Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research 9783666569142, 9783525569146

Citation preview

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Wim Janse, Elsie McKee

Volume 5

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.)

Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

to Willem van´t Spijker

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-525-56914-6

© 2008, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen / www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck- und Bindung: b Hubert & Co, Göttingen. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Exegesis Calvin as Bible Translator: From the Model of the Hebrew Psalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PETER OPITZ John Calvin’s Nonliteral Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GARY HANSEN

9 27

Theology Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology: Three Dogma-Historical Observations . . . . . . . . . . . WIM JANSE Calvin’s Use of Doctrina in His Catechisms . . . . . . . I. JOHN HESSELINK Christus Mediator Legis: The Foundation of Calvin’s Christological Understanding of the Law . BYUNG-HO MOON “As a Son to his Father”: An Overlooked Aspect of the Imago Dei in Calvin . . JASON VAN VLIET

...........

37

...........

70

...........

88

...........

108

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence in John Calvin’s Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARNOLD HUIJGEN “Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Sunt Indivisa” in the Theology of John Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARIE BAARS Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology: A Tentative Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LYLE BIERMA

119

131

142

Table of contents

6

Comparisons Luther and Calvin – One Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THOMAS KAUFMANN Calvin and à Lasco: A Comparative Study of Two Ecclesiastical Ordinances . . . . . . . . . AKIRA DEMURA Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin, commentateurs de l’Épître aux Romains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNIE NOBLESSE-ROCHER

149

172

190

Reception Theory in Practice: Calvin’s Ecclesiology in the French Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RAYMOND MENTZER Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst of All Possible Christians? . . . . . . . IRENA BACKUS A “Sincere and Clear Message”. Four Remonstrant Ministers Against the Falsehoods and Innovations of Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FRANK VAN DER POL Transmitting the Text: Understanding the Translation Process in Calvin’s Déclaration . . . . JOY KLEINSTUBER Calvin’s View of Augustine and the Donatist Church . . . . . . . . . . . IN-SUB AHN

209 223

244

257 271

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MICHAEL BUSH

285

List of authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

301

Preface On behalf of the Praesidium of the International Calvin Congress I am happy to present in this volume the papers of the congress that was held August 22–26, 2006, in the Theological University Apeldoorn (The Netherlands) and the John a Lasco Library in Emden (Germany). I want to express the gratitude of all participants to both hosts for their generosity and hospitality. The quality of any congress is mainly based on the quality of the papers. In the case of the Calvin Congress, that quality is in a certain sense a given by the fact that the policy of the Praesidium is that plenary papers should be based on new research and that short papers should give scholars an opportunity to present research in progress. Because of this, the papers are divided into these two categories; each section is arranged in alphabetical order of the authors’ names. Except for some corrections, the papers are given here in the form in which they were presented. Unfortunately this Congress volume is not able to communicate on paper the excellent atmosphere among the participants and the academic quality of the discussion, but the hope is that the reader may sense some of this while reading the contributions. Since it was also a tribute to the accomplishments of Prof. Dr. Willem van ´t Spijker, widely respected Reformation-scholar and long time member of the Praesidium, to have the congress co-hosted at Apeldoorn and that in the year of his 80th birthday, this volume is dedicated to him. The title of this volume – Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres – refers to a title given to Calvin in one the many letters addressed to him (CO 18, 227), a title fitting the major theme of most papers at the congress. The editorial board of the series Reformed Historical Theology has kindly accepted this volume and the publishing house Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht deserves thanks for making it such a well-formed book. Thanks also to Martijn de Groot and Henk-Jan Vazquez (both at the Theological University Apeldoorn) for assisting in the editorial process. Herman Selderhuis president-secretary Apeldoorn, Winter 2007

Calvin as Bible Translator: From the Model of the Hebrew Psalter

Peter Opitz

1. On the Task Calvin as Bible translator – can anything much be said about that? There is no recognized Calvin Bible. Volumes 56 and 57 of the Calvini Opera can hardly be alleged as one offhand, even if they wear the nice title “La bible française de Calvin.”1 And what Richard Wevers published in 1994 as the “Bible of John Calvin”2 is a compilation of the translated Bible texts from Calvin’s commentaries. There are translations, which in terms of authenticity and developmental setting are quite diversely estimated. On the other hand, exactly this issue presses in, that in various spheres of influence and connections Calvin consistently translated biblical texts. But with this the introductory concern mutates directly into its opposite, and it becomes absolutely necessary to clearly limit the posing of the question. Thus the present contribution will neither be able to deal with Calvin’s translations in French3, nor with his translations of New Testament Greek4, but will be confined to his translation of the Hebrew Psalter in his Psalms commentary of 1557. In contrast to some Bible texts in other of his Old Testament commentaries, this work can accurately be reckoned as one rendered with authentic texts of Calvin’s translation. It is however less the 1 Reuss, Edouard, La bible française de Calvin: livres des Saintes Ecriture, traduits ou révisés par le Réformateur, tirés de ses oeuvres et accompagnés de variantes d’autres versions du XVIe siècle (Brunswick and Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke et fils, 1897). Calvini Opera vols. 56 und 57. 2 Wevers (ed.), Bible of John Calvin: Reconstructed from the Text of His Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Digamma, 1994). 3 See Georges Casalis/Bernard Roussel, Olivetan, traducteur de la Bible: Actes du colloque Olivétan Noyon, mai 1985 (Paris, 1987); Olivétan. Celui qui fit passer la Bible d’hebreu en français: études des Professeurs Dominique Barthélomy, Henri Meylan/Bernard Roussel, Textes de Calvin et d’Olivétan (Bienne: Société Biblique Suisse, 1986). For background see B. Roussel, Le temps des réformes et la Bible: sous la direction de Guy Bedouelle (Paris: Beauchesne, 1989). 4 There are already some studies in this field. See especially the introductions to the individual New Testament commentaries of Calvin in the new Calvin edition (COR).

10

Calvin as Bible Translator

result, the translation itself, which should be thematic here, and much more the translation procedure. And this can only succeed in the present context by relinquishing a number of absorbing matters and constricting ourselves to exemplary, illustrating proofs. After a sketch of the context in which Calvin is working as translator of the Psalter, a glimpse should be taken of his translator’s workshop, with the goal of determining characteristic contours of Calvin, translator of the Psalms.

2. Calvin as Translator of the Psalms5 in Historical Context When one reads Calvin’s Latin translation of the Psalms, as Wevers offers it, one does not get the impression that here an especially talented Latinist has seized upon the Word. Indeed, one constantly encounters expressions and turns of phrase, which permit sense to be won from them only with effort. It is as sure that this is Calvin’s translation of the Psalter, as it is certain that there is no way he would have wanted this text edited and propagated as “Calvin’s Translation of the Psalter.” Since every one of the texts in Wever’s composition of “Calvin’s Bible” has, once again, its own context, this may not be simply cast off without some attention. So first, some words about background. A consequence of the new devotion to the biblical text, famously the living nerve of the Reformation, involved not only its dissemination through translations in languages of the common people. It also entailed the achievement (so far as possible) of a text faithful to the original languages, in the language of European science: Latin. It was clear the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, represented in this respect a special challenge, but was also an object of special commitment, for in regard to it the text of the traditional Vulgate left much to be desired. The fulfillment of this task took

5 Research in this area has, until recently, been scanty, and so entrance into it must be made through the literature in which Calvin’s interpretation of the Psalms is treated thematically. Some things in connection with Calvin’s dealings with the Hebrew text finally become somewhat thematic in: D.L. Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament (Louisville: WJK, 1995); W. de Greef, Calvijn en zijn uitleg van de Psalmen: Een onderzoek naar zijn exegetische methode (Kampen, 2006) – with bibliography. On Calvin’s translation from Hebrew, two short contributions deserve especial mention: M. Engammare, “Joannes Calvinus trium linguarum peritus?,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance LVIII (1996), 35–60; R.G. Hobbs, “Hebraica Veritas and Traditio Apostolica: Saint Paul and the Interpretation of the Psalms in the Sixteenth Century,” in D.C. Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), 83–99.

Peter Opitz

11

place as a multilayered learning process.6 The Psalter stood in notable measure in the center of interest, though the centuries-long religious and liturgical esteem for just this book would be carried on in the Reformation under different signatures. Calvin had a share in this, and for his 1554 lecture on the Psalms, he could already return to and build upon many others. At this juncture three lines can be named. 2.1 Zürich: from Zwingli to Jud, Bibliander and Pellikan Huldrych Zwingli can safely be reckoned as a pioneer of a reformed translation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in Latin. On April 23, 1525 Zwingli opened his series of sermons on the Psalms in Zürich’s Great Cathedral, and to this end finished a unique German translation of the Psalms, which was never printed, however.7 At the same time the Psalms were a matter of interpretation in the Prophezei. In 1532, Leo Jud published Zwingli’s Latin translation of the Psalter from the Hebrew, marked with short Hebrew annotations.8 What Zwingli evidently tried there was to do justice both to the sense of the Hebrew word, as well as to the contemporary humanistic Latin, and consequently to surpass the Vulgate in both directions, as it were. Hebraisms were thereby smoothed away and intricate turns shortened, but accordingly also very freely translated, and Zwingli’s grasp of the mens autoris, so to speak, was placed over that of the verba. In 1539, at the instigation of the Old Testament scholar Konrad Pellikan in Zürich, a new, complete Latin Bible emerged, which took over the Latin translation of Erasmus for the New Testament, but for the Old Testament reprinted the Latin text Sebastian Münster formulated from the Hebrew. Heinrich Bullinger wrote a preface to it.9 Already four years later, in 1543, the so-called “Biblia sacrosancta” appeared, a collaborative work published by Pellikan.10 Further editions followed in 1544 and 1550. Their Old Testament portion was translated by Jud, Theodor Bibliander and Pellikan;

6 See to some extant J. Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1983). 7 In this regard see Zwingli’s Sämtliche Werke Bd. XIII [CR 101], Zürich, 1959, 831 [Sigel: Z]. 8 Enchiridion Psalmorum quos sanctae memoriae clarissimus vir Hulderichus Zvinglius ex Ebraeica veritate latinitati donavit … (Froschauer, 1532) (see Z XIII 469). 9 Biblia sacra utriusque testamenti… D. Sebast. Munsteri evulgatum, et ad Hebraicam veritatem quoad fieri potuit redditum … (Zürich, 1539). 10 Biblia Sacrosancta testameti Veteris et Noui, e sacra Hebraeorum lingua Graecorumque fontibus, consultis simul orthodoxis inter pretib. religiosissime translata in sermonem Latinum … (Zürich, 1543).

12

Calvin as Bible Translator

Psalms 1–102 by Jud, the final 48 Psalms by Bibliander.11 The marginalia contained elaborately detailed textual elucidations. This new translation of the Hebrew Bible in Latin was the fruit of intense labor on the Old Testament, as was typical of the Zürich Reformation and would continue to be performed after Zwingli in the incipient Schola Tigurina.12 It would be supported through the great productivity of the Froschauer printing office13, which discharged numerous printings of the Bible and attendant publications, whether it be basic hermeneutical writings in the service of the interpretation of the Bible, above all of the Old Testament14, or aids to its reconstruction, or translations of texts with short explanations. In this the concern was clearly with probing what was possible and meaningful in the tension between the greatest fidelity to the Hebrew source text on the one hand, and the greatest comprehensibility in service to the dissemination of its content on the other.15 But as they pursued this Jud and his colleagues distanced themselves more and more from Zwingli’s translation, and at the same time from Zwingli’s concern: indeed, Jud likewise tried as much as possible to avoid Hebraisms, but his highest priority was to follow the Hebrew text as closely as was feasible. It seems that the attempt to do justice both to the sense of the Hebrew author as well as to then-contemporary Latin was in the end given up in favor of two parallel enterprises: one Bible written in the vernacular and one in Latin, a version of utmost fidelity to the source text, yet one in which other readings of the Hebrew text could be proposed. This version, by omitting the details with regard to heritage and translator, would mete out a remarkable tradition (Wirkungsgeschichte). The printer Robert Estienne, who emigrated to Geneva in 1550 and plied his craft there in the service of the Reformation, had based his 1545 printing of the Bible 11 See Z XIII 835. 12 See, Schola Tigurina: die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550. Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 25. Mai bis 10. Juni 1999 in der Zentralbibliothek, ed. H.U. Bächtold (Zürich/Freiburg /Br.: Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, 1999). 13 J. Staedtke, “Anfänge und erste Blütezeit des Zürcher Buchdrucks,” in Reformation und Zeugnis der Kirche (ZBRG 9; Zürich, 1978), 121–34; C. Gantet, “La religion et ses mots. La Bible latine de Zurich (1543) entre la tradition et l’innovation,” Zwingliana 23 (1996), 143–66. 14 See for instance: Theodore Bibliander, De ratione communi omnium linguarum et literarum commentarius (Zürich, 1548), a writing in which Bibliander himself comprehensively deals with questions about language, its translation, etc. Ganoczy lists the work as Nr. 450, and counts Bibliander among the humanists that Calvin highly valued. What Ganoczy identified as a sign of the Geneva academy’s “mentalité ouverte” (A. Ganoczy, La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin: le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements [Genève: Droz, 1969], 111) is expression of the humanistic inheritance of Calvin and the “Upper German reformation” as a whole, which was fostered in particular around the area of philology and exegesis, and which promoted the narrow exchange between Zürich, Basel, Strasbourg and Geneva in this area. 15 By way of example Konrad Pellikan published a Latin translation of the Psalter, in which every verse was followed by a few words of italicized clarification: In Psalterium Davidis, Chuonradi Pellicani simplex et breve opusculum (Tiguri, 1532).

Peter Opitz

13

on it – produced in Paris, in fact – and one year later, in 1546, printed the Psalter off of it separately and in small format. For the extensive apparatus of notes, however, Estienne fell back on Vatables’ annotations, which he had already employed in earlier printings.16 2.2 Strasburg: Hebrew Grammar and Martin Bucer’s Psalms Commentary Famously, the second line is very important for Calvin, biographically speaking: it has to do with the entanglements, which he was able to knot through the Basel and then of course through the Strasburg sojourn. Some point out in this regard that these stays, needless to say particularly in Strasburg, profited him with the necessary opportunity to improve his knowledge of Hebrew17, and moreover, that his conviction of the significance of a thorough engagement with the hebraica veritas became decidedly stronger. Whether he worked with the exceptional Hebrew textbook of Wolfgang Capito, which could easily compete with today’s Hebrew teaching materials, is logical, but is not able to be proven. The copy Ganoczy identified in Geneva definitely came from the library of Vermigli18, and of course there were some good alternatives. That Calvin already appreciated Martin Bucer as a Hebraist of the highest quality is clearly documented.19 Doubtless Calvin eventually mentioned Bucer as an exemplary exegete in his preface to the 1557 Psalms commentary not only because Bucer’s commentary simply served as a model, but also because Calvin was convinced of its quality.20 Bucer’s Psalms commentary, which Estienne published in Geneva in 1554 and highly praised21, was probably Calvin’s most important compa16 Biblia Sacra cum universalis Franc. Vatabli et variorum interpretum, annotationibus. (Paris, 1545) [cited Biblia Sacra]; A. Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Estienne (Réimpression de l’édition de Paris 1843) (Geneva, 1971), 62f, 66; Ganoczy, La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin, 176. 17 See Engammare, “Joannes Calvinus trium linguarum peritus?,” 39f. 18 See Ganoczy, La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin, 308. 19 See Calvin’s letter to Bucer from 12 January 1538: A.L. Herminjard, Correspondance des Réformateurs dans les pays de langue française vol. 4 (Geneva and Paris), 347, No. 677; see also Engammare, “Joannes Calvinus trium linguarum peritus?,” 41. 20 “Et priusquam enarrationem aggrederer, fratrum meorum rogatu dixeram quod verum erat, me ideo supersedere quod fidelissimus ecclesiae doctor Martinus Bucerus summa, quam in hoc opere praestitit, eruditione diligentia et fide, id saltem consequutus erat ne tantus esset operae meae usus.” CO 32,13. Calvin apparently did not get to see the extensive commentary of Musculus, already completed in 1550, until after he finished his work; see ibid. 21 Psalmorum libri quinque ad Hebraicam veritatem traducti, et summa fide, parique diligentia a Martino Bucero enarrati (Geneva, 1554) [cited Bucer]; see also E. Armstrong/Robert Estienne/Royal Printer: An Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

14

Calvin as Bible Translator

nion work in the preparation of his lectures. In an extensive preface, Bucer first of all explained the bases and principles of his interpretation and translation. He expressly pointed out therein that in regard to the Hebraic he relied upon Abraham Ibn Ezra and David Kimchi, who unlike other Rabbis rendered the text and its sense with fidelity, as long as one ignored the specific Christian themes announced in the Psalms of the reign of Christ and the righteousness of faith. He favored these because they derived their understanding inner-biblically, through comparison with other arrangements, and this usually in far greater measure than the work of other Jewish interpreters.22 The Scripture Principle, Scripture’s self-interpretation, here became applied both to the understanding and thus to the translation of Hebrew words and expressions. 2.3 From Paris to Geneva: Robertus Stephanus (Estienne) Yet a third line, already touched upon, is to be drawn out here. It is closely tied up with the name of Robert Estienne. The Parisian printing specialist for foreign language texts, in particular Greek and Hebrew, in fact possessed the royal license, but came increasingly under pressure as a Humanist inclined to Protestantism. His printings of the Bible would ultimately be condemned as heretical by the Sorbonne, especially the explanatory remarks contained in the edition from 1545.23 sity Press, 1954), 233f. On Bucer: R.G. Hobbs, “Martin Bucer on Psalm 22: A Study in the Application of Rabbinic Exegesis by a Christian Hebraist,” in O. Fatio/P. Franekel (eds.), Histoire de l’exegèse au XVIe siècle: textes du colloque international tenu à Genève en 1976 (Geneva: Droz, 1978), 144–63. 22 “Habent tamen inter alios, duos, Abrahamum filium Ezra, et Davidem Kimhi, qui germanam vocum proprietatem, et dictorum ordinem genuinum, exceptis iis locis, ubi urgeentur vaticiniis de spirituali regno Christi, ac interna, solidaque iustitia, quae fide constat servatoris, magno studio persequuti sunt, nihil fere dicentes, absque authoritate consonantium locorum, quos etiam praeter aliorum Ebraeorum more, magna proprietatis observatione citant. Ab his fateor in gloriam Dei, cuius donum est, quicquid utile me in enarratione Psalmorum, plurimum esse adiutum, quod et passim indicavi,” ibid., Praefatio. 23 See Estienne’s apologia: Ad censuras theologorum Parisiensium, quibus Biblia a Roberto Stephano typographo Regio excusa calumniose notarunt, eiusdem Roberti Stephani responsio (Geveva: Stephanus, 1552). The translator of the Bible from 1545 is there referred to as “incertus author.” In the fall of 1547, the Parisian faculty of theology published an extensive “catalogus errorum,” which replicated Estienne’s writing and made reference to it. The repraoch states that the 1545 Bible deviates from the Vulgate on over 600 points, and often renders a new meaning. Thus the annotations are “suspecta, falsa, erronea, scandalosa, facentia conspirantibus haeresibus, Lutherana, impia, blasphema, et haeretica” (ibid. 115). Estienne’s answer is characteristic of the Reformed-humanistic devotion to the hebraica veritas, and at the same time demonstrates his engagement with the subject matter, “Quod sensu et verbis nova translatio a veteri dissidet, quid periculi obsecro? Aut fas esse negent, ex Hebraica lingua Biblia transferre, aut diversitatem, de

Peter Opitz

15

So he resigned himself finally to emigration, namely, flight to Geneva and subsequent judgment as heretic and Calvinist. Estienne’s specialty (notwithstanding the well-known introduction of verse numbering), which he brought from France, was multicolumn printing. Specifically, he printed together two Latin translations and an imprinted apparatus of notes underneath: the inner column, the Vulgate text in small type, the outer and in larger print, the Latin text of the “Tralatio nova” (“new translation”). In 1545 and 1546 Estienne included the anonymous Zürich translation as his “Tralatio nova.”24 Ten years later, contemporaneously with the printing of Calvin’s Psalms commentary, Estienne’s great Bible of 1556/57 appeared, now presenting the translation of Pagninus as Latin “nova”-text for the Old Testament.25 Whether replacing the indexed text of the Zürich “Biblia sacrosancta” through the translation of something actively Waldensian- and Protestant-contending was caused by philological or political grounds (at any rate not without numerous corrections), must remain open. In any case, with respect to the New Testament this Bible contained for the first time the translation of the Greek text through Theodore Beza.26 It possessed, particularly for the Old Testament, an extraordinary apparatus of notes, which recorded grammatical comments and variant translations of Hebrew expressions, but also frequently touched on theological issues. At the beginning Estienne points to Pagninus and Vatable, the latter the most significant French-speaking Hebraists of the time and student of Lefèvre d’Estaples, as basic sources for his text and the explanatory comments.27 In addition, however, he explicitly mentions the usage of other sources and therefore indicates an editorial activity which exceeds a mere printing job.28 Estienne qua queruntur, admittant. Quid enim? An erit nova translatio, quae nihil a vulgari differet? … Unum crimen allegant, mutari sexcenties verba, et interdum quoque sensum. Hoc quid aliud est, quam Typographum damnare, qui duplici translatione edita, plus lucis scripturae addere conatus sit?” (ibid. 116). 24 See Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Estienne, 63.66. See also Armstrong, Robert Estienne: Royal Printer, 77f. 25 Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Estienne, 87. 26 Biblia sacra latina, juxta veterem et S. Pagnini Veteris Testamenti, Theod. Bezae Novi Tralationem cum notis Fr. Vatabli, etc. (Geneva, 1556/1557); appended is a listing with “Hebraea, Chaldaea, Graeca, Latina Nomina;” see also, Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Estienne, 87. 27 See D. Barthélemy, “Origine et reyonnement de la ‘Bible de Vatable’,” in I. Backus and F. Higman (eds.), Théorie et pratique de l’exégèxe: Actes du troisième colloque international sur l’histoire de l’exègèse biblique au XVIe siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1990), 385–401. 28 Consider already the title of the Psalter – again appearing as a separate printing: Liber Psalmorvm Davidis. Tralatio duplex, Vetus et Nova / Haec posterior, Sanctis Pagnini, partim ab ipso Pagnino recognita, partim ex Francisci Vatabli Hebraicarum literarum professoris quondam Regii eruditissimis praelectionibus emendata et expolita. Adiectae sunt annotationes cum ex aliorum tralatione, tum vero ex Commentariis Hebraeorum ab ipso Vatablo diligenter excusis: quae commentarii vice lectoribus esse poterunt (Geneva [appeared 1557]); see also Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Estienne, 87.

16

Calvin as Bible Translator

seems to hint here at his earlier printings of the Bible, but also at the exegete Calvin; in this respect his utilization of Calvin’s Genesis commentary of 1554 has been demonstrated.29 The relationship between Estienne’s remarks on the Psalms in the Bible of 1556/57 and Calvin’s almost simultaneously-appearing commentary is, however, probably characterized more adequately as a mutual exchange than as a mere one-way communication. For that Estienne’s competencies and his interests in view of the Hebrew text spanned far beyond the preparation of manuscripts for print, is obvious and already intimated through the works printed by him. Besides Hebrew textbooks, I am above all here referring to his vast, illustrative listings of all persons, peoples, and place names of the Hebrew Bible, which would be constantly reprinted30, but also to his devoting himself to the Hebraisms of the Old Testament, to Phrases Hebraicae.31 For our context, especially important is his edition of Pagninus’ Latin adaptation of David Kimchi’s, “Kozer-Ozar leshon hakodesh,” 1548.32 It is an expansive Hebrew dictionary, in which the roots themselves of Hebrew concepts in their various significances can be looked up, with indication of biblical applications in which they can be found and grammatical comments on declension, conjugation, and tense.

3. Fundamentals of Calvin’s Translation Work The three lines now sketched, which in a sense meet in Calvin’s study, are uniform simplifications in view of the many-braided tie in which Calvin’s translation of the Hebrew Psalter is set forth, in preparation of his lectures at our little school in Geneva. They can suggest only by way of example the wide spectrum of relationships in which Calvin’s work stands and which give it life, even if Calvin himself scarcely draws attention to them. Both Calvin’s comments on variant translations of the Hebrew text as well as 29 See J.L. Thompson, “Calvin’s Exegetical Legacy: His Reception and Transmission of Text and Tradition,” in D.L. Foxgrover (ed.), The Legacy of John Calvin: Calvin Studies Society Papers 1999 (Grand Rapids, 2000), 31–56, esp. 42–47. 30 Hebraea, Chaldaea, Graeca et Latina nomina virorum, mulierum, populorum, idolorum, urbium, fluviorum, montium, caeterorumque locorum quae in Bibliis leguntur, restituta cum latina interpretatione (Paris: Ex officina R. Stephani, 1537). 31 Phrases Hebraicae (Geneva, 1558); cf. Armstrong, Robert Estienne: Royal Printer, 233. 32 Santes Pagninus: Kozer-Ozar leshon ha-kodesh; Hoc est, Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae sive Lexicon hebraicum … ex R. David Kimchi “Sepher ha-sharashim”, Sancte Pagnino Lucensi authore. Contractior et emendatior (Paris: Ex officina R. Stephani, 1548). The lexicon would be published many times. Ganoczy identifies a prototype printed in Lyon in 1529; La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin, 161.

Peter Opitz

17

synoptic comparisons, which at this stage cannot be promulgated, make it clear, however, that we already have come across to central technical aids, which Calvin consulted again and again, both because he needed them and because of restricted time at his disposal. Our time is restricted as well, so instead of pursuing further the question of other possible means Calvin could have used for his work we should try to cast a glance at Calvin’s translation work as such. In the preface he penned to his 1557 Psalms commentary Calvin notifies that this work grew out of exegetical lectures.33 The reading of his commentary makes this unmistakably plain: In his translations, for example, this can be seen in the manner in which he explains individual Hebrew words and then justifies his own translation. Therein, he places special attention on areas and concepts, which are unclear and as a result have been variously translated. The thoroughgoing use of expressions like “quidam”, “alii”, and so on, points to the existence of a broader interpretive discourse. Expressions such as “varie exponitur interpretes” or “varie torqueant interpretes” for example occur in the Psalms commentary more than thirty times.34 But the interlocutors are hardly ever named. One gets the impression that with his translation and interpretation Calvin is navigating through a discussion, which is not made explicit or comes through only in outline, perhaps because there was not enough time really to present positions he rejected, or perhaps because awareness of this discussion was presupposed – and may have been orally communicated in lecture. And at the same time, Calvin seems at his utmost to be measured in his commentary and in his remarks on the justification of his translation, only naming what is finally relevant for setting up his translation, and therewith his explanation; an effort at “brevitas”35 also in the Psalms commentary. Calvin greatly differentiates himself here from the commentary of Bucer, but also Musculus, which in each case cite a multitude of meanings and interpretations, and for all of these name authors and sources, such that one does not always have the impression that the rich material gathered together is really processed in commentary, or even pertinent for translation and clarification. That in his Latin translation of the Psalter Calvin also mastered his Latin, even down to the finest nuances, is not to be overlooked. But just as little to be overlooked is the fact that it was not at all his intention to present the Psalter in an elegant or poetical form of Latin, but to translate the Hebrew wording as literal as possible with chosen Latin expressions, including 33 See CO 31,13. 34 Cf. Ps 9:1, 7; 10:3, 17; 11:7; 14:5; 15:4; 17:4, 13; 19:2; 26:1; 27:8; 34:21; 36:2; 37:16, 26; 42:6; 45:1; 48:7; 49:14; 56:6; 59:10; 68:7; 73:10; 77:11; 93:3; 94:15; 132:18; 137:3; 139:18. 35 See Calvin’s preface to the commentary on Romans; COR II Opera Exegetica, vol. XIII, 3–6.

18

Calvin as Bible Translator

mood, tense, conjugation, etc. He therefore accepted Hebraisms. For in translating, he works at and underscores the hebraica veritas. Hence he could characterize his own Latin translation as somewhat “barbaric”, but intentionally so, because only in this way can the Hebrew sayings be made clear.36 3.1 Calvin’s Procedure When Calvin makes a decision for one alternative among various translations, or rejects them all and introduces his own, this happens not infrequently without supplementary substantiation; sometimes just with a naked, unaccompanied value judgment, but often with, at least short, arguments. Hence, the following criteria are guiding. 3.1.1 Semantics Calvin37 places great value on the clear accounting of words, which is to say, on semantics. Naturally, the Humanists’ work on the biblical texts is carried forward here, as it was exemplarily done in Calvin’s De Clementia commentary. Accordingly, the first thing that takes place in the commentaries is establishing the meaning of words in their composition, mood, conjugation, and declension. Calvin often begins with lexical variants – no differently than is the case in Bucer and Musculus, although there in much greater detail. Is an “aschaer” intended relatively or expletively (Ps. 8:1/2)38, does “ki” in the present context mean “for in that case” (sed) or “because” (quia)39 (Ps. 8:3/4), is the verb “araz” in the current usage transitive or intransitive (Ps. 10:18); which is to be preferred with regard to the verb “kanan” here, the base meaning “order” (dirigere) or “buttress” (stabilire)40 (Ps. 10:17), ought the preterit to be translated as future in this instance, or is it here to be understood in the conjunctive sense, although in the interest of exactness Calvin uses the Latin perfect in translation (Ps. 17:3), and so forth?

36 “crasse quidem et barbare … sed mihi perinde fuit modo prophetae mentem certo tenerent lectores,” on Ps 119:29 (CO 32,226). 37 What is here said about the translation of the Psalter does essentially confirm Puckett’s observations about Calvin’s entire Old Testament exegesis; see Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament, 56–81. I restrict myself in the following pages to a few, illustrating examples. 38 The number before the slash corresponds to the verse in modern Protestant translations, after to the Hebrew text. 39 In the English edition of Calvin’s commentary, “for” and “because” are considered; ultimately “when” is chosen as means of connecting this verse with the next. 40 In the English edition of Calvin’s commentary, “to direct” and “to establish” are used.

Peter Opitz

19

3.1.2 Hebrew Grammarians The “Hebrew Grammarians” played a key roll in the crucial task of determining the meaning of a word, both in terms of its form and with respect to, above all, its root and semantic range. In that regard are meant, although only rarely explicitly mentioned, Abraham Ibn Ezra and (chiefly) David Kimchi. Calvin is exceedingly reserved with his criticism of these two rabbinic teachers. Where they agree in their translation, this material does not come under question. For the most part, it is the interpretation they construct upon their translation of a given passage that comes under criticism. If Calvin criticizes the “Hebrew expositors”, then often because he decides for a variant where they themselves differ in their interpretation. Like the Hebrew commentators, Calvin can return to the etymology of a word.41 This path is ready-to-hand, because the determination of a Hebrew expression must in fact be traced back to its stem and root. Therefore the knowledge that the Hebrew language affords very much more interpretive room to play than is the case with Latin stands permanently in the background of Calvin’s translation.42 Regarding the grammatical form of an expression, Calvin sometimes seems to proceed almost somewhat pedantically, especially concerning tense. Although he knows that the use of tense in Hebrew is not of a simple correspondence to that in Latin and indeed must be translated according to a different perspective, Calvin tends to translate the perfect as the Latin preterit, and imperfect as Latin present, even when the subsequent interpretation does not allow such a firm handling of the tense. 3.1.3 Inner-biblical Word Use An extraordinarily important translation aid for Calvin is the other occurrences and other uses of expressions encountered in the Bible. Since by these, one can confirm an exact sense, or get an awareness for breadth of significance. This principle, to which Bucer in the preface to his Psalms commentary had already pointed, becomes applied by Calvin especially with reference to parallels within the Psalter.43 It is the philological side of the principle that Scripture interprets itself, which Calvin applies here, not without consideration of the different kinds of biblical texts.

41 For example, in Ps 3:2 (CO 31,53f); in Ps 144:13 (CO 31,411); and so forth. 42 For instance, “Verbum hoc praeteriti temporis continuum actum designat, ideoque praesens tempus complectitur. Si particula yk hoc loco est causalis, sensum erit … nisi forte magis placeat mutare tempus verbi …,” on Ps 17:6 (CO 31,162); etc. 43 For instance, “atque huic sententiae ex opposito respondet quod alibi videbimus Ps 35:3 …,” on Ps 3:3 (CO 31,53); “sicuti et Psalmo 107:32 …,” on Ps 138:1 (CO 32,372) etc.

20

Calvin as Bible Translator

3.1.4 Context An ever-present factor, and often the decisive one in Calvin’s translation, is context. Countless times he justifies his translation with the call to this, be it the historical-personal context of the supplicant, or above all the streams of thought and overall aim of the speech, which run through the Psalm.44 Even the Psalms are read by Calvin in their rhetorical dimension. The line of thought and argumentation of the whole Psalm determines the meaning of single expressions, words and images. An expression, which is indeed justified in a given context from the lexicon, but in the context thus-construed makes no sense, Calvin does not let stand, and this in distinction from the Vulgate and even sometimes Pagninus. One everywhere encounters Calvin’s decision for such a translation variant, which integrates itself in the structure and flow of speech, and which is the least “forced” (coactus) translation.45 While most of the here-enumerated characteristics of Calvin’s translation work are likewise to be found in other translators from the guild in which he is to be counted, the weight that the speech context takes on for Calvin can be regarded as his “proprium.” 3.2 Two Examples Two arbitrarily chosen examples should illustrate Calvin’s rigorous attempt at the hebraica veritas – which are also representative of the resources he uses. 3.2.1 Psalm 55:22/23 Ps 55:22/2346 says: ʪʕ ʡʍ ʤʕ ʍʩ ʤʕʥʤʍʩʚʬʔʲ ʟʪʒʬˇʔ ʍʤ The Vulgate (according to LXX) reads, “iacta super dominum curam tuam.”47 “Cast your cares” or “your sorrows” “on the Lord”. Calvin admits that this rendering is well and piously meant, but it does not correspond to the Hebrew wording. The Hebrew word “jahav” (ʡʕʤʍʩ) means, “to give”, and as a substantive a “gift”. Expressions like “care”, “worry” or “burden”, that is, “curam tuam” or “onus tuum”, cannot be justified by the Hebrew grammar, even if the majority of Hebrew gramma44 For example, “Coactum est, ac refelli poterit ex contextu …” on Ps 37:1 (CO 31,366). 45 For example, “quod melius contextui congruere visum est elegi,” on Ps 31:10 (CO 31,306); “quod ego libenter recipio, quia cum toto contextu optime convenit,” on Ps 46:1 (CO 31,460). 46 See Pucket, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament, 62. 47 The Vulgate reflecting the Hebrew: “proiice super dominum caritatem tuam.”

Peter Opitz

21

rians translate with “burden” / “onus.” They did so, Calvin suspects, because they could not make sense of the phrase otherwise. But one does not encounter the verb “jahav” in the Bible in the sense of “onerare”, laying a burden on someone, nor does the substantive “jahav” occur there in the sense of “burden”. Instead, Calvin translates, “Proiice super Jehova tuum dare.”48 But what could this mean in the context of this verse? Calvin’s respect both for the speech context of Psalm 55 and for the lexical possibilities of an expression within the frames of biblical Hebrew, leads him to embrace another, in fact more complicated, interpretation which bears a “fruitful sense” as well: If we understand the “tuum dare” or “dare nostrum” passively (i.e. from our perspective), in the sense of all the “gifts” that we expect God to gives us for our vital needs, it produces a “useful” meaning: namely, that we are invited not to concern ourselves about what we need but to leave this all to God’s providence. Such interpretation corresponds entirely with the context, as the verse in fact continues with, “he (God) will provide for you,” or as Calvin translates more closely to the Hebrew wording, “he himself will feed (or, pasture) you:” “et ipse te pascet.” Whether this translation of Calvin’s is far from being “forced” can seriously be asked. However, Calvin’s meticulous concern for the grammatical and lexical possibilities leaves him no choice, apart from relinquishing a meaningful translation. But from where did he get the requisite knowledge for this translation, and which Hebrew grammarians did he consult? All he needed for this was Pagninus’ “Thesaurus Linguae sanctae”, which Estienne printed in Geneva in 1548. Therein Pagninus quotes David Kimchi who has translated the verb ʡʕʤʍʩ with “to give”, and points to Ps. 55:23 for an example of its use in this sense.49 In addition, Pagninus informs the reader about Kimchi’s criticism on many Hebrew interpreters who had translated the word with “onus” or “pondus”.50 Obviously Calvin relies very heavily on Pagnini’s report about Kimchi’s translation of Ps 55:22/23, even as far as the “useful sense” is concerned, but not without an independent look at the biblical text.

48 CO 31,544. 49 “Proiice super domini ʪʍʡʤʕ ʍʩ acsi dicat, quod dedit tibi usque ad hunc diem, ait R.D. in li. ra. Proiice super illum quod opus habes, et ipse educabit te, quemadmodum hactenus fecit. Vel est (ait idem) nomen: acsi dicat: dona tua proiice super eum, quia ipse donabit illa tibi, teque nutriet.” See Pagninus, 421 (on ʡʕʤʍʩ). 50 See Pagninus, 421 (on ʡʕʤʍʩ). (In Münster the basic meaning “dedit” is indeed given at first, but then it is translated in connection with the meaning “onus, pondus” (ʡʕʤʍʩ) in reference to Ps 55; Dictionarium Hebraicum iam ultimo ab authore Sebastiano Munstero recognitum … [Froben (Basileae), 1548]).

22

Calvin as Bible Translator

3.2.3 Psalm 28/29:151 How should it be understood, and translated, when there is talk in Ps. 28/29:1 of “bne elim” (ʭʩʑʬʠʒ ʩʒʰˎʍ ), who are summoned to give God the glory? The entire verse reads: ʦʝʲʕʥ ʣˣʡʕ˗ ʤʕʥʤʩʔʬ ˒ʡʕʤ ʭʩʑʬʠʒ ʩʒʰˎʍ ʤʕʥʤʩʔʬ ˒ʡʕʤ The Vulgate (LXX) translated, “adferte Domino filii Dei, adferte Domino filios arietum.” Calvin first of all refuses the expression “sons of rams / Aries” (filios arietum):52 according to Calvin it is known that the Septuagint53 was confused by the similarity of expressions.54 By contrast the Hebraist interpreters were agreed as to the tenor. Nevertheless, in their interpretations they forsook the “genuinus sensus” and gave themselves over to pure fantasies: some identified the “filii Dei” with the stars, others with the angels, and still others with the fathers. Against these Calvin insisted on the simplest sense, which lay near to the author’s direction of thought: in the context of the invocation to praise God it is God’s arrogant enemies, the princes of the world, who are being addressed. According to Calvin’s interpretation, David wants to break their pride and summon them to humility before the superior power of God, because the entire 29th Psalm in fact speaks of this power. Calvin thus tries to remain as closely as possible to the Hebrew text, but this within the total context of the Psalm, and to this end suffers the not-exactly-fluid Latin formulation “filii fortium:” “Afferte Iehova, filii fortium, afferte Iehovae gloriam eius.” Hence he at once avoids translating the Hebrew word “elim” with “gods,” and thereby the expression, “sons of the gods.” Instead, with “filii fortium” the sons of the mighty are mentioned here, always inclined to abusing their power. This is a characteristic example of Calvin’s translation work in the Psalms, because it is at the same time a clue to his theological penchant: to him, what the Psalter presents is essentially a matter of the glory of God and its recognition among humankind, its reflection in their social, day-to-day

51 Psalm 28:1 in the Septuagint, 29:1 in the Masoretic Text. 52 CO 31, 286f. 53 Psalm 28/29:1: ‫ۂ‬Ȟ‫ܙ‬ȖțĮIJİ IJ‫ ޓ‬țȣȡ‫ ސܝ‬ȣ۟Ƞ‫ ܜ‬șİȠ‫ۂ ޅ‬Ȟ‫ܙ‬ȖțĮIJİ IJ‫ ޓ‬țȣȡ‫ ސܝ‬ȣ۟Ƞ‫ܠ‬Ȣ țȡȚ‫ޒ‬Ȟ ‫ۂ‬Ȟ‫ܙ‬ȖțĮIJİ IJ‫ ޓ‬țȣȡ‫ ސܝ‬į‫ܟ‬ȟĮȞ țĮ‫ ܜ‬IJȚȝ‫ܛ‬Ȟ. 54 The LXX expands the phrase “sons of ʬʒʠ” into two, parallel expressions of supernatural and super-powerful existences, treating the first as a nominative / vocative (ΙϡΓϠȱ ΌΉΓІ) and the second as an accusative (ΙϡΓϿΖȱΎΕ΍ЗΑ). Calvin claims that this duplication is a mistake owing to the translators’ uncertainty vis-à-vis the phrase’s meaning and the similarity between ʬʒʠ and the word for “ram,” ʬʑʩˋ, which can also signify loftiness and power. (The Hebrew ʬʒʠ generally refers to “God” or “the gods,” but appears in contexts of strength; so, e.g., in Ps. 36:6/7 ʬʒʠʚʩʒʸʸʍ ʤʔ ˗ʍ could read, “like the mountains of God,” or just, “like the mighty mountains.”) To avoid the LXX’s alleged mistake Calvin chose a single, “sons of the mighty.”

Peter Opitz

23

living55, both in the life of the faithful and of the congregation. Consequently, the Psalm does not inform us about angelic hierarchies but address the arrogance of political powerful peope. Where does Calvin get his knowledge concerning semantics and existing interpretive variants? He finds it to hand in Bucer’s interpretation. In Bucer, simple consonantality is adduced for confusing similar Hebrew words (ʭʩʬʠ ʩʰʡ / ʭʩʬʩʠ ʩʰʡ) and referenced for the Septuagint’s mistake.56 In addition Abraham Ibn Ezra is named, who wanted to translate the expression with “stars.” Bucer himself reckoned that with “filii elohim” are intended all who are near to God, i.e. the angels and the blessed fathers. But he then pleads in respect of this phrase that here to be understood foremost are the earthly holders of power. Calvin does exactly the same, though more deterministically, and therefore relies not only upon Bucer’s description, but aligns himself also with his evaluation. Yet his translation tries to stay nearer to the Hebrew wording. Bucer clearly allows for more interpretation: “Date Autophyi, qui virtute praestantis, date Autophyi decus et potentiae laudem.”57 Even if the entire collection of works used by Calvin during his translation efforts are not firmly established, some things point to a relatively restricted number of critical aids, which still connect Calvin with Paris humanists, Basel, Strasburg, and Zürich. 3.3 On the Theological Dimension of Calvin’s Translation Work The last example makes it clear that translation problems always go together with establishing a (possible or to-be-excluded) “sense,” and thereby refer to a theological dimension. It is not otherwise with Calvin. 3.3.1 Ps. 119:112 So Psalm 119:112 in the Vulgate (LXX) is translated as follows: “inclinavi cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes in aeternum propter retributionem;” Hebrew (for the final clause): ʡʓʷʲʒ ʭʕʬˣʲʍʬ. 55 On Calvin’s theology of the Psalms see, conclusively, H.J. Selderhuis, Gott in der Mitte: Calvins Theologie der Psalmen (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlag Anst., 2004; English edition: Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, Grand Rapids 2007); on the relationship between God’s providence (Gottesbezug) and day-to-day living (Lebensvollzug): E. Busch, Gotteserkenntnis und Menschlichkeit: Einsichten in die Theologie Johannes Calvins (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005). 56 Bucer, 152f (what the modern Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis, by the way, presently confirms). 57 Bucer, ibid.

24

Calvin as Bible Translator

That Calvin could not be happy with this translation is obvious. The key word is the Hebrew ʡʓʷʲʒ , which can be translated in Latin as “mercedes” or “ad finem usque.” Calvin decided for the second possibility. However, immediately before this already stands “in eternity.” Calvin thus explains the material doubling as repetition in different words for the sake of highlighting: “Dictio ʡʷʲ exegetice meo iudicio addita est ad ʭʬʥʲʬ.” Calvin’s translation therefore runs, “Inclinavi cor meum ad facienda edicta tua in perpetuum in finem.” That is not necessarily elegant Latin. In this formulation Calvin goes his own way, but in material consensus both with Leo Jud in the Biblia sacrosancta, and within reach of Bucer, as well as analogically near to the annotations of the Bibla sacra of 1556/57.58 3.3.2 The Horizon In comparing Calvin to other exegetes – one thinks to some extent of the implicitness with which Pagninus bound the search after the hebraica veritas with the search after the mystical sense of the text – one must with Calvin look very minutely in order to find such theologically motivated translations. His translations as a rule are carried out in a much more markedly literal fashion, as are also his clarifications of textual meanings, and indeed are scarcely overloaded theologically. This really has to do with the broader hermeneutical horizon in which Calvin reads (even) the Psalms: the contemplation of the one people (Bundes), which the Bible witnesses and the room allowed within a historically fulfilled relationship with God (to be understood of course in an early modern sense) for a great diversity of individual and social lives.59 With this the Psalms contain the possibility, in an unfamiliar oriental speech- and conceptual tradition, of being a witness of the relationship between God and his people of God at an earlier age, and as such of serving as mirror and standard for a contemporary Christian people of God. Associated with Calvin’s conviction of God’s self58 Jud translated: “Adiecit animum meum decretis tuis, ut exequar illa in finem usque, et adeo aeternum;” Biblia sacrosancta. Bucer: “Inclinavi cor meum, ad faciendum cerimonias tuas, in seculum et absque fine.” The Biblia sacra, finally, translated “Inclinavi cor meum ad faciendum statuta tua in seculum et usque in aeternum.” In the respective comments it is explained: “Et usque in aeternum ʡʷʲ et usque in finem. sub. vitae meae. i. quamdiu vivam;” Biblia Sacra. The possibility of translating with “merces” does not come up there once. Naturally, however, the material consensus of “protestant” translations is not coincidental. The rendering does not just become recorded a little later in lists of the classic, talked about, theologically controversial Bible verses. Its translation remains controversial until today – although no longer along confessional borders – as a glance at modern translations of the Bible and commentaries teaches. 59 See P. Opitz, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994); idem, “The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin,” in M. Saebø/M. Fishbane/J. L. Ska (eds.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation (HBOT), vol. II, From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, B Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 106–159.

Peter Opitz

25

people of God. Associated with Calvin’s conviction of God’s selfaccommodative speaking into a particular time, and with his humanistic knowledge concerning language in its manifold modes and possibilities, a broader realm opened itself to him in which to bear out the hebraica veritas with its related complexities. The biblical Hebrew language is a language, which is true, without consisting of timeless-concordant combinations of ideas or bearing a mystical sense. Its grammar, its semantic ranges, its metaphors and imagery, and its respective historical-situational mooring esteem it worthy of taking into account. Hence the best philologists and Hebraists of the time are here consulted, whether they come from the rabbinicJudaic, Catholic-Hebraistic, or Protestant-Hebraistic camp. Concurrently, Calvin can likewise find a useful truth in the text, without being forced to extract it unmotivated from its historical context, a common method of traditional “Christological” or “eschatological” overinterpretation of individual words and phrases. With turns of phrase, which on linguistic grounds defy a clear-cut solution, Calvin can sometimes cede the decision even to the reader.

4. Conclusion Calvin’s translations of the Bible are not to be judged apart from their various contexts. His translation of the Psalms as part of his lectures at the Genevan “school” stands in the context of the humanistic-Reformed tendency to come as close as possible to the tenor of the source language, with the contemporary language of scholars. When one compares Calvin’s translation with those translations he thoroughly consulted (Vulgate, Septuagint, Münster, Jud/Bibliander, Pagnini, Bucer), Calvin proves himself to be an independent translator of the Hebrew, who at the same time stays in constant contact with other formulations without deciding uncritically for one of these, as is to be expected of an exegetical lecture. If Calvin’s Hebrew hardly suffices to make it profitable to conduct a separate study of the Bomberg Bible, he was however in the situation to develop his own, substantiated judgment based on his knowledge of Hebrew and on the aids available to him. In essence, he relied upon the information that the variants and annotations of the above-named printings of the Bible and Bucer’s commentary gave to him. His confidence in the reliability of Abraham Ibn Ezra and Kimchi is certainly above all to be traced back to Bucer, as is a great deal of his awareness of different translation suggestions, to which Bucer extensively referred in his commentary. Kimchi’s

26

Calvin as Bible Translator

“Book of Roots” in the edition of Pagninus, which Estienne printed also in Geneva in 1548, was presumably the central aid for independent work on the Hebrew text. Thereby the special skill of the corresponding authorities superseded their confessional, even religious affiliation. As a rule the units Calvin found difficult to translate, which he accordingly discussed and sometimes translated in a not entirely satisfactory manner, are exactly those which still present difficulties for modern translation and exegesis. Peculiar to Calvin’s translation is his attempt to be as curt and precise as possible. “Perspicua brevitas” applied equally to his interpretation and its accompanying, inevitably unique translation of the Psalms, as well as to his presentation of the specialists’ discourse. At the same time Calvin is at pains to hold translation and interpretation apart, and especially to take context into account as the decisive factor in translating challenging expressions, without overstepping an expression’s framework of semantic and grammatical possibilities. The contextually obvious translation is preferred to the spiritually profound or religiously edifying. Therein he followed that tradition of translation, which put elegant Latin aside in favor of staying as closely as possible to the Hebrew text. Calvin was called (allegedly) to be a theologian with determined views, and this went for the interpretation of biblical accounts and passages of text. In light of his activity as translator of the Hebrew Psalter, this impression cannot be readily maintained. The often very narrow dismissals of, in his eyes, incorrect translations are to be understood in the context of his effort at brevity concerning the background of the abovementioned, available, alternative translations. Even the late Calvin presents his translation proposals humbly, and offers them with grounds for discussion. Translated by Aaron T. Smith

John Calvin’s Nonliteral Exegesis

Gary Hansen

1. Introduction: Background and Approach I would like to start by giving a little bit of background, first on my interest in this area of research, and second on the issues in the texts we will be examining today. 1 First became interested in this topic when I noted, especially among writers of a previous generation, that Calvin had a reputation for being quite literal in his exegesis of Scripture. I found this curious because as I read the pages of Calvin’s commentaries it seemed that he left the literal meaning of the text behind on many occasions. I saw, as I am sure you have seen, that Calvin had a very consistent, thoughtful, even profound method of biblical interpretation. He did not however consistently choose the literal meaning of texts. As I began to discern the principles behind Calvin’s exegetical work by studying his exegesis in his New Testament commentaries, I discerned at least five distinct modes of nonliteral interpretation of Scripture. I will mention four of these nonliteral modes briefly here, in the context of discussing some of Calvin’s principles of interpretation: These are first, replacement of problematic texts with meanings from other biblical texts (which seems to amount, at times, to a privileging of Calvin’s own theological system); second, inferring of the author’s or character’s thoughts; third, discernment of rhetorical devices; and fourth, typological interpretation. The fifth, allegorical interpretation, is what we will examine in our texts today.

