannes Calvijn, Wageningen: Veenman. Oden, Thomas (ed.) (2010), Incomplete Commentary on Matthew. Opus imperfectum, Vol. 1, translated by James Kellerman, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Herman A. Speelman

Calvin on Confession His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline and our Struggle to Understand his View

Introduction The question I want to address is whether or not the sanctification of men and society can be seen as an independent purpose of Calvin’s church discipline. The medieval penitential law had tied discipline and the Lord’s Supper closely to each other: ‘All the faithful (…) should individually confess (…) to their own priest at least once a year (…) (and) reverently receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter.’1 Ecclesiastical discipline had partly declined in the late medieval period, been emptied of its meaning and was secularised. With this, penance obtained an increasingly independent position, cut off from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This was also the case in Geneva.2 As far as I can see, it is difficult to provide a clear description of Calvin’s vision of confession and ecclesiastical discipline without simultaneously discussing the Eucharist. The more specific question I wish to address, then, is in what measure 1 Lateran IV (1215), Canon 21, in: Tanner: 1990, 1.245. 2 The synodical records of 1513 reveal that episcopal discipline in Geneva had been strict and formal after the papal interdict of 1482–1484, with little empathy and love. Sometimes ecclesiastical punishment was used in worldly matters to pressure people to pay arrears. In part because of the possible social ramifications, church discipline had obtained a negative reputation. See Naef: 1936/1968, 1.185–188. Because of their dissatisfaction over the way church discipline was being carried out, Zürich and Bern decided to enact rigorous reforms in the church, including the assignment of the responsibility for church discipline to the civil government. Although it has long been argued (also by renowned Calvin scholars like Willem F. Dankbaar, Walter Köhler, Doede Nauta, Johannes Plomp, and Otto Weber) that Calvin was opposed to this, this was not the case. Quite recently also the noted Calvin specialist Peter Opitz wrote that Calvin’s intention had been to fully separate church and state and ‘ein Konsistorium zu schaffen’ which was to function ‘als rein kirchliches Gremium.’ In that line he concluded that Calvin’s ideas could be more readily applied in churches that were less closely dependent on the state (Opitz: 1997, 233–234). For another account of Calvin’s view on the relationship to church and state, see Speelman: 2014.

436

Herman A. Speelman

did Calvin align himself with late-medieval penitential practices, and to what degree can his view of confession be considered apart from his position on the Lord’s Supper and the way he looked upon a society in which a Reformed magistrate is in power? But what was Calvin’s view of restitutional or retributive penitential church discipline—a matter that he would reflect on for more than twenty years? Did he see it above all as a spiritual matter, as one element within the whole of his view of penance and confession, or was his primary concern for the way people acted in light of an ideal he is supposed to have entertained of a holy church or a society composed of better members? William Bouwsma support this latter understanding when he wrote that Calvin ‘yearned for a pure church, a visible and exclusive community of saints.’3 According to Robert Kingdon, to whom I will react later, the early Calvinists discipline meant ‘a serious attempt to control human behaviour in all its variety.’ The church had not only a responsibility to present true Christian doctrine, ‘but also to shape true Christian behaviour.’4 For Calvin church discipline had to safeguard the glory of God, to induce repentance of sinners and to protest the purity of a community (Inst. 4.12.5), but is this pursuit of holiness, however, as church discipline to be considered a separate mark of the church as especially later Calvinism would formulate it? Based on his analysis of the 21 volumes of registers from the Genevan consistory between 1542 and 1564, Kingdon has argued that the consistory had three basic functions: ‘it served as an educational institution, as a compulsory counselling service, and as a kind of court’ (Kingdon: 1994, 24). From this he concluded that Calvin sought to influence the way people act, among other ways by examining and educating them.5 One might ask, however, whether the functions

3 Bouwsma: 1988, 217. Later Calvinists spoke of a ‘church (…) without stain or wrinkle’ (cf. Eph. 5:27) as an ultimate ideal. Mentzer describes the moral and social aspects to discipline in the French Reformed churches and emphasized moral control as the most important function of the consistory (Mentzer: 1991). Jong-Sook Lee concluded many years ago something similar, that the ideal Calvin envisioned for discipline was ‘to make a holy Protestant city by means of strict discipline’, but adjust her opinion drastically: ‘For sinners consistorial discipline (…) becomes a reminder or a warning signal to acknowledge that their salvation is at stake (…) Therefore, excommunication is designed to be pastoral support to correct and cure sinful souls’ (Lee: 1997, 186; Lee: 2014, quote after n. 7). 4 Kingdon: 1994, 22. Jung-Sook Lee also refers to Kingdon, who, echoing William Monter’s observation that the consistory of Geneva played a critical role in the transformation of Geneva into a socially ordered and morally advanced city, said that the consistory of Geneva was ‘an effective tool for social and political control in Geneva’ (Kingdon: 1993, 523; Lee: 2014, n. 5). 5 Kingdon: 1995, 4. The Reformation undeniably also meant a radical change to Genevan church life as an ‘anti-clerical revolution,’ as Kingdon called it (Kingdon: 1984, 51). The clergy had

Calvin on Confession

437

listed by Kingdon in fact also numbered among the basic elements of the spiritual supervision exercised by the priestly confessors in the medieval period. In fact, would they not simply be what one would expect from a biblical penitential and confessional system as it could be found in Geneva, which was more or less based on existing civil legislation as well as ancient traditions or remnants of canon law? Thomas Tentler summarizes that in the late Middle Ages the ‘first function of ecclesiastical penance (…) is discipline, or social control. The penitent was accepted by society and in turn was expected to accept and conform to society’s rules. The second function is directed more to the individual: it is the cure of a guilty conscience’ (Tentler: 1977, 13). On numerous occasions Calvin heavily criticised the existing penitential law of 1215 as well as the practice of penance6, but in the course of time he would still attempt to recast external as well as internal aspects of it in his own system—both the social, pastoral and educational side, and the more specifically spiritual side of comforting the anguished conscience and the related process of the sinner’s restoration through a movement from sorrow, to repentance, to forgiveness, and finally to reconciliation. Beginning with the thirteenth-century reforms, there was less emphasis on sin and more on the sinner. This change was reflected in the practice of the sacrament of penance and confession by the greater amount of attention directed to (the examination of) the sinner’s intentions and his repentance from the errors he had committed. The same line can also be observed in Calvin, although through the institutions he created with a view to forgiveness and reconciliation he also demanded attention for the consequences of sin in the desecration of God’s name, the sacraments, and the church community. Was this not the reason why, in his Ordonnances ecclesiastiques, he treated moral matters together with the process of forgiveness and atonement?

been sent packing, and the Mass was abolished. All who continued to meet in secret and celebrate the Mass were subject to severe punishment. 6 Calvin further described the papal confessional as a ‘tyrannical law’, Inst. 3.4.24 = OS 4.113. He considered auricular confession an altogether erroneous, impracticable rule, which turned people into hypocrites. See Speelman: 2010, 60–69. About the existing penitential law Calvin wrote: ‘I shall sum up what sort of law this is. First, it is simply impossible; therefore it can only destroy, condemn, confound, and cast into ruin and despair. (…) Etc.’, OS 1 (1536).183; OS 4.105f.

438

Herman A. Speelman

1. Overview Calvin’s thinking was consumed by the close connection between the holy mystery of communion and what he called ‘Christian confession’, which were like the two foci of an ellipse, fused together in an inseparable bond. Calvin opposed the way church discipline had been made into a loose and independent element, as was at times the case in the established church.7 I have distinguished five stages in the development of Calvin’s reflection on ecclesiastical discipline, a process where Calvin aligned himself with medieval practices of penitence and confession. 1. In the first period or phase, Calvin linked the Lord’s Supper to supervision and discipline, argued for weekly communion, and proposed a deliberate emphasis on the obligatory gospel teaching with a view to admission to the table of the Lord. 2. The second phase begins in 1538, when Calvin became pastor to a small refugee church in Strasbourg. Calvin advocated a compulsory, private confession in the parsonage that was to precede every celebration of the Lord’s Supper. 3. The third stage consisted in the introduction of the lay ministry of elders, and the establishment of a Reformed alternative to the medieval consistory, that is, a semi-ecclesiastical organ where public sins were sanctioned and corrected by barring perpetrators from the Lord’s Supper table and later granting them admission to it again upon repentance. 4. In the subsequent phase, which I take to begin in 1553, Calvin attempted to place the power of excommunication, which was traditionally the highest form of church discipline, in the hands of the consistory and to create the necessary ancillary system for the new system of confession. After several turbulent years and after threatening to resign, in the mid-1550s he at last succeeded in winning the right of excommunication for the consistory. 5. This ushered in the fifth and definitive phase, beginning in 1556 with an annually recurring examination of one’s faith and lifestyle held in the homes. Here the system of penance and confession had to be adjusted, so that those who were excluded from the Lord’s Table on account of their sins—and during this phase such exclusions were imposed hundreds of times per year—were legally obligated to practice confession in the ‘new style’: i. e. to confess after they had completed their penance for their sins (confesser et recognoistre sa faute), to publicly demonstrate their contrition (s’humilier à repentance), to receive ab7 In considering why Calvin did not identify discipline as a third mark of the church, Kingdon proposed several suggestions but in the end remained uncertain. He suggested that Calvin may have refrained from doing so with a view to contact with the Lutherans and Bullingerians who did not include discipline as one of the marks of the church, or else may have been afraid he would end up fuelling Anabaptist tendencies (Kingdon: 1999, 122–123).