1 The following texts were distributed in advance for discussion: Calvin’s commentary on Acts 7,30, OE XII/1, 194(33–34) and 196(26)–197(13); on Exodus 3,2, CO 24,36; on Genesis 15,17, CO 23,221; on Psalm 46,5 [6 by his numbering] CO 9,462–463; on Hebrews 7,3, OE XIX, 106–107; on Acts 28,1–3, OE XII/2, 300(8–12, 20–32) and 301(1–9); Dionysius the Carthusian on Acts 7,30, Opera Omnia v. 14:127 (col. 2); on the literal sense of Exodus 3,2, Opera Omnia v. 1:494(col.1)–494(col. 2); on the spiritual sense of Exodus 3,1, Opera Omnia v. 1:502(col. 1–2).

28

Nonliteral Exegesis

2. The Author’s Intended Meaning Calvin does discuss the literal meaning of the text with favor and states at times that the literal is the desirable sense. 2 More often though, what Calvin says he is seeking is the genuine sense which, for Calvin, is the meaning intended by the author of the text. In fact, frequently when he explicitly refers to the literal sense (ad litteram or ad verbum), it is to explain problems with that sense. In such passages, what Calvin seems to mean by the literal is the unadorned grammatical rendering of the words, without any nuance, such as that provided by metaphor or other rhetorical devices. Calvin takes these devices of rhetoric to be inherent to human communication, whether written or spoken. Therefore a meaning that does not take metaphors into account cannot be the meaning the author intended to convey. Though it may be the literal meaning of the words, it cannot be the genuine sense of the text. This idea, that Calvin sought the genuine sense, defined as the meaning intended by the author of the text, helps to make sense of much of his interpretation of Scripture. In his interpretation of biblical texts, the author can mean the human writer who put pen to paper, or God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired or even dictated to that human writer. This twofold understanding of authorship both complicates and simplifies Calvin’s search for the author’s intended meaning of Scripture. The case seems to be complicated by the fact that both the human authors and the Divine Author are noticeably reticent to reply to questions. Calvin’s only route to the authors’ intended meaning is to infer it from other evidence.

3. Substitution of Meanings from Other Texts It is this other evidence from which Calvin seeks to deduce the divine author’s meaning (or even the human author’s meaning) which makes the case more simple. Calvin will assume that any given author will speak consistently, or write consistently in various contexts and times. In texts by the apostle Paul (and other writers who wrote more than one book of Scripture) Calvin is able to compare texts, using assertions or statements in one passage to make sense of other passages. Paul says clear and consistent things on 2 See, for example his comments on Galatians 4,22, in OE 16:107. “Sciamus ergo eum esse verum Scripturae sensum, qui germanus est ac simplex, eumque amplectamur et mordicus teneamus. Fictitias expositionees, quae a literali sensu abducunt, non modo negligamus tanquam dubias, sed fortiter repudiemus tanquam exitiales corruptelas.”

Gary Hansen

29

such issues as the function God’s choice and human choice in salvation, the place of faith or law in the Christian life, and so on. Calvin knows these passages, and they form his sense of the meaning Paul intends in Scripture. When he encounters passages that assert other points of view, he can declare that their literal sense does not convey the apostle’s meaning. When one views God as the ultimate author of Scripture the scope of comparison becomes the Bible as a whole. What God has said clearly and consistently in passage after passage, in book after book, and in both Testaments, indicates to Calvin the Divine Author’s intended meaning of Scripture as a whole. If any passage seems to contradict that message, Calvin can, in a sense, override its literal meaning with what he has found to be the Author’s intended meaning throughout Scripture. This is, for Calvin, a common way of embodying the widespread practice of interpreting Scripture with Scripture. 3 This is our first nonliteral mode of interpretation: To a greater or lesser degree, in cases of this kind Calvin leaves behind the literal sense of the text at hand, replacing its meaning with what he discerns from other passages. This is seen most plainly as a mode of nonliteral interpretation in passages where Calvin appears to let the doctrines discerned from Scripture as a whole override the literal sense of particular passages, with or without mentioning his articulation of the doctrine in the Institutes. This happens clearly in certain passages of Calvin’s comments on the First letter of John, for example 1 John 2,1–3. There, when the apostle seems to imply that perfect sinless life is possible and expected, Calvin reminds us that no one lives without sin. 4 When the apostle seems to imply that salvation is universal, Calvin reminds us that salvation is for all who have faith, not the reprobate. 5 When the apostle seems to imply that obedience is the key to the know3 There is a spectrum of such interpretations, varying in the distance between the text being interpreted and the text being given precedence, all of which could be illustrated quite easily from the commentaries. The spectrum starts with comparison of two instances of the same human author’s words. Next are places where words of one biblical author are compared with the words of a different biblical author, on the assumption that behind these human authors one Divine Author is speaking consistently. Next are places where Calvin refers the reader to elsewhere in his own commentaries or the Institutes because the interpretive issue is similar to that in another text or texts and has been discussed more fully there. Finally, there are places where, in contradiction to the passage under consideration, Calvin simply asserts a doctrine which he knows well to be the teaching of many other passages of Scripture. Though in such cases Calvin does not typically mention the Institutes, one must know the synthesis of Scripture found in the Institutes to quite make sense of his interpretation. 4 Comments on 1 John 2,1, CO 55,308. “Conditionalis particula si quis, debet in causalem resolvi: nam fieri non potest quin peccemus.” 5 Comments on 1 John 2,2, CO 55,310. “Non pro nostris solum. Amplificationis causa hoc addidit, ut certo persuasi sint fideles, expiationem a Christo partam ad omnes extendi qui evangelium fide amplexi fuerint.” Also, “Ergo sub omnibus, reprobos non comprehendit: sed eos designat

30

Nonliteral Exegesis

ledge of God, Calvin reminds us that faith is really the key, as the source of justification. 6 In this discussion Calvin did not mention the Institutes, but that is where one will find fully articulated the views that he brings in opposition to the text of First John. Calvin would, I think, be appalled at the idea that he is letting his own personal opinions override the text of Scripture, the revealed word of God. He would, I think, explain to his accuser that the Institutes are simply the summary and orderly arrangement of those things that Scripture teaches consistently and clearly. To bring the Institutes into an argument against the problematic plain denotation of a particular passage of Scripture is simply to interpret Scripture with Scripture, or at least with Scriptural theology.

4. Inference of Characters’ Thoughts Calvin faced a different, but analogous, problem when interpreting narrative passages of Scripture. Unlike the epistles, and perhaps the Gospel of John, where doctrinal and edifying content is prominent throughout, the narratives of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels are typically quite lean. Calvin is convinced, both by Paul’s words to Timothy and by his background in humanism, that the text of Scripture should be useful to the Christian. 7 When narrative action unfolds without the text providing any theological interpretation it could seem puzzling. Calvin responds, not by drawing a meaning contrary to the literal meaning of the text, but by moving beyond the literal limits of the text. This is our second nonliteral mode of interpretation: Calvin imputes edifying and doctrinally appropriate meanings that simply are not to be found in the text itself. He does this by asserting that he knows the intended meaning of the authors, and even the unspoken thoughts of the characters, including God, whose providential work lies behind the action of all history, and especially the stories of the biblical text.

qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant. Tunc enim vere, ut par est, illustratur Christi gratia, quum unica esse mundi salus praedicatur”. 6 Comments on 1 John 2,3, CO 55,311. “Nec vero inde colligendum est, fidem in opera recumbere. Tametsi enim suae quisque fidei testimonium habet ab operibus: non tamen sequitur illic fundatam esse, quum posterior haec probatio instar signi accedat. Certitudo itaque fidei in sola Christi gratia residet: sed pietas et sanctitas vitae veram fidem a ficta et mortua Dei notitia discernit: quia haec veritas est in Christo (ut ait Paulus Colos. 3, 9) exuisse veterem hominem, etc.” 7 See 2 Timothy 3,16–17, and Bouwsma, W.J., John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait, New York 1988, 159.

Gary Hansen

31

This can be seen clearly in the passage from Calvin’s comments on Acts chapter 28. In his exposition of this rather plain narrative of the apostle’s shipwreck on Malta and its aftermath, Calvin adds to the text by telling us God’s intentions and thoughts. God, Calvin says, prompted mercy in the Maltese people, and Calvin even knows why: It was to make sure the promise would be fulfilled. Likewise God directed the snake to come out and bite Paul so that his apostleship could be confirmed.8 There will be no surprise that Paul comes off as hero on all counts, showing himself a worthy example of piety and ministry, even when the text does not describe his actions in any detail. Despite the silence of the text, Calvin tells us in his comments on verse six that Paul objected to being thought of as a god, and that despite the apparent language barrier, the apostle quite possibly taught the barbarians. 9 Since Calvin, like the other reformers, insists on grounding doctrine in the explicit teaching of scriptural texts, such additions to the biblical text may seem surprising. One should note, however, that Calvin does not ground doctrine in such assertions. He simply adds doctrinally appropriate inferences to the texts. This appears to me to be a common homiletical strategy, and an application of Augustine’s rule of love, where a meaning is acceptable if it encourages love of God and neighbor. It is also, implicitly, interpretation of Scripture with Scripture, since one can find other biblical texts where such things are taught explicitly. So, in Calvin’s search for the author’s intended meaning, with his assumption that God is the ultimate author of all of Scripture and his assumption that authors will write things that are consistent from text to text, we have already found two nonliteral modes of interpretation. He replaces the meaning of problematic texts with doctrinally acceptable meanings from other texts, and he imputes edifying meanings to doctrinally vague narrative texts.

8 Comments on Acts 28,1–3, OE XII/2:300–301. “[…] dubium tamen non est, quin Melitensium animos ad clementiam Deus flexerit, ut firma rataque foret sua promissio, quae mutila videri poterat, si cui exitiale fuisset naufragium.” “Nec vero casu erupit ex sarmentis vipera. Sed Dominus, quod in Euangelii sui gloriam fore videbat, eam ad mordendum Paulum arcano suo consilio direxit.” 9 Comments on Acts 28,6, OE XII/2:303. “Et certe non solum unius sceleris damnari magis optasset Paulus, sed etiam omni infamiae genere obrui, adeoque demergi usque ad inferos, quam Dei gloriam ad se trahere. […] Fieri tamen potest, ut postea edocti, agnoverint Deum miraculi authorem.”

32

Nonliteral Exegesis

5. Rhetorical Devices Calvin’s search for the author’s intended meaning is also shaped by his assumptions about language and communication. Most importantly, Calvin assumes that the figures of speech and other elements of the ancient art of rhetoric are inherent to human communication. As you know, one frequently sees him observing such rhetorical tropes as metaphor, synecdoche, and metonymy. One also frequently finds him observing structures of arguments, as categorized by Cicero and Quintilian, in the speech of the apostles and the Almighty. He often finds such arguments as from greater to the lesser, or from lesser to the greater, or arguments from contraries. What is less obvious is that on some occasions Calvin uses his discernment of rhetorical tropes and arguments to conclude that the genuine meaning of a text is different from what its literal words seem to indicate. A notable example is in the text of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 9,1–8 and parallels), where four people bring a paralyzed man to Christ on a stretcher. The text tells us that Christ looks at their faith and says to the man on the stretcher “Your sins are forgiven”. The most obvious reading is that Christ is looking at the faith of the four stretcher bearers and forgiving the paralytic. This is unacceptable to Calvin. As he says, “As regards the present passage, even though Christ is said to have been moved by the faith of others, the paralytic could not have gained the forgiveness of sins, unless he had his own faith.” One can only be forgiven for one’s own faith. This much is known from the plain sense of the clearest passages of Scripture, namely the teachings of the apostle Paul. Here, though, Calvin justifies his assertion by discerning a rhetorical trope: “So there is a synecdoche in the word their, for Christ did not so much attend to those who carried the paralytic, as He looked at the faith of the man himself”. 10 So, by assuming the evangelists’ words embodied rhetorical tropes, an explicit reference to a whole group is taken to apply intentionally only to an individual part. The problem disappears in a rhetorical device, as do other problematic texts where the literal sense is problematic, including references to the fires of hell, the Spirit as a dove, and cutting off one’s body parts for piety’s sake. Although this is a very literary mode of interpretation, this is our third mode of interpretation by which Calvin chooses meanings that are not literal. 10 Comments on Matthew 9,2, CO 45,245. “Quod ad praesentem locum spectat, tametsi aliorum fide motus fuisse dicitur Christus, consequi tamen paralyticus remissionem peccatorum non potuit, nisi propriam ipse haberet fidem. […] Quare synecdoche est in voce illorum, quia non ita respexit Christus eos, qui paralyticum ferebant, quin eius quoque fidem intuitus fuerit.” The translation is from A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 1, trans. A.W. Morrison, in: Torrance, D.W./Torrance, T.F. (eds.), Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids 1972, 1:258.

Gary Hansen

33

6. Typology as the Rhetoric of Scripture As well as finding these ordinary human speech patterns in the Bible, Calvin points to particular patterns of speech which are distinctive of Scripture itself. This is how I would frame Calvin’s use of typological interpretation of Scripture. Readers of Calvin’s commentaries are familiar with the way he takes persons, events, and objects in the Old Testament to typologically prefigure features of the New Testament. The language and logic of typological relations is for Calvin distinctive of Scripture. Perhaps we might call this a rhetoric of Scripture or perhaps it is a something more than rhetoric. Perhaps it is an attempt to speak of the logic of eternity as it is expressed in the time-bound texts of Scripture. Calvin developed the language and thought forms of his typological understanding of Scripture in his Hebrews commentary, because unlike Paul, the author of the letter to the Hebrews made much use of these terms and concepts in relating the Old Testament to the New. But as well as finding typological terms and concepts in the text itself, Calvin learned to apply these concepts and terms to find alternatives to difficult literal meanings. This happens in the text from Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 7. The author of Hebrews says, quite explicitly, that Melchizedek had no father or mother, and that Melchizedek was, like Christ, eternal. Calvin explains the issue in the language of types. The author of Hebrews is not, he says, speaking of Melchizedek as an individual human being. As a human being, of course Melchizedek had parents, and by implication was born and died in time. The text, he says, speaks of Melchizedek as a type of Christ. In discerning the type, one should focus only on the specific details mentioned by Scripture, and these all point to Christ. The text is silent about Melchizedek’s parentage, birth, and genealogy; Christ more fully and truly has miraculous birth and parentage, and is in fact eternal. 11 And so we have a fourth mode of nonliteral interpretation: Calvin brings the language of types and typology to explain a text whose literal meaning seems simply absurd. 11 Comments on Hebrews 7,3, OE XIX, 106–107. “Certum quidem est, a parentibus fuisse progenitum. Sed hic de eo tanquam privato homine Apostolus non disputat; quin potius illum induit persona Christi. Itaque nihil aliud sibi in eo intueri permittit, quam quod Scriptura docet. Nam in omnibus quae ad Christum pertinent, tractandis, ea adhibenda est religio, ut nihil sapiamus nisi ex verbo Domini. Nunc quum Spiritus sanctus Regem sui temporis praestantissimum inducens, de ortu eius taceat, nec postea mentionem ullam faciat mortis, none hoc perinde valet acsi commendata esset eius aeternitas? Quod autem in Melchisedec fuit adumbratum, vere in Christo exhibitum est. […] Atqui Melchisedec non hic in privata (ut aiunt) qualitate, sed quatenus sacer est Christi typus, consideratur.” Modern exegetes argue that the author was applying an ancient rabbinical rule of Midrashic interpretation by which what the text does not mention explicitly cannot be considered to exist. Note that Calvin includes in his rule for his discernment of types of Christ something quite similar to the Midrashic rule.

34

Nonliteral Exegesis

All of this is an attempt to show that Calvin frequently makes exegetical and interpretive moves to draw meanings from the text of Scripture which were not the literal meaning of the texts he was interpreting. Sometimes his interpretations contradicted the literal sense of the text, and sometimes they simply supplemented or made sense of it. All of the interpretive practices discussed here fit with various principles and priorities that Calvin expresses about the interpretation of Scripture.

7. Allegory The mode of interpretation found in the first series of texts is more surprising. Our focus will be on his comments on the scene of the burning bush, first in Acts chapter 7 (where it is cited in Stephen’s speech before his martyrdom) and Exodus Chapter 3, though these texts will lead us to the others. We will focus on them in the order in which Calvin wrote on them rather than the canonical order. This portion of the Acts commentary was published in 1552 and the comments on Exodus, in the harmony of the last four books of Moses, were published in 1563. Both commentaries refer to Psalm 46,5, so his commentary on that verse is included. The Exodus commentary refers the reader to the text of Genesis 15,17, so the pertinent section of the Genesis commentary is included as well. In commenting on the burning bush Calvin engages in what can only be described as allegorical interpretation of Scripture, the definitively nonliteral form of interpretation. Calvin’s definition of allegory is drawn from the rhetorical tradition: Allegory is an extended metaphor, where the things in the text refer us to a complex of meanings beyond themselves. In very short summary, for Calvin the burning bush represents the suffering church, which, by the power of God’s presence in its midst, is not destroyed by the fires of persecution. This is more surprising. First, it is surprising because Calvin frequently complains vehemently and polemically against those who interpret scripture allegorically. He views this aspect of medieval biblical interpretation as a corrupt tree which he more or less frequently blames on Origen of Alexandria as the diseased root. Of course when he finds allegories within the biblical texts, he cannot disapprove: when the letter to the Galatians says that Sarah and Hagar are on allegory, Calvin is forced to commend Paul’s interpretation as beautiful 12 , and he will be affirming of allegory in reference to Christ’s parables 12 Argumentum, Galatians OE XVI:9. “Circa finem capitis pulchra allegoria suam disputationem exornat.”

Gary Hansen

35

and other metaphorical expressions. This is rare praise. More common descriptions of allegorical interpretation include such terms as absurd, monstrous, and stinking. Second, Calvin’s allegorical interpretation is surprising because it seems rather unnecessary or perhaps misguided. The simple reading of the text, in which the bush burns because God wants Moses’ attention, would seem to be quite adequate. And if the elements are to be taken metaphorically, Calvin’s interpretation is still not the plainest one: the flames which do not consume would seem more easily associated with the presence of God than with the trials of persecution. For Calvin, though, the burning bush bears a meaning integrally connected with the sufferings of the Church of his own day. It is also an interesting text, not only for the seeming oddity of Calvin’s interpretation, but for its influence in the symbolic life of the Reformed tradition. The Presbyterian Church of Canada uses the burning bush in its official crest (as do other Reformed bodies, I believe) with a meaning presumably in harmony with Calvin’s interpretation.

8. Concluding Remarks First, it should be clear that Calvin was both independent in his interpretation, and informed about the historical possibilities. He rejects interpretations that can be found variously in Augustine, Nicholas of Lyra, Dionysius the Carthusian, and others, and he adopts interpretations that can be found there as well. With this comes the difficulty in determining exactly where Calvin saw which interpretations, which Tony Lane has so admirably shown us in his work. 13 Second, in these texts it has become clear that Calvin’s engagement in allegorical interpretation is much like the allegories in the literal commentaries of Dionysius the Carthusian. The difference lies in the clarity of Calvin’s rules of interpretation: The legitimacy of an allegory is improved if the pieces of the extended metaphor to which it points are present in the literal sense of other parts of Scripture, as the promise of God’s presence preserving the people of God is found in Psalm 46. Also a rule of signification must be followed. He articulates this first with reference to the sacraments, and later with the symbols of the theophany in Genesis 15,17. In this rule, the sign must be analogous to the thing signified, and it is interpreted 13 Lane, A.N.S., John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, Edinburgh and Grand Rapids 1999, noting especially the theses on p. 1–13.

36

Nonliteral Exegesis

with reference to the word annexed to it. This relation is much closer in the Genesis text, where the deliverance of the people is promised in words and can be taken to be symbolized by the fire passing through the smoke. With this established more literally in Genesis, Calvin has grounds to continue the association in Exodus. Though he takes the flame in Exodus to represent persecution (whereas in Genesis the fire was a promise of God’s deliverance) again there is a verbal promise of deliverance, and again there is a visual symbol of endurance. When one compares Calvin with Dionysius’ spiritual commentary the difference is striking. The metaphorical connections that Dionysius makes in his spiritual commentary are fascinating, even brilliant, but far more removed from the events of Exodus, and do seem to root Christian doctrine in allegory in ways with which Calvin could hardly be sympathetic. More importantly, in Dionysius’ spiritual allegory there is not a clear analogy between the signs and the things signified, and the word of promise annexed to it must itself be taken metaphorically to be used to interpret the symbols.

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology: Three Dogma-Historical Observations

Wim Janse

1. Introduction In the same way as it is impossible to speak of Augustine or the Reformation, Calvin also never really existed. The existence of the eucharistic theology of Calvin is just such a fiction. In spite of this, textbooks seem to manage two-line summaries of “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper”. What is more, they base these on the summa theologiae that the “man of a single book” 1 published five years before the end of his life, the 1559 Institutes, which they use as their one and only source 2 or as a kind of reading guide for his opera omnia. 3 Alternatively, they use as their basis the consensus that Calvinus oecumenicus, almost forty years old, concluded with the Zurich preachers, as being arguably an adequate expression of his sacramentology: the Mutua consensio or Consensus Tigurinus (1549). 4 Of course nobody can avoid making use of such summaries every now and then. My own favourite one-liner is: Calvin’s pneumatological instrumentalism moved between the Scylla of Luther’s sacramental realism and the Charybdis of Zwingli’s spiritualistic symbolism. Decidedly helpful is Brian A. Gerrish’s famous characterization of Calvin’s, Bullinger’s, and Zwingli’s eucharistic views as, respectively, symbolic instrumentalism,

1 Smits, L., Saint Augustin dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin, 2 vols., Assen 1957–1958, 1, 1. I would like to express my thanks to Kees de Wildt (Dordrecht) for his careful reading of an earlier version of this contribution. 2 So, e.g., McDonnell, K., John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist, Princeton 1967, 3; McGrath, A.E., A Life of John Calvin, Oxford 1990, 147. 3 So, e.g., Wendel, F., Calvin. Ursprung und Entwicklung seiner Theologie, NeukirchenVluyn 1968, 91; Mathison, K.A., Given for you: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, Phillipsburg 2002, 3–48, esp. 7. 4 Due to Calvin’s claim of its representativeness, Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,46; cf. Beveridge, H. (trans.), Calvin’s Tracts and Treatises (hereafter cited as TT), 3 vols., Edinburgh 1844– 1851; repr. Grand Rapids 1958; included as vols. 1–3 in: Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, 7 vols., Grand Rapids 1983; 2nd vol. repr. Grand Rapids 2002, 2, 247.

38

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

symbolic parallelism, and symbolic memorialism.5 If asked to provide a more substantial thumbnail sketch of Calvin’s views on the Lord’s Supper I would say that, as in all of Calvin’s theology, these also center round the bipolarity and simultaneity of God’s being both far removed and very close: The heart of Calvin’s eucharistic doctrine is his concept of exhibitio, in which NeoPlatonic-Augustinian dualism and Lutheran sacramental realism touch. This point of intersection joins the visible and the invisible, in the consciousness that through the Holy Spirit God actually gives himself to people without committing himself to created beings, and protects against both Zwinglian evaporation and Lutheran Verdinglichung (reification) of the sacramental offering. This concept of exhibitio honors the reality of the gift of grace (because of God’s promise) as well as the mysteryaspect of the Lord’s Supper (because of the transcendence of grace). The wish to maintain the duality of the reality and transcendence of grace forms the real ground for Calvin’s rejection of both the pure symbolism and the Kreaturvergötterung (deification of creation) of gnesio-Lutheran sacramental realism. 6

However, these types of summaries give rise to misunderstandings. Tradition has it that from the first day of his existence Adam was a fully grown man of marriageable age, but Calvin as a theologian did have some growing up to do. His eucharistic thought definitely did not share in the divine characteristic of immutability.7 In spite of Calvin’s own – polemical – claim of consistency 8 , his eucharistic theology is neither the sum total nor the common denominator of all his pronouncements between 1536 and 1564. Let me illustrate this mutability, or rather the dependence on the historical context, of Calvin’s eucharistic thought. On the subject of the sacramental instrumentality that was later to be his trade-mark, the author of the 1536 Institutes was able to make the following, Zwinglianizing and negative statement: “Not because such graces are bound to and enclosed in the sacrament or because the sacrament is an implement or instrument by which they are conferred to us, but, simply, it is by this token that the Lord testifies to us his will”. 9 After Calvin had met the Strasbourg Reformer Martin 5 E.g., Gerrish, B.A., The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confessions, Theology Today 23, 1966, 224–243, repr. in: idem, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, Edinburgh 1982, 118–130; idem, John Calvin and the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, McCormick Quarterly 22/2, 1969, 85–98; idem, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin, Minneapolis 1993, 167. 6 Adapted from Janse, W., Albert Hardenberg als Theologe. Profil eines Bucer-Schülers (SHCT 57), Leiden/New York/Köln 1994, 251. 7 See the epoch-making dissertation of Davis, Th.J., The Clearest Promises of God: The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching (AMS Studies in Religious Tradition 1), New York 1995. 8 See above, n. 4. 9 Inst. (1536), CO 1,115; OS 1,133 (cf. in English: Battles, F.L. (trans./ed.), John Calvin, Institution of the Christian Religion, Atlanta 1975, 134; idem, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids 1995, 99): “Non quia sacramento tales gratiae illigatae inclusaeque sint, aut quod sacramentum organum ac instrumentum sit, quo nobis conferantur, sed duntaxat,

Wim Janse

39

Bucer, who was striving for a consensus with the Lutherans, this sentence was deleted from the 1539 edition of the Institutes. In 1548 it was still possible for the orthodox-Lutheran magistrate of Bremen, who had demanded a communion confession from the town’s heterodox Cathedral preacher, to accept that preacher’s – anonymous – translation and adaptation of Calvin’s Lutheranizing Petit traicté de la saincte cene of 1541 as a certificate of the preacher’s Lutheran orthodoxy.10 In that text, we do indeed read: “Le pain et le vin […] sont comme instruments par lesquelz le Seigneur Iesus nous les [scil., le corps et le sang] distribue. […] C’est doncq à bon droict que le pain est nommé corps, puis que non seulement il le nous represente, mais aussi nous le presente. […] Nous […] sommes vrayment faictz participans de la propre substance du corps et du sang de Iesus Christ”.11 However, when in 1552 the gnesio-Lutheran Joachim Westphal from Hamburg – rightly – attacked Calvin for his Zwinglianizing devaluation of the sacraments in the Consensus Tigurinus (1549), namely Calvin’s statement that believers could also “outside the use of the sacraments […] receive the reality that is there figured”12 , Calvin was even able to state in 1555, by that time just as rightly, that “Christ might equally well make us participants of himself without any external aid”. 13 So, to summarize: the same Calvin could say in 1536, that the sacrament is not an instrument by which God’s grace is conferred to us; in 1541, that through the instruments of bread and wine we are truly made participants in the very substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ; and, in 1555, that in order to make us partakers of himself, Christ could do without any sacrament.

This undeterminedness or openness in Calvin’s eucharistic thought takes us to the first of the three theses of this exposition: Calvin’s eucharistic views were not from the beginning a detailed, coherent, and unified doctrine, finding its representative expression in the Agreement of Zurich (1549) or the 1559 Institutes, but show a historical development. In this development we may trace, in order, Zwinglianizing (1536–1537), Lutheranizing (1537– 1548), and again spiritualizing tendencies (1549–1550s). A fundamentalist, a-historical, non-developmental approach to Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper will inevitably lead to simplification and misrepresentation.

quod hac tessera voluntatem suam nobis Dominus testificatur”. See Hartvelt, G.P., Verum Corpus. Een studie over een centraal hoofdstuk uit de avondmaalsleer van Calvijn, Delft 1960, 78. 10 Janse, Hardenberg, 33, 471–477. 11 Traité Cène, CO 5,439 and 460; OS 1,508–509 and 529. 12 Cons. Tigur., Art. 19, CO 7,741; OS 2,251.15–16 (cf. TT 2, 218): “[…] ita extra eorum [scil., sacramentorum] usum fidelibus constat quae illic figuratur veritas”. 13 Comm. in harm. Evang. [1555], Mt 26,27; CO 45,710: “[…] aeque sui participes nos facere Christus possit absque externo adminiculo”. In English: Pringle, W. (trans.), Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke by John Calvin, Calvin Translation Society (hereafter cited as CTS), 22 vols., Edinburgh 1844–1856; repr. Grand Rapids 1989; idem 2003, 17, 213.

40

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

My second thesis is, that Calvin not only, being a good theologian, showed docility, flexibility, and development in thought, but was also able, being an astute church politician and vulnerable human being, to allow himself to be led by a desire for consensus or for dissent, reflected even in his formulations. As long as he thought a consensus with the Lutherans was feasible, Calvin formulated his eucharistic doctrine as closely as possible to Luther’s phrases. For the same reason he at the same time consistently distanced himself from any Zwinglian symbolism. After the failed attempt of the Zurich Agreement to bridge the chasm between Zwinglians and Lutherans, the picture was correspondingly reversed: in the 1550s Calvin’s thought was pro-Swiss and anti-German. However, when in Northern Germany in 1560 some ecclesiastical and social space for Philippists seemed to open up, Calvin returned to his Luther-friendly tune of the 1540s. And when in 1562 Emperor Maximilian was crowned as king in Frankfurt and Calvin thought that “a good many Germans” might be brought to a better understanding of the “French eucharistic doctrine” 14 , he really made a concession to the Lutheran view in his Confession de Foy pour presenter à l’Empereur (1562). Just as Bucer, Calvin was able to make compromises and be conciliatory in his formulations, but also – showing some vulnerability – implacably ruthless if circumstances required. Calvin did not envisage phrasing his eucharistic doctrine in a permanent, timeless form. My third thesis is, that Swiss pressure during the two years preceding the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549 and Calvin’s signature under this Bullingerian document, had a lasting influence on Calvin’s eucharistic views, if only in Calvin’s apparent willingness to use Zwinglianizing phrases in the 1550s. Vis-a-vis the Lutherans Calvin distanced himself of his Zwinglianizing position in 1549. Be this as it may, in Calvin’s 1555 and 1556 Defences and his 1557 Last Admonition against Westphal, formulations were repeated that the Swiss in their turn had used contra Calvin before 1549. This is all the more striking because Westphal’s objections to the Consensus sometimes seemed to repeat those of the pre-1549 Calvin against Bullinger. This is another reason why a static view of the eucharistic theology of Calvin is a-historical. I will deal with the theses in reverse order, starting with the third one, which incidentally is closely related to the second.

14 Calvin to Louis de Condé, May [7th], 1563, CO 20,12–15, there 14: “Vous scaves, Monseigneur cela donnera goût a beaucoup de povres ignorans pour avoir la patience de lire ce qu’ilz reiecteroient autrement. Ainsi ce sera ung moien divin pour gaigner ung nombre infini de gens. Mais on en peut esperer encore plus grand fruict hors du Royaume, d’autant que beaucoup d’Allemans qui sont alienes des Francois pour la matiere de la Cene, ne se tiendront point d’y mettre le nez soubz ombre de vostre nom. nom. Cependant cela sera pour vous acquerir tant plus de faveur”.

Wim Janse

41

2. Calvinus bullingerizans Swiss pressure during the two years preceding the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549 and Calvin’s signature under this Bullingerian document, had a lasting influence on Calvin’s eucharistic views, if only in Calvin’s apparent willingness to use Zwinglianizing phrases in the 1550s. The Agreement of Zurich of late May 1549 is not representative of Calvin’s earlier (post-1536) eucharistic thought. Calvin’s Defensio of 1555, in which he included the Consensus and discussed it article by article, is not a suitable commentary to the Agreement: Calvin did not offer any explanation or clarification, but rather a defense and if possible de-bullingerianizing interpretation of the Zurich articles that “must have made Bullinger wince”. 15 The Consensus Tigurinus is neither “Calvin’s document” 16 nor “a compromise document” 17 resulting from Calvin’s compliance 18 ; from the perspective of the late 1530s and the 1540s, it is at least an “uncalvinistic document” 19 , tending towards “a document of Bullingerian theology” 20 and accepted by Geneva because of church-political considerations.21 Although the text moved away from Zwingli’s original position, it exuded distrust and betrayed an anxious guarding of Zwinglian spiritualism. 22 Calvin’s preparatory correspondence with Bullinger during the two years preceding the Consensus testifies to what extent Calvin ceded terrain to the Swiss regarding significant points of doctrine23 : “Es ist die Geschichte des 15 George, T., John Calvin and the Agreement of Zürich (1549), in: idem (ed.), John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform, Louisville 1990, 42–58, there 55, also cited by Davis, Promises, 46. Cf. Calvin to Bullinger, October 5th, 1554, CO 15,255–256, there 255: “Unum metuo, ne me interdum plus aequo illis largitum esse iudices”. (“I have one fear, that you may judge that I have sometimes granted them more than is just”). 16 E.g., Doumergue, E., Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps, 7 vols., Lausanne 1899–1928, 5, 368. For a short history of the interpretation of the Consensus, see George, Agreement, and Davis, Promises, 31–41. 17 E.g., Willis, D., Calvin’s use of substantia, in: Neuser, W.H. (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos, Frankfurt am Main 1984, 289–301, there 297: “This Consensus could not represent Calvin’s own preferred way of speaking; it was admittedly a compromise document”; George, Agreement, 54; Elwood, C., The Body Broken: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and the Symbolization of Power in Sixteenth-Century France, New York 1999, 82. 18 Rorem, P., Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, Bramcote, Nottingham 1989, 54: “Calvin and Bullinger […] achieved a consensus statement principally because Calvin agreed to omit a crucial component of his position”; Gerrish, B.A., Sign and Reality: The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confessions, in: idem, Protestantism, 118–130, there 124. 19 Davis, Promises, 41, cf. 39. 20 Neuser, W.H., Der zweite Abendmahlsstreit, in: HDThG 2, 272. 21 Gäbler, U., Art. Consensus Tigurinus, TRE 8, 1981, 189–192. 22 Neuser, Abendmahlsstreit, 272–273. 23 An overview of the negotiations in: Bizer, E., Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert, Darmstadt 1972; Reprografischer Nachdr. der 1. Aufl., Gütersloh 1940, 243–270; Gäbler, U., Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus im Jahre 1549, ThLZ

42

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

Zurückweichens Calvins”. 24 Calvin was openly suspected of Lutheranism. 25 Nine of the original 24 articles had been directed against Calvin personally. 26 Bucer lectured him for not being clear enough on the gift and the effects of the sacrament. 27 Calvin saw himself forced to resort to interpretation, for instance by inserting two additional propositions28 and a preface that had been revised after pressure from the Zurich clergy 29 in August. Looking back on the genesis of the Consensus, Bullinger reported to Beza in 1571 that at the time he had managed to relieve Calvin of quite a lot of Buceranica. 30 When we consult the correspondence leading up to the Consensus, or compare the Consensus with Calvin’s Confessio fidei de eucharistia of 1537 31 , the 1539 Institutes 32 , his Petit traicté de la saincte cene (1541) 33 , or his interpretation of the Consensus in his Defences and Last Admonition against Westphal (1555–1557) 34 , we find we have to agree with Bullinger’s 104–105, 1979, 321–332; Rorem, Bullinger; George, Agreement. See also Heron, A.I.C., Calvin an Bullinger 1536–1549, in: Freudenberg, M. (ed.), Profile des reformierten Protestantismus aus vier Jahrhunderten. Vorträge der ersten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, Wuppertal 1999, 49–69. 24 Neuser, Abendmahlsstreit, 273. Cf. Neuser’s summary, ibid., 273: “Anfangs hat Calvin Bullinger gegenüber das äußere Wort, den Glauben aus der Predigt, Wort und Sakrament als Hilfsmittel, durch die Gott seine Gaben darreicht, das Austeilen (administrare) der Gnade Gottes, den Mangel an Glauben und sein Wachsen durch das Sakrament mit Nachdruck vertreten”. 25 Cf., e.g., Bizer’s opinion in Abendmahlsstreit, 255, cf. 251, on Calvin’s letter to Bullinger of February 25th, 1547, in which he denounced Bullinger’s “ungebrochene[r] Subjektivismus” (in: CO 12,480–489): “Niemand wird sich hier wundern, daß Calvin in dem Verdacht des Luthertums stand. In dieser Richtung etwa hätte auch Luthers Antwort an die Züricher gehen müssen, wenn er sie geschrieben hätte”. 26 Cf. Neuser, Abendmahlsstreit, 273: “Unter ihnen [scil., den Artikeln] richten sich die Artikel XI bis XVI, XVII, (zum Teil) XVIII und XIX auch gegen Calvin”. 27 See Calvin to Bullinger, [October 1549], CO 13,437–440, there 439. 28 Cons. Tigur., Artt. 5 and 23, CO 7,737 and 742; OS 2,248 and 252 (cf. TT 2, 213–214 and 219). 29 His letter to the clergy of Zurich, August 1st, 1549, CO 7,733–734; OS 2,246–247 (cf. TT 2, 200–201). 30 Bullinger to Beza, December 4th, 1571, Bèze, Th. de, Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, recueillie par Hippolyte Aubert, publiée par Alain Dufour/Béatrice Nicollier/Mario Turchetti, 12 (1571) (THR 212), Genève 1986, 243–252, there 246. See Van ’t Spijker, W., ‘Bucerisare’: Bullingers negatieve taxatie van een edel oecumenisch streven, ThRef 42, 1999, 247–267. 31 Conf. de euchar., CO 9,711–712; OS 1,435–436. Distinctive expressions are, CO 9,712; OS 1,435 (cf. LCC 22 [J.K.S. Reid (ed.), Calvin: Theological Treatises], 168): “Ergo spiritum eius vinculum esse nostrae cum ipso participationis agnoscimus, sed ita ut nos ille carnis et sanguinis Domini substantia vere ad immortalitatem pascat, et eorum participatione vivificet. Hanc autem carnis et sanguinis sui communionem Christus sub panis et vini symbolis in sacrosancta sua coena offert, et exhibet omnibus qui eam rite celebrant iuxta legitimum eius institutum”. 32 Inst. (1539 etc.), CO 1,253–1152. 33 Traité Cène, CO 5,433–460; OS 1,503–530. 34 Which has been aptly analysed by Davis, Promises, 46–57. See also Cottret, B., Pour une sémiotique de la Réforme: Le ‘Consensus Tigurinus’ (1549) et la ‘Brève résolution …’ (1555) de

Wim Janse

43

later outpouring to Beza. The proprium of Calvin’s teaching (between 1537 and 1549), which was formulated so as to keep a window open towards the Lutherans, is almost completely absent from the Consensus. Westphal was right on this point. 35 Calvin’s specific input – I am assuming this to be sufficiently known and am here giving only a summary – concerned the instrumental, exhibitive (offering and actually giving36 ) and pneumatologically effected (by the Spirit as vinculum participationis) character of the sacrament. This gave the manducatio sacramentalis (the sacramental eating at the Communion table) a surplus value it did not have for Zwingli and Bullinger, above the manducatio spiritualis (spiritual eating, by faith outside the sacrament) – i.e., the surplus value consisting in the strengthening of faith, and, ecclesiologically, the constitution of the unio mystica of the congregation as the body with Christ as its head. Contrary to this proprium, what was emphasized in the final result of the consensus negotiations was – utterly in line with Bullinger’s amendments – God’s independence of the elements, for instance by diluting the effects of the sacraments by means of the adverbs tanquam or quasi (“as it were”, “in a manner of speaking”) 37 , and by highlighting the self-sufficiency and autonomy of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit via a repeated solus and unus (“alone”) 38 : “For it is God alone who works through His Spirit, […] so that the whole power of acting remains with him alone”. 39 “God acts efficaciously when he pleases, yet so that the whole work of our salvation must

Calvin, Annales: Économies, Sociétiés, Civilizations 39, 1984, 265–285. Def. de sacr., CO 9,1–40; Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,41–120; Ult. admon. ad Westph., CO 9,137–252 (cf. TT 2, 199–494). 35 See, e.g., Westphalus, J., Adversus cuiusdam Sacramentarii falsam criminationem, iusta defensio, Francoforti 1555 (VD 16, W 2260), 131: “Plus aliquanto honoris Sacramentis in speciem defert [scil., Calvinus]: de vi, usu et dignitate eorum maiori cum reverentia loquitur quam plerique alii, attamen complures perniciosos errores phanaticorum tegit et pingit, et animos circumducit perplexis labyrinthis. Recte docet Sacramenta instituta esse, ut nos ad Christi communionem deducant, adminicula esse et media, quibus vel inseramur in corpus Christi, vel insiti magis coalescamus”. 36 Exhibere is: to present (German: darstellen) and to offer actually and effectively (German: darbieten). See also Tylenda, J.N., The Ecumenical Intention of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Teaching, in: Gerrish, B.A. (ed.), Reformatio perennis: Essays on Calvin and the Reformation in honor of Ford Lewis Battles, Pittsburgh 1981, 27–47, there 31–32; and Janse, Hardenberg, 584, Index, s.v. exhibitio. 37 Cons. Tigur., e.g., Art. 7 (“quasi vivas imagines”, “quasi in rem ducendo”, “quasi sigillis”) and Art. 12 (“tanquam adminicula”), in, respectively: CO 7,737; OS 2,248.32.33.36 (cf. TT 2, 214) and CO 7,739; OS 2,250.3–4 (cf. TT 2, 216). 38 See, e.g., Cons. Tigur., Artt. 11–13 and 15. 39 Cons. Tigur., Art. 12, CO 7,739; OS 2,249.35–250.1 (cf. TT 2, 216): “Deus enim solus est, qui spiritu suo agit […] sic [...], ut tota agendi facultas maneat apud ipsum solum”.

44

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

be ascribed to him alone”. 40 “It is Christ alone who in truth baptizes inwardly […], who, in short, fulfils what the sacraments figure, […] in such manner that the whole effect resides in his Spirit”. 41 Calvin’s 1537 Confession of Faith concerning the Eucharist, however, had stated that the communion of his body and blood is offered and exhibited by Christ, under the symbols of bread and wine, to all who rightly celebrate the Supper. 42 In 1547 Calvin had written to Bullinger: “You especially object to our saying that in the strict sense of the word it is God alone who exhibits, but by the signs and by his ministers”. 43 Although in his 1555 Defence of the Consensus Calvin countered the accusation of a Swiss evacuatio sacramentorum, he nevertheless allowed himself pointedly Zwinglianizing statements such as: “It is daily experienced to be true” that “the effect of the spiritual blessings that the sacraments figure is given to believers without the use of the sacraments”. “Occasionally, the Lord performs without sign what he represents by a sign, to prove that his virtue is not tied to any means”.44 Especially when focusing in 1555–1556 on infant baptism – stressing its dispensability in the case of those who die young, and its apparent ineffectiveness in some adults – Calvin got into Zwinglian waters. 45 Accordingly, in the Consensus the sacrament was only called a quasi seal (sigillum) (Art.7). “The Spirit alone is properly the seal” (Art. 15). 46 The subject of the hapax obsignare was God 47 , not the sacrament. By the same token, the instrumentality of the sacraments – a key concept in Calvin – although professed in the Consensus, was more often professed by a neu40 Cons. Tigur., Art. 13, CO 7,739; OS 2,250.10–12 (cf. TT 2, 216): “Organa quidem sunt [scil., Sacramenta], quibus efficaciter, ubi visum est, agit Deus, sed ita, ut totum salutis nostrae opus, ipsi uni acceptum ferri debeat”. 41 Cons. Tigur., Art. 14, CO 7,739; OS 2,250.13–16 (cf. TT 2, 216): “Constituimus ergo unum esse Christum, qui vere intus baptizat, [...] qui denique implet quod figurant sacramenta: [...] ut totus effectus penes eius spiritum resideat”. 42 Conf. de euchar., CO 9,712; OS 1,435. 43 Calvin to Bullinger, February 25th, 1547, CO 12,480–489, there 486: “Nam id nominatim impugnas quod solum Deum dicimus proprie exhibere, sed per signa et per suos ministros”. 44 Def. de sacr., CO 9,29; OS 2,280.36–38 and 281.1–12 (cf. TT 2, 236): “Quod deinde prosequimur, fidelibus spiritualium bonorum effectum, quae figurant Sacramenta, extra eorum usum constare: quando et quotidie verum esse experimur”; and: “[…] Dominus interdum, ut suam virtutem nullis adminiculis obstrictam probet, omisso signo idem peragit, quod per signum repraesentat […]”. 45 See Janse, W., De controverse tussen Westphal en Calvijn over de kinderdoop (1555– 1556). Tekst, vertaling en toelichting, in: Balke, W./Hiebsch, S./Janse, W. (eds.), Verbum dei manet in aeternum: Luther en Calvijn in hun Schriftverstaan, Kampen 2007 (forthcoming); cf. Alting von Geusau, L.G.M., Die Lehre von der Kindertaufe bei Calvin gesehen im Rahmen seiner Sakraments- und Tauftheologie, Bilthoven/Mainz 1963, 75. 46 Cons. Tigur., Art. 15, CO 7,740; OS 2,250.17–23 (cf. TT 2, 216–217): “[…] tamen solus spiritus proprie est sigillum, et idem fidei inchoator est et perfector”. 47 Cons. Tigur., Art. 7, CO 7,737; OS 2,248.30 (cf. TT 2, 214).

Wim Janse

45

tral ablative (quibus) than by the stronger and characteristically Calvinist preposition “by” (per) 48 ; sometimes, the multi-purpose “in” was used, which could mean “by means of” (Calvin), as well as “during” or “with” the sacrament (Bullinger). 49 Bullinger’s more general noun organum had been preferred above Calvin’s exclusive and stronger instrumentum. 50 During the negotiations, Bullinger had reproached Calvin with “overvaluing” the sacraments, and granting to created beings what really is only God’s prerogative. Calvin replied: “We neither link God’s grace to the sacraments, nor do we transfer the office and power of the Holy Spirit to them, nor do we place the trust in salvation in them. For we confess clearly, that it is God alone who acts through the sacraments”. 51 As a signatory of the Consensus, Calvin next saw himself confronted with his own defense in Westphal’s criticism. In the latter’s powerful expository of the efficacy of the sacraments by virtue of God’s decree we can almost hear Calvin himself instead of his Lutheran opponent: 52 If the definition is correct that sacraments are instruments by means of which God acts powerfully, and demonstrates and seals his grace to us 53 , […] why then does Calvin accuse me of blindness, and does he tell all and sundry that we erroneously place our trust in salvation in the sacraments, and award them a power that is God’s alone? 54 It is not we who ascribe the power of salvation to the sacraments, but our 48 The preposition per in this connection only in Artt. 7 and 12 of the Consensus Tigurinus. For Bullinger’s objection to the – to his mind – lutheranizing per, see Ioannis Calvini Propositiones de Sacramentis. Annotationes breves adscripsit Henricus Bullingerus [November 1548], CO 7,693–700, there 694. 49 Cons. Tigur., Artt. 14 and 19, CO 7,739; OS 2,250.14 (cf. TT 2, 216) and CO 7,741; OS 2,251.19 (cf. TT 2, 218). Cf. Rorem, Bullinger, 44. 50 Organum in Cons. Tigur., Art. 13; cf., e.g., Calvini Propositiones de Sacramentis, CO 7,695. See also Davis, Promises, 55. Adminiculum (“help”, “auxiliary”) in Cons. Tigur., Artt. 12 and 14. 51 Calvin to Bullinger, June 26th, 1548, CO 12,726–731, there 727: “Nam quod ad sacramenta in genere spectat, neque illis gratiam Dei alligandus, neque ad ea transferimus spiritus sancti officium aut virtutem, neque in ipsis locamus salutis fiduciam. Diserte enim profitemur solum Deum esse qui agit per sacramenta”. Also: Calvini Propositiones de Sacramentis, CO 7,693: “I. Sacramentis Dei gratiam non alligamus. II. Ad sacramenta non transferimus spiritus sancti virtutem aut officium. III. In sacramentis non locamus salutis fiduciam. IV. Solus Deus est qui agit per sacramenta et totam efficaciam spiritui sancto ferimus acceptam” and Calvini Responsio ad annotationes Bullingeri (January 1549), CO 7,701–708, there 703–704, Ad VII. 52 For further examples of points of similarity between Westphal and the pre-1549 Calvin, see Janse, W., Joachim Westphal’s Sacramentology, LuthQ, 2007 (forthcoming); in Dutch translation in: Luther-Bulletin, 2007 (forthcoming). 53 See Cons. Tigur., Art. 7, CO 7,737; OS 2,248.29–30 (cf. TT 2, 214): “Sed hic unus inter alios praecipuus, ut per ea nobis suam gratiam testetur Deus, repraesentet atque obsignet”; Def. de sacr. (1555), 29, CO 9,20; OS 2,272.21–23 (cf. TT 2, 226): “[...] esse tamen hunc finem praecipuum inter alios, ut per ea Dominus suam gratiam nobis testetur, repraesentet atque obsignet”. 54 See Def. de sacr., 31, CO 9,21; OS 2,273.18–23 (cf. TT 2, 227): “Ubi vero accedit immodica commendatio, vix se a pravo et vitioso reverentiae excessu continet centisimus quisque. Ita et

46

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

Lord Jesus Christ […]. We do not transfer some part of salvation to created beings, nor do we detract from God’s power or activity, even if we say that sacraments are instruments of salvation; for we speak of God’s sacraments, [134] God’s promise, and God’s presence working through the ordained means […]. If they are called God’s instruments, surely all the honor, power, and efficacy of the sacraments is ascribed to God; in the same way as they have been instituted and ordained by him, they also acquire their power and honor from him alone. However, the fact that it has pleased God to institute them and demonstrate his power through them, does not mean that the sacraments should be denied power, which should be allotted to them as holy instruments. Nor is it true that the ministry means nothing, only because Paul writes that the ministers are nothing, and cannot deliver anything, without God planting and watering [cf. 1 Cor 3,7]; for Paul that is no reason to reduce the sacraments to virtually nothing. He recommends elders because of their office [cf. 1 Tim 5,17], and adorns them with honorifics such as “stewards of the mysteries of God” [1 Cor 4,1] and “ambassadors of Christ” [2 Cor 5,20]. How can sacraments be nothing 55 [135] or effect nothing 56 , if office holders honor preachers by calling them God’s fellow workers [1 Cor 3,9], and servants by whom people come to believe [1 Cor 3,5]? 57 God is present in the sacraments and in his word, and effects faith and salvation in people; thus, the sacraments are effective by virtue of God’s order, presence, and action; it is not their fault, but the people’s, that they demonstrate their power to a lesser degree in unbelievers. 58 illis perperam affigitur salutis fiducia, et quod unius Dei proprium erat, indigne ad illa transfertur. Qua in re plus quam caeca est istorum qui nobis obtrectant pervicacia”; cf. Cons. Tigur., Art. 11, CO 7,739; OS 2,249.26–28 (cf. TT 2, 215): “Hinc concidit eorum error, qui in elementis obstupescunt, et illis affigunt salutis suae fiduciam”. 55 Cf. Confessio Gebennensis ecclesiae ministrorum de sacramentis Bernensium synodo oblata mense Martio 1549, CO 7,717–722, there 718–719, IX: “[…] ita et de sacramentis dicendum est, ea nihil esse, quia nihil profutura sint, nisi Deus in solidum omnia efficiat”. Cons. Tigur., Art. 11, CO 7,739; OS 2,249.28–29 (cf. TT 2, 215): “[…] quum sacramenta a Christo separata nihil sint quam inanes larvae”. 56 Cf. Cons. Tigur., Art. 13, CO 7,739; OS 2,250.6–10 (cf. TT 2, 216): “Itaque, quemadmodum Paulus admonet, eum qui plantat aut rigat nihil esse, sed unum Deum qui dat incrementum: ita et de Sacramentis dicendum est, ea nihil esse, quia nihil profutura sint, nisi Deus in solidum omnia efficiat”. 57 This reflects Calvin’s objection to Bullinger from January 1549, see Calvini Responsio ad annotationes Bullingeri, CO 7,703: “Vide tamen quale sit tuum argumentum: Deus solus agit; cessant igitur instrumenta. Quid? annon Paulus qui admonet nihil esse totum hominum laborem omnesque conatus, idem se profitetur Dei cooperarium? Deus ergo solus nos regenerat, sed hominis opera”. 58 Westphal, Iusta defensio, 133–135: “Porro si vera est definitio, Sacramenta esse organa, quibus efficaciter agit Deus et suam gratiam nobis testatur atque obsignat, cur […] caecitatis nos Calvinus arguit, et traducit, perperam nos affigere illis salutis fiduciam, et quod solius Dei est proprium ad illa transferre? Non a nobis salus Sacramentis affigitur, sed […] a Domino nostro Iesu Christo […]. Non transferimus partem aliquam salutis ad creaturas, neque Dei potentiae et operationi detrahimus, etiamsi perhibeamus Sacramenta esse organa salutis, quia sermo est de Dei Sacra[134]mentis, de Dei promissione, de praesentia Dei operantis per ordinata media […]. Cum organa Dei appellantur, certe omnis dignitas, virtus et efficacia Sacramentorum Deo tribuitur, a quo ut sunt instituta et ordinata, ita ab eo solo habent suam virtutem et dignitatem. Quia vero Deo

Wim Janse

47

Calvin’s reply to this “Calvinesque” emphasis on sacramental instrumentality was not convincing. Of course he had no choice but to agree with Westphal, seeking refuge in the remark, common in polemics, that Westphal must have copied this passage from his Genevan opponent: I see that this man labors under a truly incredible obstinacy: he would rather drown himself in the deepest vortices of Popery than declare himself one of us. He denies transferring any part of salvation to created beings, because we can rely on the presence of God, who works through the instruments he himself has instituted. I agree with this. What he then adds he has almost literally copied from us, so why would I reject that? On the contrary, I am grateful to him that he concurs with my words up to his point, until, as he is wont to do, he again relapses into slanderous accusations. 59

Nevertheless, Calvin repeated to him Bullinger’s highlighting (of 1549) of God’s separateness from the sacraments – “Whenever it pleases him God fulfills and realizes […] what he prefigures in the sacrament. […] For the bestowal of grace is controlled by the author himself […]” 60 ; one should not tie down “the free course of God’s grace” “to specific moments” 61 – and then went on to link this seperateness to predestination.62 In the Consensus, too, strong emphasis was placed on God’s activity in the electi, as the obplacuit ea instituere, et virtutem suam in illis exerere, ob hanc causam Sacramentis, ut organis sanctis tribuenda est, non adimenda sua virtus. Neque propterea ministerium nihil est, quia Paulus scribit, ministros nihil esse, et nihil sine Deo plantando et rigando efficere, non ideo Sacramenta fere in nihilum redigit. Commendat presbyteros propter ministerium, condecorat honorificis nominibus, appellans dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, legatos Christi. Quomodo Sacramenta nihil [135] sunt, aut nihil operantur, cum a ministerio tam magnifice praedicatores commendentur, quod sint operarii Dei et ministri per quos homines credunt? Deus Sacramentis et verbo suo adest, operatur in hominibus fidem et salutem; sunt ergo efficacia ex Dei ordinatione, praesentia, et operatione: et non illorum sed hominum culpa fit, quod virtutem suam in incredulis minus exerceant”. 59 Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,117 (cf. TT 2, 341); 165–166 (editio princeps), edition intended for COR: “Sed, ut video, incredibilis quaedam pervicacia hominem occupat, ut in profundissimos quosque Papatus gurgites immergere se malit quam ad nos accedere. Negat se transferre ullam salutis partem ad creaturas, quia de praesentia Dei sermo est per media quae ipse instituit operantis. Assentior. Quae deinde postea subiicit, quia fere ad [166] verbum a nobis mutuatus est, cur repudiarem? Quin potius gratiam habeo, quod meis dictis huc usque astipuletur et subscribat, donec rursus pro suo ingenio ad calumnias revolvitur”. 60 Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,118 (cf. TT 2, 342); 168 (editio princeps): “Implet Deus quoties visum est, ac repraesentat effectu praesenti quod in Sacramento figurat. Sed nulla hic necessitas fingenda est, quin eius gratia interdum praecedat, interdum sequatur signi usum, cuius tamen dispensationem author ipse sic temperat, ut a sacro symbolo non separet Spiritus sui virtutem”. 61 Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,118 (cf. TT 2, 343); 169 (editio princeps): “[…] perperam tamen quis inferat, liberum gratiae Dei cursum temporum articulis astringi”. 62 Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,118–119 (cf. TT 2, 343–344); 169–171 (editio princeps); see also Def. de sacr., CO 9,18; OS 2,271.2–6 (cf. TT 2, 224): “Sacramenta […] organa esse quibus efficaciter agit Deus in suis electis”. Ibid., CO 9,24–25; OS 2,276.34–277.11 (cf. TT 2, 231–232): “Quod dicimus, non omnibus promiscue, sed electis Dei tantum, ad quos interior et efficax Spiritus operatio pervenit, prodesse signa, clarius est quam ut longa refutatione indigeat”.

48

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

verse side of the relativization of sacramental instrumentality: “God […] exerts his power […] only in the elect. […] By the secret agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the sacraments offer”. 63 Attacked by Westphal for his depreciation of the sacrament as sigillum by calling “only the Spirit” the “proper seal”, Calvin now had to resort to a rule from classical logic, i.e., that “propositions that are subordinated to one another, are not contrary” (Aristotle) 64 , so that a sealing by the Spirit, being the “first and more internal seal” through election does not cancel an “inferior sealing of grace by the sacraments”: “The only solution, therefore, is in the common axiom, that there is no repugnance between superior and subaltern”. 65 While [God] invites everybody by the word, he inwardly effectually calls those whom he has elected. So, [Westphal] should stop making false accusations against me […] when I demonstrate that from the source of the election it follows, that those make good use of the sacraments to whom it has been specially given. For this means – conform the common proverb that matters that are subordinate to one another cannot be mutually exclusive – that an inferior sealing of grace by the sacraments is not denied (while the Spirit is called the first and more internal seal), and at the same time it denotes the cause, namely, that God has elected those he deems worthy of the sign of acceptance. 66

Be this as it may, Calvin had now introduced an ambivalence in his thought on the sacraments, which was to give rise to opposite interpretations, and even was to contribute to a schism in the twentieth century (in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, 1944 67 ). In this tension between cer63 Cons. Tigur., Art. 16, CO 7,740; OS 2,250.24–29 (cf. TT 2, 217): “Non omnes sacramento participantes re quoque participant. Praeterea sedulo docemus, Deum non promiscue vim suam exserere in omnibus qui sacramenta recipiunt: sed tantum in electis. Nam quemadmodum non alios in fidem illuminat, quam quos praeordinavit ad vitam: ita arcana spiritus sui virtute efficit, ut percipiant electi quod offerunt sacramenta”. Also Art. 17, CO 7,740; OS 2,251.2–4 (cf. TT 2, 217): “Nam reprobis peraeque ut electis signa administrantur, veritas autem signorum ad hos solos pervenit”. 64 See Aristotle, e.g., Analytica Priora I, 5, 27 b 24–28; Topica II, 1, 109 a 3–6; Topica III, 6, 119 a 34, and others; among them William of Ockham, Summa logicae I, 36, in: Guilielmi de Ockham Opera philosophica et theologica ad fidem Codicum manuscriptorum edita, 17 vols., St. Bonaventure 1967–1988, 1, 101, 11.46–47: “Ex praedictis patet quod propositiones subalternae et subcontrariae non opponuntur, quia possunt simul esse verae”. 65 Def. de sacr., OC 9,24; OS 1,276.25–27 (cf. TT 2, 231): “Una igitur solutio est in illo vulgari dicto, Superioris et subalterni nullam esse repugnantiam”. 66 Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,119 (cf. TT 2, 343–344); 170–171 (editio princeps): “Hanc vero esse causam, quia verbo omnes invitans, intus efficaciter vocat quos elegit. Cavillari ergo desinat me […], ubi ex fonte electionis manare ostendo, quod in Sacramentis proficiunt, quibus peculiariter datum est. Nam quum proverbio vulgari iactetur, quae subalterna sunt, inter se non pugnare, non ideo negatur inferior Sacramentis gratiae obsignatio, dum Spiritus vocatur prius et interius sigillum; et simul notatur causa, [171] quia eos Deus elegit, quos adoptionis tessera dignatur”. 67 See Janse, Kinderdoop.

Wim Janse

49

tainty and freedom, between the objectivity of the offer of salvation and God’s elective autonomy in conferring grace, I see one of the traces of Bullinger’s lasting influence and the Consensus negotiations. Westphal stressed especially the former, Calvin together with Bullinger, since 1549, also the latter in equal measure. In the light of the preceding it will come as no surprise that in the Agreement of Zurich the sacraments essentially lacked their quality of gifts (Art. 17): “The sacraments do not confer grace. […] The grace of God is by no means annexed to them, so that whosoever receives the sign also gains possession of the thing”. 68 For comparison, the Short Treatise on the Holy Supper (1541) read: I’ai coustume de dire, que la matiere et substance des Sacrements d’est le Seigneur Iesus: l’efficace sont les graces et benedictions que nous avons par son moyen. […] Il fault doncq que la substance soit conioincte avec, ou aultrement il n’y auroit rien de ferme ne certain. 69 […] Ce n’est pas une figure nue, mais conioncte avec sa verité et substance. […] La substance interieure du Sacrement est conioncte avec les signes visibles. 70

Although in his 1555 Defence Calvin denied that the contested Art. 17 of the Consensus implied “that any thing is lost to the virtue of the sacraments” 71 , we are struck again by his emphasis – a Bullingerian reminiscence – on the autonomy of the Giver, and the precondition of faith in the receiver: “That which Christ then [scil., in the celebration of the sacraments] bestows he takes from himself […]. As the Lord is always ready to perform what he figures, […] we acknowledge that what is offered is received only by faith”. 72 Consequently, Calvin’s notion of the exhibitive function of the signs was missing from the Consensus Tigurinus; the verb exhibere did occur once, but in connection with Christ (Art. 5) 73 instead of the signs; distribuere did not occur at all. Here, the Word did not function in the Calvinian sense as an actual means of salvation, nor did the sacrament itself, which was added to the word as appendix evangelii (Art. 2). Sacraments were called “living 68 Cons. Tigur., Art. 17, CO 7,740; OS 2,250.30–251.2 (cf. TT 2, 217): “Sacramenta non conferunt gratiam. […] tenendum quoque est, minime alligatam ipsis Dei gratiam, ut quisque signum habet re etiam potiatur”. 69 Traité Cène, CO 5,437; OS 1,507. 70 Traité Cène, CO 5,439–440; OS 1,509. 71 Def. de sacr., CO 9,25; OS 2,277.35 (cf. TT 2, 232): “Caeterum ne quis ideo, vel quidquam decedere sacramentorum virtuti […] putaret, […]”. See also Def. de sacr., CO 9,18; OS 2,271.6–7 (cf. TT 2, 224). 72 Def. de sacr., CO 9,26; OS 2,278.19–20 (cf. TT 2, 233): “non nisi a se ipso sumit Christus quod illic nobis largitur”; OS 2,278.23–26: “Sed quum Dominus vere semper quod figurat […] praestare sit paratus: non nisi fide recipi fatemur, quod oblatum est”. 73 Cons. Tigur., Art. 5, CO 7,737; OS 2,248.11 (cf. TT 2, 213).

50

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

images as it were”, which are put “before our eyes”, and “all the better affect our senses by as it were taking them to the thing, while they remind us of (in memoriam revocant) Christ’s death and all his benefactions”, and reinforce “what had been proclaimed by God’s mouth” – note the pluperfect instead of the active present: pronunciatum erat. 74 The promises mentioned in Artt. 9 and 10 had only been added (annexa) to the signs. 75 If we receive any good at all (quid boni) by the sacrament, “it is not owing to the virtue” of the promise. 76 This meant that God’s promise was not constitutive for the sacrament. In the Defensio Calvin also used the perfect tense: “The signs are given in order to ratify and confirm what God has promised (pollicitus est) by his word”. 77 What also remained under-exposed in the Consensus was the constitutive function of the Holy Spirit in the realization of the unio Christi as – to quote the Short Treatise – “le lien de participation de la propre substance” of Christ’s body and blood, “pour laquelle causse elle est appellée spirituelle”. 78 Calvin had used those same words as early as his sermon in Lausanne on October 7th, 1536, on The Lausanne Articles (1536): “Cest une communication spirituelle […] par laquelle il nous faict vrayement participans de son corps et son sang, mais le tout spirituellement cest a dire par le lien de son esprit”. 79 In the Zurich Agreement this pneumatological accent was missing, the Spirit being simply the one by whom God acts (Artt. 3, 4, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16). Correspondingly, its correlate, Calvin’s sursum corda, “eslever les cueurs en hault, au ciel”80 , was also missing. In the Defensio the concept was mentioned once, in Calvin’s Secunda Defensio (1556), not censored by Zurich, it was again mentioned four times. Instead of the gift-character of the sacrament – according to the post1536 Calvin, the sacrament first offers communion with Christ, then builds communion between believers, and thirdly is thanksgiving and confession – the Consensus gave priority to the ecclesiological-ethical aspect of the Lord’s Supper as distinctivum, put first by Zwinglians and Anabaptists 74 Cons. Tigur., Art. 7, CO 7,737; OS 2,248.32–36 (cf. TT 2, 214): “[…] hoc tamen magnum est, subiici oculis nostris quas vivas imagines, quae sensus nostros melius afficiant, quasi in rem ducendo, dum nobis Christi mortem, omniaque eius beneficia in memoriam revocant, ut […] quod ore Dei pronunciatum erat, quasi sigillis confirmari et sanciri”. 75 Cons. Tigur., Art. 9 and 10, CO 7,738; OS 2,249.18–19 (cf. TT 2, 215). 76 Cons. Tigur., Art. 12, CO 7,739; OS 2,249.33–35 (cf. TT 2, 216): “Praeterea, si quid boni nobis per sacramenta conferur, id non fit propria eorum virtute, etiamsi promissionem, qua insigniuntur, comprehendas”. 77 Def. de sacr., CO 9,18; OS 2,271.7–8 (cf. TT 2, 224). 78 Traité Cène, CO 5,460; OS 1,530. 79 Deux discours de Calvin au colloque de Lausanne, CO 9,877–886, there 884 (cf. LCC 22, 44). 80 Traité Cène, CO 5,460; OS 1,530.

Wim Janse

51

alike: “The ends of the sacraments are to be marks and badges (notae ac tesserae) of Christian profession and fellowship or fraternity, to be incitements to gratitude and exercises of faith and a godly life; in short, to be contracts binding us to this”. 81 This representation, until then very unCalvinian, returned82 in pregnant form in the 1550s – Calvin, for example in a sermon on 1 Corinthians 11: “La Cene de nostre Seigneur […] nous est instituee afin qu’il y ait communication entre nous, et que quand nous recevons le pain et le vin, nous soyons certifiez que Iesus Christ est la vie de nos ames”. 83 Here, too, I see a lasting effect of “1549”. Just as remarkable in the Zurich Agreement was the tendency to equate the manducatio sacramentalis (in the sacrament) with the manducatio spiritualis (in daily life by faith) (edere = credere). The sacraments “signify nothing else than is announced to us by the word itself” (Art. 7). “The blessings once exhibited on the cross”, which are figured by the sacraments, “we daily receive by faith” (Art. 8). At the Lord’s table “those who had long been made partakers of Christ continue and renew that communion” (Art. 9). However, only Art. 19 stated in truly Calvinian fashion: “Faith is not without Christ; but inasmuch as faith is confirmed and increased by the sacraments, the gifts of God are confirmed in us, and thus Christ in a way grows in us and we in him”. The quotations and examples just given are not exhaustive. Still, the decisive character of Calvin’s submission to Zurich in 1549 may be clear. Bullingerizing accents were to go on resounding after 1549, in a similar quantity as the anti-Zwinglian statements before 1549. In these, Calvin also demonstrated his capacity for bucerizare. This brings me to my second thesis.

3. Calvinus bucerizans Calvin not only showed a development in thought, but was also able, being a church politician and vulnerable human being, to allow himself to be led by a desire for consensus or dissent, even in his formulations. 81 Cons. Tigur., Art. 7; CO 7,737; OS 2,248.25–29 (cf. TT 2, 214): “Sunt quidem et hi sacramentorum fines, ut notae sint ac tesserae christianae professionis et societatis, sive fraternitatis: ut sint ad gratiarum actionem incitamenta, et exercitia fidei ac piae viae, denique syngraphae ad id obligantes”. 82 Against Davis, Promises, 61–62, n. 42; 64, n. 74. 83 Sermons sur le dixieme et onzieme chapitre de la premiere Epistre de sainct Paul aux Corinthiens (preached as from 1555, published 1558) (hereafter cited as Sermons 1 Cor), CO 49,577– 830; Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor. 11,20–23; CO 49,763–778, there 774.

52

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

I here use the term bucerizare not in the contemporary pejorative sense of disingenuously pursuing conformity 84 , but in the sense of phrasing flexibly, following in the footsteps of “the great theologian of dialogue” (Martin Greschat). To illustrate this, I will start by comparing Calvin’s exegeses of the consecration words according to 1 Corinthians and the synoptic gospels before and after 1549 with each other. Before 1549 he wrote his Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546; French version 1547); for the time after 1549 we have his nineteen Sermons sur le dixieme et onzieme chapitre de la premiere Epistre de sainct Paul aux Corinthiens (1558, preached from 1555) and the Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels of 1555. There is one point on which these sources agree: a consistently virulent anti-Catholicism. There was no change in Calvin’s attacks before and after 1549 on the deviation from the “true institution” of the Lord by “that damned popedom” 85 , reflected in the daily sacrifice of the Mass, consecration, transubstantiation, private Mass c.q. its sub una specie character, masses for the dead, auricular confession, traditionalism, etc. Obviously, this polemic was primarily aimed at Calvin’s own congregation, in an attempt to ward off the abhorred nicodemism. 86 In their Wittenberg or Zurich orientation and phrasing, however, Calvin’s explications before and after 1549 are totally different. From the beginning it was clear what it was that Calvin criticized in the Swiss and German positions and what he did or did not want to see his own view associated with. He put off reading Zwingli and Oecolampadius for years, because of their evacuatio sacramentorum (“I read in Luther that [they] left nothing in the sacraments but bare and empty signs”, 1556)87 , and he objected to Luther’s “dreams” of local and substantial presence, consubstantiation, and corporeal ubiquity (1538).88 Zwingli, he thought, threw out the baby of “the true virtue of the communion with Christ”, together with the bath water of the corporeal presence (1539). 89 Luther was

84 See above, n. 30. Calvin himself claimed that he “never by employing an ambiguous mode of expression [had] captiously brought forward any thing differenty from [his] real sentiment”. Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,51 (cf. TT 2, 253). 85 Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18 (1558); CO 49,657–670, there 666: “ceste maudite Papaute”. 86 See, e.g., Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios I, CO 49,297–574, there 463, 467. Sermons 1 Cor, Huitième sermon, 1 Cor 10,19–24; CO 49,671–684. 87 Def. sec. c. Westph., CO 9,51–52 (cf. TT 2, 252–253): “Quum enim a tenebris papatus emergere incipiens, tenui sanae doctrinae gustu concepto, legerem apud Lutherum nihil in Sacramentis ab Oecolampadio et Zvinglio reliquum fieri praeter nudas et inanes figuras, ita me ab ipsorum libris alienatum fuisse fateor, ut diu a lectione abstinuerim”. 88 Calvin to Bucer, January 12th, 1538, ep. 56A, COR Epistolae 1, 295.27–30, 296.53–54. 89 Calvin to André Zébédée, May 19th, 1539, CO 10/2,344–347, there 346: “Nihil fuisse asperitatis in Zwinglii doctrina, tibi minime concedo. Siquidem videre promptum est, ut nimium

Wim Janse

53

far to be preferred above him (1540).90 The Lutheran Veit Dietrich praised Calvin for calling “bread and wine ‘signs’ in this sense, that the things signified are actually present; if only you could persuade those who left us with the bare signs to share this view” (1546). 91 In the 1546 1 Corinthians Commentary a Lutheran battle front seemed hardly to exist; wherever possible it was covered up. There were no references even to the most recent controversy, caused by Luther’s “hideous”92 Kurzes Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl of September 1544, other than at most: “Let contention be avoided, and nothing will be obscure” 93 and “I shall not recount the unhappy contests that have tried the Church in our times as to the meaning of these words. If only we could bury the remembrance of them in perpetual oblivion!” 94 The literal interpretation of the words “This is my body” was rejected, but in a restrained manner: “If any are of a different opinion they will forgive me; it appears to me contentious to dispute pertinaciously on this point. I find, then, that there is here a sacramental form of expression, in which the Lord has given to the sign the name of the thing signified”. 95 When Calvin could not avoid raising the subject of the “absurd fancy” of ubiquity, he spared the Lutherans as much as possible by addressing his objection to the scholastics: “Some imagine that Christ’s body is infinite, and is not confined to any space, but fills heaven and earth like his divine essence. This fancy is too absurd to require refutation. The Scholastics dispute with more refinement as to his glorious body, but their occupatus in evertenda carnalis praesentiae superstitione veram communicationis vim aut simul disiecerit aut certe obscurarit”. 90 Cf. Calvin to Farel, February 26th, 1540, CO 11,23–26, there 24: “Uruntur boni viri, si quis Lutherum audet praeferre Zuinglio. Quasi evangelium nobis pereat, si quid Zuinglio decedit. Neque tamen in eo fit ulla Zuinglio iniuria; nam si inter se comparantur, scis ipse quanto intervallo Lutherus excellat”. 91 Veit Dietrich to Calvin, 1546, CO 12,265–266, there 266: “Legi conciunculam tuam de sacramento coenae, ac probo quod panem et vinum sic signa vocas, ut signata revera adsint: utinam possint a te in eam sententiam deduci qui nuda tantum signa relinquunt”. Cf. Heron, A., “Wenn Luther uns mit unserem Bekenntnis annehmen will”. Luther und die Abendmahlsfrage in den Briefen Calvins bis 1546, in: Litz, G./Munzert, H./Liebenberg, R. (eds.), Frömmigkeit – Theologie – Frömmigkeitstheologie: Contributions to European Church History (FS B. Hamm) (SHCT 124), Leiden/Boston 2005, 395–409 (in expanded English version to be published in: Hervormde Teologiese Studies 62/4 [2006]). 92 Calvin to Melanchthon, January 1545, CO 12,9–12, there 10: “atrocem libellum exiisse audio”. 93 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 10,16; CO 49,464 (cf. CTS 20, 335): “Facessant contentiones, et nihil erit obscuri”. 94 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,486 (cf. CTS 20, 376): “Non recensebo infelices pugnas, quae de sensu istorum verborum ecclesiam nostro tempore exercuerunt. Utinam potius liceat perpetua oblivione earum memoriam obruere”. 95 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,486 (cf. CTS 20, 377): “Dabunt mihi veniam si qui dissentiant: contentiosum mihi videtur, de eo pertinacius litigare. Constituo itaque sacramentalem hic esse loquendi modum: ubi Dominus rei signatae nomen signo tribuit”.

54

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

whole doctrine reduces itself to” impanation, local inclusion, and artolatry. 96 On the matter of the manducatio impiorum – “a question, which some afterwards agitated with too much keenness” – Calvin actually went as far as calling it a “nonessential” or “irrelevant” point (res parum necessaria); 97 in line with the Wittenberg Concord (1536) he recognized the manducatio indignorum. 98 For the rest, Calvin limited himself to mentioning, in a nonconfrontational fashion, the un-Lutheran coordinates of his own position, such as the precondition of faith 99 and the sursum corda. 100 The actual gift of the body of Christ in the Supper was phrased by Calvin in terms as close as possible to Luther’s view, namely by using the adverb realiter, and honoring the Lutheran modus loquendi as “the common form of expression”: “I conclude, that Christ’s body is really (as the common expression is), that is, truly given to us in the Supper, to be wholesome food for our souls. I use the common form of expression, but my meaning is, that our souls are nourished by the substance of the body, that we may truly be made one with him”. 101 The demarcation of the Swiss position, on the other hand, was as bold as it was cutting in the 1546 Commentary. Undoubtedly, this delineation was meant to serve a rapprochement from the side of the Lutherans, still hoped

96 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,487–488 (cf. CTS 20, 379–380, with defective punctuation): “Aliqui corpus Christi infinitum esse fingunt, nec ullo spatio contineri, sed implere coelum pariter et terram instar divinae eius essentiae. Quod figmentum absurdius est quam ut refutatione egeat. Scholastici de corpore glorioso disputant subtilius: sed tamen huc redit tota eorum doctrina, ut quaeratur in pane Christus, tanquam illic inclusus foret. Ita fit ut obstupescant hominum animi ad panem ipsumque instar Christi adorent. Si quis ab illis sciscitetur, panemne adorent, an speciem, negabunt quidem fortiter: sed interea ad panem se convertunt, Christum adoraturi: convertunt se inquam non oculis tantum et toto corpore, sed mentis etiam cogitatione. Hoc autem quid aliud est quam mera idololatria?” 97 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,27; CO 49,491 (cf. CTS 20, 386): “Invitus quidem facio ut hac de re (meo iudicio) parum necessaria acrius cum quoquam disceptem”. 98 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,27; CO 49,492 (cf. CTS 20, 386): “fateor quosdam esse, qui vere simul in coena et tamen indigne Christum recipiant, quales sunt multi infirmi”. 99 E.g., Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,28; CO 49,492 (cf. CTS 20, 388): “Vides expeditissimam methodum: si rite vis uti Christi beneficio, fidem afferas et poenitentiam: in his ergo duobus consistit examen, ut venias bene praeparatus”. 100 E.g., Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,488 (cf. CTS 20, 380–381): “Verum ut capaces huius communicationis simus, assurgere in coelum nos oportet. Hic ergo fides nobis succurrat, postquam omnes carnis sensus deficiunt. […] Sine ut in coelesti sua gloria maneat : et illuc adspira, ut inde se tibi communicet”. 101 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,487 (cf. CTS 20, 379): “Concludo, realiter (ut vulgo loquuntur), hoc est, vere nobis in coena dari Christi corpus, ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem. Loquor vulgari more: sed intelligo, substantia corporis pasci animas nostras, ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo: vel, quod idem valet, vim ex Christi carne vivificam in nos per spiritum diffundi, quamvis longe a nobis distet, nec misceatur nobiscum”.

Wim Janse

55

for in 1546. 102 After 1549, as we will see, it was the other way round, with Calvin’s anti-Lutheran tune geared to Swiss ears in particular: given the implacability of the gnesio-Lutherans, it was of course prudent to preserve the unity that had been won with the Swiss. In his 1 Corinthians of 1546 Calvin distanced himself in no uncertain terms from the Zwinglian reduction of the sacrament to its ecclesiological-ethical and commemorative notions, to the detriment of its gift-character. He dissociated himself unconditionally from the limitation of the communio corporis Christi to a partaking of his beneficia; he distanced himself from the negation of the soteriological plus of the manducatio sacramentalis; from the noetic interpretation of the commemoratio; from the disjunction of signum and res signata, and from the resulting evacuatio sacramentorum – all this while continually honoring the instrumentality of the sacrament. In his own words: It is true, that believers are united together by Christ’s blood, so as to become one body. It is also true, that a unity of this kind is with propriety termed ‘koinoonía’. […] But whence, I pray you [obsecro: ‘goodness gracious!’], comes that ‘koinoonía’ between us, but from this, that we are united to Christ in such a way, that we are flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones? For we must first of all be incorporated (so to speak) into Christ, that we may be united to each other.103 […] [The sacraments] are not merely outward signs of profession before men, but are inwardly, too, helps of faith. 104

As to the limitation of the communio Christi to a partaking of Christ’s blessings and the equation of sacramental eating and faith: “Some” (quidam) limit the reception of Christ’s body to a participation in all the blessings Christ has procured for us in his body – when, I say, we by faith embrace Christ as crucified for us. […] I, however, acknowledge that it is only when we obtain Christ himself, that we come to partake of Christ’s blessings. He is, however, obtained, I affirm, not as much when we believe that he was made an offering for us, but when he dwells in us, when he is one with us, when we are members of his flesh, when, in sum, we are incorporated with him (so to speak) into one life and substance. Besides, I attend to the import of the words, for Christ does not simply 102 Cf. Calvin to Veit Dietrich, March 17th, 1546, CO 12,315–317, there 316: “Libellum etiam meum de coena tibi non displicuisse vehementer gaudeo [scil., the Short Treatise, 1541]. […] Utinam, ut dicis, vellent Tigurini se ad hanc confessionem adiungere. Non existimo tam durum esse Lutherum, quin facilis futura esset compositio”. Cf. Heron, Luther, esp. 409. 103 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 10,16; CO 49,464 (cf. CTS 20, 335): “Verum est fideles sociari per Christi sanguinem, ut unum fiant corpus. Verum est etiam eiusmodi unitatem proprie vocari ‘koinoonían’. […] Atqui unde, obsecro, illa inter nos ‘koinoonía’, nisi quia sumus Christo coadunati hac lege, ut caro simus de carne eius et ossa ex ossibus eius? Incorporari enim (ut ita loquar) nos Christo oportet primum, ut inter nos uniamur”. 104 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,25; CO 49,490 (cf. CTS 20, 383): “[…] ergo promissiones continent [scil., sacramenta] quibus erigantur conscientiae ad fiduciam salutis. Unde sequitur, non externa modo professionis signa esse apud homines, sed intus etiam fidei esse adiumenta”.

56

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

present to us the benefit of his death and resurrection, but the very body in which he suffered and rose again. 105

And: As to the inference of some that Christ is not present in the Supper, because a remembrance applies to something that is absent, the answer is easy […] For Christ is not visibly present, and is not beheld with our eyes, as the symbols are which excite our remembrance by representing him. So, in order that he may be present with us, he does not change his place, but communicates to us from heaven the virtue of his flesh as being present. 106

As to the disjunction of sign and the thing signified cum annexis: The expression “the cup is a communion” is “figurative indeed, provided that the truth held forth in the figure is not taken away, or, in other words, provided that the reality itself is also present, and that the soul has as truly communion in the blood, as we drink wine with the mouth”.107 In his explanation of the metonymy in the consecrating words – a trope by which the sign is given the name of the thing signified, e.g., in the expression “I call the White House” or “I read Calvin”108 – Calvin expressed reservations that one year later, in 1547, he was to adduce explicitly against Bullinger. The 1546 Commentary reads: As to the reason of the metonymy: Here I reply, that the name of the thing signified is not applied to the sign simply as being a representation of it, but rather as being a symbol of it, by which the reality is exhibited to us. For I do not allow the force of

105 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,487 (cf. CTS 20, 378–379): “Quidam nobis dari exponunt, dum participes efficimur omnium bonorum, quae nobis Christus in corpore suo acquisivit: dum fide inquam amplectimur Christum pro nobis crucifixum et a mortuis excitatum: eoque modo efficaciter omnibus eius bonis communicamus. Qui sic sentiunt, fruantur sane illo sensu. Ego autem tunc nos demum participare Christi bonis agnosco, postquam Christum ipsum obtinemus. Obtineri autem dico, non tantum quum pro nobis factum fuisse victimam credimus: sed dum in nobis habitat, dum est unum nobiscum, dum eius sumus membra ex carne eius, dum in unam denique et vitam et substantiam (ut ita loquar) cum ipso coalescimus. Praeterea audio quid verba sonent: neque enim mortis tantum ac resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum, in quo passus est ac resurrexit”. 106 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,25; CO 49,489 (cf. CTS 20, 382): “Quod autem hinc nonnulli colligunt, abesse igitur a coena Christum, quoniam memoria nonnisi rei absentis sit: prompta est responsio, secundum hanc rationem, qua coena est recordatio, Christum ab illa abesse: neque enim adest Christus visibiliter, neque oculis cernitur sicuti symbola, quae ipsum figurando memoriam nostram excitant. Denique locum non mutat, ut nobis adsit, sed e coelo praesentem in nos carnis suae virtutem transmittit”. 107 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 10,16; CO 49,464 (cf. CTS 20, 335): “Iam vero quod vocatur calix communicatio, figuratam loquutionem esse fateor: modo non tollatur figurae veritas: hoc est, modo res quoque ipsa adsit, nec minus sanguinis communionem anima percipiat quam ore vinum bibimus”. 108 See Porter, S.E. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C.–A.D. 400, Boston/Leiden 2001, 126–127; Cottret, Sémiotique, 271–275; Frye, R.M., Calvin’s Theological Use of Figurative Language, in: George, Church, esp. 183–186.

Wim Janse

57

those comparisons which some borrow from profane or earthly things; for there is a serious difference between them and the sacraments of our Lord. 109 The statue of Hercules is called Hercules, but what have we there but a bare, empty representation? The Spirit, on the other hand, is called a dove, as being a sure pledge of the invisible presence of the Spirit. Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is exhibited to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. […] The reality is here conjoined with the sign. 110

In Calvin’s 1547 criticism, requested by Bullinger, of Bullinger’s Absoluta de sacramentis tractatio (1546) this argument returned in the following form: I am a bit perturbed at your simply comparing the metonymy inherent in the sacraments to profane images. […] For, where in an image of the Emperor is the Spirit who in a sense brings it to life, so that it becomes effective in our hearts? I know that many sound people abhor Zwingli’s doctrine because it contains so much of this comparison in an uncorrected form. From this, they deduced that the Lord’s Supper was made into a theater show. […] You say that the bread is a symbol. I think so, too. You deny the exhibition. But I do acknowledge it. You see the solution in a figurative explanation. I do not agree with that. For God does not present empty symbols. […] It is God alone who by his Spirit effects what he pre-figures by the symbol. By the same token, the dove was the Spirit. […] It is enough for me that the Holy Spirit has exhibited himself as present, by supplying a symbol of his presence in the dove. 111

109 To wit, the former miss the unio exhibitionis. For this concept, see Janse, Hardenberg, 602, Index, s.v. unio exhibitionis. 110 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,486–487 (cf. CTS 20, 377–378): “Nunc ulterius pergendum, ac quaerenda metonymiae ratio. Hic respondeo, non ideo tantum signo imponi nomen rei signatae, quoniam sit figura: sed magis quia symbolum sit, quo res exhibetur. Similitudines enim, quas mutuantur quidam a rebus profanis aut terrenis, quoniam a sacramentis Domini habent aliquid diversum, non admitto. Vocatur Hercules statua Herculis: sed quid illic est praeter nudam inanemque figuram? Columba autem spiritus vocatur, quia certa sit tessera invisibilis spiritus praesentiae. Ergo panis est Christi corpus: quia certo testetur exhiberi nobis corpus illud quod figurat: vel quia Dominus visibile illud symbolum nobis porrigendo una dat etiam nobis suum corpus: neque enim fallax est Christus, qui vacuis figuris [487] nos ludat. Proinde illud mihi est extra controversiam, veritatem hic cum suo signo coniunctam esse”. 111 Calvin to Bullinger, February 25th, 1547, CO 12,480–489, there 482, 484, and 485: “In eodem capite nonnihil me offendit quod ‘metoonumian’ quae in sacramentis est simpliciter comparas profanis imaginibus. […] Ubi enim spiritus in imagine Caesaris, qui ipsam quodammodo vivificet, quo efficax sit in cordibus nostris? Scio multos bonos viros abhorruisse a Zwinglii doctrina, quod toties occurreret ista comparatio absque correctione. Inde enim colligebant fieri ex coena theatricum spectaculum. (482) […] Panem esse signum contendis. Idem sentimus. Exhibitionem negas. Ego contra assero. In figura nodum putas explicari. Non admitto. Signum enim a Deo vacuum non proficiscitur. (484) […] Solus est Deus qui efficit spiritu suo quod symbolo figurat. Similiter columba erat spiritus. […] Mihi satis est quod spiritus sanctus praesentiae suae symbolum in columba exhibendo se praesentem exhibuit”.

58

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

In short, throughout his 1546 1 Corinthians Commentary Calvin declared the reception of Christ’s body conditional upon the taking and eating of the bread: only by participating in the breaking of the bread we participate in the body. “Non aliter habet suum effectum quam si conditio etiam locum habeat”. 112 All this was possible thanks to the secret and wonderful work and virtue of the Holy Spirit, “which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding”. 113 Nine years later, Calvin again gave a commentary on the consecration words as given in 1 Corinthians, this time in a series of sermons held from 1555 onwards, to wit, during the height of the controversy with Westphal and the preachers of Saxony. 114 Calvin’s confessional orientation in these Sermons (1558) was diametrically opposed to that in his Commentary. In an indisputable spiritualization, the gift character of the sacrament regularly retreated behind its commemorative and ecclesiological-ethical aspects. Besides the assurance that Christian fellowship ensues from the communion with Christ 115 (remember the obsecro from 1546 116 ), the reverse order was also heard: La Cene de nostre Seigneur […] nous est instituee afin qu’il y ait communication entre nous, et que quand nous recevons le pain et le vin, nous soyons certifiez que Iesus Christ est la vie de nos ames. 117 […] Quand nous usons de la saincte Cene, il faut que nous soyons incorporez en nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ: ce qui ne se peut faire que nous ne soyons (which is impossible unless we are) separez d’avec les pollutions du monde […] [et] conioints et unis en droite fraternité les uns avec les autres. 118

The gift itself was not only the unio Christi 119 , but more often and especially the commemoration 120 , or the assurance or confirmation 121 of this com112 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,485 (cf. CTS 20, 375): “Promissio mandato annexa est, veluti conditionalis: ergo non aliter habet suum effectum quam si conditio etiam locum habeat”; ibid. (cf. CTS 20, 376), 485: “Communicando in fractione panis secundum ordinem et ritum a me praeceptum, participes quoque corporis mei eritis”. 113 Comm. 1 Cor., 1 Cor 11,24; CO 49,488 (cf. CTS 20, 380: “[...] id fit arcana spiritus sancti virtute […]. Memineris arcanum ac mirificum esse spiritus sancti opus, quod intelligentiae tuae modulo metiri sit nefas”. 114 Sermons 1 Cor; see above, n. 83. 115 E.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,668: “Mais il est impossible que nous soyons conioints ensemble, que premièrement nous ne soyons encorporez en nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ”. Cf. Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,791–804, there 798. 116 See above, n. 103. 117 Sermons 1 Cor, Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor 11,20–23; CO 49,774. 118 Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,668–669. 119 As in, e.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,665: “c’est que le vin nous soit figure du sang de nostre Seigneuir Iesus Christ et le pain de son corps: pour monstrer […] que par la vertu de son sainct Esprit nous soyons unis à luy”. Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor.

Wim Janse

59

munio, which was daily 122 experienced in faith. Phrased differently: God’s accommodation did not serve the offering of the communion, but was the offering, or: the gift was encompassed within the accommodative function of the Lord’s Supper: “Que nous sçachions donc que ce Sacrement nous est donné […] pour nous eslever là haut à luy. […] Dieu nous tende la main, et […] nous donne comme des degrez (steps) pour parvenir à luy. Et la Cene nous doit servir de cela”. 123 “All sacraments should be ladders to us, enabling us to ascend in order to approach nearer to God”.124 “Les Sacrements [sont instituez] pour nous attirer à nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ”. 125 “Il faut qu’il nous tende la main par ce moyen, et que ceci nous serve pour estre incitez à venir à luy”. 126 Through the Supper, God wants to make us “companions of the angels”, “for by this sacrament we are united with them, pour estre nourris de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, who is both their and our

11,20–23; CO 49,773: “la table nous est apprestee […] de nostre Seigneur Iesus […] il nous reçoit […] pour se donner soy-mesme en pasture pour nos ames”. Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,777–790, there 778: “la Cene emporte […] l’union sacree que nous avons avec le Fils de Dieu”. 120 E.g., cf. Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,800: “Nous voyons de quoy nous doit servir la Cene: c’est que nous cognoissions bien de quoy nous profite la mort et passion de Iesus Christ. Or pour le bien cognoistre, il faut que la memoire nous en soit refreschie”. Ibid., 801: “Cependant il faut que Dieu nous picque comme des asnes: il faut qu’il nous ramene en memoire de cela”. Ibid., 802: “Nous avons besoin d’un memorial […]. Voyla comme la Cene nous sert de memoire […] la Cene nous doit servir de memorial. […] Car le Sacrement qu’il donne est pour toujours nous faire croistre en foy, et nous y confermer”. Ibid., 797: the satiety with Christ’s body and blood is connected to the knowledge (“il faut que nous sçachions”) “que Dieu le Pere nous a tellement unis ensemble que nous n’avons rien de separé”. 121 Sermons 1 Cor, Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor 11,20–23; CO 49,774 (“quand nous recevons le pain et le vin, nous soyons certifiez que Iesus Christ est la vie de nos ames”). Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,781 (“[la Cene…] il l’a faite à ce que fust un gage perpetuel en son Eglise pour asseurer ses fideles qu’ils sont conioints à luy”). Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,798: the Lord’s Supper has been instituted to serve not only as confession and distinctivum, but, in the first place, not, as Calvin had said in the 1540s, to exhibit Christ’s body to us or to establish the unio Christi, but to lift us up, “que nous soyons confermez, et tant mieux certifiez que Dieu nous avoue pour ses enfants, afin que nous le puissions invoquer”. Dixhuitième sermon, 1 Cor 11,26–29; CO 49,804: “Nous devons estre confermez en la foy, et c’est aussi le principal usage que nous avons à regarder en la Cene”. 122 Sermons 1 Cor, Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor 11,20–23; cf. CO 49,770: “au Baptesme et en la saincte Cene […] nous le possedons” with 775: “iournellement nous le possedons, et avons iouissance de luy”. See also below, n. 135. 123 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,789. 124 Sermons 1 Cor, Dixhuitième sermon, 1 Cor 11,26–29; CO 49,803–816, there 815: “Car la Cene, et tous les Sacrements nous doyent servir comme d’echelles pour nous faire monter en haut afin d’approcher de Dieu”. 125 Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,802. 126 Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,803–804.

60

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

life”. 127 Angels and believers equally partake of Jesus Christ, the only difference between them being the need for instruments, i.e., the sacraments, “which pull up”. 128 To the sacramental instrumentality and the Word as a means of grace Calvin devoted few words in the 1558 Sermons. Dominant word pairs were “when […], then” and “in the same way as […], so also” (cf. the symbolic parallelism of Bullinger’s sicut… ita): “when we eat, then […]”, without any comment on whether this should be interpreted in a memorialist, analogous, temporal (parallel and simultaneous), or instrumental sense. 129 The Supper did not confer, but represented (representer) or demonstrated (monstrer): “La Cene n’est sinon pour nous representer la mort et passion de nostre Seigneur, afin que nous cognoissions que là gist tout nostre salut, et que nous soyons confermez […] en la fiance”. 130 Just as in the 1549 Consensus, the perfect tense was used to whitewash the function of the word as a means of grace: at the table we do not doubt that Christ fulfills “qu’il a promis”. 131 In addition to the bread 132 , the act of communion as such was also called moyen. 133 Given daily communion, the added value of the sacramental eating loses significance: “Iournellement nous devons communiquer à luy, encore que la

127 Sermons 1 Cor, Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor 11,20–23; CO 49,771: “[…] Dieu nous apelle à soy, et veut que nous soyons compagnons des Anges. Car par ce Sacrement nous sommes associez avec eux, pour estre nourris de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, qui est leur vie comme la nostre”. 128 Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,793: “Nous avons desia declaré que, si nous estions de la nature des Anges, nous n’aurions plus besoin de Sacremens ne de signes exterieurs. Les Anges sont bien membres de Iesus Christ et participent à luy, et c’est de là aussi qu’ils tirent leur vie: mais cependant ils n’usent point de signes exterieurs. Et pourquoy? Car ils ont une nature plus parfaite que nous n’avons pas. Mais nous, qui ne faisons que rainper ici sur terre, qui sommes grossiers et terrestres, avons besoin d’estre aidez et attirez en haut par les moyens que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ cognoist estre propres et convenables à nostre nature”. See also Sermons 1 Cor, Dixhuitième sermon, 1 Cor 11,26–29; CO 49,810: “Si nous estions comme les Anges de Paradis, nous n’aurions plus besoin de telle aide”. 129 E.g., Sermons 1 Cor, CO 49,669; 774; 791 (“comme […] aussi”); 792 (“tout ainsi que”); 802 (“comme […] ainsi”). 130 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,779; cf. 783: “pour leur [scil., ses disciples] monstrer le fruit de sa mort et passion”. 131 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,790; cf., e.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,797: “[…] quand nous voudrons estre nourris et repues du corps et du sang de Iesus Christ, il faut que nous sçachions […] que Dieu le Père nous a tellement unis ensemble que nous n’avons rien de separé”. 132 E.g., in Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,665: “Le pain et le vin qui nous sont là presentez, nous sont comme gages du corps et du sang de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ”. 133 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,789: “[…] mais nous y venons pour recevoir Iesus Christ, afin de communiquer à luy, et que par ce moyen nous vivions en luy, et qu’il vive en nous”.