Calvin on Confession

439

solution (pardonner and absoudre), thus obtaining reconciliation with God and the Church, and officially to be admitted to the Lord’s Table again as a contrite penitent. With this last step, Calvin considered his confessional practice to be complete. Not without a certain amount of pride he, in an address to the city’s general council, would call his final system of penance and confession a light ‘that may be an example to all churches travelling the road of Christian reformation’ and can function as a witness ‘for those who are suspicious of our order and religion’ (CO 21.766, 13 November 1561 = CO 10a.92). There is only space to elaborate here the five stages of the development of Calvin’s system of penance and confession very briefly (cf. Speelman: 2016, 193–230).

1.1. First Stage: Calvin Connects Discipline to the Lord’s Supper From the very moment he joined the evangelical movement of reform Calvin, who always focused on that mysterious communion with God, sought new ways to help those who were burdened by their conscience and in danger of perishing to attain true, Christian freedom. In the first phase, which starts in 1536, he connected the Lord’s Supper to examination and discipline, argued in favour of weekly communion, and made participation in the Lord’s Supper depend on an explicit affirmation by the participant of the evangelical theology.

1.2. The Second Stage: Calvin Insists on Confession Before the Sacrament Following his experiences in Geneva (which ended with his expulsion from the city), Calvin put his mind to a new system of confession when he arrived in Strasbourg. He concluded that every member of the French refugee church there ought to make confession of his or her sins before him every time before the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated. He considered an examination of the conscience an absolute necessity, and thought the church to be entirely within its rights to demand such confession.8

8 ‘For how shameless would it be to consider the church unworthy, to approve your faith, with whom you still desire the communion of the Lord’s Supper? And how miserable the condition of the church would be if it were to admit to participation in such a great mystery people whose inward life it does not know or is suspicious of!’ CO 11.41 (Calvin to Farel, 13 May 1540). In the French refugee church of Strasbourg, the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated at least once a month. Aimé-Louis Herminjard observes that such an examination of the communicants would have taken Calvin some four or five days.

440

Herman A. Speelman

The confessional system for Strasbourg which Calvin unveiled on Easter 1540 seemed to be more in line with medieval confessional practice than the system he would introduce a year later in Geneva. Private confession in the pastor’s manse continued to be practiced, although a form of confession that was carried out in the homes was now added to it. With this the element of supervision and admonition was bolstered, and was now closely intertwined with the pastoral, educational, and spiritual aspects that had been part of the medieval penitential system from its origins.9

1.3. Third Stage: Calvin Requires Confession Before the Consistory Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin began the third phase of his development by creating a totally new structure for church life in the city. Earlier the city council had already expressed its wish for a consistorium or court to deal with moral matters, as such an institution could also be found in other Protestant cities in Switzerland. Calvin created an institution that indeed was a state committee in a Protestant sense, but in several respects his consistory was still different from what the neighbouring Protestant churches had.10 Calvin considered for example Christian penance (confession, or the discipline of the Lord’s Supper) a ‘mixed matter’ (res mixta), a common responsibility of church and state.11 Elders were responsible for admonition and discipline, although they did not receive an ecclesiastical ordination. They remained 9 In the former the pastor did not yet visit the people with an elder as assistant-overseer, but the people would come to the pastor—who functioned here as confessor—for a pastoral conversation and heart-to-heart. Eighteen months later, Calvin created his third confessional system, now adapted to the situation in Geneva. Here too we encounter many parallels with the early medieval tradition, although Calvin now also took account of the extent to which it could be exercised in the Genevan context. 10 In Bern Reformed Protestantism honoured Luther’s view on discipline through Capito, who chaired the synod of Bern held in January 1532. At this synod it was decided that the kingdom of God was purely an internal matter. This did not mean that the bond between the Christian religion and morality was cut through, for the government bore responsibility insofar as the kingdom of Christ manifested itself outwardly. Yet the specific responsibility of the pastors was limited to the inner and spiritual life, to which they had to incite the people—without any coercive means (Locher: 1984, 1.32f, 1.114, 1.117). This principle was applied also to the Lord’s Supper and to the discipline connected with it. Spiritual life was thought not to be directed to the physical, just as the sacraments do not incite us in this regard: for the goal is that ‘the sacraments might incite us to perfection, rather than stimulate us to carnal sensuality’ (Locher: 1984, 1.74, l.27–28; 2.135). The administration of the sacraments was in Bern also placed above all in a pedagogical context with a view to a Christian way of life (Locher: 1984, 1.75–95). 11 So too the issues treated were mixed and had a spiritual side to them aside from the legal aspect. In the late medieval period there was repeated conflict over which type of sin fell under whose jurisdiction (i. e., church or civil judge).

Calvin on Confession

441

laymen and accordingly could rely on their election as councillors, and as civil servants they also enjoyed a position of authority in society. In Calvin’s thought, like in the medieval church, the point was that preachers and elders show the sinner the way back to communion with God and, where necessary, to reconcile him with the people around him. The third form of confession took the form of a private or semi-private pastoral conversation12 about one’s life and thus eternal salvation. This form of confession was added to the existing confessional practices in the Genevan church, and as of 1555 could even lead to excommunication (Kingdon: 1993, 527f.). That made it something really new.

1.4. Fourth Stage: Calvin Claims the Power of Excommunication for the Consistory In a letter to the pastoral corps in Zurich Calvin was particularly insistent on the consistory’s authority: ‘The point of contention is this: to whom does the right and authority of excommunication belong?’ (CO 14.680). In this matter, Calvin sought the advice—of all people!—of his colleague Heinrich Bullinger. Twelve years earlier, in 1541, the question had not so much been about who is to perform excommunication (i. e., the consistory, city council, or another institution), but rather the pastoral matter of ‘who ought to be kept from the Lord’s Supper,’ or, to put it another way, the distinction between those who ‘deserve it and those who are not able (capables) to receive it’ (Kingdon: 1962, 49). The question as to who had the power to impose punishment was, however, still subordinate to the application of the discipline of the Lord’s Supper itself. The difference showed itself in the practice (Kingdon: 1995, 74; Kingdon: 1997, 23ff.). Calvin wanted Christian penance and confession to be made truly visible, so that the evangelical values of forgiveness and reconciliation, and sorrow and repentance, would also become visible in the church. With a view to this he was convinced that he had to ensure that church discipline would be properly regulated. This was why he claimed the power of excommunication for the 12 It would be an understatement to say that confession—in other words, the penitential discussions that took place before the consistory in the presence of several dozen people—was hardly a secret matter. In Geneva confession functioned as a semi-private ritual. In the consistory this conversation actually took place in the presence of tens of people, and was chaired by one of the four annually elected syndics (mayors). At the height of Calvin’s career there were a total of ca. 19 pastors, a number of whom had charges outside the city and were not always present in the consistory. At a later time, when the consistory was no longer an institution of the state (as in the clandestine Reformed churches in France), the consistory would begin to function differently.

442

Herman A. Speelman

consistory. He wanted to boost the importance and spiritual significance of this institution. When, late in the 1550s, his efforts to promote the position of the consistory seemed to be failing, he even threatened to leave the city. For Bullinger excommunication was the punishing of evildoers by ‘the venerable magistrate.’13 The Genevan consistory focused on the more spiritual measures, such as exclusion from and admission to the Lord’s Supper, as well as reconciliation with God and the church community; its focus was not on punishment as such.14 After studying the Genevan church order, Bullinger wrote to Calvin: ‘A short time ago we took note of the consistory regulations of your church, and recognise them to be pious and close to the prescriptions of God’s Word’ (CO 14.697, no. 1870, Bullinger to Calvin on 13 December 1553). With this Bullinger extended support to Calvin, even though there actually were fundamental differences between them on the exercise of church discipline. The crucial point of disagreement was that Bullinger rejected the close connection between ecclesiastical supervision and the Lord’s Supper, which Calvin like the medieval church before him considered so important. Just like medieval confession stood in the context of admission to communion with Christ in the Eucharist and was thus inextricably tied to it, so Calvin maintained the same close connection between church discipline and the sacrament.15 This is most clearly 13 BW 1, no. 39, 208. Under the influence of Bullinger, the authorities in Zurich even decreed in 1532 that those punished by the Ehegericht be requiered to take communion, rather than being barred from it (Benedict: 2002, 54). For Zwingli and Bullinger the goal of the discipline was the rooting out of evil, just as for Oecolampadius it was the maintenance of the church’s purity. As Opitz correctly observes, however, for Calvin the consistory was ‘ultimately a pastoral body’. CStA, 2.232. 14 The possibility of temporarily excluding someone from the Lord’s Supper repeatedly comes up. According to Calvin, someone who has committed grievous sin must, ‘as an example to the others, be called to account. If there is no evidence at all of sorrow, he must be earnestly chastised. But as for those who continue to the exasperation of the church must, because they show that they despise God, be kept from the Holy Supper until they show signs of sorrow.’ CO 14.679, art. 158. Since the sinner could repent, Calvin always spoke about a temporary ban from ‘participation in the communion of the Lord’s Supper.’ Art. 159; cf. art. 154f. 15 We can identify several points of agreement between the papal system of penance and confession and Calvin’s system. Both departed from the assumption of a close connection between act and thought in church and society, and both recognised the social-civil and pedagogical importance of confession. Both also assumed that the church had the right to examine people in doctrine and life and to require them to cooperate in all forms of social control, whether it be at home or before an ecclesiastical committee or court, and to participate in religious activities like the holy sacrament. Both proceeded from the assumption of the importance of preparation for the Lord’s Supper by means of Christian confession, and of the spiritual benefit and positive right of ecclesiastical penance, which both saw more as a pastoral-medical intervention than as compensation for committed error (with excommunication as the ultimate measure). Both systems understood it to be the task of the church, and especially of priest or pastor, to reconcile people with God through confession and to restore broken human relationships.