Wim Janse

61

Cene ne nous soit point administree” 134 , the extra of the Supper being … the incentive to charity.135 Correspondingly, Calvin was able to describe the everyday life of faith in his customary eucharistic terminology.136 Instead of the element as instrument (even though sometimes called arre or gage, pledge) 137 , he drew attention to the similarity (similitude) 138 , or the proportionality or correspondence (proportion) 139 between bread and body; so that, at least for the 1558 Sermons, Gerrish’s characterization of “symbolic instrumentalism” should be amended to “(symbolic) proportionalism” or “(symbolic) similitudinism”. This change in perspective went hand in hand with a clear rationalization (reflected in repetitive verbs like sçacher, declarer, enseigner, observer, en avoir intelligence, cognoistre, comprendre, pour estre advertis, venir droit à, avoir à retenir) 140 , and a strong emphasis on the ethical conditions and implications of partaking in the Eucharist 141 : the similitude was a signal to the eyes 142 , letting the communicants know that he wants to be their life,

134 Sermons 1 Cor, Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor 11,20–23; CO 49,773. See also Sermons 1 Cor, Dixhuitième sermon, 1 Cor 11,26–29; CO 49,804: “il se communique iournellement à nous”. 135 Ibid.: “[…] mais en la Cene il y a double tesmoignage. […] ne devons nous pas estre incitez à priser les uns les autres […]?” 136 Throughout the sermons. See, e.g., only Sermons 1 Cor, CO 49,796; 799–800: “[…] nous avons maintenant à magnifier la bonté de Dieu, […] qu’en toute nostre vie nous vivions de luy, c’est à dire que nous communiquions à luy, afin que tout ce qu’il ha nous soit commun”, the plus of the Lord’s Supper being only its function as accommodation “à cause de nostre rudesse”. 137 E.g., Sermons 1 Cor, CO 49,664; 787; 789. 138 E.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,787: “A quel propos donc les Sacremens sont-ils instituez? Il faut que nous venions à la similitude”. Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,802: “[…] que, quand nous voyons le pain, quand nous le touchons et mangeons, quand nous goustons pareillement le vin, que là dessus nous prenions ceste similitude, que comme nous nous sentons iournellement que le pain nous donne vigueur […] ainsi il faut que nos ames soyent nourries”. 139 E.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,788: If transubstantiation were te be accepted, “il n’y auroit plus ne proportion ne similitude”. 140 E.g., in Sermons 1 Cor, CO 49,660; 661; 662; 664; 665; 787; 782; 792; 793, respectively, etc. 141 E.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,800: “[…] si est ce qu’il habite en nous par son sainct Esprit, et nous sommes certains de cela en la Cene: et si nostre ingratitude ne nous empesche, nous trouverons pour vray et pour certain ce qui nous est là figuré”. Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,669–670 (670: “c’est bien raison […] que nous en rendions devant les hommes une telle confession et un tel tesmoignage que Dieu requiert de nous”). Huitième sermon, 1 Cor 10,19–24; CO 49,672. Dixhuitième sermon, 1 Cor 11,26–29; CO 49,809–810. 142 See, e.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,665: “et combien que nous voyons là des elemens corruptibles […], que nous cognoissions […]”. Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,800: “cela est pour monstrer comme à veue d’oeil”. Sermons 1 Cor, Dixhuitième sermon, 1 Cor 11,26–29; CO 49,804: “c’est que nous ayons ceste certitude devant nos yeux”.

62

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

under condition 143 that they open themselves up to faith and “live a Christian life” (“ce que nous devons faire, usans des Sacrements” 144 ). 145 Thus, faith and the sursum corda often took on the connotation of a human activity: “We should make an effort to crush under our feet everything that prevents us from elevating ourselves to our Lord Jesus Christ”. 146 “Because [Christ] on his part is faithful, let us be prepared to be open to him” and avoid making it impossible “for his grace to enter in us”. 147 “We apply the bread and the wine” either to the correct purpose or not.148 “Let us make an effort, exceeding all our powers, to ascend to Heaven and reach that place where we will be called ‘his people’ and to which we are invited”. 149 Calvin did still use the word substance, but no longer in relation to “the body of” Christ (unless used in the defamation of the Lutheran position 150 ), and more and more frequently as a synonym of “content”, “essence”, “main point”. 151 Correspondingly, in the 1558 Sermons the demarcation line with Germany was sharply drawn, although the attacks had decreased in frequency. The issue of the manducatio impiorum – in 1546 still called “nonessential” – was now characterized as “too awkward” and “too exorbitant” (une chose 143 E.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Huitième sermon, 1 Cor 10,19–24; CO 49,675: “Pour ce que quand nous venons à la saincte Cene de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, et au Baptesme, nous protestons que nous sommes alliez avec luy, voire à telle condition, que nous n’ayons plus rien de commun avec les idoles, ni à tout ce qui est contraire à la pureté de la religion”. Sermons 1 Cor, Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor 11,20–23; CO 49,770: “il y [scil., à la table] faut apporter une affection comme celeste”. Ibid., 772: “Voyla donc a quelle condition nous sommes assemblez”. See also Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,786: “mais à ceste condition que nous venions recevoir ce tesmoignage ainsi qu’il l’a institué”. 144 Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,665. 145 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,787: “ie vous donne un gage par lequel vous cognoistrez que ie veux accomplir spirituellement en vous ce que ie vous monstre ici à l’oeil par ces signes visibles de pain et de vin”. Cf. ibid.: “Car le Sacrement est institué afin que sous choses terrienes, nous comprenions ce que Dieu veut signifier spirituellement. A quel propos donc les Sacremens sont-ils instituez? Il faut que nous venions à la similitude”. 146 Sermons 1 Cor, Quinzième sermon, 1 Cor 11,20–23; CO 49,770: […] nous faut-il efforcer de mettre sous le pied tout ce qui nous empesche de nous eslever à nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ”. 147 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,790: “Cependant qu’il est fidele de son costé, avisons de luy donner ouverture, que nous n’ayons point nos coeurs enclos en incredulité, en sorte que sa grace ne puisse entrer en nous”. 148 Sermons 1 Cor, Septième sermon, 1 Cor 10,15–18; CO 49,660: “[il faut] que nous sçachions […] à quelle fin nous applicquons le pain et le vin qui nous sont là offerts”. 149 Sermons 1 Cor, Dixseptième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–26; CO 49,804: “[…] que nous nous efforcions pardessus toutes nos forces pour monter au ciel, et pour parvenir là où nous sommes appelez de luy et conviez”. 150 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,788. 151 Sermons 1 Cor, 669: “Aujourd’huy nous avons le corps et la substance” versus “ombrages” “sous la Loy”; 788; 799; 784: Christ is the “substance et verité des figures de la Loy”; 793: “la principale substance” (the main point).

Wim Janse

63

trop lourde, trop exhorbitante), an “infamous blasphemy” on the part of “liars” who “do not have a leg to stand on”, who have “not an ounce of shame” and have been “almost completely bewitched” (bien ensorcelez) by the Devil. 152 These sermons leave the reader somewhat bewildered. Did Calvin really speak like this when he knew the Lutherans were far away, even inaccessible, and the Swiss very close? It seems plausible to explain Calvin’s spiritualization partly also as a homiletic (over)reaction, the result of a pastoral need to keep his Genevan congregation away from the heavy eucharistic views of the Catholic camp. 153 Also, do we see the effects of “1549” here? It is clear, anyhow, that Calvin was familiar with the idea of contextual phrasing. The epithet bucerizans does not at all seem inappropriate in his case. This is also confirmed when we check the Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels (1555). Calvin had dedicated this commentary to the Council of Frankfurt, to whom one year earlier Westphal in turn had dedicated his Collectanea sententiarum D. Aurelii Augustini […] de Coena Domini (Frankfurt, 1555), in which he had presented Augustine as the star witness for the Lutheran position. 154 In this commentary, Calvin’s interpretation of the consecration words offered – undoubtedly related to its dedication – a more balanced mix of confessional ingredients than his Sermons. However, the traces of “1549” and the Second Eucharistic Conflict were still visible. I will have to limit myself here to a brief enumeration. Reminiscent of the Calvin of the 1540s were, for instance, some sentences containing the stipulations: no nudum signum, vere carnis et sanguinis fieri participes, effectus

152 Sermons 1 Cor, Seizième sermon, 1 Cor 11,23–25; CO 49,788: “Mais il est question de sçavoir si le corps de Iesus Christ est tellement enclos sous le pain, qu’on ne puisse manger le pain de la Cene sans recevoir le corps de Iesus Christ. Or c’est une chose trop lourde. Et de faict ils sont contraints de dire que Iudas a receu le corps de Iesus Christ comme S. Pierre, et que les plus meschans et incredules du monde auiourd’huy reçoyvent le corps de Iesus Christ en propre substance. Qui est un blaspheme si brutal que, si le diable ne les avoit bien ensorcelez, il est certain qu’ayant un petit grain de honte ils seroyent retenus pour dire tout autrement: car c’est une chose trop exhorbitante. Ils en sont là neantmoins”. Sermons 1 Cor, Dixhuitième sermon, 1 Cor 11,26– 29; CO 49,815–816: “Il y en a d’autres fantastiques qui insistent sur ces mots de S. Paul pour prouver que les meschants reçoyvent le corps de Iesus Christ comme les bons […] Or tels fantastiques n’ont nul fondement non plus”. 153 See, e.g., Sermons 1 Cor, Huitième sermon, 1 Cor 10,19–24; CO 49,675: “[…] auiourd’huy il faut que nous soyons separez des Papistes: et la chose le monstre assez”. 154 Comm. in harm. Evang., CO 45; the dedication: CO 15,710–712 (cf. CTS 16, xxix– xxxiii). Westphal, J., Collectanea sententiarum divi Aurelii Augustini Episcopi Hipponensis de Coena Domini. Addita est Confutatio vindicans a Corruptelis plerosque locos, quos pro se ex Augustino falso citant Sacramentarii, Ratisbonae 1555 (VD 16, A 4170). See also Janse, Sacramentology.

64

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

vere ad figuram acced[it] 155 ; a promissio in sacra coena inclusa was mentioned, and a iuvari, foveri, fulciri et augeri of faith by the sacraments.156 Less Lutheranizing were the formulations “vera manducatio carnis Christi re ipsa exhibetur” 157 (instead of caro Christi exhibetur) and “se ipsum Christus in coena nobis fruendum offerat” 158 (with Christus and frui instead of the more Luther-friendly corpus Christi comedi 159 ). Bullingerizing accents were the theoretica’ dispensability of the sacrament, but for the fact that its quality of divine assistance should not be rejected 160 ; the limited sacramental instrumentality 161 ; the sicut-ita (or non secus-quam) and analogy vocabulary 162 ; and the believer’s own responsibility for the application of Christ’s sacrifice. 163 For Calvin, the Lutherans seemed to have acquired Westphal’s face, and were now put in one category with the “Papists” (papistae et similes). 164 Calvin castigated their “foolishly superstitious”, “adhering to the words” 165 , and the simultaneous rejection by these “madmen” and “obstinate people” of the metonymy (a “principle of language not recently forged by us, but handed down by Augustine”).166 “Those masters of the letter

155 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,707–708 (cf. CTS 17, 209): “Hactenus a me ostensa fuit simplex verborum Domini expositio: nunc vero addendum est, non vacuum nec inane signum nobis proponi, sed vere carnis et sanguinis fieri participes, qui fide promissionem hanc recipiunt. Frustra enim iuberet suos Dominus panem edere, corpus suum esse af[708]firmans, nisi effectus vere ad figuram accederet”. 156 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mark 14,24; CO 45,711 (cf. CTS 17, 215): “[…] ex voce testamenti aut foederis colligimus, inclusam esse promissionem in sacra coena. Quo refellitur eorum error, qui fidem sacramentis iuvari, foveri, fulciri et augeri negant: nam inter foedus Dei et hominum fidem semper mutua subest relatio”. 157 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,708 (cf. CTS 17, 209). 158 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,708 (cf. CTS 17, 209). 159 Optima ineundae concordiae ratio, si extra contentionem quaeratur veritas, CO 9,517– 524; OS 2,291–295 (cf. TT 2, 573–579), there 519, 292.16, and 574–575, respectively. 160 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,27; CO 45,710 (cf. CTS 17, 213–214): “Quasi vero non eodem praetextu totum sacramentum abolere liceat, quia aeque sui participes nos facere Christus possit absque externo adminiculo. Sed istis puerilibus cavillis nihil iuvatur eius impietas, quia nihil magis absurdum est quam ut traditis a Domino subsidiis sponte careant, vel privari sustineant fideles: ideoque nihil minus ferendum quam impia haec mysterii laceratio”. 161 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,708 (cf. CTS 17, 210). 162 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,708 (cf. CTS 17, 210): “Tenenda enim analogia est vel similitudo panis cum carne, qua docemur, non secus pasci animas carne ipsa Christi quam panis vigorem corporibus instillat”. 163 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mark 14,24; CO 45,711: “[…] nominatim […] singulos fideles hortatur, ut sanguinis effusionem in suum usum accommodent”. (cf. CTS 17, 214: Christ “exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of the blood”.) 164 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mark 14,24; CO 45,711 (cf. CTS 17, 214). 165 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mark 14,24; CO 45,711 (cf. CTS 17, 214): “Caeterum hinc colligere promptum est, quam stulte superstitiosi sint papistae et similes, dum verba mordicus arripiunt”. 166 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,706–707 (cf. CTS 17, 207).

Wim Janse

65

(literae magistri) are no less absurd than the Papists”. 167 Barbs were shot at the consubstantiation 168 , the interpretation of the unio sacramentalis 169 , the confounding of signum and res signata 170 , the “gross imagination” of local inclusion and ubiquity 171 , and the “dreaming” of a natural manducationis genus. 172 How different were the unionistic documents that Calvin produced in a rapprochement to the Lutherans in 1560 and 1562!173 In November 1560 he sent the Bremen Cathedral preacher Albert Hardenberg, a disciple of Martin Bucer, at Hardenberg’s request a “summa” as “vera pacificationis ratio”, to use in Hardenberg’s dispute with Tilemann Heshusius, the gnesio-Lutheran superintendent dismissed from Heidelberg. 174 By doing this Calvin took the place of Hardenberg’s friend Philipp Melanchthon, whose sudden death in April 1560 had prevented the fulfillment of his remarkable promise to second Hardenberg publicly in a disputation with Heshusius, Westphal, and Joachim Mörlin, if possible together with Peter Martyr. 175 I think that we possess the text of the summa with which Calvin intervened in the Optima ineundae concordiae ratio, si extra contentionem quaeratur veritas, written together with Beza and published in 1561 and in 1570 in a Polish translation, as an appendix to the moderate Consensus of Sendomir. 176 In short, the 167 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,707 (cf. CTS 17, 209, with defective translation): “Ergo non minus ridiculi sunt isti posteriores literae magistri quam papistae”. 168 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,707 (cf. CTS 17, 208). 169 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,707 (cf. CTS 17, 208–209). 170 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,708 (cf. CTS 17, 209). 171 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,708 (cf. CTS 17, 209–210). 172 Comm. in harm. Evang., Mt 26,26; CO 45,708 (cf. CTS 17, 210). 173 The same is true for Calvin’s 1561 reply to Tilemann Heshusen’s attempt to pillory Calvin as a Zwinglian. Calvin’s reply will be left aside here. See Heshusius, T., De praesentia Corporis Christi in Coena Domini Contra Sacramentarios, Ihenae 1560 (VD 16, H 3103); Ioannis Calvinus, Dilucida explicatio sanae doctrinae de vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra Coena, ad discutiendas Heshusii nebulas, Genevae 1561, CO 9,457–517 (cf. TT 2, 495–572). See Steinmetz, D., Calvin and His Lutheran Critics, LuthQ 4, 1990, 179–194, also in: idem, Calvin in Context, New York/Oxford 1995, 172–186; Krüger, Th., Empfangene Allmacht. Die Christologie Tilemann Heshusens (1527–1588) (FKDG 87), Göttingen 2004, 68–96, 154–163. 174 Calvin to Albert Hardenberg, November 5th, 1560, CO 18,233–234, there 234: “[...] sed facere non potui quin ab amico tuo quodam admonitus, gratum tibi fore officium si tibi scriberem, illius ac tuo simul voto obsequerer. Quod vero significavit ille idem te cupere, summam totius controversiae breviter collectam tibi mitto, in qua videor simpliciter mihi complexus quaenam futura sit vera pacificationis ratio”. 175 Neuser, W.H., Hardenberg und Melanchton. Der Hardenbergische Streit (1554–1560), JGNKG 65, 1967, 186; Janse, Hardenberg, 80. 176 See above, n. 159. I presented a first indication of this “Bremen” identification and an analysis of its contents at the ICCR in Princeton 2002; see Janse, W., Calvin, a Lasco und Beza: Eine gemeinsame Abendmahlserklärung (Mai 1556)? Bericht eines Forschungsseminars mit offenem Ausgang, in: Selderhuis, H.J. (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20–24 2002 (THR 338), Genève 2004, 209–231, with a new edition of the Optima ratio at 225–231.

66

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

via media Calvin trod there was identical to that of the Petit traicté de la saincte cene (1541) and of Hardenberg’s Lutheranizing confessions (1560– 1561). Immediately after the controversy with Westphal (until 1558) Calvin even proved to be able to bucerizare by means of Luther-friendly formulas such as: sub pane et vino177 ; “licebit admittere loquendi formas [...] sub pane vel cum pane nobis dari Christi corpus”178 ; corpus Christi comedi179 ; alimentum180 ; substantialiter nos pasci Christi carne 181 , substantialiter nos fieri carnis Christi participes 182 , both echoing the substantialiter (wesentlich) of the Wittenberg Concord (1536) and of Melanchthon’s Confessio Saxonica (1551) and Examen ordinandorum (1552) 183 ; and many formulas more.184 In the Confession de Foy pour presenter à l’Empereur (1562), which Calvin expected to attract “beaucoup d’Allemans qui sont alienes des Francois pour la matiere de la Cene” 185 , he added several elements, among which the following, dissociating himself from Zwinglian stereotypes 186 : the indispensability of the sacrament 187 ; the participation and vivification “de la propre substance de son corps” 188 , and the genuine effectiveness of the 177 Optima ratio, OS 2,292.1 (cf. TT 2, 574). 178 Optima ratio, OS 2,293.24–26 (cf. TT 2, 576). 179 Optima ratio, OS 2,292.16 (cf. TT 2, 574–575). 180 Optima ratio, OS 2,292.17 (cf. TT 2, 575). 181 Optima ratio, OS 2,294.20 (cf. TT 2, 577). 182 Optima ratio, OS 2,294.24–25 (cf. TT 2, 577). 183 Wittenberg Concord (1536), BSLK, 65: “Itaque sentiunt et docent, cum pane et vino vere et substantialiter adesse, exhiberi et sumi corpus Christi et sanguinem”. Confessio Saxonica (1551), CR 28,418; MWA 6,130.7–10: “Docentur […] in usu instituto in hac communione vere et substantialiter adesse Christum”. Examen ordinandorum (1552), CR 23,66; MWA 6,202.29–31: “[…] er bezeuget, das er warhafftiglich und wesentlich bey uns und in uns sein wil und wil in den bekerten wonen”. In his Optima ratio Calvin used the same expression, OS 2,294.19–24 (cf. TT 2, 577): “[…] non est cur negemus substantialiter nos pasci Christi carne, quia vere coalescimus cum ipso in unum corpus per fidem, et ita unum cum ipso efficimur. Unde sequitur substantiali societate nos cum ipso coniungi, non secus ac substantialis vigor a capite in membra defluit”. 184 See Janse, Abendmahlserklärung, 217–220. 185 Calvin to Louis de Condé, May [7th], 1563, CO 20,12–15, there 14; see also above, n. 14. 186 Such as evacuatio signorum and commemorialism: Conf. l’Emp., CO 9,753–772, there 764: “Car ce ne sont point figures vaines”; 768: “Or en disant que la Cene nous est un signe, nous n’entendons point que ce soit une simple figure, ou remembrance […]; il est certain qu’il ne nous veut point amuser à quelque vaine apparence”. 187 Conf. l’Emp., CO 9,764: “Dieu […] y desploye la vertu de son Esprit, comme par ses organes. […] Nous confessons aussi que l’usage en est necessaire, et que tous ceux qui n’en tiennent conte se declarent contempteurs de la grace de Dieu, et sont aveuglez d’un orgueil diabolique, ne cognoissans point leur infirmité, laquelle Dieu a voulu supporter par un tel moyen et remede”. 188 Conf. l’Emp., CO 9,769: “Cependant nous confessons que vrayement nous sommes unis avec nostre Seigneur Iesus, tellement qu’il nous vivifie de la propre substance de son corps”; 767: “La Cene n’est autre chose qu’un Sacrement, par lequel tous Chrestiens participent ensemble au corps et au sang de Iesus Christ”; 770–771: “[…] car nous confessons, […] qu’il ne laisse pas de nous, vivifier en soy, d’habiter en nous, voire et [771] nous faire participans de la substance de son corps et de son sang”. At the Colloquy of Poissy (September 1561), the Catholic negotiator Claude

Wim Janse

67

sacraments 189 regarding the recipients (instead of: regarding the faithful) – this in line with the distributio vescentibus in the 1530 Augsburg Confession. 190 A veritable concession was the insertion on the subject of the manducatio impiorum (characterized as “nonessential” in 1546 and as an “impious blasphemy” on the part of those bewitched by the Devil in 1558), i.e., that according to common sacramental language there was indeed such a thing: “Nous confessons bien que par forme de parler, qu’on nomme Sacramentale, les meschans reçoivent le corps et le sang de Iesus Christ, et les anciens Docteurs ont bien quelque fois usé de ce langage”. 191 Using exactly the same forma loquendi, the Reformed Hardenberg had shortly before that been able to answer an unequivocal “yes” to all purely Lutheran inquisitional questions on the Lord’s Supper that were put to him for his simple agreement or rejection – imperturbably adding the adverb “sacramentally”. 192

4. Calvinus calvinizans Calvin’s eucharistic views were not from the beginning a detailed, coherent, and unified doctrine, of which the Agreement of Zurich (1549) or the 1559 Institutes are supposed to be the representative expression, but show a historical development. My own observations have shown me that in 1536–1537 “Zwinglianizing” accents, or the absence of, e.g., instrumentalist language may be noted, for instance in Calvin’s Discours of October 5th and 7th, 1536 on Les Ard’Espence had even suggested that Calvin’s view of the presence of the substance of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper might provide a foundation for Catholic and Reformed agreement; see Elwood, The Body Broken, 194 n. 69, cf. 117, 206 n. 53. 189 See, e.g., Conf. l’Emp., CO 9,764: 764: “Or nous croyons que tout ce qui est là figuré et demonstré s’accomplit en nous”; 768: “[Nous] confessons que vrayement ce qui nous est là signifié, y est quant et quant accompli par effect. […] Parquoy nous tenons que ceste doctrine de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, à sçavoir que son corps est vrayement viande, et son sang breuvage (Iean 6, 55), non seulement est representee et ratifiee en la Cene, mais aussi accomplie par effect”. Cf. 768: “la vertu des Sacremens ne depend point de nostre foy”; 772: “Cependant nous conioignons tousiours la verité avec la figure, tellement que ce mystere n’est point frustratoire”. 190 Conf. l’Emp., CO 9,764: “D’avantage, nous croyons […] que le Sacrement ne laisse point d’estre bon et vallable […]. Ainsi nous croyons que les Sacremens […] retiennent tousiours leur nature, pour apporter et communiquer vrayement à ceux qui les reçoyvent ce qui est là signifié”. 191 Conf. l’Emp., CO 9,769, with the addition: “mais ils se sont exposez en adioustant que ce n’estoit point realement et de faict, mais entant que le Sacrement le porte, comme aussi nous ne pouvons avoir nulle part a Iesus Christ que par foy, et il n’a nulle accointance avec nous, si nous ne sommes ses membres”. 192 Janse, Hardenberg, 238–239.

68

Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology

ticles de Lausanne (October 1st, 1536) 193 , in his 1536 Institutes 194 , and in the First Catechism (1536, published in 1538). 195 Evidence of “Lutheranizing” influences also received via Bucer is offered by, among other documents, the Confessio fidei de eucharistia of September 1537 196 ; the 1539 Institutes 197 ; the Short Treatise (1541) and Calvin’s 1 Corinthians Commentary (1546). Renewed spiritualizing tendencies from 1549 onwards I have pointed out earlier. The 1559 Institutes also incorporated the outcomes of the controversy with Westphal. 198 Gradually, Calvin formed his own, “mature” eucharistic theology. There is no need to discuss this in detail here. For an excellent analysis I can recommend the Ph.D. thesis (University of Chicago) by Thomas J. Davis, The Clearest Promises of God: The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching (New York, 1995) – even though his acute insights may be further complemented or nuanced by the theses I have worked out here. Davis sees a step-by-step development in Calvin’s eucharistic theology between 1536 and 1559, from “an incomplete and often ambiguous summary” to the incorporation of “the work of a lifetime into a coherent whole” 199 , the foundations being at place at the end of the Strasbourg period. 200 Davis paints a meticulous picture of Calvin’s moving “from denying the Eucharist as an instrument of grace to affirming it as such, [while developing] a notion of substantial partaking of the true body and blood of Christ over his career; an emphasis that is practically absent, even denied, in his earliest teaching”. 201 He traces the steps of the Reformer “from a position that posited no eucharistic gift to one that affirms such a gift” and sketches the development of important aspects that are “entirely lacking” in 1536 202 , such as the Holy Spirit as the bond between Christ and the Chris-

193 Deux discours de Calvin au Colloque de Lausanne, CO 9,877–886 (cf. LCC 22, 34–37). Les Articles de Lausanne (October 1st, 1536), CO 9,701–702; cf. CO 9,liii–liv. 194 Inst. (1536), CO 1,1–252; OS 1,11–283; see also above, n. 9. 195 Cat. Genev. prior, CO 5,313–354; COR III, Vol. 2,1–112; English trans.: Hesselink, I.J., Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, Louisville 1997, 33–35, cf. 140–154. The 1537 French edition (Instr. et Conf.) was a translation of the 1538 Latin Catechism, see COR III, Vol. 2, xiv. 196 Conf. de euchar., CO 9,711–712; OS 1,435–436 (cf. LCC 22, 167–169). 197 Inst. (1539), CO 1,253–1152. 198 Cf. Niesel, W., Calvins Lehre vom Abendmahl im Lichte seiner letzten Antwort an Westphal, München 1930, 7–11; Inst. (1559), IV.17,20–34. Also Neuser, W.H., The Development of the Institutes 1536 to 1559, in: John Calvin’s Institutes, His Opus Magnum. Proceedings of the Second South African Congress for Calvin Research July 31–August 3, 1984, Potchefstroom 1986, esp. 53. 199 Davis, Promises, 7. 200 Davis, Promises, 128. 201 Davis, Promises, 7–8. 202 Davis, Promises, 86, cf. 76–77.

Wim Janse

69

tian (worked out by 1539203 ), the Eucharist as an act of accommodation, and God’s instrumental way of working in the world, shaping up in 1539, and in the 1540 Romans Commentary. 204 By this careful, developmental approach Davis wisely avoids the mistake that is so often made – apparently based on the silent presupposition of the unchangeability of Calvin’s (eucharistic) doctrine – i.e., to see Book IV, Chapters 14 and 17 of the 1559 Institutes as “the fullest expression of a system of thought that needed only that – fuller expression”. 205 The flesh-and-blood theologian should never be abstracted to a timeless theology. Who was “the real Calvin”? Was he Calvinus bullingerizans? Lutherizans? Bucerizans? Calvin “was a man just like us” (James 5,17). Every person undergoes and absorbs influences, develops, makes choices. Under the influences Calvin united in himself, in his development, and in the accents he chose to put and the positions he opted for206 , he was and remained himself: Calvinus calvinizans. That particular Calvin is no historical fiction.

203 Davis, Promises, 109. 204 Davis, Promises, 109–129, cf. 7–8. 205 Davis, Promises, 3. 206 For an outstanding attempt to do justice to the “dialectics of paradoxes” in Calvin’s thought, see Beintker, M., Calvins Denken in Relationen, ZThK 99, 2002, 109–129. For an analysis of the “vital tension within a complex of opposites” in Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist, see Meyer, J.R., Mysterium fidei and the Later Calvin, SJTh 25, 1972, 392–411; the quote is from 392.

Calvin’s Use of Doctrina in His Catechisms

I. John Hesselink

1. Introduction I must confess that I have struggled with how to treat the subject assigned to me. It was clear at the outset that the intent was not to give a summary of the topics treated in Calvin’s Catechisms of 1537/38 and 1542/5. That would be tantamount to giving a summary of Calvin’s whole theology. After consulting with Herman Selderhuis, it became apparent that what the praesidium had in mind was how Calvin treated doctrines in his catechisms in contrast to how he treats doctrinal subjects in the Institutes. Even so, that is a formidable subject which requires further refinement. This means, among other things, that I am not going to focus on Calvin’s pedagogical approach, a topic that has been treated elsewhere. 1 I am, however, interested in seeing how the pedagogical and confessional purpose of these catechisms affect the placement of certain doctrines and whether this purpose prompted Calvin to omit certain topics. Nor am I going to give a critical analysis of Calvin’s theology as found in the catechisms. Rather, I shall examine the role these catechisms have played in the development of Calvin’s early theology, particularly how the 1537/8 Catechism serves as a bridge between the first (1536) and second editions of the Institutes, and how the 1542/5 Catechism represents a development of the 1539 Institutes. To what extent do these catechisms represent a significant advance in Calvin’s theological development? 2 Finally, because these catechisms were intended primarily for children and unlearned laity, is there any dumbing down of doctrines for their benefit? Granted, the terminology and style must be suited for the intended 1 Above all, see Hedtke, R., Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin, Heidelberg 1969. Cf. the essay by Kingdon, R., Catechesis in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Engen, J. van (ed.), Educating People of Faith. Exploring the History of Jewish and Christian Communities, Grand Rapids 2004, 294– 313. 2 Ford Lewis Battles outlines the relationship of the topics dealt with in the 1538 Catechism and the 1536 and 1539 Institutes in his privately published translated and annotated version of the 1538 Catechism, 1972, x, xi, but he does not deal with their theological significance.

I. John Hesselink

71

audiences, but does that necessarily involve compromising Calvin’s doctrinal stance as he accommodates his treatment of certain difficult or controversial doctrines? These are the issues I plan to treat in this lecture, albeit briefly.

2. Concerning the term doctrina Up to this point I have used the word doctrine rather loosely. In the original title assigned to me, the Latin word doctrina was used, and probably for a specific reason. In English we generally simply use an almost literal equivalent, viz., doctrine, but it also has the meaning of teaching or instruction. Victor E. d’Assonville, Jr., has even written a doctoral dissertation 3 on the concept of doctrina in Calvin’s theology. In an essay limited to the use of doctrina in the first edition of the Institutes, d’Assonville concludes that “Calvin used doctrina in such an active and dynamic way that one often has to translate it with a verb, a verbalized noun or even with a verbal phrase”.4 Calvin never defines the term and uses it in a variety of ways. It can stand for Scripture, for preaching and proclamation as well as teaching. In chapter four of the 1536 Institutes d’Assonville finds frequent uses of doctrina “connected either with Christ or with the apostles (doctrina Christi, apostolica doctrina, doctrina Apostolorum, sacra Dei doctrina) […] They all have one thing in common, the origin and source of the doctrina is situated with God or with the apostles who received it from God”. 5 In this connection d’Assonville refers to Calvin’s commentary on Acts 2:42, especially the phrase, “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching”. Calvin comments, “He begins with doctrine (doctrina), which is the soul of the church. He does not name doctrine of any kind (quamlibet doctrinam) but that of the apostles which the Son of God had delivered by their hands”. 6 Elsewhere it has been pointed out that in the final edition of the Institutes the term doctrina most commonly refers to “heavenly doctrine” (doctrina

3 d’Assonville, V.E., Der Begriff ‘doctrina’ bei Johannes Calvin – eine theologische Analyse, Münster 2001. A shorter English version of his dissertation appears in KOERS. Bulletin vir christelike Wetenskap 66 (1 & 2), 201. The ministry of the Word – the concept of doctrina as used by Calvin in his first Institutes (1536), 71–86. 4 The ministry of the Word, 71. 5 Ibid., 79. Examples may be found in Opera Selecta (OS) I, 152, 144, and 145. 6 Comm. Acts 2:42 (CO 48,57).

72

Doctrina in His Catechisms

coelestis). “Thus it becomes clear that it derives from the Bible and consequently from God.” 7 Reinhold Hedtke discerns further a three-fold use of the term doctrina: Doctrina and knowledge (Erkenntnis); doctrina and the Christian life; doctrina in relation to warnings or admonitions (Mahnungen) and progress (Fortschreiten). 8 In all its manifestations Calvin’s goal is to build the church and edify its members through the utilitas, usus and fructus of doctrina. 9 Finally, it should be kept in mind that if the teaching or preaching of doctrine is to be beneficial, it must be blessed by God and accompanied by prayer “For doctrine is cold unless it is given divine efficacy”. 10

3. Historical When Calvin was pressured by Farel to assist him in the reform of Geneva in 1536, one of the first things he did was draft a confession of faith, probably in collaboration with Farel. He also submitted “Articles concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship at Geneva proposed by the Ministries at the Council” in January, 1537 11 , and wrote a catechism intended primarily for the instruction of youth titled Instruction et Confession de Foy 12 – in English simply Instruction in Faith. 13 It is not in the typical question and answer form but consists of 33 very brief sections (with the exception of the exposition of the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer). The following year (1538) Calvin produced a Latin version which differs only in small details. Now it is called a Catechism or Institute(s): Catechis7 Neuser, W.H., Calvin’s Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift, in: Neuser, W.H. (ed.), Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, Grand Rapids 1994, 54. Translation mine. Neuser goes on to say, “Doctrina ist wie verbum Dei ein Allgemein- begriff, dessen Bezug zur Heiligen Schrift und zur Verkündigung der Erklärung bedarf”, ibid. 8 Hedtke, Erziehung durch die Kirche, 45. “Calvins Verständnis der doctrina, durch die die Kirche erbaut wird, ist drittens dadurch bestimmt, dass zur doctrina exhortationes und reprehensiones als stimuli hinzutreten müssen, um einen progressus zu bewirken”, ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Comm. John 17:1 (CO 47,374), “Friget enim doctrina, nisi divinitus efficax reddatur”. 11 OS I, 369–377. English translation in: Introduction to Calvin: Theological Treatises, Library of Christian Classics Vol. XXII, translated with Introduction and Notes by J.K.S. Reid, Philadelphia 1954, 48–71. 12 OS I, 378–417. Francois Wendel conjectures that Farel was also the co-author of the Catechism, but there is little support for this position, Calvin. Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, New York 1950, 52. 13 The English translation is by Paul T. Fuhrman, Philadelphia 1949.

I. John Hesselink

73

mus, sive Christianae Religionis Institutio. 14 There is a significant addition, however. This edition was produced primarily for ecumenical purposes and accordingly has a long introduction not found in the French edition.15 It is in the form of an open letter addressed to “All who devotedly honor (religiose colentibus) the Gospel of Christ, the ministers of the church at Geneva pray grace and peace and the increase of true godliness from the Lord”. 16 After an opening paragraph Calvin states forthrightly what his motive is in sending this Latin version to other churches. 17 Because we know that it befits us especially that all churches embrace one another in mutual love, there is no better way to attain this than for all parties to work out an agreement (consensionem) and testify to it in the Lord. For us there is no closer bond than this to keep minds in harmony [...] Since we seemed to be able to attain this by no shortcut (compendio) more readily than if some sure model (specimen) of our doctrine – or rather catholic attestation thereof – were to stand forth publicly, we considered that this Catechism, which had a little while ago been put out in the vernacular, ought to be published among other churches, and having been received as a guarantee (obside), they may become more certain of our union with them. 18

We don’t know if Calvin achieved his purpose with this Latin edition. Nor do we know how much the earlier French version was actually used in Geneva, for Calvin and Farel were forced to leave Geneva shortly after its publication. But later generations have come to appreciate it as a beautiful summary of the young Calvin’s theology. The doyen of American scholars of a past generation, John T. Mc Neill, maintains that Instruction in Faith “remains a masterpiece of condensation and simplicity and is unsurpassed as a key to Calvin’s teaching [...] a brilliant summary of the main teaching of the Institutes, intended for lay readers”. 19 While Calvin was in Strasbourg, he came to know Martin Bucer’s 1534 and 1537 Catechisms, which were done in what had become the popular question and answer style. 20 Calvin translated part of Bucer’s 1537 Catech14 CO 5,317–362. Ford Lewis Battles’ translation is available in Hesselink, I.J., Calvin’s First Catechism. A Commentary, Louisville 1997. 15 This introductory letter is also found in the OS I, 426–432. 16 OS I, 426; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 1. 17 Battles suggests that “these lines reflect the strain of protracted negotiations among the Swiss Reformed churches as they sought to determine the theological position and practices of Calvin and Farel now emerging at Geneva in relation to those of the other cities,” John Calvin: Catechism i, note. That may well be true, but one wonders whether a Latin version of the Genevan Confession might not have served the same purpose. 18 OS I, 426–7; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 1, 2. 19 McNeill, J.T., The History and Character of Calvinism, New York 1954, 140. 20 One of the earliest Reformed catechisms of this type was by Capito in 1527. Leo Jud also produced a catechism in 1534. Luther’s two catechisms also probably served as models for Calvin. Bucer may have been influenced by the catechism of the Bohemian Brethren, Kinderfrage 1521,

74

Doctrina in His Catechisms

ism into French and used it in his congregation.21 Hence, when Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541, he had several models of the dialogical approach which would serve him well when he prepared another catechism that would be more suitable for young children. This is the Geneva Catechism of 1542, which was translated into Latin in 1545.22 The purpose of the Latin version was much the same as the Latin version of the earlier 1538 Catechism, viz., to share the faith with other churches. He gives as a second reason that many people – Genevans, it appears – asked him to produce such a catechism. He also alludes to his earlier Catechism and expresses the hope that this new Catechism will not result in the demise of the former one. 23 Upon his arrival in Geneva, Calvin insisted on a new church order that would require a better system of discipline and that the city would adopt his new catechism, which was completed early in 1542. This Catechism was soon put into use both in the church (on Sunday afternoons) and in the home, where parents were urged to teach it to their children. The minimal expectation was that the citizens of Geneva could recite by memory the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer 24 – requirements that most Protestants could not meet today! This Catechism consists of 373 questions and is further divided into 55 Sundays in the footnotes of the French text. The idea is to provide a summary of the themes of the Catechism. There are also four main categories that are fairly standard: the Creed (faith), the law, prayer, and the sacraments. Calvin clearly had a high regard for this Catechism although he admits that he wrote the first version in haste.25

which was published also in Strasbourg in 1523. Cf. Watanabe, N., Calvin’s Second Catechism: Its Predecessors and Its Environment, in: Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, 224–232. 21 On the relation between Bucer’s catechisms and Calvin’s 1542 Catechism see Haga, S., Calvin’s 1542 Catechism and Bucer’s 1537 Catechism, in: Lee, S.-Y. (ed.), Calvin in Asian Chuches, Seoul 2002, 13–27. 22 Both versions are found in the Corpus Reformatorum/Calvini Opera, Vol. VI, 10–134, the 1545 (Latin) version also in Opera Selecta II, 72–144. A recent edition of the 1542 Catechism is found in Fatio, O. (ed.), Confession et catechismis de la foi réformée, Geneva 1986, 25–110. An English translation of the French version is found in Torrance, T.F. (ed.), The School of Faith. The Catechisms of the Reformed Church, London 1959, who inaccurately dates it 1541. A translation of the Latin version is by J.K.S. Reid in: Theological Treatises. 23 Calvin explains this in a letter to pastors in Ost Friesland in November 27, 1545, OS II, 72–4. English translation in: Calvin: Theological Treatises (LCC Vol. XXII), 88–91. 24 For a more detailed account as to how the Catechism was used, see Kingdon, Catechesis in Calvin’s Geneva, 300–305. Cf. Mentzer, R.A., The Printed Catechism and Religious Instruction in the French Reformed Churches, in: Barnes, R./Kolb, R.A./Presley, P.L. (eds.), Books Have Their Own Destiny. Essays in Honor of Robert V. Schnucker, Vol. L, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 93–101. 25 He conceded this in his farewell speech to the ministers of Geneva, CO 894, cited in Wendel, Calvin, 78.

I. John Hesselink

75

Estimates of the Geneva Catechism vary. Robert Kingdon feels that “Beyond its clear and useful main structures the Geneva Catechism is not particularly well organized. […] The answers expected of the children range from simple statements of assent to rather long expositions of points of theology”. 26 Wendel also concedes that Calvin “did not succeed in avoiding some prolixity inappropriate to the pedagogical purpose27 he had in mind.” Nevertheless, he adds, this Catechism “played a considerable role in the spread of Calvinism.” 28 Generally, among Calvin scholars there is admiration for the way in which the theologian could express profound and difficult doctrinal issues in language on a level with the common experience and understanding of the students. 29 This was no doubt partly due to the maturity he had gained during his pastoral experience in Strasbourg. Thus, in contrast to the judgments of Kingdon and Wendel, McNeill calls this Catechism “a masterpiece of simplicity and condensation, free from polemic, laden with Christian knowledge, and informed with evangelical feeling”. 30 It should be noted, in passing, that these were not the only catechisms composed by Calvin or his colleagues during his ministry in Geneva. Many of them were abridgements of the Geneva Catechism. One designed particularly for small children to prepare them for the Lord’s Supper was published in 1551. 31 There were also revisions of the Catechism in 1563 and

26 Kingdon, Catechesis in Calvin’s Geneva, 304. In this connection, Jean-Piere Pin observes, “Nous pouvons affirmer ces premieres constatations en analysant les positions que le minister et l’enfant occupant respectivement deres les énoncés des questions et des responses. Leur relation apparait alors avec á la fois sa complexité et sa plasticité”, Pour une analyse textuelle du catéchisme (1542) de Jean Calvin,” in: W.H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, Kampen 1980, 167. 27 On the pedagogy of the Catechism see Millet, O., “Rendre raison de la foi: le Catéchisme de Calvin (1542) in Aux origins du catechisme en France, Paris 1988. 28 Wendel, Calvin, 80. 29 Nobuo Watanabe emphasizes the confessional and practical character of Calvin’s Geneva Catechism in his book Geneve Kyǀkai Shinkomondǀ sho (The Genevan Church’s Catechism), Tokyo 1989. He finds in the Catechism a more confessional approach in contrast to the more educational approach in Bucer’s catechism, 134. 30 McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, 204. J.K.S. Reid concurs in this positive estimate. He recognizes “minor blemishes” in terms of the pedagogical approach, but concludes that they can not “take away the excellence and the clarity with which the Catechism expounds the content of the Christian faith”, Theological Treatises, 84. 31 La Manier D’Interroguer Les Enfans Qu’on Veut Recevoir a La Cene De Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ, CO 6,149–159. A note in the text indicates that this was published in 1553, but Rodolphe Peter has shown that it first appeared in 1551. See Elsie McKee’s translation, The Way of Questioning the Children Whom You Wish to Receive the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in: John Calvin. Writings on Pastoral Piety, The Classics of Western Spirituality, New York 2001, 101–104. The previous year (1561) Jean Crispin published in Geneva L’ABC francois (The French Primer), and variations of this little catechism were published in 1562, 1568 and 1630.

76

Doctrina in His Catechisms

1564 32 , and in 1562, the Genevan printer Francois Jaquy published his own Instruction for Christians. 33 All of this points to the concern in Geneva to produce an educated laity who were well grounded in the new evangelical faith.

4. Comparison of Calvin’s Two Catechisms All of the above is prolegomena, so to speak, in order to understand better how Calvin handles specific doctrines in his two Catechisms. One of the most obvious differences – one commonly noted – is the different placement of the law and the Creed. In the 1537/8 Catechism, Calvin follows Luther and the order in the 1536 Institutes by discussing the law first and then faith (the Creed). This order is reversed in the Geneva Catechism. Here he may have been influenced by Bucer’s 1534 Catechism, which also discussed faith before the law, thus reflecting his later designation of the third use of the law (usus tertius) as the “principal” and “proper” use of the law.34 However, Calvin also teaches the third use of the law in the 1537/8 Catechism in the context of sanctification. Section 17 reads, “Through Faith We Are Sanctified unto Obedience to the Law”. 35 In the Geneva Catechism Calvin states that the law has only a double office (Q. 227), but then, in effect, teaches a third function of the law in the following questions and answers. For here he says that believers should not consider the law “to be superfluous” (supervacuum), for “it shows us the mark (scopum) at which we ought to aim and the goal to which we must strive”. 36 Something not as frequently noticed is that whereas Calvin has a fairly lengthy paragraph treating predestination in his first Catechism (§13), the

Concerning these and similar catechisms published in Geneva during Calvin’s lifetime see Peter, R., Revue d’Historie et de Philosophie Religieuses, Vol. 45, 1965, 11–45. 32 Peter, R. (ed.), Jean Calvin. Deux Congrégations et Exposition Du Catéchisme, Paris 1964. 33 From Rodolphe Peter’s essay cited in note 32. An English translation of this essay by Charles Raynal (The Geneva Primer or Calvin’s Elementary Catechism) is found in Calvin Studies V, papers given at a colloquium at Davidson College, January 19–20, 1990. 34 Institutes II.7.12 (1539–1559), OS III, 337. 35 Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 19. Unless noted otherwise, I am using the Battles translation of the Latin 1538 Catechism. The original reads, “Per Fidem Sanctificamur in Legis Obedientiam”, CO 5,335. 36 OS II, 112; Reid, Theological Treatises, 118. Unless otherwise noted, I shall be using J.K.S. Reid’s translation of the Latin (1545) edition of the Geneva Catechism.

I. John Hesselink

77

topic is missing in the Geneva Catechism. 37 The main reason for this may be his sensitivity to the understanding of children, but there are also other writings of Calvin in which the doctrine of predestination plays little or no role. 38 The major differences between the two Catechisms consist largely of what is missing in the Geneva Catechism, although occasionally the approach also differs. For example, the first Catechism opens with the statement, “All Men Have been Born for Religion”. 39 Question 1 of the 1545 Catechism asks, “What is the chief end of human life?” The answer reads, “That men should know God by whom they were created”.40 This resembles more closely the opening lines of the various editions of the Institutes. Of those doctrines or topics that are missing in the Geneva Catechism, one of the most surprising is the lack of an anthropology. In the first Catechism there is a paragraph on “Man” (§4)41 , which focuses on the loss of the image of God; one on “Free Will” (§5), i.e., the loss of it 42 ; and a paragraph on “Sin and Death” (§6).43 One is hard pressed to find anything like this in the Geneva Catechism. One might expect to find it in the discussion of the law, but there are very few references to sin, as such, in the treatment of the Decalogue. In the context of the discussion of the second commandment Calvin refers to “the condition of the human race” and adds, “For by nature we are all liable to the curse”. 44 Later there are references to our “depravity” 45 and “depraved thoughts” that proceed from the corruption (vitio) of our nature 46 , but that is about the extent of references to our sinfulness. This is curious, especially in view of the alleged Calvinistic pen37 There are a few allusions to this doctrine, however, in the Geneva Catechism, e.g., in Questions 93 and 100 (in connection with the church) and 157 (in connection with the second commandment). 38 For example, the Genevan Confession of 1537 and Calvin’s Preface to Olivétan’s translation of the New Testament. The doctrine assumes a larger place in his later writings as a result of various attacks on his view of predestination. 39 CO 5,323; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 7: “Omnes Homines ad Religionem Esse Natos”. The French (1537 version has an interesting variant which sounds more like the opening of the 1536 (and 1559) Institutes: “Que tous hommes sont nez pour cognoistre Dieu”, O S I, 378. 40 OS. II, 75; Reid, Theological Treatises, 91. 41 CO 5,325 Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 9. 42 CO 5,326; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 9–10. 43 CO 5,326; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 10. 44 Q. 154. “Natura enim maledictioni obnoxii sumus omnes,” OS II, 99; Reid, Theological Treatises, 110. 45 Q. 222. OS II, 110; Reid, Theological Treatises, 17. Note: Neither here, nor anywhere else in either Catechism is there a reference to “total depravity.” The 1537 version has ‘malice’ (malice) instead of ‘depravity,’ CO 6,77; Torrance, The School of Faith, 38. 46 Q. 215. OS II 109; Reid, Theological Treatises, 116 (but my translation). The 1537 version reads, “It is certain that all evil thoughts proceed from the infirmity of our flesh”, CO 6,75; Torrance, The School of Faith, 215.

78

Doctrina in His Catechisms

chant for emphasizing human sinfulness. Is this again a case of the reformer’s deference to youthful sensibilities? If this is true, one might think that Calvin would omit a difficult subject like the Trinity in his Geneva Catechism, which was prepared for a younger audience. But here Calvin does not flinch but discusses the Trinity at some length in Questions 19–20.47 He does not hesitate to use a technical term like essence (also in the 1577 French edition), whereas the 1538 Catechism appeals not only to Scripture but also to “the very experience of godliness” (ipsa pietatis experientia). 48 Other topics that merit a full paragraph in the earlier Catechism – “Human Traditions” (§31); “Excommunication” (§32); and the “Magistry” (§33) – receive little or no treatment in the Geneva Catechism. This is not surprising in view of the younger students for which this was written. Here the 1537/8 Catechism follows the order of the 1536 Institutes, whereas the later Catechism simply ends with a discussion of the Lord’s Supper. However, the lengthy paragraph on “The Pastors of the Church and Their Power” (§30) in the 1538 Catechism has its counterpart in the Geneva Catechism, for Calvin obviously feels that children should have an appropriate respect for ministers and their authority. Prior to the discussion of the sacraments and after a question dealing with the importance of corporate worship, Calvin has the minister ask, “Is it therefore necessary that pastors be set over churches?” The answer, “Indeed, it is necessary to hear them, and to receive their exposition of the doctrine of Christ (Christi doctrinam – N.B.) from their lips with fear and reverence”. 49 Then the children are exhorted to continue in the instruction of their pastors all their life. 50 It is in this very context (which Beza titled “Concerning the Word of God”-Questions 296–308) 51 that Calvin has a fairly lengthy discussion of the Word of God, something missing in the 1537/8 Catechism.52 The lack of any discussion of the authority of the Bible in the earlier Catechism is strange, for almost all Reformed Confessions begin with this subject. A 47 OS II, 76–7; Reid, Theological Treatises, 93. In the 1538 Catechism the Trinity is discussed briefly prior to taking up the Creed (§20). CO 5,337; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 21. 48 CO 5,337; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 21. 49 Q. 307, OS II, 130; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. 50 Q. 308, OS II, 130; Reid, Theological Treatises, 301. 51 OS II, 127, note s. 52 The only reference to the Word is in Section 3, “What We Must Know of God”. Here the emphasis – as in the Institutes I.1–5 – is on God’s revelation in nature, which due to our spiritual blindness, is inadequate to lead us to a true knowledge of God. “Therefore,” Calvin concludes, “we must come to God’s Word, where God is duly described to us from his works, while the works themselves are reasoned not from the depravity of our judgment but the eternal rule of truth” (CO 5,325; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 9).

I. John Hesselink

79

possible explanation for this omission is that the Genevan Confession of Faith of the same year (1537) begins with a paragraph on “The Word of God”. 53 The subject is introduced in an unusual way. After citing John 17,3 and Matthew 1,21, the minister asks, “By what road does one come to such blessedness?” Answer: “To this end God has left us his sacred Word. For spiritual doctrine (spiritualis doctrina) is a kind of door by which we enter into his celestial Kingdom”. 54 Note here the identifying of doctrina with the Word, which Calvin identifies with “the Holy Scriptures”. 55 Then follows a beautiful passage that has no parallel anywhere else in the Calvinian corpus. First the question: “How should it [Scripture] be used to obtain profit (fructum) from it?” Then the compact but comprehensive answer: If we lay hold on it with complete heartfelt conviction as nothing less than certain truth come down from heaven; if we show ourselves docile to it; if we subdue our wills and minds to his obedience; if we love it heartily; if having it once engraved on our hearts and its roots (radices), so that it bring forth fruit in our life, if finally we be formed to its rule – then it will turn to our salvation, as intended.56

Another feature of the Geneva Catechism not found in the 1537/8 Catechism, nor in the Institutes, is the special stress on the importance of corporate worship. It is well known that worship services were held almost daily in Geneva and its citizens were urged to attend as many of those services as possible. 57 In this Catechism Calvin says it is not enough to read and meditate on the Word alone 58 ; everyone “should meet together to hear the same doctrine” (eandam doctrinam) 59 – an interesting way of putting it. Today we might say that one of the purposes of going to church is to hear the gospel, but a little later he again says that it is necessary to hear “the exposition of the doctrine of Christ (Christi doctrinam),” 60 again showing his tendency to think of the gospel in terms of doctrina, even in his Catechism for youth.

53 OS I, 418; Reid, Theological Treatises, 26. 54 Q. 300, OS II, 128; Reid, Theological Treatises, 129. 55 Q. 301, OS II, 128; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. 56 Q. 302, OS II, 128–9; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. Then the minister asks whether all this is in our own power. The answer is that “all of this … is only of God, to be effected (efficere) in us by the gift of his Spirit”, Q. 303, OS II, 129; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. 57 This exhortation is found here also, i.e., in Q. 350, OS II, 129; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. 58 Q. 304, OS II, 129; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. 59 Q. 305, OS II, 129; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. The reference to doctrina here is peculiar to the 1545 version of the Catechism. The 1542 (French) edition reads, “hearing its [the Word] teaching (ceste Parolle)”, 06, 109; Torrance, The School of Faith, 53. 60 Q. 307, OS II, 130; Reid, Theological Treatises, 130. In this case the 1542 Catechism has “the teaching of the Lord (la doctrine du Signeur)”, CO 6,109; Torrance, The School of Faith, 53.

80

Doctrina in His Catechisms

5. Discontinuity and Development Sometimes it is alleged that Calvin’s first Catechism is basically a summary of the first edition of the Institutes. It has already become apparent that this is not the case. This is further illustrated by the curious omission in not only the 1538 Catechism but also the 1545 Geneva Catechism of an important doctrine discussed at length in the 1536 Institutes, viz., Christian freedom. Chapter VI of the first edition of the Institutes has the title, “Christian Freedom, Ecclesiastical Power, and Political Administration”.61 Seven pages (ten pages in the Opera Selecta) are devoted to this subject, so it is obviously not a matter of peripheral interest for Calvin. As he points out at the beginning of this chapter, “No summary of gospel teaching (summam evangelicae doctrinae) ought to omit an explanation of this topic”. 62 And yet this is precisely what Calvin does! That is, omit any significant discussion of this subject in either of his Catechisms. The above statement is repeated in the 1539 Institutes and all subsequent editions, but for some inexplicable reason Calvin does not even mention the doctrine, either in its natural context, justification by faith, nor in the section in the 1538 Catechism (§31) on “Human Traditions”. Here he alludes to the issue, but says no more. We are stoutly to resist those regulations which under the title of “spiritual laws” are in force to bind consciences as if necessary for the worship of God. For they not only overturn the freedom which Christ won for us but also obscure true religion and violate God’s majesty, who alone wills to reign in our consciences through his Word. 63

That is the extent to which Calvin discusses a doctrine that was for him of crucial importance. As far as I can determine, there is not even this much on Christian freedom in the Geneva Catechism. This, to me, is a conundrum for which there is no answer. This is an extreme case of what I call discontinuity between both Catechisms and the Institutes of 1536 and 1539. More common are illustrations of the development of certain doctrines as one moves from the first edition of the Institutes to the Catechisms and the later editions of the Institutes. A case in point is the development of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper from 1536 to 1545. 64 In 1536, Calvin wrote “[…] the very substance (substantiam ipsam) or the true and natural body 61 OS I, 223, The English translation is by Ford Lewis Battles: Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1536 Edition, revised edition, Grand Rapids 1975, 176. 62 OS I, 223; Battles, Institutes, 176. 63 CO 5,359; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 37 (emphasis mine). 64 This development has been traced in Thomas J. Davis’s book, The Clearest Promises of God. The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching, New York, 1995. He examines not only the various editions of the Institutes but also Calvin’s Catechisms and various treatises that deal with the Lord’s Supper.

I. John Hesselink

81

of Christ is not given there, but all those benefits which Christ has supplied us within his body”. 65 Note well. At this point Calvin denies that we partake of Christ’s substance in the sacrament. The emphasis is on the benefits we receive from the Holy Supper. In the 1538 Catechism there is no mention of substance, but here again the focus is on the benefits derived from participation in the Supper. Here the key word is “communication” (communicatio). In the symbols of the bread and wine “the Lord exhibits the true communication of his body and blood,” which is spiritual as a result of “the bond (vinculo) of the Spirit”. 66 The latter phrase is significant because now Calvin emphasizes the role of the Spirit more prominently than in the 1536 Institutes. Thus there is a definite development in Calvin’s thinking concerning the sacrament in his first Catechism. 67 Moreover, in the following year, in the second edition of the Institutes, Calvin reverses himself and no longer denies that believers do not partake substantially in the body and blood of Christ. In the Geneva Catechism Calvin now affirms explicitly what he had denied in the first edition of the Institutes. “I do not doubt”, he explains, “that as testified by words and signs, he thus also makes us partakers (participes) of his substance, by which we are joined in one life with him”. 68 In the final (1559) edition of the Institutes this is reiterated. In the mystery of the Supper, Christ is truly shown to us through the symbols of bread and wine … Why? First that we may grow into one body with him; secondly, having been made partakers of his substance (participes substantiae eius facti), that we may also feel his power in partaking (communicatione) of all his benefits. 69

This development in Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper demonstrates how erroneous are the claims of some Calvin scholars – or at least those who write about Calvin – that there is no significant development or change in Calvin’s theology. For example, the redoubtable Herman Bavinck once 65 1536 Institutes, OS I, 142; Battles, Institutes, 107 (emphasis mine). 66 CO 5,350; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 35. Later in this same paragraph Calvin points out that although Christ has ascended to heaven, “no distance can prevent his power from feeding his believers on himself and bringing it about that they still enjoy ever-present communication with him” (emphasis mine), ibid. 67 Davis points out other advances in the 1537/8 Catechism over the 1536 Institutes. “Here (in 1537) there is an increased use of realistic language: Christ’s flesh is life-giving, the Christian is connected to that very flesh through the work of the Spirit, and the Eucharist is a clear sign that the body of Christ is present to the believer in such a way as to be just as real as if he were seen by the eyes and felt by the hands”, The Clearest Promises of God, 103. 68 Question 353. OS II, 140; Reid, Theological Treatises, 137. 69 Institutes IV.17.11. OS IV, 354; Battles, Institutes, 1372. Cf. Institutes IV.17:19 where Calvin speaks of “the true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord,” OS IV, 366; Battles, Institutes, 1382.

82

Doctrina in His Catechisms

wrote: “The first edition of the Institutes which appeared in March, 1536 was expanded and increased in later issues, but it never changed”.70 Or, more recently, the claim by J.K.S. Reid that “There is a massive homogeneity in the thought of Calvin […]. There is continued amplification but no change”. 71 One more illustration of development, if not change, in Calvin’s thought: the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. We have already seen how the Holy Spirit plays a more significant role in Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in the 1537/8 Catechism than in the first edition of the Institutes. Long ago the eminent Princeton Seminary divine, B.B. Warfield, recognized that in the 1536 Institutes there was no explicit doctrine of the Holy Spirit. However, his conclusion in this regard needs to be modified. For he writes, “It was left, then, to the edition of 1539 to create the doctrine [of the Holy Spirit] at a single stroke”. 72 This is basically true, but we already have the elements of a doctrine of the Spirit in the 1538 Catechism. There are at least seven places where the Holy Spirit is either mentioned or discussed briefly. Granted, here a doctrine of the Holy Spirit is only found in embryonic form, but a significant beginning nonetheless. For example, the discussion of the Trinity is very brief and non-technical but states the doctrine of the Trinity in a fresh way. When we name Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we are not fashioning three Gods, but in the simplest unity of God and Scripture and the very experience of godliness shows us God the Father, his Son, and Spirit. Our understanding (intelligentia) cannot conceive of the Father without including the Son at the same time, in whom his living image (viva imago) shines; and the Spirit in whom his might and power are visible. 73

Calvin also relates the Spirit to Christ in another context. “The title ‘Christ’”, he submits, “designates that he was endowed with all the graces of the Spirit”. 74 After defining faith in relation to the promises of God (as also in the later editions of the Institutes), Calvin speaks of faith as a gift of God. This is where the Holy Spirit plays a critical role. For it is perfectly clear

70 Bavinck, H., Calvin and Common Grace, translated by Geerhardus Vos, in: Armstrong, W.P. (ed.), Calvin and the Reformation, Princeton 1909 (reprint 1980), 111–112. I am indebted to Thomas Davis for this quote. 71 Reid, Theological Treatises, 13. 72 Warfield, B.B., Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, in: Calvin and the Reformation, 208–9. 73 Article 20, CO 5,337; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 21. 74 Article 20, ii, CO 5,338; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 22. Later, in his exposition of the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed – “sits at the Father’s right hand” – Calvin again connects Christ and the gifts of the Spirit. Christ “has received all the gifts of the Spirit to bestow them, so as to enrich those who believe in him”, Article 20, v, CO 5,340; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 24.

I. John Hesselink

83

that faith is the enlightenment (illustrate; French una clarte) of the Holy Spirit by which our minds are illumined and our hearts confirmed in a sure persuasion within, which establishes that God’s truth is so sure that he cannot but supply what he has promised he will do by his Holy Word. On this account it [the Holy Spirit] is also called a pledge 75 which establishes in our hearts the assurance of divine truth, and a seal whereby our hearts will be sealed unto the day of the Lord; for he it is who testifies to our spirit that God is Father to us and we in turn are his children. 76

All of these motifs are elaborated on in the Institutes – Christ as the object of faith, based on God’s promises, the interplay of heart and mind, and the role of the Holy Spirit – but here they are all found in two brief paragraphs in Calvin’s first Catechism. We have already seen how crucial the role of the Spirit is in Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Also important is the function of the Spirit in the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer. The exposition of the second petition – “Thy kingdom come” – begins in this way: “The kingdom of God is this: by his Holy Spirit to act and rule over his own people in order to make the riches of his goodness and mercy conspicuous (conspicuas) in all their works”. 77 Similarly in relation to the petition “Thy will be done”, Calvin concludes: “To sum up, we ask not what we will of ourselves, but that his Spirit may will in us. While the Spirit teaches us within, let us learn to love those things which are pleasing to him […]”. 78 As is befitting a catechism of this type, the treatment of the phrase in the Creed –“I believe in the Holy Spirit” – is very brief, but it is remarkably comprehensive and indicative of what will be explored in later editions of the Institutes. Again, notice the inseparability of Christ and the Spirit. Christ accomplishes whatever good there is (quidquid usquam est boni) through the power of his Spirit. Through that power he empowers and sustains all things, causes them to grow and quickens them; through it he justifies, sanctifies and cleanses us, calls and draws us to himself, that we may attain salvation (ut salutem consequamur).

Therefore, the Holy Spirit, while dwelling in us in this manner, illumines us with his light in order that we may learn and plainly recognize what an enormous wealth of divine goodness we possess in Christ. He [the Holy Spirit] kindles our hearts with the fire of love both toward God and toward our neighbor, and day by day he boils away

75 The French inserts the following texts at this point: 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13. 76 Article 15, CO 5,334; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 18. Again, in the French version a text is added at the end of this paragraph, viz., Rom. 8:16. 77 Article 24, iii, CO 5,346; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 30. 78 Article 24, iv, CO 5,317; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 31. Cf. the exposition of the sixth petition, “Lead us not into temptation.” “Secondly, that received into his (the Lord’s) care and safekeeping, and sanctified by his spiritual gifts … we may stand unconquered over the devil, death, the gates of hell, and the devil’s whole kingdom,” Article 24, vii, CO 5,348; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 32.

84

Doctrina in His Catechisms

and burns up the vices of our inordinate desire so that if there are in us any good works, they are the fruits of his grace and his excellencies (virtutis). 79

What is remarkable is that one year after the publication of the first edition of the Institutes there is a considerably developed doctrine of the Holy Spirit in nuce. Obviously, for a fully developed doctrine of the Spirit one must go to the later editions of the Institutes, but in the 1537/8 Catechism, and, as we shall see, in the Geneva Catechism of 1542/45, there are choice passages and phrases that are not found in the Institutes as well as other passages which still remain, almost verbatim, in the final edition of the Institutes. One wonders whether Warfield had access to the 1537/8 Catechism when he claimed that Calvin did not have much of a doctrine of the Holy Spirit until the 1539 Institutes. Two other misconceptions are also demolished here. One is that this Catechism was merely a summary of the 1536 Institutes. The other is the claim that “Calvin was a man of a single book”.80 A brief survey of references to the Holy Spirit in the Geneva Catechism will provide more evidence to the effect that the Catechisms provide a rich lode of expressions, if not insights, not found in Calvin’s other writings. One does not find anything substantially different in the Geneva Catechism, but given its more expansive and dialogical form, one finds interesting and different ways in which Calvin explains the work of the Holy Spirit. For example, in explaining the phrase in the Creed, “I believe in the Holy Spirit”, Calvin adds brief observations not found at the similar place in his earlier Catechism. Here (in ’45) “God makes us by his Holy Spirit heirs (compotes) of the redemption and salvation” accomplished in Christ. 81 He also adds, “As we have purification in the blood of Christ, so our consciences must be sprinkled by it [the Spirit] to be washed (1 Peter 1,19; 1 John 1,7)”. 82 In his further explanation of the work of the Holy Spirit he adds other notions not found earlier. “The Spirit of God, while he dwells in (habitat) in our hearts, operates so that we feel (sentiamus) the virtue of Christ (Rom. 5,5)”. 83 Calvin also adds here regeneration as one of the func79 Article 20, vi, CO 5,341; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 25. 80 “Calvin fut l’homme d’un seul lire”, Smits, L., Saint Augustin dans l’Oeuvre de Jean Calvin, Assen 1956, 1. A similar claim is made by Alister Mc Grath. “In dealing with any given topic in the 1559 edition [of the Institutes] the reader can rest assured that he or she will encounter everything Calvin regarded as essential to grasping his position on that topic.” McGrath acknowledges “that there are other potential sources “for understanding Calvin’s thought – such as the commentaries or sermons, and one might add, catechisms and treatises – but they are “totally eclipsed by the Institutes” (emphasis mine), A Life of John Calvin, Oxford 1990, 146–7. 81 Q. 89, OS II, 88; Reid, Theological Treatises, 102. Instead of ‘heirs’ the French (’37) edition has ‘partakers’ (participans). 82 Q. 90, OS II, 88; Reid, Theological Treatises, 102. 83 Q. 91, OS II, 88; Reid, Theological Treatises, 102.

I. John Hesselink

85

tions of the Spirit and also the illumination of the Spirit, which makes possible our conceiving of “the benefits of Christ with the mind […] it is by his persuasion that they are sealed in our hearts”. 84 Note the increased references to “our hearts” in these passages in contrast to the mind. In discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in effecting faith in the earlier Catechism, the key words were “enlighten” and “confirm”. In 1545, Calvin adds that “the Holy Spirit by his illumination makes us capable of understanding those things which would otherwise far exceed our grasp, and brings us (format) to a sure persuasion (French: “fortifies us in certitude”) by sealing the promises of salvation in our hearts”. 85 The French (’42) and Latin (’45) editions often differ in detail, but one of the most interesting differences occurs in relation to good works. The French reads that “the works which we do by his [God’s] grace” are pleasing to God 86 , whereas the Latin version reads, “the works which we do at the direction of the Spirit”. 87 In his definition of repentance, Calvin adds a reference to the Spirit not found in the first catechism. It is “dissatisfaction and hatred of sin, and love of righteousness arising out of fear of God […] so that we yield ourselves to be ruled by the Spirit of God […]”. 88 Similarly, in the explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, Calvin adds references to the Holy Spirit in the Geneva Catechism concerning the petition “Lead us not into temptation”. The substance of this petition, according to Calvin, is that God will not permit us to fall into sin and will supply us with strength to resist the devil. 89 Then the minister asks, “How is this done?” Answer: “When governed by his Spirit we are imbued with such love of righteousness and desire for it, that we overcome sin, the flesh and the devil […] For our victory consists in the virtue (French “power”) of his Spirit”. 90 The other major addition in the Geneva Catechism concerning the Spirit is in relation to baptism. Here there is a distinct advance over the 1537/8 Catechism – and the 1536 Institutes – where the Spirit is not mentioned in regard to baptism. After denying that the water of baptism washes the soul, Calvin maintains that the cleansing we receive in baptism occurs “when the Holy Spirit sprinkles our conscience with that sacred blood” (of Christ).91 Yet, Calvin continues, water is not merely a symbol, for “reality is attached 84 Ibid. The French version reads quite differently. The Holy Spirit “enlightens us to know his [Christ’s] benefits; he seals and imprints them in our souls (il nous seelle et imprime), and makes room for them in us (Eph. 1:13),” CO 6,37, Torrance translation. 85 Q. 113, OS II, 92; Reid, Theological Treatises, 105. 86 Q. 121, CO 6,47; Torrance, The School of Faith, 24. 87 Q. 121, OS II, 94; Reid, Theological Treatises, 106. 88 Q. 128, OS II, 95; Reid, Theological Treatises, 107. 89 This is the gist of the answer to Question 289. 90 Q. 290, OS II, 126; Reid, Theological Treatises, 128. 91 Q. 327, OS II, 134; Reid, Theological Treatises, 133.

86

Doctrina in His Catechisms

to it (annexa sit veritas) […] Hence both pardon of sins and newness of life are certainly offered to us and received by us in baptism”. 92 Both are possible because of the death and resurrection of Christ. Then the minister asks, “How are these benefits conferred on us through baptism?” The answer: “Because unless we render the promises unfruitful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ and granted his Spirit”. 93 Another reference to the Spirit – a very interesting one – occurs in the answer to the next question: “But what do we have to do to use baptism rightly?” The first answer is simply by faith and repentance, but then Calvin adds, “then we are to feel (sentiamus) his Spirit dwelling in us and declare this to others by our deeds […]”. 94 This does not exhaust the references to the Holy Spirit in the Geneva Catechism, but it illustrates the increasing role this doctrine plays in Calvin’s theological development. Combined with the references in the 1537/8 Catechism to the Holy Spirit, it is apparent that here we have a remarkably comprehensive doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Granted, for a complete picture one must examine not only the Institutes, but also Calvin’s commentaries and sermons. Nevertheless, there are passages in the Catechisms that are not repeated anywhere else.

6. Conclusion As suggested above, Calvin’s Catechisms are an invaluable source of doctrina, whether conceived of as doctrine, instruction, or proclamation. Those who are interested in Calvin’s theology should not dismiss them as being of secondary importance because they are catechisms written primarily for youth and uneducated laity. The way Calvin expresses basic Christian truths in these Catechisms is brief and in a relatively plain style, but they are obviously not dumbed down (simplified) in order to communicate effectively 92 Ibid. 93 Q. 31, OS II, 135; Reid, Theological Treatises, 134. There is a textual problem in this answer. Reid follows the Corpus Reformatorum text which erroneously reads vescimur instead of vestimur, and so his translation reads “fed with Christ” rather than “clothed with Christ”. A note in the Opera Selecta calls this a “false” reading and corrects it with vestimur (clothed). 94 Ibid. In the French version of Question 329 Calvin also says that only believers “feel the efficacy (sentient l’efficace)”, Q. 329, CO 6,119: Torrance, The School of Faith, 57. Cf. the Institutes IV, 15.5: “Just as the twig draws substance and nourishment from the root to which it is grafted, so those who receive baptism with right faith truly feel the effective working of Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh, together with the working of his resurrection in the vivification of the Spirit [Rom. 6:8]” (emphasis mine). This whole paragraph (IV.155) is taken over verbatim from the 1536 Institutes (OS I, 128–9).

I. John Hesselink

87

to the intended audiences. The voice differs from other theological works of Calvin’s, but there is still a level of theological sophistication that moves and challenges the most astute Christians in our times. Moreover, Calvin thought highly enough of both Catechisms that he was willing to share the Latin versions with other churches. We have also seen in these Catechisms a remarkable continuity in Calvin’s theological development, but also enough diversity to show that one should not assume that what Calvin believed in 1536 is expressed the same way even in 1537, not to mention 1542. It is not only the second (1539) edition of the Institutes that represents a significant development in his thinking, for the two Catechisms also reflect significant change and development and should therefore be of interest to Calvin scholars today. Finally, a salutary reminder from Calvin himself: “Every doctrine is useless unless God engraves it as if with his finger on our hearts”. 95

95 Comm. 1 Thessalonians 5:223 (CO 52,178): “… inutilem esse omnem doctrinam, donec cordibus nostris eam Deus quasi digito suo insculpat”.

Christus Mediator Legis: The Foundation of Calvin’s Christological Understanding of the Law

Byung-Ho Moon

1. Christ and the Law The relationship between Christ and the law in Calvin is at the very core of his doctrine of law and gospel, and is at the heart of his hermeneutic of the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. 1 This subject sheds light on the doctrinal foundation of the Christian life, of which the essence is described as living according to the example and type of Christ (cf. Inst. 3.6–10). 2 Scholars treating these themes are disposed to epitomize, pointedly, Christ’s fulfilment of the law on the cross, with a conviction that for Calvin the law is the law of the covenant (cf. Inst. 2.6.1– 4). 3

1 Cf. Calvin, J., Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Ford Lewis Battles; ed. John T. McNeill), Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20, 21, Philadelphia 1960, 2.9.1–2.11.14, 3.17.1–5 (hereafter Inst.); Hesselink, I.J., Calvin’s Concept of the Law, Allison Park 1992, 155–215, 222– 230, 251–253; Johnson, M.S., Calvin’s Handling of the Third Use of the Law and Its Problems, in: Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, Kirksville, Sixteenth Century Journal, 1988, 42– 45; Bandstra, A.J., Law and Gospel in Calvin and in Paul, in: Holwerda, D.E. (ed.), Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin, Grand Rapids 1976, 11–39; Leith, J.H., Creation and Redemption: Law and Gospel in the Theology of John Calvin, in: Empie, P.C. and McCord, J.I. (eds.), Marburg Revisited: A Re-examination of Lutheran and Reformed Traditions, Minneapolis 1966, 141–152; Grin, E., L’unité des deux Testaments selon Calvin, in: Theologische Zeitschrift 17, 1961, 175– 186. 2 Calvin says, “Christ, through whom we return into favor with God, has been set before us as an example (examplar), whose pattern (formam) we ought to express in our life. What more effective thing can you require than this one thing?” (Inst. 3.6.3), also see Baum, W./Cunitz, E./Reuss, E. (eds.), Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt Omnia, Brunswick 1864, 2.503 (hereafter CO). Cf. Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 278–286; Wallace, R.S., Calvin’s Doctrine of The Christian Life, Edinburgh 1959, 112–122; Leith, J.H., John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, Louisville 1989, 45–60. 3 Cf. Niesel, W., The Theology of Calvin (trans. Harold Knight), Philadelphia 1956, 92–94; Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 97–101, 161–165.

Byung-Ho Moon

89

The same tendency is prevalent among scholars who try to investigate the Christological significance of the law in view of the fact that Christ is our legal subsitute and the so-called extra Calvinisticum, even though they are keen to acknowledge Christ’s mediation before the incarnation. Various atonement theories are mostly devoted to the discussing of God’s suspended grace (gratia suspensa) rather than the ad-hoc grace of Christ the Mediator in the Old Testament. 4 Likewise, the so-called extra Calvinisticum, which argues the wide extent of Christ’s mediatorship extra carnem, turns out to be negative to the historical presence and works of Christ the Mediator, let alone its sacramental significance. 5 As far as I know, in no place does Calvin use the phrase “Christ the Mediator of the law” except for his sermon on Galatians 3,19–20, where he preaches on Christ’s mediatorship in the giving of the law. 6 It is surely the case, however, that Calvin frequently resorts to the concept of Christus mediator legis for taking account not only of Christ’s fulfilment of the law and its impact in the New Testament, but also of the role of the law both to reveal the presence of Christ as the Mediator and to represent his future coming in the Old Testament. Most significantly, Calvin often refers to the principle of Christ’s bodily presence totus ubique, sed non totum in the Lord’s Supper, i.e., the so-called extra Calvinisticum (cf. Inst. 4.17.29–30) 7

4 Cf. Buren, P. van, Christ in Our Place: The Subsitutionary Character of Calvin’s Doctrine of Reconciliation, Edinburgh 1957, 3–11; Jansen, J.F., Calvin’s Doctrine of the Work of Christ, London 1956, 70; Peterson, R.A., Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement, Phillipsburg 1983, 21–26. For suspended grace and the validity of the law in the Old Testament, cf. Hesselink, I.J, Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law? Calvin’s Understanding of the Relationship, in: Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, Kirksville, Sixteenth Century Journal, 1988, 22–23. 5 Cf. Willis, D.E., Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Leiden 1966, 67–73, 124–125, 140–141; Peterson, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement, 11–17. For the formation and development of the so-called extra Calvinisticum, cf. Rohls, J., Reformed Confessions: Theology from Zurich to Barmen (trans. J. Hoffmeyer), Louisville 2000, 102–117. 6 “Christus mediator legis” is suggested as the Latin translation of “[Christ] le Mediateur de la Loy,” which appears in John Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Revision of Arthur Golding’s Translation, Audobon 1995, 3:19–20 (453, CO 50,543). Hereafter, the citations and references from Calvin’s sermons are marked as Ser.with the number[s] of the biblical passage[s] related. 7 Christ’s presence ‘totus’ not ‘totum’ in the Lord’s Supper has been developed by Augustine. Lombard, and Aquinas. Cf. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 29–33, 44–49. The following passage shows the influence of Augustine and Lombard upon Calvin prominently. “Mediator [ergo] noster quum totus ubique sit, suis semper adest; et in coena speciali modo praesentem se exhibit, sic tamen ut totus adsit, non totum” (Inst. 4.17.30, CO 2,1032); Last Admonition to Joachim Westphal, in: Tracts and Treatises on the Doctrine and Worship of the Thurch, (trans. Henry Beveridge), Reprint of Calvin Translation Society Edition (hereafter CTT), Grand Rapids 1958, vol. 2, 418, 457 (CO 9,195.223).

90

Christus Mediator Legis

in order to explain the enduring validity of the law on the basis of Christ’s continual mediation (cf. Inst. 1.14.1–3). 8 Admittedly, for Calvin, no true knowledge of Christ in the law exists if there is no foreknowlege of the law in Christ. This is a continuing conundrum of Calvin’s Christology: Christus ad nos revealed in the law signifes the presence of Christus in se. 9 How then should we construe that Christ is the substance (Christ in the law) and fulfilment (the law in Christ) of the law, without losing the crucial significance of the incarnation? We can hardly find any definite answer to this question in either specific or independent works written by Calvin, but he illustrates it comprehensively throughout his theological, polemical, and exegetical works as he explores his concept of Christus mediator legis.

2. Christus Mediator Legis Calvin uses the concept of mediator widely throughout his works. 10 It appears mostly as a singular form to denote Christ’s sole mediatorship, except for some cases in which it points to the office of a priest, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham, and Nazarites, etc. Characteristically, Calvin states the mediation of specifically denoted Old Testament figures to clarify its significance in representing the true Mediator, and the mediation of the Angel

8 Cf. The Commentaries of John Calvin, 46 vols., Calvin Translation Society Edition, Grand Rapids 1948–1950, Gen. 28,12 (vol. 2, p. 113, CO 23,391). I use this edition for the references and quoations of Calvin’s Old Testment commentaries (vols.1–15), while I refer to Torrance, D.W./Torrance T.F. (eds.), John Calvin, New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids 1960– 1972, for his commentaries on the New Testament. The whole of Calvin’s commentaries will be marked as Comm., and it will appear only once if there are many references. Also, see Ex. 23,20 (vol.1, p. 404, CO 24,252); Acts 2,33 (24, CO 48,47). 9 For the relationship between Christus in se and Christus ad nos, cf. Butin, Ph.W., Revelation, Redemption, and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship, New York, Oxford 1995, 74–75. This issue was regarded as a crucial theme for treating the immanent presence of the Logos in the creation of the universe by Origen who had explored the Logos-Christology. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 49–60. 10 In the 1559 Institutes, Calvin uses the term mediator at least 96 times (mediator 21, mediatoris 39, mediatorem 19, mediatore 12, mediatori 4, mediatores 1) and other related terms such as medius, medium, intercente, etc. In the 1539 Institutes, Calvin uses the word mediator 19 times in its various conjugations. See, Wevers, R.F., Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin 1539: Text and Concordance, vol. 3, Grand Rapids 1988, 20.m–21.m. Calvin uses the word mediator in at least 129 passages in the commentaries and lectures on the Old Testament and 14 times in prayers, which appear in his lectures on the Minor Prophets, and in at least 132 passages in the commentaries on the New Testament.

Byung-Ho Moon

91

which signifies the presence of the Mediator. 11 On the other hand, the plural form is mostly used for indicating its apologetic use, in order to reveal the fallacy of the Judaic and Catholic concept of the intercession of priests and saints 12 , which Calvin believes imitates the Platonic concept of angel.13 Sometimes, the plurality of mediation of men and angels is mentioned, almost unexceptionally with the note that Christ is the chief Mediator who rules over them. 14 Calvin resorts to the relationship between the deity (deitas) of the Son of God and the divinity (divinitas) of Christ the Mediator in order to demonstrate the uniqueness of Christ’s mediatorship. In dealing with the deity of Christ from the imminent and economic-Trinitarian viewpoint in the chapter on the Trinity (Inst. 1.13.7–13), Calvin argues that the divinity of Christ was revealed in his intercession not only for the salvation of human beings as the salvation and life itself, that is, as Jehovah, but also for the creation of the universe as its author (autor) (sec. 13). In his controversies with Giorgio Biandrata and Francesco Stancaro who asserted that Christ is not a Mediator except according to the flesh, Calvin insists that Christ’s mediatorship according to both natures is referred not only to Deus manifestatus in carne but also to the Word of God before the incarnation (cf. Inst. 2.14.3). 15 Calvin criticizing Biandrata’s anti-Trinitarian position says, “The Mediator, God-man, is truly the Son of God according to both natures by reason of their union (naturam ratione unionis); but it is properly referred to the divinity, because the Word (sermo) was born of the Father before all ages”. 16 Calvin especially points to “the mode of commu11 Cf. Comm. Gen. 12,3 (vol.1, 349, CO 23,117–118); Gen. 16,10 (vol. 1, 433, CO 23,228); Gen. 18,2 (vol. 1, 470, CO 23,251); Gen. 22,2 (vol. 1, 563–565, CO 23,313–314); Ex. 30,23 (vol. 2, 224, CO 24,446); Levi. 16,3 (vol. 2, 315, CO 24,501–502); I. Cor. 10,9 (209, CO 45,459); Heb. 1,5 (11, CO 55,15). Calvin, J., Sermons on Deuteronomy (trans. A. Golding), Facsimile Reprint, Edinburgh 1987, Deut. 9,25–29 (417b–420b, CO 26,724–730). 12 Cf. Comm. Gen. 8,20 (vol. 1, 281, CO 23,138); Ex. 3,2 (vol. 1, 61, CO 24,35–36); Jos. 5,13–14 (87–88, CO 25,463–464); Dan. 7,27 (vol. 2, 77, CO 41,85); Zec. 12,8 (358, CO 44,332); Col. 2,18 (338–340, CO 52,111–112); Calvin, J., Articles Agreed upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris, with the Antidote, CTT, vol. 1, 94 (“De orandis sanctis”, CO 7,23), 96 (on the intercession of the saints, CO 7,25–26); The Necessity of the Reforming the Church, CTT, vol. 1, 130, 154–159, 191–192, 195 (CO 6,462.480–483.504–505.507). 13 Cf. Comm. Jer. 11,13 (vol. 2, 93–95, CO 38,112–113); Dan. 2,11 (vol.1, 133, CO 40,569). 14 Cf. Comm. Gen. 18,2 (vol. 1, 470, CO 23,251); Gen. 20,7 (vol. 1, 526, CO 23,290); Gen. 28,12 (vol. 2, 113, CO 23,391); Ex. 23,20 (vol. 1, 403, CO 24,251); Jos. 5,13, 14 (87–88, CO 25,463–464). 15 Beza, Th., Life of John Calvin, CTT, vol. 1, cxvi–cxvii. 16 Tylenda, J.N., The Warning that Went Unheeded: John Calvin on Giorgio Biandrata, Calvin Theological Journal 12 (1977), John Calvin’s Response to the Questions of Giorgio Biandrata, 62 (CO. 9,332). “Mediator Deus et homo, vere est filius Dei secundum utramque naturam ratione unionis, proprie tamen divinitatis respectu, quia sermo est ante saecula ex patre”.

92

Christus Mediator Legis

nication (modum communicationis)” between God and human beings, as he takes issue with the deity of the Mediator in order to defend his view against Stancaro, who, arguing that God cannot become a man, insisted on Christ’s mediation not only between God and man but also between God the Father and God the Son. 17 Calvin observes that in some biblical passages the Hebrew Adonai, which comes from “adun” denoting “angel” and “messenger,”18 definitely signifies “the Mediator,” in opposition to Hebrew scholars who believed it to mean nothing other than “the only God”.19 On this ground, Calvin relates the mediatorship of Christ to the names Elohim and Jahweh. In his commentary on Psalm 45,6–7, which sings the glory of God (Deus, Elohim), Calvin expresses the view that the word Elohim here sets forth the “persona mediatoris” because it points to a man who has divine power and glory.20 The character of the Mediator is highlighted most characteristically when Calvin designates “the Angel” as Christ who was present in the Old Testament and calls him Jehovah (Jahweh) – the Savior and Leader of the Israelites. 21 From these observations, Calvin verifies the unity and continuity of the deity of the Son of God with the divinity of the Mediator. It is on this ground that he declares that Christ was revealed not only as the substance (substantia), soul (anima), light (lumen), and truth (veritas) of the law, but also the end (fines) of the law, even to the ancient Jewish people (cf. Inst 2.7.16, CO 2,264).22 In regard to Christ’s mediation of the law before the incarnation Calvin emphasizes that not only does the law represent the coming of Christ as the Mediator, but it also reveals the presence of Christ as the Mediator in the Old Testament. For instance, in dealing with the ancient priesthood, after indicating its representing of Christ as the eternal High Priest, Calvin points out the presence of the Mediator by commenting that if there were no mediation of Christ, the blood offering of priests would be futile. 23 In many cases, Calvin demonstrates that Christ’s presence as the 17 Tylenda, J.N., Christ he Mediator: Calvin versus Stancaro, Calvin Theological Journal 8/1 (1973), How Christ is the Mediator: A Response to the Polish Brethren to Refute Stancaro’s Error, 146–157 (CO 9,349–58, quotation from CO 9,350), and The Controversy on Christ the Mediator: Calvin’s Second Reply to Stancaro, Calvin Theological Journal 8/2 (1973), 5, The Controversy on Christ the Mediator: A Response to the Polish Nobles and to Francesco Stancaro of Mantua, 11–16 (CO 9,337–42). 18 Comm. Mal. 3,1 (568–569, CO 44,461–462). 19 Comm. Dan. 9,18 (vol.2, 181, CO 41,157). 20 Comm. Ps. 45,6–7 (vol. 2, 178–183, CO 31,451–454). 21 Comm. Ex. 14,19 (vol. 1, 248–249, CO 24,153); Zec. 3,3–4 (87, CO 44,171). 22 Cf. Comm. Ex. 28,42 (vol. 2, 205–206, CO 24,435–436); Isa. 29,11–12 (vol. 2, 322); Eze. 16,61 (vol. 2, 176–178, CO 40,395–396). 23 Cf. Gen. 4,5 (vol. 1, 196, CO 23,86); Ex. 29,38–46 (vol. 2, 295, CO 24,490); Lev. 17,1 (vol. 2, 260, CO 24,468–469); Ps. 119,108 (vol. 4, 482, CO 32,261); Hab. 2,5 (84, CO 43,535–

Byung-Ho Moon

93

Mediator is not restricted to some narratives related to the appearance of the Lord as the Angel or in the visions of the Prophets. It is noteworthy that he applies Christ’s headship of the church to the people of the Israelites whom he calls the ancient church. 24 In his sermon on Galatians 3,19–20, pinpointing “that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the mediator of the Law (que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ a esté le Mediateur de la Loy),” Calvin argues that “the continual Mediator (tousiours Mediateur)” is addressed there not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles, and not only for the theological use of the law for justification but also for the normative use of the law for sanctification. 25 From this dynamic understanding of Christ’s mediation of the law, Calvin understands the continuity of Christ’s mediatorship in the Old and New Testaments. As he puts it. [A]lthough our Lord Jesus Christ step in to help the matter, yet doth it not seem that we be escaped. So shall we always be in trouble. But if we consider how our Lord Jesus Christ was the mediator in the publishing of the law (Mediator pour publier la Loy): it showeth unto us, that if he be our advocate (advocat) at this day, it will be a good and sufficient discharge for us: insomuch that although God have pronounced his sentence of cursing against us, yet we must not be dismayed at it, nor so overpressed with heart grief and anguish of mind, as though the mischief were incurable: but assure ourselves that our Lord Jesus Christ will very well agree to both twain, that is to wit, both make us ashamed that we may learn humility, and therewithal also make us sure of our salvation. And therefore let us learn, that whensoever we be beaten down, there is none other means to raise us up again, but to know that the selfsame person which was ordained to be the mediator for the publishing of the law, is now manifested unto us at this day with the same commission, and will make us to perceive it by experience. 26

In the sermon cited, Calvin explains why the necessity of the Mediator should be taken into account carefully in regard to its salvation-historical significance and, more specifically, in regard to its significance for the continual mediation for the Christian life. 27 In short Calvin here points to 536); Ser. Deut. 33,9–11 (1202a–1209b, CO 29,142–155); Calvin, J., Sermons on 2 Samuel Chapters 1–13 (trans. D. Kelly), Edinburgh 1992, II Sam. 8,1–12, 410; Calvin, J., Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ (trans. T.H.L. Parker), London 1956, 53:12 (140–152, CO 35,679–688). 24 Cf. Comm. Gen. 17,13 (vol. 1, 456, CO 23,243); Ex. 23,20 (vol. 1, 403, CO 24,251); Jos. 5,13, 14 (87, CO 25,463–464); Matt. 11,2 (vol. 2, 2, CO 45,299); I Cor. 10,9 (209, CO 49,459); Ser. Gal. 1,6–8 (52, CO 50,302–303). 25 Ser. Gal. 3,19–20 (448–456, CO 50,539–544, quotation from 452, 453, CO 50,541, 543). 26 Ser. Gal. 3,19–20 (454–5, CO 50,543). 27 Calvin usually deals with the necessity of the Mediator in relation to the incarnation. Cf. Comm. Ex. 3,2 (vol. 1, 61, CO 24,35–36); Num. 17,8 (vol. 4, 127, CO 25,231); Isa. 63,17 (vol. 4, 359, CO 37,405); II. Tim. 1,5 (292, CO 52,348); Ser. Deut. 32,11–15 (1122a–1127b, CO 28,696– 708).

94

Christus Mediator Legis

the extent of Christ’s mediation ranging through the whole process of salvation throughout the whole of history. 28

3. The Threefold Mediation of the Law 3.1 Threefold Mediation and Threefold Office In the following commentary on Galatians 3,19, Calvin classifies the mediatorial office of Christ into mediator reconciliationis, mediator patrocinii, and mediator doctrinae: As He is the Mediator of reconciliation, by whom we are accepted of God, and the Mediator of intercession, through whom the way is opened for us to call upon the Father, so He has always been the Mediator of all teaching, because by Him God always revealed Himself to men. 29

The threefold mediation of Christ had been suggested by Calvin earlier in The Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542), where he associated the first two kinds of mediation with the office of priest and the third with the office of prophet. M[inister]: What is the purpose of his priestly office? C[hild]: First, that on this ground he is our mediator, who reconciles us to the Father. Then too, because through him there is opened up for us a way to the Father, so that with boldness we may come into his presence, and ourselves also offer in sacrifice to him ourselves and all we have. And in this way he makes us his colleagues in the priesthood (Heb. 7; 8; 9; 10; 13). M: There remains prophecy. C: It is an office of teaching (magisterii munus) bestowed upon the Son of God for the benefit of his own; and its end is that he illumine them with the true knowledge of the Father, instruct them in truth, and make them household disciples of God.30 28 Cf. Edmondson, S., Calvin’s Christology, Cambridge 2004. In this recently published book, the author points out the realization of Christ’s activity behind the biblical narratives in the history of salvation with reference to his continual mediatorship and its effect and influence upon communal, especially rhetorical, responses of communities. 29 Comm. Gal.3,19 (62, CO 50,216–217). “Sicuti ergo mediator est reconciliationis, per quem accepti sumus Deo, mediator patrocinii, per quem accessus nobis patet ad patrem invocandum: ita mediator semper fuit omnia doctrinae: quia per ipsum semper Deus se hominibus patefecit.” 30 Calvin, J., The Catechism of the Church of Geneva, in: Reid, J.K.S. (ed.), Calvin: Theological Treatises, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 22, Philadelphia 1954, 96 (CO 6,21–22). Calvin states a two-office view of Christ (kingship and priestship) in the 1536 Institutes and in the

Byung-Ho Moon

95

Calvin presented a brief interpretaion on the three-office of Christ (Christi munus triplex) in the 1539 Institutes (4.2, CO 1,513–514) 31 , and augmented and enlarged it notably in the 1559 Institutes (2.15.1–6). He first relates the prophetic office of Christ to the mediation of teaching as he argues that “the prophetic dignity (prophetica dignitas) in Christ leads us to know that in the sum of doctrine as he has given it to us all parts of perfect wisdom are contained (Inst. 2.15.2, CO 2,363)”. Then he explains that the priestly office represents the reconciliation and intercession of Christ, as he did before in the Genevan catechism. Calvin’s remarks on the priesthood of Christ converge on the fact that in Christ both priest and sacrifice belongs to the same one (Inst. 2.15.6, CO 2,366–377). Finally treating the kingly office of Christ, Calvin emphasizes Christ’s ruling over both the whole body of the church and each individual member, also pointing out “the perpetuity of the church” and the “blessed immortality (beatae immortalitatis)” of believers (Inst. 2.15.3, CO 2,363–364). With reference to this office, he pays attention to Christ’s continual mediation for the godly and right living of the Christian (Inst. 2.5.14, CO 2,364–365). Especially, Christ’s kingly office is considered when he is described as the chief of the angels, who rules angels and menservants. 32 This office does not seem to belong to any specific type of mediation, but it rather refers to the whole process of mediation. 3.2 Christus Mediator Reconciliationis [A]part from the Mediator (absque mediatore), God never showed favor toward the ancient people, nor ever gave hope of grace to them” (Inst. 2.6.2, CO 2,248). God’s mercy-seat was commanded to be built for the purpose of setting forth this truth to the the people: “For as long as the law stands forth before God’s face it subjects us to His wrath and curse; and hence it is first catechism. Battles, F.L. (trans. and annot.), John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1536 Edition, Grand Rapids 1986, 2.14 (CO 1,69); Calvin, J., Catechism or Institution of the Christian Religion (trans. F.L. Battles), in: Hesselink, I.J., Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, Louisville 1997, 22 (CO 5,338). 31 The influence of Bucer’s Enarrationes in Evangelia (1536) upon Calvin’s view of the triplex munus Christi has been argued by well-known Calvinians. Wendel, F., Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (trans. Ph. Mairet), New York 1963, 225; McNeill’s note in Inst. 2.15.2; Battles’s note in 1536 Inst. 261. According to Van ‘t Spijker, Bucer does not think that the threefold office of Christ plays an important role. For Calvin, on the other hand, it “consititutes a scheme for a more systematic treatment of Christ’s work”. Spijker, W. van ‘t, The Ecclesiastical Offices in the Thought of Martin Bucer, Leiden 1996, 40. 32 Calvin emphasizes the headship of Christ to rule over the angels as he discusses Christ’s mediatorship before the fall. Cf. First Response to Stancaro, 13 (CO 9,338); Second Response to Stancaro, 147 (CO 9,350).

96

Christus Mediator Legis

necessary that the blotting out of our guilt should be interposed, so that God may be reconciled with us”. 33 If all the sacrifices of the fathers were not “directed to the Mediator” and did not look unto “the medium of a reconciliation,” they “differ in no respect from mere profane butchery (profana carnificina)”. 34 After indicating that there is no merit of Abel superior to that of Cain but his firm conviction of the grace of Christ, Calvin comments that “the chief point of well-doing (praecipuum bene agendi caput) is, for pious person, relying on Christ the Mediator, and on the gratuitous reconciliation procured by him”. 35 It is observed that there is no true piety without the perception of the grace of the Mediator, for we cannot contemplate God himself and his providence without the knowledge of his will, to give mercy to his people through the hand of his Son; Therefore, Christ is properly called Immanuel because of his eternal mediatorship. 36 Calvin repeatedly refers to the nature of the lawgiver (natura legistatoris) as he illustrates the original nature of the law, which is not accusative, nor condemning, but nurturing and life-giving.37 In the law God reveals his righteousness (will), the catalyst of which is expressed as follows: “God interposed His Son to reconcile Himself to us because He loved us”. 38 3.3 Christus Mediator Patrocinii This type of mediation is prevalent among the regulations of the law that foreshadow Christ as the reality and substance of the law.39 It pertains 33 Comm. Ex. 25,17 (vol. 2, 156, CO 24,406). 34 Comm. Ex. 29,38–41 (vol. 2, 293–295, CO 24,489–491). Cf. Comm. Lev. 1,1–17 (vol. 2, 323–326, CO 24,506–508); Levi. 17,1 (vol. 2, 260, CO 24,468). Gen. 8,20 (vol. 1, 281, CO 23,138); Ps. 119,108 (vol. 4, 482, CO 32,261), “It was the design of God, by that ceremony, to testify to the fathers that no prayers were acceptable to him, but those which were joined with sacrifice, that they might always turn their minds to the Mediator”. 35 Comm. Gen. 4,7 (vol. 1, 201, CO 23,89). 36 Comm. Isa. 8,10 (vol. 1, 274. CO 36,173); Matt. 1,23 (vol. 1, 68–69, CO 45,68–69). 37 Cf. Inst. 2.8.51, 59; Comm. Deut. 26,17–19 (vol. 1, 361, CO 24,224), Deut. 13,5 (vol. 2, 75, CO 24,356), Ex. 20,4–6 (vol. 2, 107, CO 24,376), Ex. 34,17 et al. (vol. 2, 117, CO 24,283), Deut. 4,12–18 (vol. 2, 120, CO 24,384–386), Ex. 25,8–15 (vol. 2, 150–155, CO 24,403–405), Ex. 25,31–39 (vol. 2, 163–165, CO 24,409–411), Ex. 26,31–37 (vol. 2, 175, CO 24,417), Ex. 20,13 et al. (vol. 3, 21, CO 24,612–613), Deut. 24,16 (vol. 3, 50–51, CO 24,631), Deut. 24,14–15 (vol. 3, 114, CO 24,671), Deut. 10,17–19 (vol. 3, 118, CO 24,674), Ex. 20,17 et al. (vol. 3, 187, CO 24,718), Deut. 29,22–28 (vol. 3, 280, CO 25,51). 38 Comm. I Jn. 4,10 (292, CO 55,354). “[F]ilium suum interposuit Deus, ad se nobis reconciliandum, quia nos amabat”. 39 For the umbra (shadow)-substantia (substance) typology in Calvin’s commentary on the Pentateuch, cf. Ex.12,46 (vol. 1, 467, CO 24,292, on the Passover); Ex. 27,20–21, et. al (vol. 2, 167, CO 24,411–412, on the lamps upon the candlestick), Ex. 26,1–37 (vol. 2, 171–176, CO

Byung-Ho Moon

97

chiefly to the priestly role of Christ to make people purified and nourished unto the perfection of life. If a ceremony were held with no expectation of Christ, it bears only a “bare sign (nudo symbolo)” because nothing can make it worthy but Christ’s intercession. 40 Calvin comments, [A]s we have elsewhere seen in what manner blood atones for souls, i.e., in a sacramental manner, upon which it must be observed that what properly belongs to Christ is thus transferred by metonomy to figures and symbols, yet in such a way that the similitude should neither be empty nor inefficacious; for in so far as the fathers apprehended Christ in the external sacrifices, atonement was truly exhibited in them. 41

The concept of sursum corda is presented frequently in order to express the character of Christ’s intercession. 42 It is put forward notably to signify the spiritual meaning of the sacrifices in the Old Testament 43 and prayer, which 24,414–417, on the tabernacle), Ex. 27,1–8 (vol. 2, 177–178, CO 24,418–419, on the burnt offerings), Ex. 28,42–43 (vol. 2, 205–206, CO 24,435–436, on the Levitical priesthood), Ex. 30,25–33 (vol. 2, 224, CO 24,446–447, on an oil of holy anointment), Lev. 21,1–12 (vol. 2, 227–230, CO 24,448–450, on the purity of priests), Ex. 29,38–41 (vol. 2, 296–297, CO 24,490–491, on burnt offerings), Lev. 16,7–11 (vol. 2, 316–317, CO 24,502–503, on two goats offered in sacrifice), Lev. 16,16 (vol. 2, 318–319, CO 24,503–504, on an atonement for the holy place), Lev. 1,1–17 (vol.2, 323–326, CO 24,506–508, on sacrifices), Lev. 2,1–10 (vol. 2, 328–329, CO 24,509–510, on a grain offering and meat-offering), Lev. 6,1–7 (vol. 2, 356–362, CO 24,525–529, on reconciliation of sin), Lev. 22,17–21 (vol. 2, 378–381, CO 24,540–541, on the offering for a vow and a free will offering), Ex. 20,8 (vol. 2, 435, CO 24,577, on Christ and the Sabbath), Ex. 31,13–17 (vol. 2, 442– 444, CO 24,583–584, on the Sabbath and circumcision), Lev. 23,10–23, 34–35 (vol. 2, 456–458, 462–463, CO 24,591–592,594–595, on the year of Jubilee). Calvin sees the incarnation as the manifest revelation of the substance of the law in his commentaries on the New Testament. Cf. Comm. Col. 2,17 (337–338, CO 52,110–111); Matt. 5,17 (vol. 1, 180, CO 45,171); Heb. 9,6–12 (117–120, CO 55,107–110). 40 Comm. Ex. 30,1–9 (vol. 2, 182, CO 24,421). 41 Comm. Lev. 17,10–14 (vol. 3, 31, CO 24,619–620). “Caeterum quomodo animas expiet sanguis, alibi visum est, sacramentali modo scilicet: ubi notandum est, quod proprium est Christi, sic metonymice transferri ad figures et symbola, ut tamen non inanis aut fallax similitude: quia quaetenus in externis sacrificiis Christum apprehenderunt patres, illic vere exhibita fuit expiatio”. 42 Sursum corda (lift hearts higher) has been explored to express the believer’s union with the body of Christ through the special illumination of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Inst. 4.17.18 (CO 2,1039), 4.17.36 (CO 2,1016–1017). 43 Cf. “Yet that very type shows that God did not command sacrifices in order to busy his worshipers with earthly exercises. Rather, he did so that he might lift their minds higher (altius erigeret eorum mentes). This also can be clearly discerned from his own nature: for, as it is spiritual, only spiritual worship delights him (Inst. 2.7.1, CO 2,253)”; “We elsewhere see that the Paschal lamb was a type (typum) of Christ, who by His death propitiated His Father, so that we should not perish with the rest of the world. But, already of old time, He desired to bear witness to the ancients under the Law, that He would not be reconciled to them otherwise than through the sacrifice of a victim. And there is no doubt that by this visible symbol He raised up their minds to that true and heavenly Exemplar (extulerit ad verum et coeleste exemplar), whom it would be absurd and profane to separate from the ceremonies of the law.” Comm. Ex. 12,21–22 (vol. 1, 221, CO 24,221).