Calvin on Confession

443

visible in the many people who were excluded from the Lord’s Supper by the consistory during the late 1550s; they were readmitted to this communion when they asked the consistory for absolution.16 Care was thus taken for the unity of the church community and for the eternal salvation of the communicants.

1.5. The Final Stage: Calvin Demands that Penitents Return to the Consistory to Seek Forgiveness and to Be Restored If someone was forbidden to partake only a single time (pour une fois seulement) ‘because of some scandal committed,’ this did not mean that he or she could decide to refrain from participation the next time the sacrament was celebrated as well (OS 2.360, art. 162 = CStA 2.272). One of the things that was added to the existing regulations was a rule relating to those who withheld themselves from the Lord’s Supper by their own decision, and to the degree to which people could decide of themselves whether or not to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Calvin steered a totally different course. Just like Zwingli, he was convinced of the close relationship between church and society, at the same time he felt himself to be responsible for giving a more ecclesiastical character to the social responsibilities of the church and to religious life in a broader social sense, as had been the case in the established church. But his attention was focused primarily on the church in the more restricted sense and on the supervision and discipline of all the inhabitants of the city’s ecclesiastical community, who were all expected to belong to the one community of the Lord’s Supper. In contrast to Luther, he decided to take away from confession its sacramental status, and at the same time looked for a new form to give expression to the wider application of confession in its civil-social sense, namely the control of believers both communally and as individuals. This emphasis on the at times difficult process of sorrow, forgiveness, repentance, and conversion comes clearer expression in the consistory records than it does in the church order, since they offer us a better view of the way the consistory functioned as a kind of confessional booth. Robert Kingdon has correctly pointed out that this practice which took place in the consistory can be compared to what happened in the established church when the sinner received absolution: ‘It can be compared to the absolution administered by a priest to a forgiven sinner in the Catholic confessional, and no doubt filled a similar psychological function’ (Kingdon: 1997, 27; cf. Watt: 2013, 118). 16 For lists of suspensions of the Holy Supper in Geneva from 1542–1563f, see Grosse: 2008, 297.

444

Herman A. Speelman

2. Conclusion Calvin was aiming to make a tangible connection to the Roman Catholic tradition of confession, more so than the Reformers from Wittenberg and Zurich had done, and more than has been assumed in scholarship up till now. The yearly visitations that were instituted for the time leading up to Easter as well as the establishment of the Genevan consistory, which basically functioned as a confessional (or as a stool of penance) and had strict requirements for confession, illustrate this intention. Calvin was critical of the many misunderstandings that had arisen from the existing penitential practice. In the Protestant view penance and repentance were indeed no longer considered meritorious, but he still did consider them necessary for the process of a person’s healing. With the pursuit of holiness and the related element of discipline, Calvin did indeed think of the believer’s salvation and his entrance into God’s kingdom with a view to the ministry and reception of Word and sacrament—but he did not entertain an entirely independent pursuit for ‘a pure church, a visible and exclusive community of saints,’ as scholars would later argue. Because discipline would in the course of time come to be viewed as a third and independent mark of the church, the aforementioned interpretation of Calvin’s system of discipline and confession seemed indeed to have support. Thus Kingdon and Lambert, together with many others, proceed from the assumption that Calvin, for whom it was so important that the people in the church sought to live a Christian life, understood discipline as a third and separate mark of the church as well.17 17 Calvin’s concern was for ‘the internal renewal of the conscience’ which produced true improvement of life, in contrast to the confessional practice of the established church, where he thought there was much talk about sorrow while it remained purely an outward show. According to Calvin sorrow and repentance were above all a matter of the heart, although he thought the inner side ought also to be visible in its fruits. OS 4.85–86 (Inst. 3.4.1); cf. OS 1. 172. In order to support his position on Calvin’s view of discipline, Kingdon cites the later, revised edition of the confession. But for Calvin punishment for sin was not something isolated, as a satisfaction for wrongdoing, but it was closely related to the notion of communion with and in Christ and, as such, with the ‘public’ confession of guilt, display of sorrow, and effecting of repentance. Calvin’s consistory sought to return the sinner to the Lord, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. A ‘good repentance’ had to do with remorse and a change of life. When the consistory denied the request for restoration it was because of educational reasons, the explicit recognition of their faults or a visible sign of penitence. Jung-Sook Lee rightly notes in this regard: ‘Unlike Monter or Kingdon’s argument, Geneva people were rather indifferent, ignorant or even careless about the necessity of restoration’ (Lee: 2014, n. 9). The expressions that the consistory used in permitting restoration spoke about the necessity of a good repentance, whereby someone had to be aware of his mistakes and gave a sign of repentance, which could be shown from 1560 in a liturgical public confession when the City Council adopted the public ceremony of confession and repentance as a part of the restoration procedure (Monter: 1967, 139, 477; Kingdon: 1993, 522).

Calvin on Confession

445

Kingdon finally concludes that the most decisive proof for his argument that discipline functioned as a third mark of the church in Calvin’s view ‘is not to be found, to be sure, in Calvin’s own Institutes,’ but that an important root for this view is to be found in ‘Calvin’s Geneva,’ especially ‘in his creation and defense of the Consistory’ (Kingdon/Lambert: 2012, 11–12). Yet if that were true, it hardly makes sense to conclude from the way in which the consistory functioned in Geneva ‘that consistorial discipline could be exercised only within the congregation of believers, not within the entire population of a community’ (Kingdon/Lambert: 2012, 23; cf. Opitz: 1997, 234). For, as was the case for Zwingli in Zurich, so Calvin too equated the Genevan church with the city.18 In this line Calvin also formulated the objective nature of the Holy Supper.19 Both in his small refugee church in Strasbourg as well as a short time later in the great city-church of Geneva, it was important to maintain ‘a good disciplinary order (police),’ which was to see to it that all adults were examined at home in Geneva by their pastor together with the ward or parish elder in the time leading up to Easter, and throughout the year in the pastor’s manse and in the Genevan consistory as a kind of ‘confessional’ quite similar to the Catholic practice of confession (OS 2.357, art. 148 = CStA 2.266). The work of the consistory was aimed at the attainment of forgiveness and reconciliation, and in Calvin’s mind this divine blessing was not achieved along the road of communion of some number of pious people who lived a holy life. On the contrary, in his eyes men and women, also those in the church, were by nature 18 In the introduction to his commentary on Jeremiah, Zwingli wrote: ‘A Christian is nothing other than a faithful and good citizen, and a Christian city is nothing other than a Christian church.’ Z 14.6.424. This view, according to which all inhabitants of a Christian republic like Geneva must be considered to belong to the church, ‘even if in reality they are outside of it (…), until they are excluded by a public judgement (publicum iudicium),’ was one that Calvin shared with Zwingli. People were considered to belong to the visible manifestation of the church in a specific city state, so Calvin argued. For that reason everyone could be held accountable for the Christian faith as it was confessed and experienced in that city, even if some of the inhabitants actually held a different view on some points. And if some of them really ought not to be considered members of the church because of their doctrine or life, even then, so Calvin wrote in 1539, we ‘leave to them such place as they occupy among the people of God.’ OS 5 (Inst. 4.1.9; 1539), 14. In practice this meant for him that every inhabitant was strictly bound to the duties of religious life, including attendance at the worship services and participation in the Eucharist, and that everyone without exception stood under the supervision and discipline of the consistory, was visited at home with a view to partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and could further be summoned to appear before the consistory in case of misconduct. In Geneva the latter happened hundreds of times per year, and the number of people summoned before the consistory only increased with every passing year, e. g. a total of 1233 people were summoned in 1555, and 1518 in 1556. See also Lee: 1997, 184f; Benedict: 2002, 104. 19 ‘This is the integrity of the sacrament (…) that the flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God’s elect believers (…) He [God] is ready to give to the unworthy what they reject, indeed, offers it freely.’ Inst. 4.17.33.

446

Herman A. Speelman

so corrupt and inclined to evil that they constantly needed correction and pastoral help. This was also clear from his death-bed speech. For although he at the end of his industrious life as pastor was very content with the definitive version he had achieved for his system of penance and confession, he was sober enough to realise that the people in church had not changed in any fundamental way but remained ‘bad, corrupt, and evil’ (OS 2.402, 28 April 1564 = CStA 2.296). Also the Holy Supper was in his view not instituted ‘for the perfect, but for the weak and feeble, to awaken, arouse, stimulate, and exercise the feeling of faith and love, indeed, to correct the defect of both.’ When people are concerned with worthiness of a moral order then ‘this is worthiness—the best and only kind we can bring to God– to offer our vileness and (so to speak) our unworthiness to Him so that his mercy may make us worthy of Him.’20 What Calvin had changed was not the people but—in view of the preparation of the mystical communion and union with Christ including the separation between worthy and unworthy for which the church was partly responsible—the system of penance and confession across the different redactions of the ecclesiastical Ordinances which we, with a play on the title of his most famous work, might well call the Institutio christianae confessionis. The Genevan city council thus determined that all believers, both men and women, at least once every three years had to swear an oath of allegiance to the ‘Institutes of Christian confession’—that is, to Calvin’s new penitential law.

Bibliography Benedict, Philip (2002), Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism, New Haven: Yale University Press. Bouwsma, William J. (1988), John Calvin. A Sixteenth Century Portrait, New York/Oxford. Grosse, Christian (2008), Les rituels de la cène: Le culte eucharistique réformé à Genève (XVIe-XVIIe siècles), Genève: Librairie Droz. Kingdon, Robert M. (ed.) (1962), Registres de la Compagnie des pasteurs de Genève au temps de Calvin, vol. 2: 1553f, Gene`ve: Droz. — (1984), Calvin and the Government of Geneva, in: Wilhelm H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos, Bern: Peter Lang, 49–67. — (1993), Social Control and Political Control in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Hans R. Guggisberg (ed.), The Reformation in Germany and Europe: Interpretations and Issues, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 521–532. 20 Inst. 4.17.42. Calvin does not asks of the communicant a perfect faith or a perfect moral life. ‘It is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required (…) But if you aspire to the righteousness of God with an earnestness of purpose, and humbled, in view of your misery, you completely lean upon Christ’s grace and rest upon it, know that you are a worthy guest to approach that table.’ CR 49.493.

Calvin on Confession

447

— (1994), The Geneva Consistory in the time of Calvin, in: Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke and Gillian Lewis (eds), Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1620, Cambridge: University Press, 21–34. — (1995), Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. — (1997), Calvin in Light of Geneva Consistory Registers, in: Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian J. Armstrong (eds), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion, Kirksville: SCJ Publishers, 21–33. — (1999), Calvin’s Socio-Political Legacy: Collective Government, Resistance to Tyranny, Discipline, in: David Foxgrover, The Legacy of John Calvin, 112–123. Kingdon, Robert M./Lambert, Thomas A. (2012), Reforming Geneva: Discipline, Faith and Anger in Calvin’s Geneva, Genève: Librairie Droz. Lee, Jung-Sook (1997), Excommunication and Restoration in Calvin’s Geneva, 1555–1556, Princeton: University Press. — (2015), ‘True Repentance’ in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva and Its Relevance to the Korean Church, in: Herman J. Selderhuis, Arnold Huijgen (eds.), Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae. Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, –. Locher, Gottfried W. (ed.) (1984), Der Berner Synodus von 1532, 2 vol., Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Mentzer jr., Raymond A. (1991), Ecclesiastical discipline and Communal Reorganization among the Protestants of Southern France, in: European History Quarterly 21, 163–183. Monter, William E. (1967), Calvin’s Geneva, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Naef, Henri (1936/1968), Les origines de la Réforme à Genève, 2 vol., Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 50, Genève: Librairie Droz. Opitz, Peter (1997), Die Ordonnances ecclésiastiques (1541) 1561: Einleitung, in: Eberhard Busch (ed.), Calvin-Studienausgabe, Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 227–235. Speelman, Herman A. (2010), Biechten bij Calvijn [transl.: Calvin on Confession]. Over het geheim van heilig communiceren, Heerenveen: Groen. — (2014), Calvin and the Independence of the Church, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. — (2016), Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession and Communion. Early Modern Protestant Penitential and Eucharistic Piety, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tanner, Norman P. (ed.) (1990), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: From Nicaea I to Vatican II, 2 vol., Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Tentler, Thomas N. (1977), Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Watt, Jeffrey R. (2013), Reconciliation and the Confession of Sins: The Evidence From the Consistory in Calvin’s Geneva, in: R. Ward Holder (ed.), Calvin and Luther: The Continuing Relationship, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 105–120.

David M. Whitford

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde Preaching the Maudlin

In 1509, Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony commissioned a pictorial inventory of his famous and popular reliquary in Wittenberg. At the time, one could shave nearly forty-two thousand years off of purgatory by visiting all the relics in Wittenberg and the pictorial inventory was both a guide to and an advertisement for it (Kalkoff: 1907, 64ff.). Among the collection, the two saints with the most relics were the Virgin Mary, at fifty-six relics, and Mary Magdalene, at forty-four (Cranach: 1884). The number of relics for the Virgin is not surprising. She was the medieval era’s most important and popular saint. Mary Magdalene, on the other hand, might surprise people, but she should not. After the Virgin, she was the second most popular saint across most of Europe. In England, for example, there were more than 180 churches and monastic houses named in her honor.1 These relics and churches are a reflection of her broad and deep popularity across much of Northern Europe that was largely driven by her importance in late-medieval preaching. Unlike most saints, who shared their saints days with a number of others and who might be expected to be discussed in a sermon every couple of years, the Maudlin, as she was popularly known in English, had a festival day given just to her (22 July) and she was nearly ubiquitous in Easter sermons. The Easter sermons focused on her exchange with the risen Christ at the tomb. Her faithfulness to Christ and his command that she go and tell the disciples that he was risen led her to be named the ‘apostle to the apostles.’ The July feast was devoted to her life story and it is this story that helped establish her popularity both for preachers and for listeners. For preachers, the medieval Mary Magdalene (who was a composite figure of the sinful woman from Luke 7, Mary the sister of Martha, and Mary of Magdala from whom Christ cast seven demons and who witnessed the resurrection) embodied the very essence of what a medieval sermon ought to say and do. In the words of Alan of Lille, preaching ought to be

1 Binns: 1989, 18, 34–38. Cited by, Jansen: 2000, 120. As with the Wittenberg reliquary, she was second only to the Virgin Mary.

450

David M. Whitford

‘open and public instruction in morals and faith.’2 What better story to accomplish these goals than to tell the story of the whore who was plagued by the Seven Deadly Sins, who because of Christ repented, who penitentially humbled herself and washed the Lord’s feet with her tears, whose faithfulness after repentance led her to be the first witness to the Resurrection, who later was put to sea in a rudderless boat to die upon the waves, who was rescued by divine intervention, and then converted all of Gaul to Christianity through her preaching and miracles. For listeners, the story had it all—sex, damnation, intrigue, possession, reconciliation, redemption, despair, suspense, and triumph. In an era that stressed the dangers of hell, the value of penance, and power of the saints, Mary Magdalene’s story was incredibly entertaining while at the same time it filled a deep spiritual need. Her journey from captivity to the seven deadly sins to repentance to penitential submission, to a life defined by sanctity gave listeners hope and a saint to whom they could confess their own sins and shortcomings knowing that she had walked their journey. The Virgin Mary was too pure for most people to be able to identify with, but Mary Magdalene was frail and fallen just like them. As Peter of Celle noted, God made ‘a saint from a sinner and an apostle from a whore.’3 Popular devotion to her exploded following Fourth Lateran and its call for public preaching and the care of souls as, according to late medieval theology and practice, Mary Magdalene’s story modeled both. But what happened to her story following Reformation critiques of medieval preaching and medieval understandings of the care of souls? Mary Magdalene’s story is an ideal lens through which to view these changes because first, as I have already noted, it fits the model of medieval preaching nearly exactly. Second, because of the popularity of her story, there is ample evidence to examine from both before and after the implementation of the Reformation. Third, Mary Magdalene’s life story was criticized directly during the sixteenth century thus allowing us to weigh the general critique of sermons and the specific critique of the composite Mary Magdalene.

1. Foolish Lying Tales: The Reformation Critique By the ninth century, Mary Magdalene was a multifaceted figure that mixed together the New Testament’s different Maries with Mary of Egypt. The Early English Martyrology sums up her life and work,

2 Alan of Lille, Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, PL 210.211, ‘Praedicatio est, manifesta et publica instructio morum et fidei’. 3 Peter of Celle, Sermon 64, PL 202.839. Cited in Jansen: 1988, 64.