98

Christus Mediator Legis

is defined as to “lift up our minds (tollendas sursum mentes) to a pure and chaste veneration of him” (Inst. 3.20.16, CO 2,642). 44 Thus, as the eternal Intercessor, Christ works “not only to render the Father favorable and propitious toward us by an eternal law of reconciliation, but also to receive us as his companions in this great office” (Inst. 2.15.6, CO 2,367). 45 3.4 Christus Mediator Doctrinae This type of mediation pertains mostly to the prophetic office of Christ. He is the true interpreter (interpres) and teacher (magister) of the law. No true knowledge of God cannot be legitimately inquired extra Christum. 46 Through the mediation of Christ, the law reveals the will of God towards his people. Through the mediation of Christ indeed, the law reveals God’s righteousness, the essence of which is totally revealed in the knowledge of Christ the Mediator. Thus Christ reveals himself through his mediation of the law. The knowledge of Christ is omnipresent. Through the mediation of Christ the law reveals the whole (totus), not wholly (totum), presence of Christ etiam extra carnem. This is prominently shown in Calvin’s umbrasubstantia typology, by which he elucidates how to fully comprehend Christ in the law in the light of the law in Christ.47 Calvin comments that the chief angel of God who appeared in Jacob’s ladder evinces the sign (signum) of Christ the incarnate. Then he points out that “the fact that the body of Christ is finite in no way prevents his filling the heavens, since his grace and power spread over all (nec obstat quod Christi corpus finitum est, ut coelum et terram minime impleat: quia ubique diffusa est eius gratia et 44 John Calvin’s Response to the Questions of Giorgio Biandrata, 59–60, 62 (CO 9,329– 330). Cf. Comm. Ps. 50,14–15 (vol. 2, 269–274, CO 31,500–503); Dan. 9,23 (vol. 2, 194, CO 41,166); Matt. 6,9 (206, CO 45,196); Ser. Isa. 53,12 (140–152, CO 35,679–6887); Ser. Deut. 11,26–32 (482a–488b, CO 27,135–149); Calvin, J., Forms of Prayer for the Church, in: Liturgical Forms and a Note on Visitation of the Sick, CTT, 101 (CO 6,175); The Catechism of the Church of Geneva, 122 (CO 6,89–90). 45 Cf. Comm. Ex. 28,1–43 (vol. 2, 191–193, CO 24,426–427); Ex. 30,23–24 (vol. 2, 222– 224, CO 24,445–446); Lev. 21,17–21 (vol. 2, 239–240, CO 24,456); Lev. 16,3–6 (vol. 2, 315–316, CO 24,501–502); Hos. 8,4 (283, CO 42,364). 46 Cf. “Surely, after the fall of the first man no knowledge of God apart from the Mediator (absque mediatore) has had power unto salvation” (Inst. 2.6.1, CO 2,248). On the revelation of the law by Christ the Mediator, see also Comm. Jn. 5,27 (vol. 1, 132, CO 46,118); Jn. 6,45 (vol. 1, 165, CO 46,150); Jn. 10,7 (vol. 1, 260, CO 46,238); Jn. 10,15 (vol. 1, 266, CO 46,243); Jn. 17,3 (vol. 2, 136–137, CO 46,376–377); Jn. 17,8 (vol. 2, 139–140, CO 46,379–380). Willis comments that “Calvin does not say we have no knowledge of God extra hanc carnem; he says we have no knowledge of God extra Christum”. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 109. 47 Cf. footnote 38 of this article.

Byung-Ho Moon

99

virtus).” Finally, he concludes: in Christ the eternal image (aeterna imago) of the Father was revealed to the ancient people. 48 Calvin often alludes Christ’s mediatorship by describing him as the living image of God (imago Dei viva). 49 Comenting on “Christ is the image of the invisible God” in II Corinthians 4,4, Calvin asserts that this phrase does not refer to “His essence (essentia), because He is, as they say, coessential with the Father, but rather to His relationship to us because He represents the Father to us.” 50 He affirms here that the term imago signifies the persona of the Mediator rather than the essentia of the immanent Trinity. This demonstrates why Calvin takes the position that man is created by the image of God, but not the image of Christ, and emphasizes that the image of God is revealed and recovered by the mediation of Christ, against Osiander who denies Christ’s true mediatorship and asserts that we bear the image of Christ only according to the divinity of Christ (Inst. 2.12.6–7, CO 2,344–347). 51 This presents the most characteristic feature of Calvin’s view of the mediation of the law: there is no other way to know the will of God, the expression of which is designated as the law, but through Christ, who is the eternal, living image of God. The character of the Mediator as the Teacher is presented significantly also in the office of priest. 52 In the following, Calvin demonstrates how the Levitical priest’s undertaking of this office for his people is a type of the true Mediator. 48 Comm. Gen. 28,12 (vol. 2, 112, CO 23,391). 49 Cf. Comm. Isa. 6,1 (vol. 1, 201, CO 36,126); Col. 1,15 (308–309, CO 46,84–85), Jn. 1,18 (vol. 1, 25, CO 46,19); Jn 14,10 (vol. 2, 78, CO 46,326), Heb. 1,5 (10–12, CO 55,14). 50 II Cor. 4,4 (55–56, CO 50,51). “[Q]uum Christus imago vocatur Dei invisibilis, id non tantum de essentia accipitur, quia sit coessentialis patri (ut loquuntur), sed magis refertur ad nos, quia patrem nobis repraesentat.” In his Ser. Deut. 5,17 (165), Calvin states that not only we must acknowledge that we “are formed in the image of God,” but also we must remember that we “are members of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there exists [now] a more strict and sacred bond than the bond of nature which is common in all human beings”. 51 Osiander’s position on the person of Christ is based on the assumption that the divine essence cannot take on humanity. He understands the eternal existence of the Son of God as featured by the eternal presence of the divine essence invariably throughout before and after incarnation. In this conviction, he argues that although man is not depraved, Christ would become flesh, and consequently denies the necessity of the Mediator. Also, from this perspective, he maintains that man, being created by the image of Christ, bears the original righteousness infused through his divine essence. His contention is not based on the free imputation of the righteousness of Christ but on the fact that “we are righteous together with God (nos una cum Deo iustos esse)” (Inst. 3.11.5–12, quotation from 3.11.11, CO 2,541). Concerning the debate between Calvin and Osiander over the image of God, Wyatt, P., Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin, Allision Park 1996, 39; Reid, S., Justification by Faith According to John Calvin, Westminster Theological Journal 42/2, 1980, 298–299. 52 Cf. Comm. Lev. 10,9–11 (vol. 2, 235, CO 24,453); Num. 35,1–3 (vol. 2, 249, CO 24,462); Deut. 17,8–11 (vol. 2, 262–265, CO 24,470–471).

100

Christus Mediator Legis

What the Scripture sometimes relates, as to the inquiries made by Urim and Thummin, it was a concession made by God to the rudeness (ruditati) of His ancient people. The true Priest had not yet appeared, the Angel of His Almighty counsel, by whose Spirit all the Prophets spoke, who, finally, is the fountain of all revelations, and the express image (expressa imago) of the Father; in order then that the typical priest (umbratilis sacerdos) might be the messenger (internuncius) from God to man, it behoved him to be invested with the ornaments of Christ. Thus even then believers were taught in a figure (figura), that Christ is the way by which we come to the Father, and that He also brings from the secret bosom of His Father whatever it is profitable for us to know unto salvation. 53

4. The Law as the Rule of Living and Life–Giving: The Threefold Use of the Law Viewed in the Light of Christus Mediator Legis The mediation of Christ ranges throughout the whole of history.54 It extends even to the state of Adam before the fall – to the state of posse non peccare: “Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator” (Inst. 2.12.1, CO 2,340). 55 Moreover, it works throughout the whole process of personal salvation. Expounding on Paul’s preaching in Athens, Calvin affirms the wide extent of the mediation of Christ in this way. Christ as the Mediator […] teaches that salvation must be sought from Him alone; that it bids us seek the expiation, by which we may be reconciled to God, in His death; that it teaches that men, who had previously been unclean and in the grip of sin, are restored and renewed by His Spirit, to begin to live righteous and holy lives;

53 Comm. Ex. 28,4–8 (vol. 2, 198, CO 24,430–431). 54 Cf. “Since God cannot without the Mediator be propitious toward the human race, under the law Christ was always set before the holy fathers as the end to which they should direct their faith” (cf. Inst. 2.6.2, CO 2,250); “Therefore, we conclude that not only after Adam’s fall did he begin to exercise his office of mediator, but since he is the eternal Word of God, both angels as well as men were united to God by his grace so that they would remain uncorrupted.” Tylenda, First Response to Sancaro, 12 (CO 9,350); Comm. Gen. 18,13 (vol. 1, 475, CO 23,254); Ex. 3,2 (vol. 1, 61, CO 24,35–36); Isa. 19,20 (vol. 2, 75, CO 36,344); Isa. 63,17 (vol. 4, 359, CO 37,405); Matt. 1,23 (69, CO 45,69); Jn. 5,46 (vol. 1, 143, CO 47,129); Jn. 16,23–24 (vol. 2, 125–128, CO 47,367–369); Jn. 16,26 (vol. 2, 129–130, CO 47,371); Heb. 8,5 (107, CO 55,99); Ser. Matt. 26,36– 39 (65, CO 46,846); Ser. Matt. 26,67–27:10 (114, CO 46,886); Ser. Gal. 3,13–14 (407–408, 412, CO 50,515.518); Ser. Gal. 3,15–18 (423–437, CO 525–534). 55 “Quamvis ab omni labe integer stetisset homo, humilior tamen erat eius conditio quam ut sine mediatore ad Deum penetraret”.

Byung-Ho Moon

101

lastly, that, from such beginning, which make it clear that the Kingdom of God is spiritual, it finally lifts our minds to the hope of the future resurrection.56

4.1 The First Use of the Law When we deal with Calvin’s threefold use of the law (triplex usus legis), we should bear in mind that it refers to the wide extent of the mediation of the law. It has been accepted as something of a commonplace in contemporary Calvin studies that the first use of the law is theological in the sense that it leads people to Christ (justification) and the third use is normative because it is related to the progress in the daily Christian life (sanctification). Also, it is generally accepted that the second use of the law is political and thus related to outward activity.57 In categorizing these three uses, scholars are mostly concerned about varying effects of the law themselves, but do not take into much consideration their relation to Christ the Mediator, which Calvin developed most significantly in several sections (2.6.1–2.7.5) just before the triplex usus legis is handled in the Institutes (2.7.6–13). In the Institutes, the first use of the law is described in this way: “while it shows God’s righteousness, that is, the righteousness alone acceptable to God, it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness” (2.7.6). 58 Unquestionably, by the first use of the law Calvin means the office of the law to make people realize their feebleness and impurity and flee to Christ the Mediator. The first use of the law therefore is to make people realize who they are and convert themselves from their righteousness of good works to the righteousness imputed by the grace of Christ the Mediator. 59 It refers to “an adventitious quality (adventitiam qualitatem)” of humanity (cf. Inst. 2.1.11, CO 2,184), but it is based on the original nature of the law, which is a rule of life and living (regula vitae et vivendi). The characteristic feature of the theological or punitive use of the law is consequently described as follows: 56 Comm. Acts 17,18 (vol. 2, 108, CO 48,406). “Christum unum mediatorem: quod ab eo solo petendam esse salutem docet: quod in eius morte expiationem quaerere iubet qua reconciliemur Deo: quod spiritu eius renovari ac refingi homines docet, qui ante profani erant et peccato mancipati, ut iuste sancteque vivere incipiant. Deinde quod a talibus exordiis, quibus spirituale esse Dei regnum constat, tandem in spem futurae resurrectionis mentes nostras attollit”. 57 Cf. Doumergue, E., Jean Calvin les hommes et les choses de son tems, vol. 4, Neuilly 1926, 191–193; Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 217–257; Dowey, E.A., The Third Use of the Law in Calvin’s Theology. Social Progress 49/3, 1958, 20–27; Johnson, Calvin’s Handling of the Third Use of the Law and Its Problems, 33–50. 58 “[…] dum iustitiam Dei ostendit, id est, quae sola Deo accepta est, suae unumquemque iniustitiae admoneat, certiorem faciat, convincat denique as condemnet”. 59 It is noteworthy that Calvin criticizes people who advocate free will for asserting that the law (or the whole Bible) is nothing else than “a rule of living” (Inst 2.5.7, CO 2,235).

102

Christus Mediator Legis

In the precepts of the law, God is but the rewarder of perfect righteousness, which all of us lack, and conversely, the severe judge of evil deeds. But in Christ his face shines, full of grace and gentleness, even upon us poor and unworthy sinners (Inst. 2.7.8, CO 2,259).

In conclusion, for Calvin, the first use of the law denotes not only the office of the law to lead people to Christ, but also the revealing of the substance of the law by Christ’s mediation. It denotes the use of the law to make us convinced that “the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us (Christi iustitiam esse efficacem ad nos iustificandos)”. 60 This view is affirmed in the following commentary on Romans 3,31, where Paul argues the continual validity of the law in spite of the principle of iustificatio sola fide. The moral law is truly confirmed and established through faith in Christ, without whom the law is not fulfilled. In vain the law proclaims what is right, yet it accomplishes nothing but the increase of inordinate desires, in order finally to bring upon man greater condemnation. When, however, we come to Christ, we first find in Him the exact righteousness of the law (exacta legis iustitia), and this also becomes ours by imputation (per imputationem). 61

4.2 The Second Use of the Law With reference to the way in which the law works, the second use of the law is not basically different from its first use in view of the fact that both are limited to the office of the law to reveal and instruct the precepts of the law. Accordingly, both are expressed by the same metaphor of “tutor (paedagogus)” (Inst. 2.7.10–11, CO 2,260–261). 62 Both are related to the spiritual use of the law, even though the second use aims at the conversion of outward activities. However, with reference to their effect, both are completely differentiated.63

60 Comm. Rom. 5,18 (117, CO 49,101). 61 Comm. Rom. 3,31 (81, CO 49,67). 62 Calvin points out the role of the law as a tutor in dealing with the second use of the law by indicating that even for the children of God the divine tutelage (paedagogia) is needed until they are regenerated (Inst. 2,7,10, CO 2,260–261). 63 Melanchthon had made use of the metaphor schoolmaster in Galatians 3,24 in order to explain the political use (his first use) of the law until he left it out in his 1555 Loci Communes. This reflects his limited understanding of the theological use of the law. 1543 Loci Communes, 73a, 1535 Loci Communes, 405, 1555 Loci Communes, 123.

Byung-Ho Moon

103

4.3 The Third Use of the Law The law still works “among believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns”. Calvin explains the third use of the law (usus in renatis) in two ways: the office of teaching (doctrina) and exhortation (exhortatio). In the first place, the law continually plays a role to inform the regenerate of its precepts so that they may “make fresh progress toward a purer knowledge of the divine will”. Likewise the law fulfils the continual pedagogical function for believers. 64 In the second place, the law works for believers more positively: “by frequent meditation upon it to be aroused to obedience, be strengthened in it, and be drawn back from the slippery path of transgression”. The office of exhortation is beyond the noetic instruction of the law; it gives rise to volitional affection. Believers who are taught the precepts of the law are persuaded by the Holy Spirit to be convinced of the accompanying promises of grace and as a result they make themselves ready for living according to God’s will towards his people. In this case the law reveals the promise that Christ as the Mediator still works for the believer’s holy and just living. Calvin uses such metaphors as “a whip (flagrum)” and “a constant sting (assiduus aculeus)” positively in order to illustrate this quickening use of the law (Inst. 2.7.12, CO 2,261–262). Calvin defines justification as the acceptance by God through “the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (imputatio iustitiae Christi)” (Inst. 3.11.2, CO 2,534). It denotes the state of man who is “received into communion with Christ” and “clothed (vestitus) with Christ’s righteousness” (Inst. 3.17.8, CO 2,596). On this ground, Calvin understands the double grace of God, which is declared in his first catechism (1537, 1538) 65 and developed in his 1543 Institutes, where he says, “by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified (sola fide non tantum nos, sed opera etiam nostra iustificari)” (1543 Inst. 10.70, CO 1,787, Inst 3.17.10, CO 2,598). Calvin’s commentary on Romans demonstrates his doctrine of justification in more detail. Justification is characterized more specifically as “the communion in the death of Christ (communionis cum morte Chrisiti),” which extends from the beginning of regeneration to the participation in the eternal life. 66 Also, it is described as the process of “establishing a common

64 In this respect, Battles calls Calvin’s third use of the law “the pedagogical” one. Battles, F.L., Against Luxury and License in Geneva, in: Benedetto, R. (ed.), Interpreting John Calvin, Grand Rapids 1996, 325. 65 Catechism or Institution of the Christian Religion, 20–21 (CO 5,336–337). 66 Comm. Rom. 6,7 (126, CO 49,108). Cf. Comm Rom. 6,3 (122, CO 49,105).

104

Christus Mediator Legis

likeness (mutua similitudo) between ourselves and the Redeemer”. 67 Calvin arguing this points out the fact that the gift of justification is not “a quality (qualitatem) with which God endows us,” but “the free imputation of righteousness”. 68 God’s grace of free imputation reveals to his people the continual imparting of newness of life, which is represented most strikingly in the concept of the communication of the righteousness of God. 69 The gospel is considered to be the firm conviction of the fact that the righteousness of God is communicated (communicatur) to us in Christ. 70 By “in Christ” Calvin signifies not only the fact that by his Spirit Christ intercedes between God and his people, but particularly also the fact that the righteousness becomes “a property (qualitatem)” of Christ and so it belongs “properly (proprium)” to Christ. 71 Therefore, there is no other way for us to bear the fruits of righteousness – sanctification and eternal life – unless we are engrafted with Christ. 72 In his commentary on Romans, Calvin nowhere presents the clear distinction between the righteousness of God and the righteousness of Christ, but with reference to the latter he especially emphasizes the merit of the blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed from the sin, sanctified, and ultimately led to eternal life. In particular, Calvin describing the Spirit of Christ as “life-giving (vivificam)” takes into account the whole of life including rebirth, regeneration, and eternal life. 73 He confirms this as he comments that “the life-giving power (vim vivificandi) exists in the Spirit of Christ, which is able to absorb our mortality.” 74 The living and lifegiving (viva et vivifica) Spirit of God points to the Spirit of the Mediator that makes us free from the bondage of the law and live according to the law voluntarily. 75 In his commentary on II Corinthians 3 Calvin argues that the law “will come alive and be life-giving (vivam and vivificam) only if it is inspired by

67 Comm. Rom. 6,10 (127, CO 49,109). 68 Comm. Rom. 5,17 (117, CO 49,100). God’s righteousness is neither infused (infusa) nor transfused (transfusa), but imputed grace (gratia imputata). This is the point by which Calvin attacked Osiander who argued for “essential righteousness (essentialis iustitia)” (Inst. 3.11.5, 10. CO 2,536–537.540–541). 69 Cf. Comm. Rom. 6,1 (121, CO 49,103). “[T]hose who imagine that Christ bestows free justification upon us without imparting newness of life shamefully rend Christ asunder.” 70 Comm. Rom. 1,17 (28, CO 49,20), 3,21 (70, CO 49,57), 3,22 (73, CO 49,60). 71 Comm. Rom. 5,19 (118, CO 49,101). 72 Comm. Rom. 6,22–23 (136, CO 49,118). 73 Comm. Rom. 8,2 (157, CO 49,137). 74 Comm. Rom. 8,10 (165, CO 49,145, ET altered). 75 Cf. Comm. Jn. 1,17 (vol. 1, 25, CO 47,18). “Christus enim anima est quae vivificat quod alioqui esset in lege mortuum”; II Cor. 3,7 (45, CO 50,43).

Byung-Ho Moon

105

Christ.” Calvin calls Christ “the spirit of the law (spiritum eius [legis])” and “the life of the law (legis vita).” Then he says, Christ in generating us gives life to the Law and shows Himself to be the source of life, just as the soul is the source from which all man’s vital functions spring. Christ is therefore, so to speak, the universal soul of all men not as regards His essence, but as regards His grace. Or, to put it another way, Christ is the Spirit because he animates us with the life-giving power of His Spirit (vivifica spiritus sui virtute). 76

By designating Christ is not only the life but also the Spirit of the law, he witnesses Christ’s mediation of the law manifestly. He affirms that those who are regenerated are animated by the Spirit of Christ and for them the law works as the living and life-giving one. We should bear in mind that Calvin, dealing with the liberation of the bondage of the law in the previous verse, argues that Christ is “the end (finem)” and “the only aim (scope)” of the law. 77 In conclusion, the law, which is a rule of living (regula vivendi), works as a rule of life-giving (regula vivificandi) for believers by the Spirit of Christ the Mediator. This is what Calvin means by the exhorting use of the law, and demonstrates the essence of Calvin’s third use of the law.

5. Concluding Observations This article comprises two parts treating the concept and extent of Christ’s mediation of the law and the threefold use of the law in Calvin. From the study of the use of the law, we have learned of the crucial role of the concept of Christus mediator legis for the purpose of pointing up and fleshing out the uniqueness of Calvin’s concept and use of the law. Can we adopt the doctrine of unio cum Christo in order to take account of Christ’s mediation of the law in the Old Testament and to explain the validity of lex vivificandi for the ancient Jewish people? This is another question to be answered. However, in the first part of this article, I suggest its validity with some comments on the so-called extra Calvinisticum and the extent of the mediation of Christ ranging through the whole of salvation history and personal salvation. This feature of the law as lex vivificandi sheds light on why Calvin calls the third use of the law the “principal (parecipuus)” one and “more closely related to the proper purpose of the law (proprium legis finem)” (Inst. 2.7.12, CO 2,261). By grasping the use of the law in the light of the concept 76 77

Comm. II Cor. 3,17 (48, 49, CO 50,45–46). Comm. II Cor. 3,16 (48, CO 50,45).

106

Christus Mediator Legis

of Christus mediator legis Calvin deals with the whole use of the law without losing the significance of the original nature of the law, which is righteous (before the fall) and life-giving (after the fall). Also, in exploring the concept of lex vivificandi in the light of the Spirit of Christ the Mediator, who still works according to both his natures in the bodily presence totusnon totum, Calvin sets the theological foundation on Christ’s mediation of the law in the Old Testament. The law always reveals the office of lex vivendi. 78 It is both pedagogical and normative. The revelation of the law is sometimes appalling and sometimes encouraging, but the nature of the law is holy, good, and righteous. The first two uses denote the fundamental use of the law for believers and non-believers. Their effects are differentiated, but the way in which the law works is completely the same. On the other hand, the third use of the law refers to the continual validity of the law for believers. It signifies basically the pedagogical use, but its characteristic feature is shown in the office of lex vivificandi. The third use is differentiated from the first use in terms of its effect, but both act at the same time. Calvin defines faith as “the instrument by which we receive Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated to us,” and comments that if we do not embrace God’s grace not only for justification but also for sanctification, we have just the “mutilated faith (mutila fide)”.79 He does not believe that justification and sanctification are not separated although they are distinguished. Nor does he acknowledge the concept of the legal repentance itself because he does not believe the existence of mortification which is not followed by vivification.80 When Calvin defines that justification is the communication of the righteousness of God in Christ, he presupposes the precedence of union with Christ to justification and sanctification in ordo salutis. 81

78 On the other hand, Hesselink takes the position that for Calvin only the third use of the law refers to the normative use of the law (lex vivendi), differently from Luther who argues lex accusans as the nature of the law. Hesselink basically follows E. Doumergue’s view that as regards the first two uses of the law Calvin and Luther are in complete accordance with each other. Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 255; Doumergue, Jean Calvin, vol. 4, 192. 79 Comm. Rom. 3,22 (73, CO 49,60), 8,13 (167, CO 49,147). Cf. Calvin says that faith justifies “because it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ (quia in communicationem iustitiae Christi nos inducit)” (Inst. 3.11.20, CO 20,550). 80 Calvin criticizes those who distinguish between mortification and vivification in their treating of repentance. He epitomizes his argument by stating that “man dies to himself that they may begin to live to God (hominem sibi mori ut Deo vivere incipiat)” (Inst. 3.3.3, CO 2,436). 81 Therefore, “denotative” rather than “connotative” and “theological” rather than “semantic” is the difference between Calvin and Melanchthon (and Luther) in their view of the third use of the law. These two scholars think quite the opposite. Cf. Dowey, Law in Luther and Calvin, 148, 153; Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 218. Hesselink confirms his view in “Luther

Byung-Ho Moon

107

While in his commentary on Romans Calvin demonstrates mainly the theological background upon which the concept and use of the law is based, in his commentary on Psalms he elucidates remarkably the blessings of the law. Expounding on the inner instruction of the law, he especially emphasizes that it is the Sprit of the Mediator who persuades the soul of the Psalmist so that he may open his eyes not only to the precepts of the law but also to its promises. Likewise he believes that the Psalmist delights in the law with a conviction that in Christ lex vivendi becomes lex vivificandi.82 Before closing the section on the doctrinal significance of the third use of the law, he confirms this: “[In the Psalms] David especially shows that in the law he apprehended the Mediator, without whom there is no delight or sweetness (Praesertim vero ostendit David, se in lege mediatorem apprehendisse, sine quo nulla est oblectatio vel suavitas)” (Inst. 2.7.12, CO 2,262). 83

and Calvin on Law and Gospel in Their Galatians Commentaries,” Reformed Review 37, 1984, 69–82. 82 Cf. Commenting on the phrase “the marvelous things of thy law” in Ps. 119,18, Calvin says that “not only the ten commandments are included in the term law, but also the covenant of eternal salvation, with all its provisions, which God has made. And knowing, as we do, that Christ, ‘in whom are hid all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom,’ ‘is the end of the law,’ we need not be surprised at the prophet commending it, in consequence of the sublime mysteries which it contains, Col. ii.3; Rom. x. 4” (vol. 4, 413–414, CO 32,222). Calvin, expounding Psalm 119, repeatedly refers to the internal illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to explain the internal instruction of the law. Cf. Comm. Ps. 119,12 (vol. 4, 410, CO 32,219), “the spirit of discernment (spiritu iudicii)”; 119,18 (412, CO 32,221), “the peculiar grace of the Holy Spirit (singulari spiritus gratia)”; 119,26 (420, CO 32,226), “the Spirit of God as our internal teacher (interior magister Dei spiritus)”; 119,27 (420, CO 32,226) and 119,33 (424, CO 32,228), “the Spirit of understanding (intelligentiae spiritu)”; 119,34 (425, CO 32,229), “the heavenly illumination of thy Spirit (coelestis spiritus luce) ”; 119,64 (449, CO 32,242), “the inward illumination of the mind, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit (arcana mentis illustratione spiritus) ”; 119,125 (vol. 5, 5, CO 32,270), “the secret influence of his Spirit (arcano spiritus instinctu)”. 83 For the sweetness (dulcedo, suavitas) of the law, cf. Hesselink, I.J., Calvin, Theologian of Sweetness, Calvin Theological Journal 37, 2002, 325–327.

“As a Son to his Father”: An Overlooked Aspect of the Imago Dei in Calvin

Jason Van Vliet

1. Introduction In 1988 Mary Potter Engel set forth her opinion that “Calvin’s anthropology has been one of the doctrines most neglected by scholars”. 1 She pointed out that prior to her book, the only full-length study of Calvin’s anthropology was Calvin’s Doctrine of Man by T.F. Torrance. 2 In the meantime, more research has been done to fill in the lacuna which Engel noticed. The monographs of Schreiner, Van Eck and Hoitenga deserve to be mentioned, as well as the recent dissertation of Shu-Ying Shih. 3 Yet, in spite of these additional studies, there are still unresolved problems in our understanding of Calvin’s anthropology. One problem is the lingering question of whether or not Calvin even has a coherent understanding of humankind. As Engel surveys the Calvini opera, she notices the following:

1 Engel, M.P., John Calvin’s Perspectival Anthropology, Atlanta 1988, ix. 2 Torrance, T.F. Calvin’s Doctrine of Man, London 1949. 3 Schreiner S.E., The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin, Durham 1991; Eck, J. van, God, mens, medemens: Humanitas in de theologie van Calvijn, Franeker 1992; Hoitenga jr., D.J., John Calvin and the Will: A Critique and Corrective, Grand Rapids 1997; Shih, S.-Y., The Development of Calvin’s Understanding of the Imago Dei in the Institutes of the Christian Religion From 1536 to 1559 (Dissertation, Ruprecht Karls University), 2004. The following articles should also be noted: Thompson, J.L., Creata ad Imaginem Dei, licet secundo gradu: woman as the image of God according to John Calvin, Harvard Theological Review 81, 1988; Faber, J., Imago Dei in Calvin: Calvin’s Doctrine of Man As the Image of God by Virtue of Creation, in: Boersema, H./Wielenga, B. (eds.), Essays in Reformed Doctrine, Neerlandia 1990; Oberman, H.A., The Pursuit of Happiness: Calvin Between Humanism and Reformation, in: Klerk, P. de (ed.), Calvin As Exegete, Grand Rapids 1995; Link, Ch., Die Finalität des Menschen zur Perspektive der Anthropologie Calvins, in: Selderhuis, H.J. (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, Geneva 2004.

Jason Van Vliet

109

[…] There appears a portrait of humankind filled with a disturbing number of contrasting colors, conflicting angles, and asymmetrical lines. The result appears to be a tortuous mass of smaller images vying to be regarded as the focal point. Here one sees a masterpiece shining with the beauty of the eternal father, there a snail crawling before the eternal creator; here a royal heir of Jesus Christ, there a worm crawling before the eternal judge; here a Cato, there a Cassius. 4

This study aims to show that one, frequently overlooked, aspect of Calvin’s view of the image of God provides a window through which the landscape of his anthropology appears less labyrinthine and more lucid. A second, unresolved problem is the enduring opinion, at least among some, that Calvin has a predominantly pessimistic view of human beings. John Hesselink notes that “Calvin is famous for his pessimistic view of human nature and its possibilities”. 5 However, such an interpretation of the reformer’s anthropology is incomplete. As we hope to see, Calvin has many positive things to say about the splendour of human beings. In addition, the overlooked aspect in Calvin’s imago Dei helps to re-balance the scales of opinion, demonstrating that his anthropology is not entirely replete with gloom but also radiates a certain, exceptional grandeur. So, what is this overlooked aspect in Calvin’s explanation of the image of God? It is that he occasionally uses the analogy of a child’s relationship to a father as he describes the imago Dei. There is a saying: “like father, like son.” That adage aptly summarizes the point Calvin is trying to make. For centuries theologians have debated what the precise nature of the imago Dei might be. Calvin indicates that it can be understood in terms of the similarities which exist between a father and his children. This insight, in turn, sheds new light on both the coherence of, and the optimism within, Calvin’s anthropology.

4 Engel, Perspectival Anthropology, 22. 5 Hesselink, I.J., Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, Featuring Ford Lewis Battles’s Translation of the 1538 Catechism, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology, Louisville 1997, 61. Alasdair Heron also observes that there is a “widely accepted picture of Calvin as the very epitome of that type of theology that seeks to glorify God by debasing humanity” (Homo Peccator and the Imago Dei According to John Calvin, in: Kettler, Chr. D./Speidell, T. (eds.), Incarnational Ministry: The Presence of Christ in Church, Society, and Family. Essays in Honor of Ray S. Anderson, Colorado Springs 1990, 32).

110

“As a Son to his Father”

2. A Survey of the Sources 2.1 Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus Christ (1535) John Calvin’s Épître à tous amateurs is a valuable source of information concerning the early theology of Geneva’s reformer. 6 This preface to Olivetan’s translation of the Bible immediately begins with God’s creation of human beings who are “a masterpiece in whom one can view a unique excellence”. 7 Since they were created in God’s image, the brilliance of nothing less than divine glory shone ever so clearly in them. 8 Sadly, Adam and Eve soon forgot the true Source of their shining splendour and sought to be something in and of themselves. Calvin describes the consequences of their ingratitude as follows: Therefore, God also began to hate him, and – just as he well deserved – to disown his work, seeing that his image and likeness had become effaced and the gifts of his goodness had been tossed aside. And just as God had set and ordained him so that he might take delight and pleasure in him, as a father [takes delight] in his very dear child, so now, to the contrary, he held him in contempt, such that all that had pleased him beforehand, now displeased him, that which had delighted him, now irritated him, that which he had viewed with a benign and fatherly eye, he now detested and looked at with regret. 9

It is noteworthy that the father-child analogy is an integral part of Calvin’s explanation. The effacing of the imago Dei does not just involve a holy Creator who becomes angry with one of his rebellious creatures, but it includes a heavenly Father who, with deep regret, is now terribly displeased with the dear child in whom he had once delighted. Beloved posterity has become a brash adversary: that is the tragedy of the fall into sin. Therefore, the created likeness between God and human beings is not merely a likeness such as an artist might produce when he paints a resemb6 Greef, W. de, The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide (trans. Lyle D. Bierma), Grand Rapids 1993, 90–92. 7 Calvin, J., Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus-Christ, in: Backus, I./Chimelli, C. (eds.), La vraie piété: Divers traités de Jean Calvin et Confession de foi de Guillaume Farel, Geneva 1986, 25. All translations from the Épître are my own. Fr.: “comme un chef d’oeuvre auquel on pût contempler un singulière excellence”. 8 Ibid. Fr.: “tellement que la lumière de sa gloire reluisait clairement en lui”. 9 Ibid., 25–26; emphasis mine. Fr.: “Adonc, Dieu commença aussi à l’avoir en haine et, ainsi que bien il méritait, à la désavouer pour son oeuvre, vu que son image et semblance en étaient effaces et les grâces de sa bonté en étaient dehors. Et comme il l’avait mis et ordonné pour se délecter et complaire en lui comme un père en son très cher enfant, au contraire il l’eut en mépris et abomination, tellement que tout ce qui lui plaisait auparavant lui a déplu, ce qui le soulait délecter l’a irrité, ce qu’il soulait contempler d’un bénin et paternal regard, il s’est pris à le detester et voir à regret”.

Jason Van Vliet

111

lance of someone on a piece of canvas. Rather it is the likeness of which we speak when we say, “That young woman is a trustworthy individual just like her father is”. This father-child analogy, which Calvin introduces here in one of his earliest writings, also surfaces time and again in other writings. 2.2 Commentary on Romans (1540) So far, the image of God at creation and after the Fall have been discussed, yet what can be said of the restoration of this image in Jesus Christ? This is something that Calvin takes up in his exegesis of Romans 8,29. Already in his comments on Romans 8,17 Calvin adduces that the apostle Paul “proves that our salvation consists in having God as our Father”. 10 It is noteworthy that Calvin chooses the term “consists” 11 rather than, for instance, “includes.” By so doing, he indicates that the Father-children relationship is more than just an aspect of salvation. For Calvin, it is the very essence of redemption. This intimately close connection between salvation and adoption resurfaces in Calvin’s comments on the restoration of the imago Dei in verse 29: […] God has so determined that all whom he has adopted should bear the image of Christ; nor has he [Paul] simply said, that they were to be conformed to Christ, but to the image of Christ, that he might teach us that there is in Christ a living and conspicuous exemplar, which is exhibited to God’s children for imitation. The meaning then is, that gratuitous adoption, in which our salvation consists, is inseparable from the other decree, which determines that we are to bear the cross; for no one can be an heir of heaven without being conformed to the image of the only-begotten Son of God. 12

Two important insights are gained from the above citation. First of all, the restoration of the imago Dei appears within the context of being adopted as God’s children through his only-begotten Son. In short, being in the imago Christi involves being filii Dei. Secondly, the restoration of the image also includes, in a certain sense, an expansion of the imago. Calvin states that being restored in the image of Christ cannot be separated from bearing the cross (i.e. suffering while being innocent). 13 It goes without saying that in Paradise there was no need to bear any cross because suffering and sin were not part of the created order. Yet since the renewed resemblance is now

10 Calvin, J., Calvin’s Commentaries, Grand Rapids 1996, 19:301; emphasis mine. 11 Lat.: “gratuitam adoptionem, in qua salus nostra consistit”. 12 Ibid., 19:318; emphasis mine. 13 Cf. Ibid., 19:301 where he writes, “[…] patiently bear whatever troubles may press on us in this life”.

112

“As a Son to his Father”

focussed on Christ, it also begins to reflect something new, namely, the willingness to endure present sufferings in anticipation of future glory. 2.3 Commentary on Genesis (1554) 2.3.1 Genesis 1,26–27 Calvin’s willingness to expand the scope of the imago is also found in his comments on the first chapter of Genesis. He goes so far as to say “some scintillations” of the imago Dei shine forth even in the physical human body. 14 Although he still adamantly rejects Anthropomorphitism 15 , this talk of “scintillations” in the human body is clearly a new development in Calvin’s thinking, taking him beyond the position which he held in the Psychopannychia. There he stated that the imago was to be found only and exclusively in the soul. 16 All this begs the question: in which way are God’s attributes mirrored in the human body? Calvin refers to the intricate order and harmony which exists among the parts of the human body. This, presumably, is a reflection of the order and harmony which exists within God himself. 17 In the Genesis commentary Calvin also agrees, for the first time, to include human dominion over creation as a small part of the imago. He maintains what he said in the Pscyhopannychia, namely, that Chrysostom was wrong to equate the imago with the dominion over creation. Yet here he concedes that “this truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God.” 18 Obviously Geneva’s reformer was willing to elaborate on, and even modify, his theological positions as he matured in his exegetical insight into the Scriptures. 19 2.3.2 Genesis 5,1–3 When speaking of the image of God, most theologians will inevitably refer to Genesis 1,26–27. Yet there is another, often overlooked, passage on the imago only a few chapters later, namely, Genesis 5,1–3. Moses comes back

14 Ibid., 1.95. 15 Ibid., 1.94; cf. Calvin’s comments on Gen. 2,7 where he says “[…] on this soul God engraved his own image, to which immortality is annexed”; emphasis mine. 16 John Calvin, trans. Henry Beveridge, Calvin’s Tracts, Eugene 2002, 3:419–25. 17 Calvin’s Commentaries, 1.95. 18 Ibid., 1.94. 19 Cf. Lane, A.N.S. (ed.), John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice Against Pighius (trans. G.I. Davies), Grand Rapids 1996, 28–29.

Jason Van Vliet

113

to the topic, Calvin says, because “the excellency and dignity of this favour could not be sufficiently celebrated”.20 The Biblical passage itself reads: When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.” When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he name him Seth. 21

There is a remarkable parallel between the “likeness” relationship which God created between himself and Adam, and the “likeness” between Adam and his son Seth. Calvin picks up on this parallel and once again explicitly explains the image of God in terms of the father-child analogy. He writes, “it is a nobility far more exalted, that he [Adam] should bear resemblance to his Creator, as a son does to his father.” 22 Therefore, as he did in the Épître, Calvin uses this father-child likeness to understand the created relationship between God and his first children, Adam and Eve. Within the realm of earthly families it is a familiar phenomenon that sons and daughters tend to think, speak, act or even aspire in ways that can be strikingly similar to their parents. This similarity can be for the better or the worse. That is to say, children may inherit the positive attributes of their father or mother; however, posterity may also acquire the shortcomings of their parents. This reality, which parents know all too well, helps to explain what happened to the image of God as it crossed over from the state of integrity into the state of iniquity. Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of their heavenly Father in whom there is no sin or shortcoming to inherit or imitate. However, their children, such as Seth, received the imago Dei via their parents who in the meantime had been corrupted by sin. Therefore, Adam and Eve’s children inherited a warped and distorted imago Dei, which they in turn passed on to their posterity. 2.3.3 Genesis 9,6 In Genesis 9 the Scriptures say, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Calvin takes this opportunity to explain his position on the imago Dei after the fall. He writes: Should any one object, that this divine image has been obliterated, the solution is easy; first, there yet exists some remnant of it, so that man is possessed of no small dignity; and, secondly, the Celestial Creator himself, however corrupted man may be, still keeps in view the end of his original creation; and according to his example, we 20 Calvin’s Commentaries, 1:227. 21 Gen. 5,1–3 in the New International Version, Grand Rapids 1984; all other Scriptural quotations are also from the NIV. 22 Ibid., 1:228–29; emphasis mine.

114

“As a Son to his Father”

ought to consider for what end he created men, and what excellence he has bestowed upon them above the rest of living beings. 23

What is noteworthy about Calvin’s comments is that he describes fallen human beings as endowed with “dignity” and even “excellence” by virtue of the fact that they still possess a remnant of the image of God. A little while later Calvin mentions the imago Dei in connection with the twenty-second verse of this chapter. The surrounding verses describe how Noah’s sons reacted to their father’s drunkenness and nakedness. When Ham makes a mockery of his inebriated father, Calvin remarks, “Drunkenness in itself deserves as its reward, that they who deface the image of their heavenly Father in themselves, should become a laughing-stock to their own children”. 24 Here again, albeit in a shame-filled context, Calvin links the doctrine of the image of God to a father-children relationship, allowing the latter to elucidate the former. 2.4 Sermons on Job (1554–1555) In Calvin’s sermons on Job there is a repeated correlation between the image of God and the privileged position of human beings as the children of God. Three quotations suffice to illustrate the point: True it is that men are very oftentimes called the Children of God, because he has printed his image in them, especially in the faithful, for asmuch as they be reformed to the likeness of our Lord Jesus, who is the lively image of God his father, and also for that they have received the spirit of adoption, which is a warrant unto them that God bears a fatherly love towards them. 25 For in as much as we be reasonable creatures, and have the Image of God printed in our nature: we have a record that he holdeth us here as his children. 26 Behold how the Angels are surely the children of God: but yet are we called so as well as they. Whyso? Because God created us after his own image and likeness. And although this were defaced by the sin of Adam: yet was it repaired again in the chosen by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the lively image of God, and we were so exalted by his Spirit, as we be now set in our former state again […]. 27

23 Ibid., 1:296. 24 Ibid., 1:301. 25 Job 1,6. Calvin, J., Sermons on Job (trans. Arthur Golding), London 1574; reprint, Edinburgh 1993, 15.b.3–10; emphasis mine. 26 Job 4,20–5,2. Ibid., 76.a.30–32; emphases mine. 27 Job 38,7. Ibid., 696.a.57–64; emphases mine.

Jason Van Vliet

115

This language is in line with the other sources which we have surveyed. However, it should be added that the sermons of Job contain some of the most explicit and extensive descriptions of the image of God within the context of the relationship between a father and his children.

3. Conclusions Based on the preceding survey of primary sources, the following deductions can be made: 1. As Richard Muller has recently and rightly proposed, “Calvin’s theology cannot simply be read out of the Institutes”. 28 Calvin’s view of the imago Dei is a prime example of the truth of Muller’s proposition. Within the Institutes, the reformer’s main exposition of the image of God is found in Book 1, Chapter 15. However, in the whole chapter he does not mention the father-children analogy even once. On the one hand, this indicates that the importance of this metaphor should not be overrated. Surely, if Calvin felt that this analogy was the hub around which his whole anthropology turned, then he would have included it in the Institutes. On the other hand, its absence from the Institutes should not relegate the father-children similitude to the ash heap of irrelevance. In 1559 one of Calvin’s primary concerns was refuting Andreas Osiander who had recently propagated some strange views about the imago. 29 At that chronological point in Calvin’s work, the disputation with Osiander took precedence over other aspects of the doctrine. 30 Yet when the rest of the Calvini opera are consulted, it is obvious that the father-children analogy is a significant part of his anthropology. He mentions it throughout his literary career, beginning with the Épître in 1535 and continuing right through until his Sermons on Job in 1554–55. 2. Calvin uses various metaphors in his anthropology. The imago can be a resplendent article of clothing31 or an engraved masterpiece of the divine

28 Muller, R.A., The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, New York 2000, 186. 29 Osiander, A., An filius Dei fuerit incarnandus, si peccatum non introivisset in mundum (1550), in: Müller, G./Seebass, G. (eds.), Gesamtausgabe. Band 9. Schriften und Briefe 1549 bis August 1551, Gütersloher 1994. In addition to 1.15.3–5 Calvin also refutes Osiander’s views in 2.12.5–7 and 3.11.5–12. 30 Concerning the emphasis on disputation in Calvin’s Institutes see Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 101–17. 31 Calvin’s First Catechism, 9.

116

“As a Son to his Father”

Sculptor. 32 However, the father-children resemblance holds the distinction of being a particularly robust and versatile analogy. A daughter can have an intellectual or moral disposition which is similar to her father. Likewise a son might have the same work ethic as his father; he might even follow in his father’s footsteps and pick the same career. In other words, the “like father, like child” correlation has the capacity to cover almost every angle and aspect of human existence. The same applies to Calvin’s insight into the imago Dei. To be sure, God created a moral similarity between himself and his first two earthly children. Adam and Eve were righteous and holy even as their heavenly Father himself was righteous and holy. However, the scope of the imago need not be restricted to morality. It can also include the intellect: Adam and Eve were wise, even as their Father was wise. It can refer to longevity: Adam and Eve were originally destined for eternal life, even as their heavenly Father was eternal. Beyond that, over time Calvin came to see that, in a small way, the imago includes the dominion of humans over other creatures. Even as the Father was the Creator, and therefore, the King over all creatures, so also Adam and Eve were the children of God, and therefore, the prince and princess of Paradise. As such they ruled over all the other creatures. In short, during the course of his theological development, Calvin refined and expanded his view of the imago Dei. Along the way, the fatherchildren similitude provided him with a robust and versatile analogy, derived from Scripture, which enabled him to keep his anthropology coherent.33 3. This father-children analogy might also prove adept in untangling some of the controversies which have arisen concerning Calvin’s anthropology. For example, Mary Potter Engel describes one of these controversies with this heading: “Whether the ‘Imago Dei’ Is Found in All Creation or Uniquely in Human Beings”. 34 Calvin certainly describes parts of creation using image terminology. For instance, in his commentary on Psalm 19 he writes: There is certainly nothing so obscure or contemptible, even in the smallest corners of the earth, in which some marks of the power and wisdom of God may not be seen; but

32 McNeill, J.T. (ed.), John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Ford Lewis Battles), Philadelphia 1960, 2.12.6. 33 Recently, Julie Canlis has argued that, according to Calvin, salvation is much more than a transfer of merit; it is, in fact, the restoration of sonship. Perhaps her thesis can be rephrased and applied to creation as well. The initial formation of human beings in the image of God is much more than an endowment of moral rectitude; it is, in fact, the original creation of that sonship. See Canlis, J., Calvin, Osiander and Participation in God, International Journal of Systematic Theology 6, no. 2, 2004, 178–84. 34 Engel, Perspectival Anthropology, 38.