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde

451

On the twenty-second day of the month [ July] is the feast of St Mary Magdalen who was first a sinful woman, and she had seven devils inside her, that was all the vices. But she came to our Lord when he was a man on earth, where he was receiving hospitality in the house of a Jewish scholar. And she brought her alabaster, that is, her glass bottle, with precious ointment, and she then wept onto the Saviour’s feet, and dried [them] with her hair and kissed [them] then and anointed them with the precious ointment. Then the Saviour said to her: ‘Your· sins are pardoned; go now in peace.’ And she was afterwards so beloved by Christ that after his resurrection he appeared first to her among all men, and she announced his resurrection to his apostles. And after Christ’s ascension her longing for him was so great that she never wanted to see another man again. And so she went into the desert and lived there for thirty years, unknown to all men. She never ate human food, nor drank. But at every prayer-time God’s angels came from heaven and lifted her up into the air, and there she heard some of the heavenly bliss, and then they carried her back to her cave, and for that reason she was never hungry or thirsty. And then after thirty years a holy priest came across her in the desert, and he led her to his church and gave her the Eucharist. And she gave up the ghost to God, and the priest buried her, and great miracles often happened at her tomb (Rauer: 2013, 143).

By the fourteenth century, the stories of her miraculous journey across the Mediterranean and subsequent preaching of the Gospel for the conversion of the Franks had been added to her vita. The composite Mary was meant to be used in preaching as evidenced by her inclusion of Jacobus of Voraigne’s Golden Legend, a long and detailed chapter recording her repentance in Nicholas Love’s Mirrour of the Lyf of Christ, and in numerous vernacular homily exempla, including John Mirk’s Festial in English.4 But, it was just this practice—of taking the bare bones of a biblical figure and adorning it with fantastic biographical information that always taught a moral lesson—that fell under the Reformation’s critical eye. Thomas Cranmer called both the Golden Legend and Mirk’s Festial, ‘foolish lying tales,’ and sought to have them abolished from use in English pulpits.5 Even earlier, William Tyndale connected the destruction of the literal sense to the Golden Legend and works like it, No thankes un to the heedes of that church that the scripture was kepte but un to the mercie of god. For as they had destroyed the right sens of it for their lucre sake even so wold they have destroyed it also if they coude rather then the people shuld have come un to the right understondinge of it as they slew the true interpretours and preachers of it. (…) For as they have destroyed the right sens of it [the bible and preaching] with their leven and as they destroye dayly the trewe preachers of it and as they kepe it from the laye people that they 4 Her story is found in all of the manuscript editions of the text and in all of the printed versions as well. For more on Mirk, see Ford: 2006. 5 Letter from Thomas Cranmer to Stephen Gardiner, Gardiner: 1933, 312: ‘And I thinke not impossible but ther may be in them [Festial and GL] many foolish lying tales; and I would wish Christ’s religion be purged from all tales.’

452

David M. Whitford

shuld not se how they jugle with it even so wolde they destroye it as coude they brynge it about rather then we shuld come by the true understondyne of it wer it not that god provided other wise for us. For they have put the stories that shuld in many thynges helpe us cleane out of the way as nye as the coulde. They have corrupte the legend and lives of all most all the saints.6

Given his criticism of the ‘legends and lives of the saints,’ in Obedience of Christian Men, it is somewhat surprising to discover that just five months earlier he used a very medieval Mary Magdalene as the prime example of repentance in The Parable of Wicked Mammon. Wicked Mammon was written soon after Tyndale left Wittenberg and is a discussion of justification by faith. In medieval devotional literature and exempla, Mary was the paradigmatic penitent whose life embodied the sacrament of penance. Tyndale reframes the theological import of her composite life, but the details remain the same. Indeed, the emotions she exhibits and the emotions drawn out in the sermon’s audience are nearly identical to pre-Reformation uses of the Magdalene. Compare, for example, Tyndale to Nicholas Love’s Mirrour. Love’s Mirrour is partly a translation, partly an amplification of the Vita Christi purportedly by Bonaventure. For Love, the ‘Conversion of Mary Magdalene,’ was an opportunity to discuss the power of Christ’s teaching and the blessings that derive from penance, And thene it befelle that Mary Maudeleyne that paraventur of time before had herde hym preche. & thorugh touchyng of hys grace was gretly styred to compunction and to the fervent love of hym: though hit were yet prevely hydde in her herte. whan she herde & knew that he was at mete [at meat, i. e., at the main meal of the day] in the hous of the forsayd Simon. she was fervently touched with sorow of herte with inforth for her synnes: & also wyth. the brennynge [burning] fyre of hys love / that she myght no lenger abyde. but anone she wente to that forsayd hous where Jhesus sat at mete. considryng that wythoute hym she myght not be sauf. ne have foryeuenes of hir synnes. and so she went bodely in to the hous / And as she had foryete [forgotten] hir self taking none regarde to ye gestes that there were at the mete holding doune hir face & hir eyen to the erth she letted not tyll she come to hym that she sought. & inwardly And anone thenne she fell doune to the grounde prostrate at hys feet. and wyth grete inward sorowe & shame for hyr synnes spake in hyr herte to hym. 6 Tyndale: 1528, R1v–R2r. Three years later, Tyndale would continue to lament the loss of the literal sense at the expense of the tropological—which he sarcastically calls the ‘chopological’ Tyndale: 1531, D3v–D4r: ‘The literall sence is become nothing at all. For the Pope hath taken it cleane awaye and hath made it his possession. He hath partly locked it up with the false & counterfayted leyes [laws] of his tradicions, ceremonies & fayned lyes. And partly dryveth men from it with violence of swerde. For no man dare abyde by the literall sense of the text but under a protestacion if it hath please the pope. The tropological sence perteyneth to good manners (saie they) and teach us what we ought to do… For chopological is but an allegory of manners (…) and allegory is as much to say as strange speaking or borrowed speech… Thou shalt understand therefore that the scripture hath but one scence which is the literall sence. And that the literall sence is the rote and grounde of all & the answer that never fayleth where unto if thou cleve canst never erre or go out of the way.’

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde

453

(…) And here wyth wyth grete turste of hys mercy and inward affectyon of hys loue she kyssede hys feete otfe. And sadly wepynge & shedynge teres so thylke [thick] that she wesshe his feete wyth hem And so it semeth there by yt our lord Jhesus went bare fote / After whan she had wel wepte. with grete drede of hyr vnworthynes that hyr heres sholde touche hyr lordes fete / she wiped hym with her here deuoutely (Love: 1494, g7r–g8r).

Following his narration of Mary’s conversion, Love goes on for three pages discussing the proper way to seek penance, the correct manner in which penance is performed, and then denounces ‘the fals oppynyon of the lollardes,’ regarding the sacrament. In each case, Mary Magdalene represents the scriptural model and defense of penance. Yet, look at the details of her conversion: She hears the Gospel preached by Jesus, the Gospel works inwardly ‘in hyr herte,’ that resulted in true repentance. She took no regard of herself and threw herself at Christ’s feet, at which point her burning love for Christ overflowed into tears that bathed his feet. Compare Love’s representation to that of Tyndale: Take for an ensample Mary that annoynted Christes fete, Luke. vii. (…) here by se we that deades and workes are but outwarde sygnes of the inwarde grace of the bounteous and plenteous mercy of God frely receyued, with out all merytes or dedes [merits and deads], yea and before all dedes. Christ teacheth to knowe the in warde fayth and love, by the outwarde dedes. Dedes are the fruites of love, and love is the fruit of fayth. (…) Symon beleued and had fayth, yet but weakly, and accordynge to the proporcyon of hys fayth loved coldly, and hadde dedes therafter he bade Christe vnto asimple and abare feaste only, and receyued hym not with any greate humanite. But Mary had a strong fayth, and therfore burnning love, and notable dedes done with exceadinge profounde and depe mekenes. On the one syde she sawe herselfe clearely in the lawe, both in what daunger she was, and hyr cruell bondage under synne hyr horryble dampnacion and also the fearfull sentence and judgement of God upon synners. On the other syde she hearde the Gospell of Christe preached, and in the promises she sawe with Egles eyes the exceadinge abundaunt mercy of God, that paseth all vtteraunce of speach, whiche is set forth in Christ for all meke synners. Which knowlege theyr synnes And she beleued the worde of God myghteli and glorifed God over his mercy and trueth, and beinge overcome & over whelmed with the unspeakable, yea and incomprehensyble abundaunt ryches of the kindnes of God, dyd enflame and burne in love, yea was so swollen in love, that she coulde not abyde nor holde, but muste breake out, and was so dronken in love that she regarded nothinge, but even to utter the fervent and burnynge love of hyr herte onelye. She hade no respecte to hyr selfe, thoughe she was never so greate and notable a synner, neither to the curyouse hypocrisie of the pharisies which ever dysdayne weake synners, nether to the costlynes of hyr oyntment but with all humbelnes dyd runne unto hys fete. Washed theym wyth the teares of hyr eyes, and wiped them with the heares of her head, and anoynted them with precyous oyntement, yea and would no doubt have runne in to the grounde under hys fete to have uttered hyr love toward him yea woulde have descended downe in to hell, yf it had bene possible.

454

David M. Whitford

The medieval legend of Mary Magdalene is nearly untouched in Tyndale’s retelling. The theological import has been completely reframed from penance to justification by faith alone, but the contours of her life story remain.7 For Tyndale, as for Love, Mary Magdalene was a profligate and prodigious sinner. Where for Love, the depth of her sin corresponded to the breadth of her penance, now it signals the great generosity of Christ’s free gift of repentance. The result of the penance/repentance however is exactly the same; a love for Christ that so overflows her heart that breaks out in the tears she used to wash Christ’s feet. A year later, Hugh Latimer would also use Mary Magdalene as the prime example of a sinner redeemed by grace and the model for true repentance, Wherefore considering that we are so prone and ready to continue sin, let us cast ourselves with Mary Magdalene; and the more we bow down with her towards Christ’s feet, the more we shall be afraid to rise again in sin (Latimer: 1968, 24).

Tyndale and Latimer were not alone in their continued use of the medieval composite Mary Magdalene. In 1529, Martin Luther, too, continued to use her sinfulness—in which he continually refers to her as a harlot—as a model of justification by faith alone. As he had previously used Noah, the story of Mary Magdalene the harlot reminds Christians that even the greatest of saints are saved not by their works, for Noah got drunk and Mary was a harlot, but by Christ’s faith alone (WA 29.277). What is surprising about these sermons and the many others like them is that, despite numerous critiques in the early Reformation of ‘lying tales’ and that the Gospel ought to be preached purely without, in the words of Zwingli, ‘human additions,’ the composite Mary Magdalene seems to have been untouched (see Bullinger: 1838, 1.12). This is all the more puzzling because Jacques Lefèvre d’Estaples had thoroughly dismantled the composite Magdalene more than a decade earlier in his De Maria Magdalena, et triduo Christi disceptatio (Lefèvre d’Estaples: 1517). Written at the behest of Francois Moulins de Rochefort for the Queen Mother, Louise of Savoy, the treatise demolished the medieval composite figure of Mary Magdalene in all of its parts. Regarding her association with the prostitute and sinner from Luke 7, Lefèvre writes, ‘Besides, why would a woman who had such great ability that she could even minister to the Lord and his disciples have been a prostitute, to earn money in such an evil and desperate manner? Therefore this Mary Magdalen, from Galilee, was not that public sinner in the city [from Luke 7]’8 The work was also well-enough known that people like Luther and Tyndale could not have been ignorant of its content. Indeed, it engendered a number of 7 Tyndale: 1528. The Parable of Wicked Mammon was written soon after he left Wittenberg. The influence of Martin Luther is apparent throughout and was likely based on Luther’s 1522 Sermon von dem unrechten Mammon. For a discussion of the treatise, see Almasy: 2002. 8 Lefèvre d’Estaples: 2009, 11, 211.Translation altered, see Lefèvre: 1507, 14v.

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde

455

published refutations—the most famous of which was Bishop John Fisher’s Confutatio (1519). Tyndale’s other engagements with Fisher make it even more unlikely that he did not know about Lefèvre’s critique. His contemporaries certainly did not miss it. Willibald Pirkheimer (1470–1530) wrote to Erasmus in defense of Lefèvre in 1520, noting that Fisher and others wished to ‘snatch St. Mary Magdalen from her deliverer Lefèvre and thrust her with the most disgraceful harlots into a stinking brothel when it would rather be more becoming in such a doubtful matter to follow the opinion which approaches closer to piety.’9 However, even if Luther and Tyndale had somehow missed the controversy surrounding Lefèvre and Mary Magdalene, it would have been nearly impossible following John Calvin’s denunciation of the Medieval Magdalene.10 Calvin writes on Mary Magdalene in a number of places. For our purposes, the two most important are in his Harmony of the Gospels and On Relics. In his commentary on the Gospels, he first discusses Mary Magdalene in Luke 8, as one possessed by demons. Calvin writes, … Christ had among His band certain women who had been healed from evil or infirm spirits of evil spirits, like Mary Magdalene who had been vexed by seven devils. This company might seem something less than respectable. Surely it hardly behoved the Son of God to take around with Him such disgraced women? 11 In fact, we see the better from this that the vices with which we were burdened before we believed are no hindrance to Christ’s glory; rather do they magnify it. It is certainly not said that He found the Church which He chose without spot or stain; but He cleansed it with His blood that it should be pure and beautiful. The wretched and shameful state of those women brought great glory to Christ after He had freed them. They were the insignia of His power and grace. (…) Mary was a singular miracle of Christ’s infinite goodness. She was a woman who had been possessed by seven devils and had been, so to say, the vilest slave of Satan. And now she is given the honour not only of being a disciple but also a companion of Christ. Luke adds the surname Magdalene to distinguish her from the sister of Martha and the other Maries who are mentioned elsewhere (Calvin: 1995, 62).

Calvin debunks two aspects of the medieval composite Mary. First, Mary Magdalene was possessed by seven devils, but he makes no reference to the seven deadly sins. The connection between Mary and the deadly sins was used repeatedly in the medieval era to undergird the sacrament of penance. Christ’s 9 Ep 1095. Quoted in Surtz: 1967, 403–404 and Haskins: 1993, 250. 10 It is also worth noting that Erasmus, too, was unwilling to follow the medieval composite and spoke only of a sinful woman in his paraphrase of Luke 7 and barely touched upon Mary Magdalene, beyond just mentioning her, in Luke 8. See, Desiderius Erasmus, The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the Newe Testamente, translated by Nicholas Udall, London: Edward Whitechurch, 1548, fol. LXXIIIv–LXXIXr. 11 Translation altered. The original translation reads, ‘women known for their unchastity.’ There is no warrant for the sexualized rendering of the Latin. The original reads, ‘quam mulieres secum trahere probro notates.’ CO 45.356.

456

David M. Whitford

actions and her penitential life allowed her to overcome the seven deadly sins and thus serve as a model and example for all Christians to follow. His unwillingness to mention the seven sins in relation to Mary is not insignificant. Next, he makes sure to distinguish this Mary—who would go on to be a ‘disciple,’ ‘a companion of Christ,’ and witness the Resurrection first hand was decidedly not Mary the sister of Martha nor any other Mary mentioned in the Gospels. Later in the Harmony, though he never mentions Mary Magdalene by name, he makes sure to clarify that she is not the sinner identified in Luke 7. He repeatedly refers to the woman in Luke 7 as ‘the woman,’ keeping her unnamed. He also deconstructs the medieval piety of penance surrounding the unnamed sinner’s actions by noting that her works did not merit her forgiveness, but rather sprung from it, Moreover, her love is not said to be the cause of her forgiveness, but a subsequent sign of it, as I have said. For the words mean: ‘Those who see this exuberant zeal and godliness in the woman are altogether mistaken if they do not consider that God had already been propitious to her, so that the free forgiveness of her sins came first in order.’ For Christ is not discussing what price men pay for the grace of God, but is saying that because God has forgiven this unhappy sinner, mortal man must not be implacable to her (Calvin: 1995, 87).

For Calvin, the only Mary Magdalene was Luke 8’s Mary of Magdala, a woman cured of seven devils. The rest were simply made up or confused, ‘the monks and similar pettifoggers under the papacy, have made a stronghold out of ‘castellum’ that is a small town, which was an exceedingly gross delusion. It is part of the same exceedingly gross ignorance that they make Mary, the sister of Lazarus, into that infamous woman of evil life whom Luke mentions.’ (Calvin: 1553, 74v). These various Maries were not the real Mary Magdalene. She was a fabrication. When he turned to discuss the final aspect of the medieval Magdalene—her journey to France and her work there—his dry, but withering, humor becomes apparent. Writing in his discourse on relics, he notes that the supposed Mary Magdalene must not have been as pious as Lazarus, for ‘asmuch as Magdaline was a woman, it behoved that she should be inferior to her brother: therefore she hath had but two bodies, whereof the one is in Auxerre: and the other which is of greater renome, at S. Maximins in Province: there where the head is a part.’ (Calvin: 1561, G3v). Mary Magdalene had just two bodies, her more famous brother Lazarus had several scattered across Europe proving his deeper piety. Likewise, Calvin did not believe the story that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene ever came to France to preach the Gospel; calling such a story, from whence this essay takes its name, ‘the moste folyshe fable of the worlde and the which hath as muche appearaunce, as yf one dyd saye that the cloudes are Calve skinnes.’ (Calvin: 1561, G4r). Thus, we can see that Calvin had no truck with the medieval composite Magdalene. His sermons steer clear of using the Magdalene as an example of prostitute turned penitent. He never mentions the other more

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde

457

extravagant elements of her persona—like her thirty-year sojourn in the desert as a penitent hermit. For Calvin, the only Magdalene was the possessed and freed disciple of Christ. A flawed sinner, and indeed he says some rather negative things about her because of her sex, but she had only one identity—the healed Mary of Magdala. Would those who revered him, follow his lead in this manner, however? To answer that question, I turn to England and the rise of Puritan preachers there. Why England? Beyond France, Mary Magdalene was most popular in England. Unlike France, however, Protestantism was formally and pervasively introduced to the country.12 Thus, England is the best place to test the degree to which the popular medieval Magdalene was reformed into the more biblically accurate Mary of Magdala. Did English preachers and writers follow Calvin’s lead, or did they tack a course closer to Tyndale and Luther?