Jason Van Vliet

117

as a more distinct image of him is engraven on the heavens, David has particularly selected them for contemplation […]. 35

At the same time Geneva’s reformer will also state that even the “remaining traces of the image of God [after the fall] […] distinguish the entire human race from the other creatures”. 36 So, which is it? Does the image of God apply exclusively to human beings or also to other parts of creation? Engel’s solution to this apparent contradiction is that from the relative perspective of humankind Calvin uses the term imago Dei both for creation in general and for human beings in particular, whereas from the absolute perspective of God he reserves the imago Dei exclusively for humankind.37 Yet does Calvin’s father-children analogy not provide a more natural explanation? For example, if an earthly father builds an oak table, we can see some reflection of the man in his handiwork. Is he skilled? Is he creative? Does he have an eye for detail? However, if we stop looking at the table and start observing the actions and attributes of that same man’s children, then we will undoubtedly learn much more about the father. Offspring tell a different story than oak furniture. In a similar way, it is true, as Calvin says, that some reflection of God’s attributes can be seen in every corner of creation. At the same time, this does not detract from the fact that the likeness which the heavenly Father created between himself and humans was in a different category altogether. It is one thing to say, “you can recognize the artist in his artwork”; it is an entirely other thing to say, “like father, like son.” In this way, the fatherchildren analogy can help to demonstrate that, for the most part, Calvin’s anthropology is more lucid than labyrinthine. 4. Finally, it is true that Calvin’s description of the fallen state of humankind can be relentlessly humbling. He employs the language of David and Bildad, describing man as a worm. 38 Indeed, Calvin never shrinks back from delineating the pervasiveness of human perversion.39 At the same time, Geneva’s reformer also has exceptionally positive things to say about human nature. Glowing descriptions flow forth from Calvin’s pen about the grandeur with which human beings were created. Calvin’s analysis of humankind in the state of integrity is replete with words and phrases such as “masterpiece,” 40 “unique excellence,” 41 “resplendently clothed by God”42 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Calvin’s Commentaries, 4:308. Calvin, Institutes, 2.2.17. Engel, Perspectival Anthropology, 40. Calvin, Institutes, 1.1.3; cf. Job 25,6 and Psalm 22,6. Ibid., 2.3; cf. Gen 6,5 and 8,21. Calvin, Épître, 25. Ibid. Calvin’s First Catechism, 9.

118

“As a Son to his Father”

and “a certain pre-eminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness”. 43 Similarly, when Calvin turns to elaborate on the human being redeemed by Christ, only the most elevated terminology will suffice. Restoration of the imago Dei by the Spirit includes receiving the “excellence and heavenly dignity” of Christ himself. 44 Yet, Calvin’s remarks concerning Genesis 9 are perhaps the most telling of all. For there he is clearly dealing with the imago Dei which has been shattered by sin. Nevertheless, since sinful humans still have a remnant of the original imago, ruined though it may be, he says that “man is possessed of no small dignity.” 45 For even though sin turned heirs into slaves 46 , God himself never forgets that he originally created human beings to be his own, very dear children who bear a unique resemblance to him, even as a son does to his father. And that, says Calvin, is “a nobility far more exalted”47 than any other privilege.

43 44 45 46 47

Calvin’s Commentaries, 1:92. Ibid., 4:105. Ibid., 1:296. Ibid., 4:106. Ibid., 1:227–28.

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence in John Calvin’s Theology

Arnold Huijgen

1. Introduction In the closing remarks of his article on “Calvin’s Accommodating God”, David Wright formulates a challenge for future research on divine accommodation in Calvin’s theology. Wright challenges research on accommodation “to strive after a rounded, integrated grasp of Calvin’s understanding of God, his theology”. 1 This desideratum originates from Wright’s examination of some peculiar aspects of accommodation in Calvin’s Old Testament commentaries which are difficult to integrate in Calvin’s theology proper, and from the observation that Calvin’s God is both near in a fatherly way and incomprehensibly exalted.2 Recently, Jon Balserak has issued the first monograph on accommodation in Calvin’s theology, which offers valuable insights on the concept. Balserak also contributes to the research Wright had requested, namely “considering the matter of the influence of accommodation on the reformer’s theology”. 3 According to Balserak, a consideration of Calvin’s thought on divine accommodation from the perspective of the medieval distinction between God absolute power (potentia absoluta) and God’s ordained power (potentia ordinata) demonstrates that divine accommodati1 Wright, D.F., Calvin’s Accommodating God, in: Neuser, W.H./Armstrong, B.G. (eds.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex. Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 36, Kirksville 1997, 19. 2 Wright, D.F., Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Heart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony Commentary, Calvin Theological Journal 21, 1986, 33–50; Accommodation and Barbarity in John Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries, in: Auld, A.G. (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 152, Sheffield 1993, 413–427; Calvin’s ‘Accommodation’ revisited, in: Klerk, P. de (ed.), Calvin as exegete, Grand Rapids 1995, 171– 190. 3 Balserak, J., Divinity Compromised. A Study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin, Studies in Early Modern Religious Reforms 5, Dordrecht 2006, 137–162. Quotation from p. 137.

120

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence

on is embedded in Calvin’s theology. First, Balserak argues that this distinction, both in its Thomistic and Scotistic form, can be found in Calvin’s theology. Secondly, Balserak interprets God’s ordained power to be God’s accommodated power, for “God’s decision to ordain was, in Calvin’s view, a decision to accommodate”. 4 Balserak’s hypothesis that the power distinction can serve to demonstrate the embedding of accommodation in Calvin’s theology has not convinced me. The most important reason for this objection is that Calvin explicitly and repeatedly rejects the notion of God’s absolute power since, in his view, it abstracts God’s power from God’s justice. 5 As David Steinmetz observes, Calvin is not opposed to notions of God’s freedom as found in Scotus, but he explicitly denies that God’s freedom can be conceptualized by the specifically Scotist notion of absolute power. 6 Still, respected students of Calvin contend that Calvin’s explicit denial of the power distinction applies only to certain versions of the distinction, whereas Calvin actually affirms and employs another version of that distinction.7 The version Calvin adheres to would be a statement that God “can do more things than he really does by his actual power” 8 , or that God “could have willed what he did not in fact will”. 9 Calvin’s outright rejection of the concept of potentia absoluta can probably be explained from his exclusive acquaintance with the concept as it was being used in the circles of canon lawyers.10 Therefore, if Calvin employed any version of the power distinction, he

4 Balserak, Divinity Compromised, 150. 5 Calvin, J., Inst. 3.23.2 (OS 4:396): “Neque tamen commentum ingerimus absolutae potentiae: quod sicuti profanum est, ita merito detestabile nobis esse debet.” Cf. Brevis Responsio (CO 9,259); Responsio altera de occulta Dei providentia (CO 9,288). 6 Steinmetz, D.C., Calvin and the Absolute Power of God, in: Calvin in Context, New York 1995, 50. Balserak, Divinity Compromised, 137, 142–143 discusses Steinmetz’ views, but does not take Steinmetz’ nuance into the account that Calvin does adhere to notions of God’s freedom but without the notion of absolute power. 7 Helm, P., John Calvin’s Ideas, Oxford 2004, 312–346; Brink, G. van den, Almighty God: a Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence, Kampen 1993, 88–91; Oberman, H.A., Via Antiqua and Via Moderna: Late Medieval Prolegomena to Early Reformation Thought, in: Journal of the History of Ideas 48, 1987, 23–40. 8 Turretin, F., Institutes, 3.21.5, translated by George M. Geiger, edited by James T. Dennison, Phillipsburg 1992, 1:245 interprets Calvin’s rejection of the power distinction in this way. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 333 contends that Turretin is right, whereas Steinmetz, Calvin and the Absolute Power, 50 regards Turretin’s interpretation as a misrepresentation of Calvin’s position. 9 Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 329. 10 Kooi, C. van der, As in a Mirror. John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God. A Diptych (translated by Donald Mader), Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 120, Leiden 2005, 183.

Arnold Huijgen

121

probably did so unwittingly.11 All in all, Calvin never evaluates the power distinction as positive and the question whether he did employ it, though unknowingly, is debated. Therefore, relating the power distinction to other notions in Calvin’s theology is difficult, and using it to demonstrate the embedding of another notion (divine accommodation) in Calvin’s theology is even more problematic. This problematic deduction appears in the conclusion of Balserak’s argument where he discusses the relationship between the power distinction and accommodation; namely, “that accommodation was important to him [Calvin]; that the concept was of value to him as a theological tool and (hence) influenced his theology to a discernible degree”. 12 The exact relation between accommodation and other characteristics of Calvin’s theology remains rather vague, probably due to the imprecise nature of the alleged distinction of the powers in Calvin’s thought. From a methodological perspective, it seems better to seek the embedding of divine accommodation in Calvin’s theology by means of terms and concepts he unambiguously employs. Moreover, this method may lead to clearer conclusions on the relation between divine accommodation and Calvin’s whole theology. I will argue that the notions of God’s essence and God’s nature – which unlike the power distinction are employed by Calvin both explicitly and in direct connection to the concept of accommodation – are particularly helpful in order to grasp the relation between divine accommodation and divine transcendence, as well as to illumine the integration of the notion of divine accommodation in Calvin’s doctrine of God.

2. Institutes 1.13.1: Importance and Analysis Our analysis of the relation between divine accommodation and divine transcendence begins with the most famous passage on accommodation in all of Calvin’s oeuvre: the socalled locus classicus in Institutes 1.13.1. In this famous passage, Calvin describes God as a nurse prattling, or lisping, with a little child. Before scrutinizing this passage, two preliminary though extensive remarks will be made to argue why this passage is apt to commence the discussion. First, it is a conscious choice to begin with the Institutes. Over the years, research on accommodation in Calvin has shifted its focus from an almost 11 Steinmetz, D.C., The Scholastic Calvin, in: Trueman, C.R./Clark, R.S. (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment, Carlisle 2004, 27 interprets Calvin’s misrepresentation of the scholastic position in this way. 12 Balserak, Divinity Compromised, 162.

122

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence

exclusive stress on the Institutes – for instance in Battles’ seminal article 13 – to Calvin’s commentaries and sermons, which show a wider variety of applications of the concept. 14 Nonetheless, discussion of the relation between accommodation and transcendence can reasonably begin with the Institutes, for as a textbook for theological candidates 15 , this work to which Calvin devoted so much of his energy over the years presents both the basics and the subtleties of Calvin’s doctrine of God. Moreover, the central passages on accommodation from the Institutes have often been quoted, but have not always been thoroughly analyzed. Secondly, the locus classicus is crucially important in the genesis of Calvin’s notion of accommodation. Remarkably, this development of the notion has received only little attention, although development obviously exists. 16 Two points demonstrate the pivotal role of the locus classicus. First, it is the earliest passage in which Calvin places the concept of accommodation in the context of the doctrine of God. In the 1536 edition of the Institutes, Calvin had characterized sacraments and other external means as accommodations 17 , and had expounded on the patristic commonplace of Paul’s adaptability of becoming all things to all persons18 , but he had 13 Battles, F.L., God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity, Interpretation 31, 1977, 19–38. See p. 19 note 1: “While the evidence of Calvin’s biblical commentaries has been examined, this paper rests primarily on the Institutes in which every aspect of accommodation has apparently been set forth”. 14 This shift was stimulated by David Wright; see the articles referred to in note 2. Three monographs published in 2006 show the fruitful effects of this shift: Holder, R.W., John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin’s First Commentaries, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 127, Leiden 2006, 45–50; Blacketer, R.A., The School of God. Pedagogy and Rhetoric in Calvin’s Interpretation of Deuteronomy, Studies in Early Modern Religious Reforms 3, Dordrecht 2006, 101–102; Balserak, Divinity Compromised, esp. 59–97. 15 Calvin, Inst. 1539 (OS 3:6): “Porro hoc mihi in isto labore propositum fuit, sacrae Theologiae candidatos ad divini verbi lectionem ita praeparare et instruere”. 16 The only contribution I know is Wright, D.F., Calvin’s Accommodation Revisited, in: Klerk, P. de (ed.), Calvin as exegete, Grand Rapids 1995, 176–177. Wright thinks that a comparison of the respective editions of the Institutes is worthwhile, but he has “not spent much time” on it (176). 17 Calvin, Inst. 1536 (OS 1:118–119): “Atque ita quidem hic se captui nostro attemperat misericors Dominus, ut quando animals sumus, qui humi simper adrepentes et in carne haerentes nihil spirituale cogitamus ac ne concipimus quidem, elementis etiam istis carnalibus nos ad se deducit, atque in ipsa canre contemplari facit ea quae sunt spiritus. […] Sacramenta igitur exercitia sunt, quae certiorem verbi Dei fidem nobis faciunt, et quia carnales sumus, sub rebus carnalibus exhibentur; ut ita pro tarditatis nostrae captu nos erudiant et, perinde ac pueros paedagogi, manu ducant”. 18 Calvin, Inst. 1536 (OS 1:207–208): “[…] ad tolerandam infirmorum ruditatem, quemadmodum ipse ait: Iudaeis se Iudaeum factum et caetera (1 Cor. 9). Sed hoc faciebat, ut Iudaeis se ad tempus accommodaret”. Paul’s accommodation in 1 Cor. 9,19–22 was broadly recognized in patristic theology; see Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.15.2; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.53.2. The notion especially is the hallmark of Chrysostom’s work, see Chrysostom, Hom. in. Hebr. 1.3 (PG 63:16); De laudibus sancti Pauli 5.6 (Sources Chrétiennes 300:240,242); cf. Ry-

Arnold Huijgen

123

not yet related it to theology proper. In the 1539 edition, he does so. Secondly, the imagery and terminology of the nurse prattling with the little child provide an important clue in the quest for the roots of Calvin’s accommodation concept. If the emerging consensus on the dating of Calvin’s so-called Chrysostom Preface around 1538 is correct – which I think it is19 – Calvin by that time must have known the works of Chrysostom, most likely in an Erasmian edition.20 In his preface to this edition, Erasmus praises Chrysostom for his accommodating qualities, and uses the image and terminology of the nurse prattling with the little child. Calvin uses the same imagery and Latin terms (nutrix and balbutire). 21 The similarity is remarkable, particularly since neither the Latin term balbutire that both Erasmus and Calvin employ nor the image of the prattling nurse are found in patristic literature. 22 Furthermore, there are additional terminological similarities between Erasmus’ preface and Calvin’s concept of accommodation.23 Therefore, the locus classicus is the first passage in which the likely influence of Chrysostom and Erasmus on Calvin’s concept of accommodation surfaces. This is important for the present theme because Chrysostom often treats divine accommodation in relation to divine transcendence, particularly in his Holaarsdam, D.M., The Adaptability of Divine Pedagogy: Sunkatabasis in the Theology and Rhetoric of John Chrysostom, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Notre Dame 1999, 245–259. 19 Calvin, Praefatio in Chrysostomi homilias, CO 9, 831–838. Only Walchenbach, J.R., John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An Investigation Into Calvin’s Use of John Chrysostom as an Exegetical Tutor, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Pittsburgh 1974, adheres to a late date. Convincing paleographic and historical arguments for the early date are provided by Hazlett, W.I.P., Calvin’s Latin Preface to his Proposed French Edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies: Translation and Commentary, in: Kirk, J. (ed.), Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400–1643: Essays in Honour of James K. Cameron, Studies in Church History: Subsidia 8, Cambridge 1991, 129–150. 20 Either his own copy of Chevallon’s 1536 Paris edition or another Erasmian edition. For a thorough description of Calvin’s own copy see Ganoczy, A./Müller, K., Calvins handschriftliche Annotationen zu Chrysostomos: ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik Calvins, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für europäische Geschichte Mainz 102, Wiesbaden 1981. 21 Erasmus, D. (ed.), D. Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera […], Basel 1530, fol. A6vo: “quicquid fere scripsit [Chrysostomus], accommodauit auribus populi, eoque ad huius captum demisit orationis habitum, quasi praeceptor cum puero discipulo balbutiat”; fol. B1ro: “Dedit hoc uir eloquentissimus multitudinis ingenio, rudi pariter atque obliuioso, quae nec intelligit, nisi dilucide crasseque tradas, nec meminit nisi subinde repetitum infigas. Hoc admonui ne quis loquacitatis nomine damnet, quod charitas, quae nihil aliud quaerit quam aedificare, dedit auditorum imbecillitati. Sic & Paulus apud Thessalonicenses, ad illorum ruditatem submisit sese, factus ut paruulus in medio eorum, tanquam si nutrix foueat filios suos.” The preface in this edition is the same as in the 1536 Chevallon edition. 22 There is a Greek equivalent however: the verb sumpsellizoo. Cf. Origen, Hom. in Jer. 18.6 (Sources Chrétiennes 238:198); Chrysostom, Hom. in Tit. 3.2 (PG 62:678). 23 E.g. the terms accommodare, ad captum, imbecillitas, se submittere, ruditas; see the citations in note 21.

124

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence

milies against the Anomoeans. 24 Calvin explicitly refers to exactly these homilies a few lines before the locus classicus in 1539, while in that passage itself he refutes the Anthropomorphites 25 , a heresy Chrysostom also fiercely debated.26 This further underlines the crucial function of the locus classicus in the development of the concept in Calvin’s thought. Let us now look at the passage itself. I quote it at length to analyze it. The Scriptural teaching concerning God’s infinite and spiritual essence (immensa et spirituali Dei essentia) ought to be enough, not only to banish popular delusions, but also the refute the subtleties of secular philosophy. One of the ancients seems aptly to have remarked, “Whatever we see, and whatever we do not see, is God.” According to this, he fancied that divinity was poured into the various parts of the world. But even if God to keep us sober speaks sparingly of his essence (parce de sua essentia disserit), yet by those two titles that I have used he both banishes stupid imaginings and restrains the boldness of the human mind. Surely, his infinity ought to make us afraid to try to measure him by our own senses. Indeed, his spiritual nature forbids our imagining anything earthly or carnal of him. For the same reason, he quite often assigns to himself a dwelling place in heaven. And yet as he is incomprehensible he also fills the earth itself. But because he sees that our slow minds sink down upon the earth, and rightly, in order to shake off our sluggishness and inertia he raises us above the world. And hence falls to the ground the error of the Manichees, who by postulating two principles made the devil almost equal to God. Undoubtedly this was to wreck God’s unity and restrict his infinity. Indeed, that they dared abuse certain testimonies of Scripture was due to base ignorance; just as the error itself sprang from execrable madness. The Anthropomorphites, also, who imagined a corporeal God from the fact that Scripture often ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are easily refuted. For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to “lisp” (balbutire) in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity (eius noti24 Chrysostom, Homiliae de incomprehensibili Dei natura, 1:121–122, 3:157–166, 3:189– 191, 4:227–234 (Sources Chrétiennes 28bis). These homilies are primarily known as the homilies against the Anomoeans. These Anomoeans stated that the Son and the Holy Spirit are without substantial resemblance (anomoios) with God the Father. 25 The Anthropomorphites were Egyptian monks that interpreted anthropomorphic, corporeal descriptions of God in the Bible literally and therefore imagined God to be corporeal. Their controversy with Egyptian Origenists, who denied that any anthropomorphic expression applies to God, eventually led to the involvement of Chrysostom. Cf. Clark, E.A., The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Doctrine, Princeton 1992, 22–26, 46–50; Florovsky, G.V., The Anthropomorphites in the Egyptian Desert, in: Aspects of Church History, Collected Works 4, Belmont 1975, 89–96. 26 Calvin, Inst. 1539 (CO 1,480–481): “Exstant in hoc argumentum homiliae Chrysostomi quinque adversus Anomoeos, quibus tamen cohiberi sophistarum audacia non potuit, quin fraena garrulitati laxarent. […] Anthropomorphitae quoque, qui Deum corporeum ex eo sunt imaginati, quod os, aures, oculi, manus, pedes, illi saepe ascribuntur, nimia imperitia et ruditate impegerunt. Quis enim, vel parum ingeniosus, non intelligit Deum ita nobiscum, ceu cum infantibus consueverunt nutrices, quodammodo balbutire?”

Arnold Huijgen

125

tiam tenuitati nostrae accommodant). To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness. 27

The passage is part of Calvin’s discussion of God’s essence, which in its turn is part of the discussion of the Trinity. 28 The section is structured by the two attributes Calvin recognizes in God’s essence: infinity (or immensity) and spirituality. Calvin elaborates both by sketching the respective human attitudes and heresies that oppose it. The human attitude that opposes God’s immensity is the effort to measure God. The related heresy, which “restricts God’s immensity” is Manicheism. Calvin’s discussion of God’s spirituality runs parallel to that of God’s immensity. The opposing human attitude is earthly or carnal thought about God and the related heresy is Anthropomorphitism. In his refutation of that attitude and heresy, Calvin refers to God’s accommodation. 29 This context shows that Calvin’s reference to divine accommodation serves to disarm degrading thoughts about God’s essence. On the conceptual level, divine accommodation guards divine transcendence. It does so by referring to two human characteristics: our human “slight capacity” (tentuitas) which underlines the distance between God and man, and the sinful human inclination to measure (metiri) God, or to curiously speculate about His essence. In other words, divine accommodation functions as an antispeculative line of defense, or shield, around divine transcendence. It can be asked why God’s essence, or majesty, is inapproachable for us as humans. Is human sinfulness the only reason, or is it already caused by the immeasurable distance between God and humans as such? Calvin does not always answer this question unambiguously. Clearly, the fact that Calvin regards the tree in the Garden of Eden as accommodated to human capacity proves that divine accommodation is not restricted to sinful humanity. 30 Yet, it is still difficult to distribute God’s accommodating acts between categories of accommodations to human finitude and human sinfulness, as Dowey does. 31 In my opinion, Calvin’s anti-speculative and practical tenor functions here. Finitude and sinfulness should not always be distinguished as the foci of accommodation, for in fact all humans to whom 27 Calvin, Inst. 1.13.1 (OS 3:108–109; translation Battles F.L. and McNeill, J.T. 1:120– 121). 28 Calvin, Inst. 1559 (OS 3:108–109). 29 In other places, Calvin not only connects Manicheism to a rejection of God’s immensity and Anthropomorphitism to a rejection of God’s spirituality, but accuses both heresies of both faults. Calvin, Inst. 2.11.3 (OS 3:426); 3.25.7 (OS 4:444–445); 4.17.25 (OS 5:376–377); 4.17.23 (OS 5:373–374); Prael. Ez. 1,25–26 (CO 40,52–53). 30 Calvin, Serm. Gen. 2,15–17 (Supplementa Calviniana 11.1:112–113). 31 Dowey jr., E.A., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids 31994, 4– 24 structures his discussion of the accommodated character of all knowledge of God in this way.

126

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence

divine accommodation applies are both creature and sinner, for they live post lapsum. Accommodation always has soteric ends.

3. God’s essence and God’s nature Let us return to the central question of this paper, namely the relation between divine accommodation and divine transcendence. While the guarding of God’s essence by divine accommodation means that humans must not speculate, this does not clarify what this means for God Himself. The question remains how God in Himself, God’s essence or majesty, and God as He reveals Himself relate in Calvin’s thought. Before trying to formulate an answer to this question, we note that Calvin shows little awareness of its urgency. Religious certainty obviously seems to depend on the identity of God quoad nos and God in se, but Calvin’s doctrine of God does not secure this identity, at least not explicitly. Why not? As Van der Kooi rightly observes, the lines in Calvin’s theology become blurred when the human eye seeks what is taking place within God 32 , for Calvin is more concerned about a reliable soteriology than about a doctrine of God free from tensions. Besides, as a pre-Enlightenment theologian Calvin does not seek the theological-epistemological anchoring typical for the Enlightenment. Calvin’s anti-speculative standpoint probably affects his own theologizing too; Calvin the theologian must also respect the incomprehensibility of God’s essence and hence of the conceptual relation between God’s essence and His revelation. Although Calvin generally remains silent on the theme, aspects of the relation between accommodation and transcendence can be distilled from Calvin’s writings. Though one cannot move from divine transcendence to divine accommodation, the reverse movement is possible. The fact that God quoad nos is no other than God in se can be demonstrated. This is so, first, because of the nature of Christ and, secondly, because of the nature of God in His revelation. First, Christ, who is Himself the apex of God’s accommodating acts, is the entrance to the knowledge of God’s essence. 33 Calvin describes Christ and faith in Him as the sole entrance to God’s otherwise inaccessible light. 34 This is crucial since the Biblical text that describes God as dwelling 32 Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 152. 33 Christ is the mirror that reflects God’s essence, e.g. Calvin, Comm. Col. 1:15 (COR 2.16:398). 34 Calvin, Comm. 1 Joh. 2,22 (CO 55,325): “Hic accessus est ad lucem, quae alioqui merito inaccessa dicitur.”; see Comm. Harm. Ev. Mt. 17,5 (CO 45,487–488) on faith as the entrance to

Arnold Huijgen

127

in inaccessible light (1 Timothy 6,16) is one of Calvin’s favorite proof texts for the notion that God’s essence can neither be approached nor known by humans. 35 But in His accommodation Christ opens the knowledge of God’s essence to the understanding of feeble humans. Another indication that God’s essence can be known through Christ is Calvin’s statement that God has revealed Himself “essentially” in Christ. 36 So, divine accommodation is not only anti-speculative, but also Christ-centered. Without further scrutiny of Christological aspects of the relation between accommodation and transcendence, I will narrow the focus now to Calvin’s distinction between God’s essence and God’s nature. In some instances, essentia Dei and natura Dei are synonyms in Calvin’s thought 37 , but often there is a distinction. Unlike God’s hidden essence, God’s nature is revealed; it is part of God’s accommodating approach of man. For Calvin, God’s nature is described most clearly in Exodus 34,6–7: “The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children.” Calvin praises this text as “as clear and satisfactory a description of the nature of God given us as anywhere be found”. 38 This notion of God’s “nature” functions as the accommodated version of God’s essence. This emerges most clearly in Calvin’s commentary on Exodus 33–34 itself. The occasion for the revelation of God’s nature is Moses’ request to see God’s glorious majesty, His essence. Calvin comments that “Moses had inconsiderately proceeded farther than he should”. 39 Even the Old Testament Mediator would not be able to bear the sight of God’s glorious essence, for neither could the angels themselves. God’s answer to Moses’ request consists in a clearer revelation than ever before, but ac-

the inaccessible light. Cf. Prael. Hos. 3,2–5 (CO 42,264); Comm. Harm. Ev. Mt. 11,27 (CO 45,320). 35 Calvin, Comm. Ps. 104,1–2 (CO 32,85); Comm. Jes. 25,9 (CO 36,421); Comm. Joh. 14,1 (COR 2.11.2:137). Serm. Job 22,12–17 (CO 34,300). 36 Calvin, Comm. Col. 2,9 (COR 2.16:425): “Deus enim saepius se exhibuit hominibus, sed in parte. In Christo autem totum se nobis communicat. Alias etiam se manifestavit,sed in figuris, aut virtute et gratia. In Christo autem essentialiter nobis apparuit”. 37 Calvin, Comm. Jes. 44,15–17 (CO 37,116). Places where Calvin uses essentia Dei or gloria Dei and natura Dei as synonyms include Inst. 1.15.5, 2.8.2 (OS 3:181,345); Comm. Ex. 25,8 (CO 24,403); Serm. Gen. 1,1–2 (SC 11.1:1). Places where aspects of God’s essence are attributed to God’s nature include Comm. Jes. 55,10, 66,1 (CO 37,291,436); Serm. Act. 5,7–15, 7,42–44 (Supplementa Calviniana 8:132,356). 38 Calvin, Comm. Ps. 145,8 (CO 32,414; CTS Psalms, 5:275). 39 Calvin, Comm. Ex. 33,18 (CO 25,108; CTS Harm. Moses, 3:377).

128

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence

commodated to Moses’ capacity; so, God reveals His nature, which is the best representation of His essence in an accommodated form. 40 This is not only a direct connection between God quoad nos and God in se, but also a clarification of this distinction.41 In theory, the notion of “God as He reveals Himself” could mean that God occasionally puts on a mask, a persona, as when He repents or presents Himself in another way that does not properly belong to Him. 42 If that were the basic meaning of the idea of God quoad nos, then the revealed God might not always be the real God. But for Calvin, “God as He reveals Himself” does not primarily refer to God’s various personae, but to His nature, which is consistently the same, whatever various personae God may use in diverse situations. Calvin explicitly contends that God’s nature is as “proper” to God and as unchangeable as His essence is; therefore, it is completely reliable and conforming to God’s essence. 43 This implies that believers can know who God really is and will everlastingly be. He is the same as the titles in Exodus 34,6–7 describe Him, even when He seems to act contrary to those titles. Therefore, Calvin can describe David clinging to and pleading on God’s gracious and enduring nature44 , specifically amidst dangers that suggest that God is not gracious or longsuffering. In the life of the believer, the names revealing God’s nature function 40 Calvin, Comm. Ex. 33,20 (CO 25,111): “Optime autem fraenatur stulta cupiditas, ubi additur lethalem nobis fore gloriae Dei conspectum. Neque enim fieri potest quin ille incomprehensibilis fulgor in nihilum nos redigat. Itaque Deus solida sui cognitione nos arcendo, se tamen manifestat quoad expedit: imo lucis mensuram nostro modulo attemperans, faciem induit quam possimus ferre (1. Ioan. 3, 2)”. 41 Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 11–34 also discusses the relation between God in se and God quoad nos, referring to both the notions of God’s essence and God’s nature, but, in my opinion, he fits Calvin in too neatly with a somewhat scholastic scheme. Helm, for example, states that “Each of the latter, more evangelical attributes of God is rooted in the former, more metaphysical attributes that are (to us) aspects of God’s simple essence.” (19) In Calvin’s terms, this conclusion which defines the relation between God in se and God quoad nos is an instance of speculation. Also, the statement that Calvin’s anti-speculative thrust recognizes “a division of labour between theologians and philosophers” (23), the former confining themselves to revealed theology, and the latter progressing in metaphysics, is contrary to Calvin’s mind which precludes an abstract, metaphysical approach to God from whatever angle. 42 In Calvin’s opinion, God does this to accommodate to humans. Calvin, Comm. Ps. 78,65 (CO 31,742): “Similitudo ebrii hominis, quamvis asperior, non abs re tamen posita est, quia accommodatur ad populi stuporem. nam si pura fuisset ac defaecata mente, non ita se transformasset Deus, neque sumpsisset alienam personam”. Sometimes the persona God uses is in accordance with God’s own character; Prael. Jer. 5,29 (CO 37,639); Comm. Num. 15,1 (CO 24,538). But sometimes He takes on Himself what does not properly belong to Him; Comm. Ps. 14,4; 18,26; 104,31; 106,23 (CO 31,139.183; 32,97.125); Prael. Jer. 51,14 (CO 39,452). 43 Calvin, Comm. Ps. 77,10 (CO 31,715): “sic coniunctam esse bonitatem cum Dei essentia, ut impossibile sit eum non esse misericordem. […] An Deus naturam suam exueret, ut non sit misericors?” 44 Calvin, Comm. Ps. 25,6; 28,3; 31,1 (CO 31,253.282.301).

Arnold Huijgen

129

as promises for and incentives to prayer; particularly since it also belongs to God’s nature to hear prayers. 45 Whereas Calvin’s references to God’s essence mostly function as negative theology which guards God’s essence as inaccessible because immeasurable, his statements on God’s nature function as positive theology which paints God as gracious and just, meeting humans in His accommodation. This is different from a traditional scheme of the divine essence and attributes. Calvin’s commentary on God’s repentance after the Ninevites’ conversion in the book of Jonah illustrates the relation between God’s essence and God’s nature. Regarding God’s essence, Calvin writes that God does not repent, for He “is in himself ever the same, and consistent with himself; but he is said to repent, when a regard is had to the comprehension of men”; “it is according to our perceptions that there is any change, when God forgets his wrath, as though he had put on a new character”. 46 This is well-known material for students of accommodation in Calvin. But Calvin’s reference to God’s nature in his commentary on Jonah’s reaction to God’s repentance is less known. Calvin observes that Jonah already thought that God would forgive the Ninevites, and formulates Jonah’s thoughts: “Now if they repent, will not God be instantly ready to forgive them? He would otherwise deny his own nature (abnegaret suam naturam): God cannot be unlike himself, he cannot put off that disposition (affectum) of which he has once testified to Moses”. 47 Jonah knew positively that God would never act contrary to His nature. Therefore, he already understood how his message would end up. Even under the appearance of the contrary, God’s nature prevails. Therefore, God’s nature is a reliable representation of His essence in His accommodated revelation. God quoad nos is no other than God in se.

4. Conclusion The notions of God’s essence and God’s nature provide a key to the understanding of the relation between divine accommodation and divine transcendence. Thus, these notions demonstrate how divine accommodation is an integral aspect of Calvin’s doctrine of God. God’s nature truly represents His essence and is the accommodated version of His essence. This also relates divine accommodation to other fundamental aspects of Calvin’s theology, such as the anti-speculative tenor and the Christ-centeredness of 45 46 47

Calvin, Comm. Ps. 65,2 (CO 31,603). Calvin, Prael. Jon. 3,10 (CO 43,261; CTS Minor Prophets, 3:115–116). Calvin, Prael. Jon. 4,2 (CO 43,266; CTS Minor Prophets, 3:123).

130

Divine Accommodation and Divine Transcendence

his thought. The tension between God’s essence and God’s nature further explains why no complete and clear-cut doctrine of God, His essence and attributes, is found in Calvin: Calvin strictly wants us to know that God deems His accommodated revelation to be sufficient for us. All in all, the relation between God’s essence and nature is a fruitful starting point to examine the embedding of divine accommodation in Calvin’s theology. This also means that this relation deserves further scrutiny, for instance in relation to Christology, to Calvin’s attitude towards Old Testament case law, and to Calvin’s own theologizing, where we may inquire as to whether he always respects the boundaries he set himself.

“Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Sunt Indivisa” in the Theology of John Calvin

Arie Baars It is an undeniable fact that John Calvin has a high regard for Augustine. He loves to refer to him and to quote from his writings, especially in his doctrinal works and his polemical treatises. Regularly Calvin emphasizes that his own views are completely in harmony with those of the great Church Father of the West. In his treatise on predestination the Reformer even states: “Augustine is so completely on our side, that, if I had to draw up a confession of faith, it would be more than sufficient to me to compile it out of his writings”. 1 It may not come as a surprise that from such expressions some scholars conclude that Calvin is a true follower of Augustine. They argue that Calvin not only completely agrees with him in – for instance – the doctrines of grace and of predestination, but also in all other areas. 2 This position may be true to a large extent. Nevertheless it does not apply in every respect. Sometimes Calvin even criticizes Augustine. As is well known, this occurs with some regularity in Calvin’s exegetical works. Here the great Church Father of the West is criticized with regard to his allegorical interpretation of Scripture. 3 However, there are also some doctrinal differences between Calvin and Augustine. Calvin does not follow Augustine’s speculation that the human soul reflects the Trinity. Elsewhere, he contradicts Augustine’s subtle reasoning that in the baptism of John sins were remitted in hope and not in reality. 4 In these instances, he often does not explicitly mention the Church Father by name or he mentions mitigating circumstances for his erroneous views. In this contribution I wish to direct your attention to one minor doctrinal difference between Calvin and 1 “[…] Augustinus ipse adeo totus noster est, ut si mihi confessio scribenda sit, ex eius scriptis contextam proferre, abunde mihi sufficiat” (Calvin, De aeterna Praedestinatione, 1552, (CO 8,266, r. 9–11; COR III/1, 30 r. 23–25). 2 E.g. Lange van Ravenswaay J.M.J., Augustinus totus noster. Das Augustinverständnis bei Johannes Calvin, Göttingen 1990, 181. One should consult the pertinent criticism at this thesis by Oort, J. van, Calvijn en Augustinus, NAKG 72, 1992, 92–103. 3 Baars, A., Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid. De Drie-eenheid bij Calvijn, Kampen 22005, 492. 4 Cf. Oort, J. van, John Calvin and the Churchfathers, in: Backus, I. (ed.), The Reception of the Churchfathers in the West. From the Carolingians to the Maurists 2, Boston-Leiden 2001, 661– 700, esp. 690.

132

“Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Sunt Indivisa”

Augustine related to the doctrine of the Trinity. In one rather obscure passage Calvin criticizes the well-known formula which supposedly goes back to Augustine: “The external works of the Triune God are undivided (Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa)”.

1. The meaning of an Augustinian formula Although this formula is not to be found verbatim in the writings of Augustine, it aptly describes his position. One passage taken from the tracts on the Gospel of John makes this particularly clear: Let me say it even more clearly what this means: “Their works (i.e. the works of the triune God – AB) are inseparable”. The catholic faith does not claim that God the Father has done something, while the Son has done something else, but what the Father has done, has been equally done by the Son and by the Holy Spirit. 5

In the scholarly research on Augustine it is often stated that statements of this kind illustrate the strong emphasis the Church Father is wont to lay on the unity of the divine essence at the cost of recognizing the real distinctions between the three persons. For this reason he has been rather severely castigated in recent research. (1) It has been widely assumed that Augustine is influenced more or less heavily by Neoplatonism. From this, it is claimed, originates his stress on the unity of the divine essence and his great difficulties in recognizing real distinctions for the three persons. As a result of this legacy, modalism has been an ever present threat in the Western Church. 6 (2) According to the renowned Augustinescholar Michael Schmaus, the consequence of this position is that Augustine dwells mainly on the ontological aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity. In his view, the Church Father of the West hardly pays any attention to the economic Trinity, or – in different words – to the works of the triune God in the history of redemption and in the Church. As a consequence, for many believers standing in the Augustinian tradition, the rather abstract doctrine of the Trinity has nothing to do with the practical aspects of the life of faith and of prayer.7 5 “Adhuc planius dicam quid sit, opera inseperabilia sunt. Non dicit catholica fides quia fecit Deus Pater aliquid, et fecit Filius aliquid aliud: sed quod fecit Pater, hoc et Filius fecit, hoc et Spiritus Sanctus Fecit” (Augustinus, Tract. In Joann. 20–3; CChr. 36, 204). 6 Letham, R., The Holy Trinity. In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, Phillipsburg, New Jersey 2004, 184ff; Baars, Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid, 493ff. 7 Schmaus, M., Die psychologische Trinitätslehre des Heiligen Augustinus, Münster 21967, 100–110; 398.; idem, Die Denkform Augustins in seinem werk de trinitate, München 1962, 16ff;

Arie Baars

133

(3) In recent times, Colin Gunton has brought this train of thought to its final conclusion. In his opinion, the undue emphasis Augustine lays on the immanent Trinity results in a deep rift between God in his sheer transcendence and the created world. In light of this, Gunton asks the penetrating question whether this is not the main cause why atheism and secularism could spread so rapidly in the Western world! 8 As could be expected, other scholars have raised objections against this interpretation of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity.9 And indeed, most of these quite extreme views are definitely open to criticism. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the main emphasis in Augustine’s concept of Gods Trinity is on the unity of His essence. And when he stressed that the external works of the triune God are undivided, it is indeed a very apt illustration of this principle.

2. Calvin’s subtle criticism In spite of the difficulties which this dictum from the Augustinian tradition apparently raised, it was accepted without too much criticism in the Middle Ages 10 , the Reformation 11 and the Reformed Orthodoxy12 . However, also in these circles occasionally some reservations were voiced, among others by John Calvin. In his second reply to Francesco Stancaro, the reformer of Geneva wrote the following regarding the expression that the external works of the triune God are undivided: As barbarous language has indeed spread throughout the world the common dictum that the work of the Trinity is undivided, being the more difficult to understand in isolation, was corrected or mitigated by adding the restriction, the word intrinsically. But we conscious, however, of our ignorance, are satisfied with an operation which is

idem, Die Spannung von Metaphysik und Heilsgeschichte in der Trinitätslehre Augustins, in: Cross, F.L. (ed.), Studia Patristica 6–4, Berlin 1962, 503–518, m.n. 511ff. 8 Gunton, C.E., The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, Edinburgh 1997, 30–55. 9 Cf. Baars, Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid, 532ff. 10 Cf. Courth, F., Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte II/1b: Trinität. In der Scholastik, Freiburg, Basel, Wien 1985, 49; 56; 72ff; 113f; 132; 142. 11 Cf. Baars, Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid, 565; 617. 12 Cf. Heppe, H./Bizer, E., Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche, Neukirchen 2 1958, 87ff; Muller, R.A., Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, IV: The Triunity of God, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2003, 255ff.

134

“Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Sunt Indivisa”

extrinsic, one by which God adjusts himself to the small measure of our intelligence. 13

In other words: in Calvin’s opinion the external works of the triune God are only undivided intrinsically. When we consider these works extrinsically – i.e. as God reveals himself in these works to us – it is quite possible for us to distinguish between the special activity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, these distinct operations of the three Persons remain the work of the one and only triune God! In light of Calvin’s rather subtle criticism of this formula from the Augustinian tradition, the question becomes urgent: “Is this merely a marginal statement in Calvin’s numerous works, or do we touch a key-element here in his trinitarian theology?” It is not easy to answer this question. As far as I have been able to ascertain, similar passages are nowhere to be found in his works. For that reason, the only way to deal with this issue is to investigate whether this principle is applicable to the numerous trinitarian patterns or trinitarian-structured formulas which are to be found in Calvin’s writings. 14 To say it more clearly: Do these formulas plainly show that Calvin continually emphasizes that the works of the triune God are only undivided intrinsically, while extrinsically we may appropriate them specifically either to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit? I will try to answer this question by making a number of observations.

3. The unity of the works of God From the outset, Calvin strongly emphasizes the fundamental unity of the works of the triune God. Numerous examples may be quoted to prove this observation. One of the most eloquent instances may be found at the transition from book II to book III in the Institutes of 1559. 15 As is well-known, Calvin deals with the person and the work of Christ in the second half of 13 “Imo quum barbaries grassata est in toto mundo, vulgare tamen illud dictum, opera trinitatis esse indivisa, quia per se durius erat, interposita restrictione correctum vel mitigatum fuit: nempe quum addita fuit particula: intrinsecus. Nos vero ruditatis nostrae conscii extrinseca operatione contenti sumus, qua se Deus ad exiguum intelligentiae modulum attemperat” (Calvin, Responsio ad nobiles Polonos (1561) – CO 9,354 r. 16–23 – translation: Tylenda, J.N., The Controversy on Christ the Mediator: Calvin’s second Reply to Stancaro, in: CTJ 8 (1973) 131–157, m.n. 151f). 14 Cf. Butin, Ph.W., Revelation, Redemption and Response. Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship, New York – Oxford 1995, 51ff; Baars, Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid, 381ff. 15 Cf. Baars, Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid, 403ff.

Arie Baars

135

book II, while in book III he starts to elaborate on the saving work of the Holy Spirit. We should realize that in the last section of book II the reformer has underscored the basic unity of the work of the Father and of the Son in saving sinners. In the beginning of book III he develops his pneumatology from the same perspective, viz. that the saving activity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is basically one! According to Calvin, we become partakers of the blessing which the Father has given to his Son for us through the hidden operation of the Spirit. This becomes evident in the crucial section which heads and structures the entire discussion on the work of the Spirit in book III. Here Calvin asks the question: How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son – not for Christ’s own private use, but that he might enrich poor and needy men? First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us. […] [In order to obtain this, we need to] examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits. […] To sum up, the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself. 16

From this passage it will be evident that we need the work of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in order to be saved and that this work is basically one!

4. The different works of the three Persons However, the words just quoted also allude to the fact that within the framework of the unity of God’s work, peculiar activities are attributed to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In connection with this, reference is made to the rather general statement in Calvin’s exposition of the Trinity. There he writes that the distinction between the three persons, expressed in Scripture, amounts to the following:

16 “[…] quomodo ad nos perveniant, quae Pater Filio unigenito contulit bona, non in privatum usum, sed ut inopes egenosque locupletaret. Ac primo habendum est, quandiu extra nos est Christus, et ab eo sumus separati, quicquid in salutem humani generis passus est ac fecit, nobis esse inutile nulliusque momenti. Ergo ut nobiscum quae a Patre accepit communicet, nostrum fieri et in nobis habitare oportet. […] de arcana Spiritus efficacia inquirere, qua fit ut Christo bonisque eius omnibus fruamur. […] Huc summa redit, spiritum sanctum vinculum esse, quo nos sibi efficaciter devincit Christus” (Inst. 1559–III–1–1; OS IV, 1 r. 8–2, r. 6; translation: Institutes (1559), transl. Battles, 537f).

136

“Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Sunt Indivisa”

to the Father is attributed the beginning of activity, and the fountain 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. 17

It is sometimes suggested that this statement contains Calvin’s view on the appropriationes, the specific works which are attributed to the three persons of the Trinity. 18 However, this crucial passage confronts us with a number of problems. First of all, according to my opinion, the reformer does not use the terms “Wisdom” (Sapientia, Sagesse) and “Power” (Virtus, vertu) merely as appropriations denoting the special work of the Son and the Spirit. He also seems to use these terms as full fledged alternatives to the familiar names of the Son for the second person and the Holy Spirit for the third person of the Trinity. Moreover, it should be admitted that Calvin employs terms like “beginning”, or “wellspring” to denote the specific sphere of activity of the Father and “power” and “efficacy” referring to the work of the Spirit in different contexts. However, the terms he uses to describe the special activity of the Son are much more varied. Hence, I wish to suggest that Calvin does not use three standard-concepts when mentioning the threefold operations of the three Persons. At least for the work of the Son he employs a variety of terms.

5. Christ in Creation and Redemption Now it is worthwhile to investigate in more detail what kind of concepts the reformer uses when it comes to the work of the Son. Research shows that Calvin particularly employs the term “Wisdom” for the second person of the Trinity when he deals with subjects like creation and providence. In these areas the Son works as the eternal, pre-existent Logos, who “took as it were upon himself a mediating position between God and creatures, in order that the life – which would have remained hidden in God otherwise – should flow from Him”. 19 In a slightly different context, Calvin emphasizes especially the active role of the Son of God in creation. According to the reformer the Son is the wise counselor of God who ordered the disposition 17 “[…] quod Patri principium agendi, rerumque omnium fons et scaturigo attribuitur: Filio sapientia, consilium, ipsaque in rebus agendis dispensatio: at Spiritui virtus et efficacia assignatur actionis” (Inst. 1559–I–13–18; OS III, 132 r. 8–11; translation: Institutes (1559), transl. Battles, 142f). 18 Cf. Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response, 51. 19 “[…] fuisse quasi medium inter Deum et creaturas, ut ab ipso vita, quae alioqui erat in Deo abscondita, deflueret’ (Calvin, Responsum ad fratres Polones (1560) – CO 9,338 r. 19–21). Cf. also Inst. 1559–IV–17–8 (OS V, 349 r. 26ff).

Arie Baars

137

of all things. He also “presided over the creation of the universe” (rerum creationi praesidens) and by his order or commandment (nutu vel mandato) called all things into existence. 20 And when the Son is called in the New Testament: “the first-born of every creature” (Col. 1,15), this expression implies that “He might be, as it were, the substance or foundation of all things”. 21 In other words: whatever has been created has its basis and coherence in Him. When we turn to the area of redemption and salvation the terms and the tone change. Here Christ is no longer pictured as the eternal, pre-existent Son of God, but as the mediator between God and men or as head of His Church. In order to illustrate the manifold expressions Calvin uses to describe the redemptive and saving work of Christ, we first of all turn to his view on adoption. According to the reformer God has adopted His people in His Son Jesus Christ. Calvin very often explains this by stating that, although they were sinners, they were adopted because of the grace Christ has purchased. For that reason, He is also called “the pledge and guarantee of our adoption” (adoptionis pignus et arrha) or “the bond of our adoption” (nostrae adoptionis vinculum). 22 This last expression is clarified in the following manner: Christ is “the bond whereby God may be bound to us in fatherly faithfulness”. 23 Calvin also states that Christ has been given to His own as a brother, which implies that He has adopted them as brothers and makes them participate in the blessings He has purchased. Of course it is possible to say much more. Reference could be made to the fact that Christ has been called the head of the elect or the mirror of election. The reformer even alludes to Aristotle’s concept of fourfold causality 24 when he defines justification and sanctification. In this context he states that Christ is the material cause of justification, while the Father is the effective cause and the Holy Spirit the instrumental cause. However, this should be sufficient for this moment.

20 Cf. Calvin, Inst. 1559–I–13–7 (OS III, 117 r. 13–118 r. 3); I–13–18 (OS III, 132 r. 10f); Comm. in Hebr. 1,2 (1549) (CO 55,10 r. 42ff; COR II/19, 17 r. 4ff). Cf. Inst. 1559–IV–8–4 (OS V, 136 r. 18f); Wyatt, P., Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin, Allison Park, Pennsylania 1996, 36f; 56f. 21 “[…] sitque veluti hypostasis aut fundamentum omnium’ (Comm. in Coll. 1,15 (1548); CO 52,85 r. 28f; COR II/16, 398 r. 28f – translation: Torrance, D.W./Torrance, Th.F. (eds.), The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (translated by T.H.L. Parker), Grand Rapids, Michigan 21993, 309). 22 Inst. 1559–III–6–3 (OS IV, 148 r. 26). 23 “[…] quo paterna pietate Deus nobiscum devinciatur’ (Inst. 1559–III–2–32; OS IV, 43 r. 12). 24 Cf. Muller, R.A., Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Carlisle 1985, 61ff.