2. The English Magdalene One of the earliest attempts to promulgate a more Protestant church in England was the publication of Thomas Cranmer’s Book of Homilies. Earlier, Richard Taverner had attempted a Protestant equivalent to Mirk’s Festial, but it did not garnish the same institutional support nor popularity as Cranmer’s Homilies. However, despite Cranmer’s desire, expressed to Gardiner in a personal letter, that the church ought to be purged of all ‘foolish tales,’ his homilies continued to perpetuate the medieval composite Magdalene. Indeed, she is one of the most prominent examples of repentance lifted up by the archbishop. Across all his homilies, she appears very rarely, which is a difference from medieval postils and exempla, but when she does appear it is most often in reference to her sinful condition and need for repentance.13 The focus on her sinful life and need for repentance continued the medieval attention to her tearful repentance. However, whereas in medieval literature, the tears were merely a preamble to her more important penitential life, now they become the central dramatic act. John Hooper (d. 1555), who wrote a number of sermons while in prison during Mary Tudor’s reign, is indicative of this growing trend, The same persuasion made Marie Magdalene creepe under the boorde to his feete with teares: there to receive and eate of his merciee, to quenche the hunger and smarte of her sins (Hooper: 1580, 54r). 12 This is not to weigh into the debate about the causes of the Reformation in England, rather an acknowledgment of its implementation. Thus, I am following Jones, et al as opposed to Duffy. 13 Cranmer, Homilies, book II. Homilies 2, 7, 14, 20. Number 20 is a reference to her at the resurrection.

458

David M. Whitford

Another Tudor preacher, John Bishop, outdoes many of his contemporaries in his description of Mary’s tears, From what other perpetuall spring came those mightie streames of teares with whom Marie Magdalene washed our saviours feete. Who can with words expresse her immeasurable sorrowe, which so at once instant wronge out of her al the moisture of her bodie and turned it into repentant teares? Whom she dried with golden lockes of her head, with which their beauty, sweet smell of precious ointments, curious and gorgeous trimming, had allured many great men unto her lewd love and made them her bestlike bondmen and slaves (1577, 84r).

Bishop’s sermon is also one of the earliest homiletic depictions of Mary Magdalene that overtly sexualize her previous life in prurient fashion. This is a shift away from the medieval representation of Mary and an adoption and further development of a shift that had been developing in Renaissance art for a number of decades. In medieval art, four images of the Magdalene predominated: 1) Mary preaching the conversion of France, 2) Mary as penitent, 3) Mary with her alabaster jar, and 4) Mary the hermit covered by her hair from head to toe. None of these, however, could be called sexual or sensual. By the high Renaissance, however, a more erotic Mary would come to all but obliterate the other older motifs. Compare for example, Tilman Riemenschneider’s penitent Mary is to Titian’s Penitent Mary or Caravaggio’s Mary in Ecstasy, or his representation of Mary as a courtesan.14 The sexualized nature of Mary was not without controversy however. As early as the 1550s, Archbishop Cranmer had noticed this trend in art and condemned it, ‘wherein is set foorth by the arte of the painter, an image with a nice and wanton apparell and countenance, more like to Venus or Flora, then Marie Magdalene, or yf like to Marie Magdalene, it is when she played the harlot.’15 Despite Cranmer’s censure, preachers found the sexualized Mary attractive. Indeed, the trend was remarkably long-lived. More than a century after John Bishop, the Puritan preacher Thomas Watson used imagery that was nearly identical to Bishop’s when describing the Magdalene’s sexual allure, When one becomes a New Creature, there is such a visible Change, that all may see it; therefore it is called a Change from Darkness to Light (…) Mary Magdalene, an unchaste Sinner, when once savingly wrought upon what a Penitent Creature did she become? Her 14 For more on the Magdalene in art, see Hornik: 2009. Eroticism in representation of Mary Magdalene was not limited to the penitent motif. A sensuous Mary also appears in numerous Noli me tangere paintings, including famous ones by Tatian, Correggio, and Bronzino. The trend would reach its height with the paintings of Francesco Furini in the seventeenth century. 15 Book of Homilies, II. Sermon 2. Interestingly, a Google search by image for Tatian’s Penitent Mary brings up his Venus of Urbino as a similar image. See Malverne: 1975.

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde

459

Eyes that were enticements of Lust, She takes Penance on them, and wash’d Christ’s Feet with her Tears: Her Hair which she was so proud of, and which was a Net to entangle her Lovers, she now takes Penance of it, and wipes Christ’s Feet with it. Thus the New Creature makes visible change. (Watson: 1692, 404)

I suspect part of the reason for the increased focus on her sexual identity has to do with the change in her story’s narrative arc. As noted earlier, her life as a harlot and her repentance were not the focal point of any medieval exempla. Indeed, they come in the first couple of sentences in exempla that often stretch to two to three pages. Depending on the medieval exempla, her story either crescendos at the conversion of France or her decision to forsake the world and become a hermit. It was what came after her repentance that mattered to the medieval preacher, not the repentance itself. This, of course, was due to the sacrament of penance. Without penance, however, the focus shifted to repentance. This reflected sound Reformation theology, but also left her story bereft of any sense of drama. Her sexuality filled that void. It gave her repentance and tears enough spectacle to capture an audience’s attention. Hear again Watson (all italics are original), She that before did kiss her Lovers with wanton Embraces, now kisseth Christ’s Feet. She that did use to curl her Hair, and dress it in costly Jewels, now she makes it a Towel to Wipe Christ’s Feet. Her Eyes that used to sparkle with Lust, and with impure Glances to entice her Lovers, now she makes them a Fountain of Tears to wash her Saviors Feet. Her Tongue that used to speak vainly and loosely, now is an Instrument set in Tune to praise God.16

Other aspects of her medieval composite also remained, but as with the conversion of a harlot, they now served to support the repentance of a sinner. The Presbyterian Edward Calamy (d. 1666) comes the closest to the pre-Reformation view of Mary by noting that she spent ‘thirty years in Gallia Narbonensi in weeping for her sins.’ (Calamy: 1642, 42). No mention is made of the Sacrament of Penance, but France and her thirty year hermitage survive in order to dramatize the depth of her repentance. The Seven Deadly Sins survived as well, even if the Puritan Lewis Bayly (d. 1631) had to reframe them as the ‘seuen chiefe hinderers of Pietie which must be cast out like Mary Magdalens seuen Diuels, before euer thou canst become a true practizer of Pietie: or have any sound hope to enjoy either favour from Christ by grace, or fellowship with him in glory.’ (Bayly: 1613, 290). Like the medieval exempla before him, Bayly went on to provide his Puritan readers with ways to overcome each one so that they might live a godly life. In these and others like them, the Post-Reformation Mary continued to serve the same role as the 16 Watson: 1692, 440. King David is also mentioned with her, but unlike Mary, he is merely called an adulterer. There is no sexualizing of his personae in the sermons.

460

David M. Whitford

composite medieval Mary—she was an example to emulate, a true vision of the sinner redeemed and glorified. Calvin’s early English translator, Christopher Fetherston ended his catechetical dialog against lewd behavior in young people with what he hoped would be every young person’s question: J: O but howe shall I bee delivered from this burthen of sinne, whiche presseth me downe so sore. M: Thou mayest playe Marie Magdalens part, who was as great a sinner as thou. Thou must fall downe at Christ Jesus his feete, and washe them with thy teares, because thou hast so grievously offended him. Then must thou most stedfastly believe, that he by his most precious death and bloodshedding hath purged thy soule from sinne (Fetherston: 1582, E5v).

It is Christ’s blood that purges the soul of sin, not penance, but Mary remains the best example for the sinner to follow. So how, if at all, did preaching the Magdalene change after the Reformation?

3. Conclusion I have argued elsewhere that of the fourfold medieval sense of scripture, the moral sense was the least affected by the Reformation. The moral sense shows a stubborn refusal to be influenced by the Reformation exegesis of the literal sense. The preaching of Mary Magdalene again reinforces this belief. The composite Mary as Luke’s sinful woman, redeemed by Christ, remained a powerful moral exemplum even after numerous and thoroughgoing critiques of the composite figure. Part of the reason for this lies, I believe, in the fact that the central aims of the sermon remained constant before and after the Reformation. While Reformers believed they were setting a new course in preaching as in many other things, the reality was that Samuel Hieron’s The Preacher’s Plea, perhaps the most prominent homiletic manual in England after the Reformation posited up the exact same two goals of preaching as Alan of Lille had done centuries earlier. A good preacher would lift up both faith and morals (Lille: 1604, 121). Some elements of the medieval composite did disappear, even from Roman Catholic discussions of Mary—where she remained the prime example of penance. The most prominent loss was of her time in France. Though Calamy mentioned her time in France, the saint who preached the conversion of Gaul was completely gone after the Reformation. So too, largely, was her designation as the ‘apostle to the apostles.’ It became more common to denigrate her role at the Tomb than to lift it up. Calvin helped set the precedent for this in his commentary, where he borders on mocking her and her sex. The most common

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde

461

representation of Mary to survive was Mary the harlot, and as we have seen, her sexuality now predominated in a way that it had not before the Reformation. This leads to, I think, the more significant insight to be gleaned from attention to the story of Mary Magdalene after the Reformation—the way in which people would have heard her story. Before the Reformation, women and men would have heard of a woman who did remarkable and amazing things. She was, yes, a harlot. But she was also the only disciple to remain completely faithful to Christ at the Cross and in the tomb. She proclaimed the Resurrection to the disciples and survived a harrowing journey across the Mediterranean. Once safely on the shores of Gaul, her intercession with God helped a childless couple bring forth a hoped-for child, the child’s father was the king and he converted to Christianity in honor of Mary Magdalene and the power of her God. She then retired to a hermitage where she continued to intercede on behalf of her newly adopted home. And because she was part of the assembled saints in heaven, she continued to intercede on behalf of those who sought her comfort. After the Reformation, all that remained was a painted and perfumed vixen, who tearfully repented of her sexual wantonness. Recently, Beth Allison Barr has noted that the postReformation bible, often lauded as a vehicle for women’s empowerment, could also serve to limit women by narrowing the scope of their agency to domestic and household roles alone (Barr: 2014). In Mary Magdalene, we see an even more stark reality. A prominent disciple—and yes, she was often called a disciple before the Reformation, was reduced to a redeemed hooker. Her sex and her sexuality now defined her. In the early fifteenth century, Christine de Pizan could lift Mary Magdalene up as heroic and a model of feminine power, noting that Christ himself wished that the ‘mystery of His most gracious resurrection be first announced by a woman.’ This led her to give praise and thanksgiving to God for ‘among the other infinite boons and favors You have bestowed upon the feminine sex, [You] desired that a woman carry such lofty and worthy news.’ (Pizan: 1998, 1.10.5.). One wonders if Pizan could have written such words as easily in 1605 as they were in 1405?

Bibliography Almasy, Rudolph P. (2002), ‘I am that I preach’. Tyndale as Mediator in The Parable of Wicked Mammon, in: Renaissance and Reformation 26/2, 5–22. Barr, Beth Allison (2014), ‘he is bothyn modyr, brothyr, & syster vn-to me’. Women and the Bible in Late Medieval and Early Modern English Sermons, in: Church History and Religious Culture 94, 297–315. Bayly, Lewis (1613), The Practise of Pietie, London: John Hodgets.

462

David M. Whitford

Binns, Alison (1989), Dedications of Monastic Houses in England and Wales, 1066–1216, Woodbridge [England]; Wolfeboro, N.H., USA: Boydell Press. Bishop, John (1577), Beautiful Blossomes, Gathered by Iohn Byshop, London: H. Middleton. Bullinger, Heinrich (1838), Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichte, J.J. Hottinger/ H.H. Vögeli (eds), Frauenfeld: CH Beyel. Calamy, Edumund (1642), Englands Looking-Glasse, London: I. Raworth. Calvin, John (1553), In evangelium secundum Johannem commentarius, Geneva: Robert Estienne. — (1561), A Very Profitable Treatise on Reliques, London: Rouland Hall. — (1995), A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke and the Epistles of James and Jude, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Company. Cranach, Lucas (1884), Wittemberger Heiligthumsbuch, Munich: Hirth. Fetherston, Christopher (1582), A dialogue agaynst light, lewde, and lasciuious dauncing, London: Thomas Dawson. Fisher, John (1519), Confutatio secundae disceptationis, in qua tribus foeminis partiri molitur quae totius ecclesiae consuetudo unicae tribuit Magdalenae, Paris: Josse Bade. Ford, Judy Ann (2006), John Mirk’s Festial: Orthodoxy, Lollardy and the Common People in Fourteenth-Century England, Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Gardiner, Stephen (1933), The Letters of Stephen Gardiner, by James Arthur Muller (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haskins, Susan (1993), Mary Magdalen. The Essential Story, New York: HarperCollins. Hieron, Samuel (1604), The Preacher’s Plea, London: Simon Waterston. Hooper, John (1580), Certaine Comfortable Expositions, London: Henrie Middleton. Hornik, Heidi J. (2009), Recasting the Magdalene in Sixteenth-Century Florence: The Painting Workshop of Michele Tosini, in: Christine Jones/Christopher C. Rowland (eds), From the Margins 2:Women of the New Testament and their Afterlives, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 80–93. Jansen, Katherine Ludwig (1988), Maria Magdalena: Apostolorum Apostola, in: B.M. Kienzle (ed.), Women Preachers and Prophets Through Two Millennia of Christianity, Berkeley, Univ. of California Press: 57–96. — (2000), The Making of the Magdalen. Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Kalkoff, Paul (1907), Ablass und Reliquienverehrung in der Schlosskirche zu Wittenberg unter Friedrich dem Weisen, Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes. Latimer, Hugh (1968), Select Sermons and Letters of Dr. Hugh Latimer, London: Printed for the Religious Tract Society, by William Clowes. Lefèvre d’Estaples, Jacques [ Jacobus Faber Stapulensis] (1517), De Maria Magdalena, et triduo Christi disceptatio, Paris: Henri Estienne. — (2009), Jacques Lefèvre d’Estaples and the Three Maries Debate, Geneva: Droz. Love, Nicholas (1494), Meditationes Vitae Chrisit, Westminster: Wynkyn de Word. Malverne, Marjorie M. (1975), Venus in Sackcloth. the Magdalen’s Origins and Metamorphoses, Southern Illinois University Press. Pizan, Christine de (1998), The Book of the City of Ladies, New York: Persea. Rauer, Christine (2013), The Old English martyrology. Edition, translation and commentary, Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.

The Moste Folyshe Fable of the Worlde

463

Surtz, Edward (1967), The Works and Days of John Fisher, Cambridge: Harvard. Tyndale, William (1528a), Obedience of a Christen Man, Antwerp: Hans Luft. — (1528b), That Fayth the Mother of All Good Workes Justifieth Us: Before we ca[n] Bringe Forth Anye Good Worke [The Parable of Wicked Mammon], Antwerp: Hans Luft. — (1531), An Answere unto Sir Thomas More, Antwerp: S. Cock. Watson, Thomas (1692), A Body of Practical Divinity: Consisting of Above One Hundred Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser Confession, London: Thomas Parkhurst.

About the Authors

Dr. Forrest Buckner is Dean of Spiritual Life and Assistant Professor of Theology at Whitworth University, USA. Dr. Amy Nelson Burnett is Paula and D.B. Varner University Professor of History at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA. Dr. Esther Chung-Kim is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Claremont McKenna College, Claremont University Consortium, USA. Dr. Max Engammare is researcher (SNF) at the University of Geneva and General Director of the publishing house Droz, Geneva, Switzerland. Patrizio Foresta is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Fondazione per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII, Bologna, Italy. Dr. Aurelio Garcia is Professor of Humanities at the College of General Studies, University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras, Puerto Rico. Dr. Christian Grosse is Professor of History and Anthropology of Modern Christianities at the Institute of Religions, Cultures and Modernity, Faculty of Theology and Sciences of Religions of the University of Lausanne. PhD candidate Pierrick Hildebrand is assistant to the chair of Modern Church History at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Zurich, Switzerland. Dr. R. Ward Holder is Professor of Theology at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire, USA. Dr. Arnold Huijgen is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the Theological University Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.

466

About the Authors

Dr. Luka Ilic´ is pastor of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Württemberg in Ravensburg and associate of the Leibniz-Institut fu¨ r Europäische Geschichte in Mainz, Germany. Dr. Sun-kwon Kim is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Honam Theological University and Seminary, Korea. Jeannette Kreijkes MA is a PhD student in the field of Reformed Theology at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Dr. Anthony N.S. Lane is Professor of Historical Theology at the London School of Theology, London, UK. Dr. Jung-Sook Lee is President and Professor of Church History at Torch Trinity Graduate School in Seoul, Korea. Jonathan Lett is a PhD candidate in systematic theology at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. Dr. Karin Maag is Professor of History and Director of the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. Balázs Dávid Magyar is a PhD student in the field of social ethics and church sociology at Debrecen Reformed Theological University, Hungary. Dr. Elsie Anne McKee is Professor of Reformation Studies and the History of Worship at Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey, USA. Dr Joe Mock is pastor at Ashfield Presbyterian Church, Ashfield, Australia. Dr. Wilhelmus Hendricus Theodorus (Wim) Moehn is minister of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, Hilversum, and Professor for the History of Reformed Protestantism at the Protestant Theological University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Dr. Jeannine Olson is Professor of History at Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. Dr. Peter Opitz is Professor of Church History and Director of the Institute of Swiss Reformation Studies at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.

About the Authors

467

György Papp is teaching and research assistant (biblical languages and historical theology) at the Protestant Theological Institute of Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Dr. Johanna Rahner is Professor of Dogmatics, History of Dogma, and Ecumenical Theology at the Faculty for Catholic Theology, University of Tübingen, Germany. Dr. Herman J. Selderhuis is Professor of Church History at the Theological University Apeldoorn and Director of Refo500, The Netherlands. Dr. Petr Sˇkubal is minister of the French United Protestant Church, France. Dr. Herman A. Speelman is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Theological University Kampen, The Netherlands. Dr. John L. Thompson is Professor of Historical Theology and the Gaylen and Susan Byker Professor of Reformed Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, USA. Dr. David M. Whitford is Professor of Reformation Studies at Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA. Dr. Piotr Wilczek is Professor of the Humanities in the Faculty of ‘Artes Liberales’ of the University of Warsaw, Poland.