138

“Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Sunt Indivisa”

It is abundantly clear that time and again Calvin stresses in his works that the works of the triune God should extrinsically be attributed distinctly to the three persons of the Trinity. However, we have observed that especially regarding the works attributed to Christ, some questions remain. We have noticed a considerable difference in the way Calvin deals with the works of Christ in creation and His works in redemption and salvation. Obviously, this difference is related to the tension which exists in the structure of the Institutes of 1559. E.A. Dowey and others have emphasized that there is quite a rift between Calvin’s view on the knowledge of God the Creator (Book I) on the one hand and the knowledge of God the Redeemer (Book II–IV) on the other. 25 Although I heartily concur with the pertinent criticism which has been voiced at the rather extreme position Dowey takes in this matter 26 , yet I believe that his thesis should be re-evaluated in the light of Calvin’s trinitarian theology. There is more tension between Book I and the rest of the Institutes of 1559 than Dowey’s fiercest critics are ready to admit. Moreover, a fresh look at this problem from a trinitarian perspective may contribute to solve the rather baffling questions still surrounding the structure of Calvin’s final edition of the Institutes.

6. The network of relationships between God and man When we discuss Calvin’s view of the works of the triune God ad extra, we may not pass over the fact that these works are related to men. Butin has rightly emphasized that Calvin’s understanding of the divine-human relationship has a trinitarian character or a distinct trinitarian flavour. Allow me to make a few comments on this issue, also in order to underscore the central position the Lord Jesus Christ has in this rather multifaceted network of relationships. First of all, I wish to make some comments on Calvin’s view on Gods revelation and the knowledge of God which it effects. In the light of numerous passages in the New Testament the reformer argues that God reveals himself only in Christ. However, Calvin also broadens this statement into a trinitarian pattern, when he writes: It is the Father’s gift that the Son is known, for by his Spirit He opens the eyes of our minds and we perceive the glory of Christ which otherwise would be hidden from us. But the Father, who dwells in light inaccessible and is in Himself incomprehensible,

25 Cf. Dowey jr., E.A., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan 31994, 41–49. 26 Cf. Baars, Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid, 444.

Arie Baars

139

is revealed to us by the Son, His lively image, and in vain do we seek Him elsewhere. 27

When we look at this passage carefully, we notice that a twofold movement is delineated here. When we start from the perspective of God’s revelation and follow the line to man’s (believing) perception of this, Calvin emphasizes that the origin of this revelation is in God the Father. Through His Spirit He sheds light on the Lord Jesus Christ whom we apprehend by faith. The movement here is from the Father through the Spirit to the Son. The movement from our knowledge of God to His revelation is more or less the reverse. Here the beginning is with the Spirit of God who enlightens our mind so that we discover the Lord Jesus Christ in whom we discover the Father – who is in himself incomprehensible. So here the movement starts with the Spirit through the Son to the Father. Nevertheless, it should be observed that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the centre of this entire process. God reveals himself in Christ and we learn to know God only in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. This last aspect is elucidated in many passages written by Calvin. In particular, I refer to his comments on 2 Corinthians 13,13. Here the apostle Paul first of all speaks about the Lord Jesus Christ and then about the Father and the Holy Spirit. Why is this order different from what we are used to, for the order: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the most common one. The reformer solves this problem in the following way. In the order which is stated in the last sentence, we view the things from God’s side, while in the earlier statement we look at it from our own perspective. For God, as far as He Himself is concerned, loved us from before the foundation of the world and redeemed us solely because He loved us, but we, when we look at ourselves, see nothing but sin which provokes wrath, and we cannot grasp God’s love for us without a Mediator. Thus as far as we are concerned, Christ’s grace is the beginning of God’s love. 28 27 “… patris donum esse, quod cognoscitur filius, quia spiritu suo nobis mentis oculos aperit, quibus cernamus Christi gloriam, quae alioqui nobis esset abscondita: Patrem vero, qui lucem habitat inaccessam, et in se incomprehensibilis est, a filio nobis manifestari, qui viva est eius imago, ut alibi frustra quaeratur” (Calvin, Comm. in Matth. 11,27 (1555) – CO 45,320 r. 37–43 – translation: Torrance, D.W./Torrance, Th.F. (eds.), A Harmony of the Gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke (translated by T.H.L. Parker II), Grand Rapids, Michigan 21989, 24). Cf. also Faber, E.M., Symphonie von Gott und Mensch. Die responsorische Struktur von Vermittlung in der Theologie Johannes Calvins, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999, 247ff; Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response, 55ff. 28 “Nam Deus, quantum ad se, dilexit ante mundi creationem, neque alia de causa nos redemit, nisi quia diligebat. Nos autem, quum in nobis nihil cernamus praeter materiam irae, hoc est peccatum, nullam Dei erga nos dilectionem apprehendere possumus absque mediatore. Ita fit, ut respectu nostri initium dilectionis sit a Christi gratia” (Calvin, Comm. in 2 Cor. 13,13 (1546) – CO 50,154 r. 50–155 r. 1; COR II/15, 218 r. 6ff; translation: Torrance, D.W./Torrance, Th.F. (eds.),

140

“Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Sunt Indivisa”

In other words: the first thing we need in order to be reconciled to God is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

7. Does Calvin have a “trinitarian theology”? The well-renowned Dutch theologian of a former generation, Arnold A. van Ruler, wrote that he had been searching for a truly trinitarian theology. He confessed that he had not yet been able to find this kind of theology. Only John Calvin had come close to a truly trinitarian theology.29 Is this statement true? I hesitate to answer this question in the affirmative. If we understand by a trinitarian theology a system which has been developed from one single perspective and which use strongly unifying concepts – for instance three unchangeable expressions to define the specific works of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – Calvin’s theology is not truly trinitarian. His view on the trinitarian relationships is far too dynamic to be captured in such a systematic approach. Why is this? It is because Calvin was first of all a biblical theologian who fashioned his theology by continually listening to the Scriptures. 30 However, when it comes to a theology which seeks to do justice to the dynamic – or perhaps: the perichoretic – interpersonal relationships of the triune God in seeking the salvation of sinners and in establishing His kingdom on earth, Calvin’s theology is trinitarian. His trinitarian vision is captured to some extent in the lines from the hymn taken from the Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Churches in North America:

The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon (translated by T.A. Smail), Grand Rapids, Michigan 21991, 177). 29 Ruler, A.A. van, De noodzakelijkheid van een trinitarische theologie, in: idem, Verwachting en voltooiing – een bundel theologische opstellen en voordrachten, Nijkerk 1978, 9–28, esp. 9. 30 Cf. Beintker, M., Calvins Denken in Relationen, in: ZThK 99 (2002) 109–129, esp. 128.

Arie Baars

141

Holy Father, Holy Son, Holy Spirit, Three we name thee, Though in essence only one; Andadoring, bend thr knee While we own the mystery.31

31 Psalter Hymnal, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1988, nr. 504 (slightly adapted). This hymn is an English adaptation of the hymn from the Early Church entitled Te Deum. The original Latin Text of this song may be found in Kähler, E., Studien zum Te Deum und zur Geschichte des 24 Psalms in der Alten Kirche, Göttingen 1958, 9. Most likely the first version of this hymn was written by Nicetas of Remesiana (end 4th/beginning 5th century a.D.) (Cf. Deddens, K., Nicetas van Remesiana. Zendeling – liturg – catecheet, in: Folkerts, F.H. e.a. (eds.), Ambt en actualiteit. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. dr. C. Trimp ter gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als hoogleraar aan de Theologische Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland op 2 december 1992, Haarlem 1992, 61–71.

Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology: A Tentative Proposal

Lyle Bierma One of the more puzzling statements in Calvin’s 1542 Catechism of the Church of Geneva (hereafter GC) is his answer to Question 328 on baptism. The minister asks, “But do you attribute nothing more to the water than that it is only a symbol of washing?” And the child responds, “I think it to be such a symbol that reality is at the same time attached to it. For God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Hence it is certain that forgiveness of sins and newness of life are offered to us and received by us in baptism”. 1 At first glance, this statement may not seem so puzzling at all. It is, after all, consistent with Calvin’s approach to the sacraments more generally, an approach that Brian Gerrish has termed “instrumental symbolism”. According to this view, the external signs not only symbolize the spiritual realities to which they point but also, simultaneously with the physical action of the sacrament, convey or communicate those realities to all who participate in faith. 2 Thus when Calvin some years later in his Acts commentary refers to baptism as a “tool” (organum) and as one of the “instruments and means” (instrumenta et media) by which the blessings of baptism are conferred, he is picking up language that he had been using as early as the 1536 Institutes to discuss the sacraments in general. 3 Furthermore, to speak here in the GC of a reality or truth that is “at the same time” (simul) joined with the ele* I wish to thank Mary Vanden Berg, a Ph.D. student at Calvin Seminary and my teaching assistant from 2004–6, for her help with some of the initial research for this essay. I also wish to thank the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies and its director, Karin Maag, for providing me with office space and other assistance while I worked on this project. 1 Calvin, J., Catechismus Ecclesiae Genevensis, in: Barth, P./Niesel, W./Scheuner, D. (eds.), Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta [hereafter OS], Munich 1926–52, 2:134. I have followed, for the most part, the English translation in J. K. S. Reid (ed. and trans.), Calvin: Theological Treatises, Westminster 1954, 133, but I have altered the translation slightly based on my own reading of the Latin text. Reid, for example, does not translate the critical word simul (“at the same time”) in the first sentence of the answer. 2 Gerrish, B.A., Sign and Reality: The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confessions, in: The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, Chicago 1982, 118–30. 3 Comm. on Acts 22:16, Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia, ser. 2, Opera Exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti [hereafter OE], vol. 12/2, Commentariorum in Acta Apostolorum Liber Posterior (ed. Helmut Feld), Geneva 2001, 222. Christianae religionis Institutio 1536, OS 1:121.

Lyle Bierma

143

ment and sacramental use of baptismal water is entirely in keeping with the way Calvin would speak about baptism in subsequent writings. In his 1548 commentary on Ephesians, for example, he claims that “when Paul says that we are washed by baptism, he means that God there declares to us that we are washed and at the same time [simul] performs what he figures”. 4 Commenting on Colossians 2 in the same volume, Calvin asserts, “By baptism, therefore, we are buried with Christ, because the mortification which Christ there figures, he at the same time [simul] effectively executes, that the reality may be conjoined with the sign”.5 And in the Acts commentary in 1554, he uses similar language: “We must note this, that a bare form is not set before us in baptism, but the giving of the reality is also connected to it at the same time [simul], because God […] truly fulfills what he signifies under figures”. 6 What is puzzling about Question and Answer 328, then, is not Calvin’s statements about the instrumental role of baptism or the simultaneity of outward and inward action in the sacrament. Rather, it is how he can say that the twofold benefit of baptism, forgiveness of sins and newness of life, are “offered to us and received by us” in baptism when elsewhere, without ever mentioning baptism, he claims that these benefits are appropriated by faith. 7 Since Calvin makes clear in the next several questions and answers that, in the case of adults, baptism is effective only in those who approach the font in faith, it would seem that by that faith they already possess the benefits that he claims are conferred in baptism. How can one receive benefits that one already has? This is especially problematic in the case of forgiveness of sins. Newness of life, or what Calvin calls mortification and renewal, take place over a lifetime and might be understood to occur during baptism as well as before. But forgiveness of sins, according to Calvin, is a benefit that, once received in faith, frees the justified sinner from all condemnation for all eternity. 8 How can that benefit of faith be appropriated in baptism? Surprisingly, previous scholarship on Calvin’s doctrine of baptism has not addressed this question. A number of studies of his baptismal theology 4 Comm. on Eph. 5:26, OE, vol. 16, Commentarii in Pauli Epistolas ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses (ed. Helmut Feld), Geneva 1992, 267; ET: Calvin’s Commentaries (ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance) [hereafter CC], The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, trans. T.H.L. Parker, Grand Rapids 1965, 206. 5 Comm. on Col. 2:12, OE 16:427; ET: Epistles of Paul, 333. 6 Comm. on Acts 22:16, OE 12/2:222; ET: CC, The Acts of the Apostles 14–28, trans. John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids 1966, 218. 7 See, e.g., Institutio 1536, OS 1:58–59, 85–86; Institutio 1559 3.1.1, 3.3.1, 3.11.1, OS 4:1– 2, 55–56, 181–82. 8 Institutio 1559 2.16.18, 3.11.3, 4.15.12, OS 3:505–6, 4:183–84, 5:293–94.

144

Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology

have appeared in the last 120 years, but most are either surveys of the broad outlines of the doctrine, narrower treatments of Calvin’s view of infant baptism, comparisons with the teachings of other reformers, or some combination of the above. 9 Joachim Beckmann carefully analyzed how the sacraments in general function as means of grace for Calvin, but he did not fully apply this analysis to Calvin’s doctrine of baptism. 10 Others have reflected on the gracious character of baptism in Calvin but not in relation to the question of pre-baptismal faith. 11 The most thorough examination of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism as a means of grace is Ronald Wallace’s book, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Wallace devotes an entire chapter each to the mystery of the sacramental union between sign and signified and to the relationship between baptism and faith, but, curiously, he never reflects on how faith, baptism, and the benefits of both are temporally related to one another in Calvin.12 The only scholar who has come close to articulating the nature of this problem is Francois Wendel, who raises the same question with respect to union with Christ: “Here [Institutes 4.15.6] Calvin seems to be making union with Christ dependent upon reception of baptism, whereas almost everywhere else he says that this union is given at the same time as faith, and independently of the sacrament […]”. But Wendel quickly passes over the problem with the words, “however that may be”, and goes on to other things. 13 In what follows, therefore, we shall outline a way of approaching this question by examining in chronological order several passages in Calvin’s writings both before and after the GC, especially those that treat baptism in relation to the forgiveness of sins. Calvin provides a major clue to the meaning of GC 328 already in the first edition of the Institutes, where he appears to reject any notion of baptism as an instrument of the blessings of salvation themselves. Baptism, he says, is given for the consoling and confirming of our faith. It is an analogy or similitude by which God certifies to 9 See, e.g., Usteri, J., Calvins Sakraments- und Tauflehre, in: Theologische Studien und Kritiken 3, 1884, 417–56; Benoit, J.D., Calvin et le baptême des enfants, in: Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 17, 1937, 457–73; Kreck, W., Die Lehre von der Taufe bei Calvin, in: Evangelische Theologie 6, 1948, 237–54; Torrance, T.F., Calvins Lehre von der Taufe, in: Moltmann, J. (ed.), Calvin-Studien, Neukirchen 1960, 95–129; Raitt, J., Three Inter-related Principles in Calvin’s Unique Doctrine of Infant Baptism, in: The Sixteenth Century Journal 11, 1980, 51– 61. 10 Beckmann, J., Vom Sakrament bei Calvin, Tübingen 1926, esp. 50–57, 60–66. 11 Grislis, E., Calvin’s Doctrine of Baptism, in: Church History 31, 1962, 46–65; Witvliet, J., Baptism As a Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Thought of John Calvin, in: Studia Liturgica 27/2, 1997, 152–65; Riggs, J.W., Baptism in the Reformed Tradition: An Historical and Practical Theology, in: Columbia Series in Reformed Theology, Louisville 2002, 54–58. 12 Wallace R.S., Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, Tyler/Texas, 1982, 159–96. 13 Wendel, F., Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. Philip Maret, New York 1963, 321.

Lyle Bierma

145

us that he washes away our sins, breaks the power of Satan in our lives, and makes us sharers in the death of Christ as truly and surely as we see our bodies outwardly cleansed. God represents such spiritual realities by these figures not because the benefits themselves are enclosed within the sacrament, or even because the sacrament is “an organ and instrument by which they are conferred on us,” but only because God wishes to testify that he is pleased to lavish them upon us. As proof of this point, Calvin turns to Cornelius, the centurion convert in Acts 10, who, Calvin says, “having already previously been granted forgiveness of sins and the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptized”. What Cornelius was seeking in baptism was not a fuller forgiveness; he was already forgiven. Rather, what he was seeking was “a more certain exercise of his faith”. Similarly, when Ananias told the recently converted Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22,16), what he meant was, “to be assured that your sins are forgiven, Paul, be baptized”. It was not forgiveness itself that Paul was to receive but the promise of God that he was already forgiven. Calvin concludes from these episodes that receiving, acquiring, or obtaining the blessings of salvation includes not simply the initial reception of these benefits through faith but also the acquiring of a greater certainty that we have already been granted such benefits. The latter happens at baptism. 14 This same understanding of baptism and faith can be found in the Zurich Consensus (Consensus Tigurinus) of 1549, seven years after the GC first appeared. Whatever compromising Calvin may have had to do in this joint statement with Bullinger on the sacraments, his view of baptism is consistent with that of 1536. Article 19 of the Consensus is entitled “The faithful communicate in Christ both before and outside the use of the sacraments”. To illustrate that the reality figured by the sacrament remains firm for the faithful even outside the sacrament, the authors appeal, as Calvin had also done earlier, to the accounts of Paul and Cornelius. Paul’s sins were washed away by baptism even though they had already been washed away before baptism. And Cornelius experienced baptism as the laver of regeneration even though he had already received the Holy Spirit. In both cases, the reality signified in baptism predated the baptismal act itself. How then could it be said that these converts were washed and regenerated at baptism? Because, says the Consensus, the purpose of the sacraments is to

14 Institutio 1536, OS 1:132–33. For the quotations above in English, I have usually followed the translation by Ford Lewis Battles, Institutes of the Christian Religion [1536], rev. ed., Grand Rapids 1986, 99, but I have altered the translation slightly based on my own reading of the Latin text.

146

Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology

confirm and increase the believer’s faith and to confirm the gifts of God that the believer has by faith. 15 It is in the Acts commentaries of 1552 (vol. 1) and 1554 (vol. 2) that Calvin provides his most detailed explanation of baptism as a means of grace, particularly of forgiveness. In his exposition of Peter’s Pentecost call to conversion, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you […] unto the remission of sins” (Acts 2,38), Calvin describes what takes place in baptism as a sealing in our consciences of the remission of sins and the other blessings that we have in Christ. By introducing post-baptismal satisfactions into Christian piety, the Roman church, he says, has undermined the certainty of faith that baptism is intended to enhance. Forgiveness is a gift of Christ that we receive by faith alone; it is an effect of faith. Baptism is intended only for the “confirming and increasing of our faith” (language right out of the Zurich Consensus). In this sense of sealing or confirming for us a benefit that we already enjoy by faith, he concludes, baptism is rightly said in this passage to be given to us for the remission of sins. 16 Finally, commenting on Acts 22,16, where Ananias instructed Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins, Calvin makes clear that baptism is called the washing of the soul here only because it helps faith in its appropriation of forgiveness. It is an “inferior tool”, an instrument, or a means that God employs as a prop for our weakness, but the material cause of remission of sins is always the blood of Christ and the chief formal cause the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Luke suggests that baptism itself would wash away Paul’s sins, he had in mind only Paul’s understanding (sensum) of forgiveness: after baptism Paul more clearly knew that his sins had been washed away. Of course, says Calvin, in language that echoes that of GC 328 itself, “a bare figure is not set before us in baptism, but at the same time the presentation [exhibitionem] of the reality is also connected to it, because God does not deceive us in his promises but truly fulfills what he signifies under figures”. But for Calvin the grace dispensed in Paul’s baptism was not forgiveness itself but a clearer understanding of forgiveness and a fresh confirmation that his sins had already been forgiven.17 What Calvin might mean, therefore, in GC 328, when he asserts that forgiveness of sins is “offered to us and received by us in baptism” is that God offers and the believer receives in baptism not forgiveness itself but the 15 Baum, W./Cunitz, E./Reuss E. (eds.), Ioannis Calvinis opera quae supersunt omnia, Brunswick 1863–1900, 7:741. ET: The Consensus Tigurinus, trans. Ian D. Bunting, in: Journal of Presbyterian History 44, March 1966, 55. 16 Comm. on Acts 2:38, OE 12/2:80–82; ET: CC, The Acts of the Apostles 1–13, trans. John W. Fraser/W. J. G. McDonald, Grand Rapids 1965, 78–79. 17 Comm. on Acts 22:16, OE 12/2:222; ET: CC, Acts of the Apostles 14–28, 218 (with my alterations).

Lyle Bierma

147

assurance of forgiveness, a strengthening of faith in the promise of God that one has already been pardoned. If this interpretation is right, it raises several issues that could serve as directions for further research. We shall briefly address five of them here in the form of a question and four tentative theses: 1. First of all, to what extent does this analysis of forgiveness of sins in Calvin’s baptismal theology apply also to the other benefit of baptism mentioned in GC 328, newness of life? And what then about the third benefit that Calvin discusses in the Institutes, our union with Christ, which is foundational to the other two? Are these blessings, too, only confirmed to us in baptism, or are they in some way actually initiated or advanced? 2. If the view of baptism outlined above is correct, then Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments is more asymmetrical than previous scholarship has acknowledged. To be sure, both sacraments are means of grace for Calvin but not in exactly the same way. The spiritual feeding on the body and blood of Christ that the Supper signifies and seals often occurs during the sacrament itself, whereas the pardon for sin that baptism signifies and seals has already occurred. Both are instruments of grace in that the Holy Spirit works through them to assure the believer of certain spiritual realities, but the grace that is signified in each sacrament appears to stand in a different temporal relationship to the sign. In the one case we are graciously assured of a spiritual reality being imparted, in the other of a reality already imparted. 3. This understanding of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism would mean that we may need to rethink some of the typologies of early Reformed sacramental theology, especially as it comes to expression in the classic confessions. Gerrish, for example, argues that the Belgic Confession of 1561 is only “semi-Calvinist” because its articles on the sacraments in general (Art. 33) and on baptism (Art. 34) do not explicitly say that God gives in the sacrament what he represents. 18 He makes a similar judgment about the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), which, he claims, teaches that the sacraments confirm, seal, clarify, remind, assure, and testify, but never actually convey the spiritual realities to which they point. 19 For Jan Rohls, too, the Heidelberg Catechism, unlike Calvin’s GC, does not present baptism as a means of grace in the strict sense, because it leaves the impression that the external washing of baptism is a sign only of a grace that has already been imparted (Q/A 73). 20 What these interpretations ignore, however, is that even for 18 Gerrish, Sign and Reality, 124–25 and n. 35. 19 Ibid., 125–26. 20 Rohls, J., Reformed Confessions: Theology from Zurich to Barmen, trans. John Hoffmeyer, in: Columbia Series in Reformed Theology, Louisville 1997, 211.

148

Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology

Calvin baptism does not convey the spiritual realities that it signifies, at least in the case of forgiveness. The grace of baptism is to be found in the confirmation that one receives of that benefit, not in the reception of the benefit itself. 4. This interpretation of Calvin may help to blunt some of the criticism that has been lodged against his doctrine of infant baptism. Egil Grislis, for example, contends that Calvin abandons the idea of sacramental instrumentality once he enters the discussion of infant baptism, because for Calvin paedobaptism signifies a regeneration that a covenant child receives before the sacrament, not through it. 21 Whether Calvin actually held to a view of pre-baptismal regeneration in covenant children is another question; what should be noted here is that Calvin’s conception of instrumentality does not require, even in the baptism of adult believers, a simultaneous reception of sign and signified. We are certainly prepared for the possibility of a temporal gap between signified and sign in paedobaptism by what Calvin has already established in his doctrine of credobaptism. 5. Finally, it is perhaps in Calvin’s understanding of baptismal forgiveness as including the assurance of forgiveness that we find one of the roots of the later Protestant scholastic distinction between objective and subjective justification. The scholastics distinguished between the actus gratiae, the objective act by which believers are forgiven and counted righteous on the basis of the work of Christ, and the actus iustificarius, the subjective realization or recognition of that status by the believer.22 Calvin seems to be operating implicitly with an early form of this distinction. In GC 328 he asserts that in baptism the believer receives forgiveness of sins, but then elsewhere he defines such forgiveness as the sealing or confirmation to the believer of a pardon already received. These, we suggest, are really all topics for further research. That we end this study with more questions than we began indicates that we have only scratched the surface of an area of Calvin’s theology where much more work remains to be done.

21 Grislis, Calvin’s Doctrine of Baptism, 55–56. 22 For a summary of this distinction, see Muller, R.A., Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Grand Rapids 1985, 163 (s.v. “iustificatio”).

Luther and Calvin – One Reformation1

Thomas Kaufmann

1. As you will know, I am neither an acknowledged expert on Calvin nor for Luther, but rather a general researcher in the matters of Reformation. I tried to release myself from the “honouring embarrassment” which your invitation has put me through by drawing a sufficiently wide picture and not presenting myself as an expert in specific questions of Calvin research. While I am doing that, I hope you will forgive me for lecturing on facts that many of you know. A historic attempt to get closer to the relation of the two Protestant theologians who most powerfully impacted the 16th century, who never had any direct personal or written contact, has to be aware of the complex prerequisites of the subject. The different outcome that the literature on the subject of Luther and Calvin 2 has produced, states in its own way that decisions about method 1 BAO = Brief und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads [QFRG 10/19], Leipzig 1927/34; Bcor = Martin Bucer, Correspondance (ed. by Rott, J. and others), Leiden 1979ff; CO = Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, (ed. Baum, G./Kunitz, E./Reuss, E.), Braunschweig 1887ff [CR], ND 1964; CSA= Calvin-Studienausgabe (ed. by Busch, E./Heron, A./Link, Chr./Opitz, P./Saxer, E./Scholl, H.), Neukirchen 1994ff; DBETh = Moeller, B. (ed.), Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie der Theologie und der Kirchen, 2 Bd.e, München 2005; Herminjard = Herminjard, A.L. (ed.), Correspondance de Reformateurs dans le Pays de langue francaise, Genf, Paris 1866, ND 1965; Köhler, Bibl. = Köhler, H.-J., Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts, Teil I: Das frühe 16. Jahrhundert (1501–1530), Tübingen 1991ff; MBW = Scheible, H. (ed.), Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe, Stuttgart, Bad-Cannstatt 1977ff; Schwarz = Schwarz, R. (ed.), Johannes Calvins Lebenswerk in seinen Briefen, 3 Bd.e, Neukirchen 1961ff. 2 Cf. to some extent Niesel, W., Calvin und Luther, in: Reformierte Kirchenzeitung 81, 1931, 195f; additional older literature is listed in Schottenloher, K., Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung 1517–1585, Bd. 1–7, Leipzig/Stuttgart 1932–1966, Nr. 12070–12072; 53180; 53192; see also: Zahn, A., Calvins Urteile über Luther. Ein Beitrag zur Lutherfeier aus der reformierten Kirche Deutschlands, in: Theologische Studien aus Württemberg 4, 1883, 183–211; Nauta, D., Calvin and Luther, in: the same, Opera minora. Kerkhistorische verhandelingen over Calvijn en de geschiedenis van de Kerk in Nederland, Kampen 1961, 13–19; Lang, A., Luther und Calvin, in: the same; Reformation und Gegenwart, Detmold 1918, 72–87; the

150

Luther and Calvin

prejudice the results. The long shadow of older cultural perspectives of interpretation can always be sensed. That is the case when one comes to the result that in regard to the so-called “Theocentric character of Calvin’s theology” and his “theology of the cross”, Calvin had been a “good student” 3 of Luther. But that is also the fact, when one, in the line of the sociology of religion typologies of Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch 4 , stresses – as Heiko A. Oberman 5 does – the fundamental difference between the substantially medieval Lutheran Reformation of the state and the Calvinistic refugee- and Dissenting Reformation pointing towards the new world that were personally represented in Luther and Calvin. One decisive main question that arises, at least implicitly, in the description of the relation between Luther and Calvin was so far the question about the relation of the Reformation to modernity. The tradition of the Protestant writing of the Dogmengeschichte in the mediating theology, symbolic and Konfessionskunde of an Alexander Schweizer 6 , Karl Bernhard Hundeshagen 7 or Matthias Schneckenburger8 , which focused more on disjunctive moments of undeniable differing theosame, Die Quellen der Institutio von 1536, in: EvTh 3, 1936, 100–113; Meinhold, P., Calvin und Luther, in: Lutherische Monatshefte 3, 1964, 264–269; Nijenhuis, W., Der ökumenische Calvin: Calvin, Luther und das Luthertum, in: Nederlands Theologische Tijdschrift 34, 1984, 191–212; Rogge, J., Themen Luthers im Denken Calvins, in: Neuser, W.H. (ed.), Calvinus Servus Christi. Die Referate des Internationalen Kongresses für Calvinforschung vom 25. bis 28. August 1986 in Debrecen, Budapest 1988, 53–71; Zeeden, E.W., Das Bild Martin Luthers in den Briefen Calvins, in: the same, Konfessionsbildung [Spätmittelalter und frühe Neuzeit 15], Stuttgart 1985, 222–239; also instructive: the same, Calvins Verhalten zum Luthertum, in: Ebd., 240–258; Köhler, W., Dogmengeschichte als Geschichte des christlichen Selbstbewusstseins, Bd. 2: Das Zeitalter der Reformation, Zürich 1951, 70ff; passim; Locher, G.W., Grundzüge der Theologie Zwinglis im Vergleich mit denjenigen Martin Luthers und Johannes Calvins, in: the same, Huldrych Zwingli in neuer Sicht, Zürich, Stuttgart 1969, 173–274; Oberman, H.A., Zwei Reformationen. Luther und Calvin. Alte und neue Welt, Berlin 2003. 3 Selderhuis, H.J., Gott in der Mitte. Calvins Theologie der Psalmen, Leipzig 2004, 273f. 4 In this respect see recently: Schluchter, W./Graf, F.W. (eds.), Asketischer Protestantismus und der “Geist” des modernen Kapitalismus. Max Weber und Ernst Troeltsch, Tübingen 2005. 5 Oberman, Zwei Reformationen. 6 Cf. esp.: Die protestantischen Centraldogmen, 2 Bde., Zürich 1854–1856; concerning Schweizer see: RGG4, Bd. 7, 2004, 1072; BBKL 9, 1995, 1212–1215; DBETh 2, 2005, 1242. 7 Cf. esp.: Der deutsche Protestantismus, seine Vergangenheit und seine heutigen Lebensfrage im Zusammenhang mit der gesamten Nationalentwicklung, Frankfurt 31850; concerning Hundeshagen see: Nipperdey, Th., Carl Bernhard Hundeshagen. Ein Betrag zum Verhältnis von Geschichtsschreibung, Theologie und Politik im Vormärz, FS Hermann Heimpel, Bd. I, [VMPIG 36/I], Göttingen 1971, 369–409; TRE 15, 1986, 701–703; RGG4, Bd. 3, 2000, 1958; DBETh 1, 2005, 686f. 8 Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und reformierten Lehrbegriffs, postum ed. by Güder, E., 2 Bde, Stuttgart 1855; the same, Vorlesungen über die Lehrbegriffe der kleineren protestantischen Kirchenparteien. Aus dessen Nachlaß ed. by Hundeshagen, K.B., Frankfurt/M. 1863; concerning Schneckenburger see RGG3, Bd. 7, 2004, 942; DBETh 2, 2005, 1208f.

Thomas Kaufmann

151

logical theories or Centraldogmen, takes as a basis the idea of a legitimate further development of Protestant theology on the conditions of modernity; on this foundation one was able to appreciate the theological differences between Luther and Calvin in the consciousness of their historicity. The tradition of interpretation, however, that stresses the basic theological common ground between Luther and Calvin takes its root in the theopolitical forming debates of the early 20th century and received its specific character especially in the course of the so called Kirchenkampf of the Third Reich. Opposing the leading concept of “Protestantism” connoted by liberal Protestantism 9 , which categorized Luther as well as Calvin within the decidedly premodern Old Protestantism (following Ernst Troeltsch’s provocative differentiation between Old and New Protestantism) but which at the same time stressed the nuances of Calvinism that were relatively close to modernity in comparison with the hopelessly medieval Lutheranism 10 , Karl Holl advocated the term Reformation in a new way. Certainly, Holl defined the concept of Reformation by primarily looking at it from the perspective of Luther’s early theology 11 and pushed Calvin in a special vicinity of the Wittenberg reformer. 12 Holl transformed the reformatory theology that both men commonly represented into the nucleus of all productive effects on culture of the Reformation. Doing that, he accentuated the meaning of the

9 Cf. merely: Wallmann, J., Protestantismus I, in: RGG4, Bd. 6, 2003, 1727–1733; Albrecht, Chr., Historische Kulturwissenschaft neuzeitlicher Christentumspraxis. Klassische Protestantismustheorien in ihrer Bedeutung für das Selbstverständnis Praktischer Theologie [BHTh 114], Tübingen 2000; Graf, F.W., Art. Protestantismus II, in: TRE 27, 1997, 551–580. 10 Cf. esp. Troeltsch, E., Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt, now in: Troeltsch, E., Kritische Gesamtausgabe Bd. 8: Schriften zur Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die moderne Welt (1906–1913), ed. by Rendtorff, T./Pautler, S., Berlin/New York 2001; Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit, newly edited in: Troeltsch, E., Kritische Gesamtausgabe Bd. 7, ed. by Drehsen, V./Albrecht, Chr., Berlin/New York 2004; see also my contribution: Luther zwischen den Wissenschaftskulturen. Ernst Troeltschs Lutherdeutung in der englischsprachigen Welt und in Deutschland, in: Medick, H./Schmidt, P. (eds.), Luther zwischen den Kulturen. Zeitgenossenschaft – Weltwirkung, Göttingen 2004, 455–481. 11 For an orientation see: Ohst, M., “Reformation” versus “Protestantismus”. Theologiegeschichtliche Fallstudien, in: ZThK 99, 2002, 441–479. 12 Holl, K., Johannes Calvin (Rede bei der Calvinfeier der Universität Berlin am 10. Juli 1909), reprinted in the same, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte III, Der Westen, Tübingen 1928, 254–284; Holl, Die Kulturbedeutung der Reformation, in the same, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte I, Luther, 2./3. expanded and improved ed. Tübingen 1923, 468–543, esp. 492ff; on Holl generally see the description by Assel, H., Art. Holl, Karl, in: RGG4, Bd. 3, 2000, 1843; Wallmann, J., Karl Holl und seine Schule, in: ZTHK Beiheft 4: Tübinger Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert, Tübingen 1978, 1–33; see also Kaufmann, Th./Oelke, H. (eds.), Evangelische Kirchenhistoriker im „Dritten Reich“ [VWGTh 21], Gütersloh 2002 [Register]; Hamm, B., Hanns Rückert als Schüler Karl Holls, in: ibid., 273–309.

152

Luther and Calvin

Reformation for present-times with a remarkably critical colouring of modernity. This tendency of relating Luther and Calvin was also maintained by the influence of Dialectical Theology.13 Commonly opposing the so called Cultural or New Protestantism, Luther and Calvin, the two originals of Protestant Christianity, came closer together than anybody for centuries would have thought possible. A consequent historicisation of the subject “Luther and Calvin – Calvin and Luther” has to be aware of these interpretative implications, especially in a German-language context. But that also means that only a contextual analysis of comments from Calvin about Luther, that takes the communicative and literary circumstances of each situation into account, would be historically fitting. Only the consequent contextualisation would be able to do justice to the historic dynamics that grounded Calvin’s investigation of the Wittenberger and his theology. Because of this methodical prerequisite there are conclusive assessments of Calvin as the “greatest and probably also only student that Luther ever had, i.e. who deeply understood him, and based on him continued the works of the Reformation with his own of the news of the gospel, and brought it into his own churchly shape” 14 or sweeping characterisations of his relation to Luther in the sense of a “spontaneous, life-long love for the father-figure from Wittenberg” 15 which are hard to reach. That I am willing to sacrifice in exchange for the distinction. For, Calvin’s picture of Luther is characterised by a multitude of nuances, a differentiation of perspectives, and an ambivalence of judgements that can rarely be found in all confessional and political camps’ comments about Luther of their time.

13 On the picture of Luther in the early dialectial theology see Busch, E., Die Lutherforschung in der dialektischen Theologie, in: Vinke, R. (ed.), Lutherforschung im 20. Jahrhundert. Rückblick – Bilanz – Ausblick [VIEG.B 62], Mainz 2004, 51–70; on Calvin cf. to some extent: Barth, K., Die Theologie Calvins 1922, Zürich 1993; Freudenberg, M., Karl Barth und die reformierte Theologie. Die Auseinandersetzung mit Calvin, Zwingli und den reformierten Bekenntnisschriften während seiner Göttinger Lehrtätigkeit [Neukirchner Theologische Dissertationen und Habilitationen 8], Neukirchen 1997. 14 Meinhold, Calvin und Luther, 264. 15 Oberman, Zwei Reformationen, 195. Against the pupil-condition [Schülerschaft] of Calvin, see also Oberman’s verdict: “But the traditional assessment that Calvin is best characterised as a ‘faithful disciple’ of Luther who only redressed the balance by emphasising sanctification as much as justification, does not reflect sufficiently the differences in religious motivation, in piety, and ultimately in formative impact.” Oberman, H.A., Subita Conversio. The Conversion of John Calvin, in: the same. – Saxer, E./Schindler, A./Stucki, H. (eds.), Reformiertes Erbe, FS G.W. Locher Bd. 2 [Zwa XIX/T.2], Zürich 1993, 279–295, here: 293.

Thomas Kaufmann

153

Coming closest to it are probably parallels from Bucer 16 ; but the Strassburg reformer tended since the mid-1530s in a much more pronounced way to hide or ease the disconcerting traits of Luther’s personality than Calvin normally did. That Calvin received ideas from Luther, maybe even the decisive ideas of his life, didn’t mean that he appropriated him uncritically. And that Calvin was capable of cutting theological criticisms of Luther didn’t mean that he would have diminished his historical and theological importance. The notion that he was working out a different reformative project than that which began with Luther, would have hardly come into Calvin’s mind – I presume. Against Oberman’s perspective 17 , I, therefore, plead for the ONE Reformation in its variety of mouldings, its inscrutability of rejections and the diversity of its different ways of life and teaching. In the following lecture, I will now firstly report on Calvin’s theological beginnings and its relation to Luther. Secondly, his ambivalent judgements will be looked at specifically through the mirror of correspondence. And finally, I will offer a pladoyer that is already discernable in the title of my lecture.

2. Calvin’s turning away from the Roman Catholic church in the specific form of the subita conversio ad docilitatem18 and his turning toward the Word of 16 Cf. Brecht, M., Bucer und Luther, in: Krieger, Chr./Lienhard, M. (eds.), Martin Bucer and the Sixteenth Century Europe [SMRT 52/1], Leiden and others 1993, 351–368; cf. Kaufmann, Th., Reformatoren, Göttingen 1997, 16ff; 35–37; see also: Arnold, M., “Das niemand ihm selbst, sondern andern leben soll”: das theologische Programm Martin Bucers von 1523 im Vergleich mit Luther, in: Theologische Beiträge 32, 2001, 237–248; see also the same – Hamm, B. (ed.), Martin Bucer zwischen Zwingli und Luther [SuR N.R. 23], Tübingen 2003. 17 Oberman, Zwei Reformationen. That I do not share in the estimation of the present state of affairs concerning the Reformation – i.e., that of early modern research – which is brought to expression in the declaration of the celebrated Heinz Schilling, “To us the Reformation is lost!” (in: Reformation – Umbruch oder Gipfelpunkt einer Temps des Reformes, recently in the same. Ausgewählte Abhandlungen, see below note 112, p. 11–31, here: 11), almost goes without saying to him and to me. See most recently my deliberations in: Kaufmann, Th., Konfession und Kultur [SuR N.R. 29], Tübingen 2006, esp. 6 with note 14. The somewhat weak variant, namely that the German Reformation of historical research in the last decade is “somewhat ‘lost’” shows up in the Schilling-ish view of the matter, currently in the stage of its historiographic-political canonization (Lotz-Heumann, U., Die deutsche Reformation und die Konfesionalität in Europa, in: Schilling, H./Heun, W./Götzmann, J. (eds.), Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation 962 bis 1806. Altes Reich und Neue Staaten 1495 bis 1806, Bd. 2: Essays, Dresden 2006, 145–157, here: 145). 18 In the Praefatio to the Psalms Commentary of 1552 it says: “Ac primo quidem, quum superstitionibus papatus magis pertinaciter addictus essem, quam ut facile esset e tam profundo luto

154

Luther and Calvin

God was prepared by theological insights that came to him through the reading of Luther’s Latin texts or of Latin translations of his work. That can hardly be denied. The productive intake of Luther’s texts and ideas in Calvin’s early writings and also in the speech of the rector Nicolas Cops on the 1st of November 153319 that – on good ground – is attributed to his work, can be counted as proven. But to come to conclusion on the basis of this proof, like August Lang did, that “Luther’s works played a major role”20 in Calvin’s conversion or to claim, concerning the speech of the rector, that a “large part” of it “directly continues sentence by sentence, or at least thought by thought, Luther’s draft”21 goes much further than what can be stated sine ira et studio. Calvin will have known Luther’s sermon about the text from the pericopes of the All Saints’ Day, Matthew 5, 1–12 22 , from one of the prints of Martin Bucer’s Latin translation of the postille 23 , edited in Strasbourg. This Latin edition of postilles will also have been the one that first informed Calvin of the argument over the Lord’s Supper within the reform movement. His memory of Luther’s report that Zwingli and Oecolampadius were seeing the sacraments only as signs (“nudas et inanes figures”) 24 , which he me extrahi, animum meum, qui pro aetate nimis abduruerat, subita conversione ad docilitatem subegit.” CO 3 (CR 31), 21; on the interpretation cf. Oberman, Subita conversio; see the same, Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation, in: Neuser, W.H. (ed.), Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor. Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture. Die Referate des Internationalen Kongresses für Calvinforschung vom 20 bis 23. August 1990 in Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids 1994, 113–154; a few more of Calvin’s ‘autobiographical’ self-testimonies are found in CO 9 (CR 37) , 51 [Seconde Defense contra Westphal, 1556] and Ad Sadoleti Epistolam, 1539; OS 1, 486, 23ff; CSA 1.2, 418,33ff; on Calvin’s self-understanding still see: Büsser, F., Calvins Urteil über sich selbst [QAGSP 7], Zürich 1950. 19 Edited in: CR 10/2 (CR 38/2), 30–36; OS I, 4–10; CSA 1.1, 10–25; see also: Lang, A., Die Bekehrung Johannes Calvins, in: SGTK Bd. II, Heft 1, Leipzig 1897, ND Aalen 1972, 43–53: Die akademische Rede vom Allerheiligen-Tage 1533; the same; Luther und Calvin, 75ff. On the question of authorship see the recent historical research report of Hans Scholl in: CSA 1.1, 7–9; as well as: Rott, J., Documents strasbourgois concernant Calvin. – I. Un manuscrit autographe: le harangue du recteur Nicolas Cop, newly in: the same, Investigationes historicae, ed. by Kroon, M. de/Lienhard, M., Bd. 2, Straßburg 1986, 266–287. 20 Lang, Luther und Calvin, 75; see the same, Bekehrung, 31ff. 21 Lang, Luther und Calvin, 76. 22 WA 10 III, 400–407. 23 Cp. the bibliographic data (WA 10 I2, XXXVII–XL); a further Latin printing in a smaller Strassburg collection (cf. WA 10 III, CLXVIII; XXI) would also come into consideration as a model for Calvin; On Bucer’s edition of the postille, in particular his preface, cf. Kaufmann, Th., Die Abendmahlstheologie der Straßburger Reformatoren bis 1528 [BHTh 81], Tübingen 1992, 306ff; see also: Seebaß, G. (ed.), Martin Bucer (1491–1551) Bibliographie, Gütersloh 2005, 41 Nr. 12–16. That Calvin could read no German appears to be the communis opinio of Calvin research, cf. just: Niesel, W., Verstand Calvin Deutsch?, in: ZKG 49, 1930, 343–346; Ganoczy, Le jeune Calvin, 149. 24 “Quum enim a tenebris papatus emergere incipiens, tenui sanae doctrinae gustu concepto, legerem apud Lutherum, nihil in sacramentis ab Oecolampadio et Zvinglio reliquum fieri praeter

Thomas Kaufmann

155

mentioned in the context of the controversy with Westphal 1556, distracted him from reading the writings of the Swiss for a longer period of time, will have been said about Luther’s letter to the printer Herwagen 25 from Strasbourg that was printed in the fourth volume of the Latin edition of postilles. That was one of the rare texts that informed the international public of the first argument about the Lord’s Supper that was mainly led in the vernacular. The speech of the rector Cops is, in that case, proof of the important role that the translator of Luther’s works in the late 1520s, Bucer, played in bringing reformed theology into foreign countries. 26

nudas et inanes figuras, ita me ab ipsorum libris alienatum fuisse fateor, ut diu a lectione abstinuerim.” Secunda defensio piae et orthodoxae de sacramentis fidei adversus Joachimi Westphali calumnias, CO 9 (CR 37), 51; on the development of Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper the introduction to the little Lord’s Supper tractate from 1541 is instructive (Busch, E.), in: CSA 1.2, 431ff. 25 WA 19, 462–469; on this cf. Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 440f; 366ff; for a critique of my reconstruction see Greschat, M., Martin Bucer. A Reformer and His Times, Louisville, London 2004, 258–260. With respect to the international reception of the disputes about the Lord’s Supper Justus Jonas’ translation of Luther’s Von Anbeten des Sakraments (1523) from 1526 (WA 11, 425; cf. Köhler, W., Zwingli und Luther Bd. I [QFRG 6], Leipzig 1924, 389; Kawerau, G. [ed.], Justus Jonas. Der Briefwechsel, Bd. 1, Halle 1884, ND Hildesheim 1964, 102f; Köhler, Bibl. II, 455 Nr. 2571; Ex. MF 777 Nr. 1953; see also Zwingli, Opera Bd. 9, 167,4; Kaufmann, aaO, 379) probably is of a signal significance. Perhaps Calvin’s later polemic against Luther’s speech about the adorable sacrament (“adorabile sacramentum” cf. Calvin to Bucer Okt. 1549; CO 13 [CR 41], 437–440, here: 439); Schwarz, Bd. II, Nr. 282, 495–497, here: 497; Calvin to the pastors in Zürich [13.11.1554]; CO 15 [CR 43], 303–307; Schwarz, Bd. II, Nr. 422, 720–722) refers to this writing, which is hardly improbable in view of the fact that the question of adoration is not touched in Luther’s Kurzem Bekenntnis of 1544 (WA 54, 119–167; cf. in this regard Brecht, M., Martin Luther Bd. 3: Die Erhaltung der Kirche 1532–1546, Stuttgart 1987, 323f). With regard to Calvin the question about the politics of translation, in view of Luther’s reception in the Latin language world – a question barely discussed up to now in Reformation historical research – could be especially acute. The thesis encountered in older literature (cf. Lang, A., Die Quellen der Institutio von 1536, in: EvTh 3, 1936, 100–112, here: 106; Wendel, F., Calvin. Ursprung und Entwicklung seiner Theologie, Neukirchen/Vluyn 1968, 111), that in his Institutes of 1536 Calvin presupposes knowledge of Luther’s writing Daß diese Worte: Das ist mein Leib, noch feststehen, wider die Schwarmgeister (1527) [WA 23, 38ff], supposedly translated already in 1527, is not able to be confirmed through the bibliographic data of the WA; the earliest Latin translation signified there (WA 23, 49) stems from 1554 to 1556, thus among the context of the socalled second, much different conflict over the Lord’s Supper between Calvin and Westphal; cf. VD 16 L 4279f. Luther’s Sermon von dem Sakrament des Leibs und Bluts Christi wider die Schwarmgeister did however appear in a Latin translation (WA 19, 482–523) [cf. Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 378f; WA 19, 469; Benzing, J., Lutherbibliographie [BBAur 10] BadenBaden 21989, Nr. 2311], which clearly takes no account of the matter of the named attacks on his Swiss or highland German (oberdeutschen) opponents, and in total was written in a stronger catechising tone. On Calvin’s familiarity with this writing in the Institutio of 1536 cf. Ganooczy, Le jeune Calvin, esp. 148f. 26 Essential: Pollet, J.V., Etudes sur les relations de Bucer avec les Pays-Bas, l’Electorat de Cologne et l’Allemagne du Nord I/II [SMRT 33/34], Leiden 1985; additional Bucer-literature in: Seebaß, Bucer.

156

Luther and Calvin

That Bucer was the first Reformer in the German Reich with whom Calvin corresponded 27 , underlines that Calvin neither took the reading of Luther’s works as an stimulus to seek a direct contact with the Wittenbergers – unlike many other reform-minded people of the time –, nor did he see it as an impulse to one of the usual academic pilgrimages to Saxony. Strasbourg was Calvin’s personal and material place of contact to German reformed theology; which was also for his demeanour against Luther anything else than unimportant. Concerning the speech of the rector, besides the obvious traces of reception of Luther’s text in the Postille in Bucer’s translation 28 , their intensity even topping the references and adaptations of the preface of Erasmus to the New Testament 29 (Paraclesis) in the first part of the speech, it is at least in the same way decisive that there is very self-relying accentuation and interpretation. For in this speech the basic theological distinction between law and gospel is taken from Luther’s sermon30 , but Luther’s speech of the gospel as a “good shouting, a good sermon of Christ” 31 that “in time and in eternity” “for body and soul”32 will help all mankind, is referred only to eternal life from the editor of the Parisian speech. 33 The fact that this differentiation between law and gospel is of decisive importance for avoiding a meritorious misunderstanding of the taught behaviour that is included in the Beatitudes of the gospel of Matthew, is of central importance to Luther and his Parisian recipients. The news of the people being children of God through God’s grace that was taught by Christ himself is the “Christiana philosophica” 34 that founds the human “felicitas” for the author of the rector’s speech; Christ is the complete teacher of this philosophy. But he is not as clear as for Luther the pledge, the epitome, the very being of the gospel. 27 CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 22–24; Herminjard III, 201–204; new edition in: Ioannis Calvini Epistolae Volumen I (1530–sept. 1538), ed. Augustijn, C./Stam, F.P. van [Opera omnia Series VI/I], Genf 2005; the dating (1532/4 ?) is unknown, cf. Dumerque, E., Jean Calvin: Les homes et les choses de son temps, Lausanne Bd. 1, 1899, 297–299; Bouwsma supposes the dating of 4.9.1532, cf. Bouwsma, W.J., John Calvin. A Sixteenth Century Portrait, New York 1988, 242; cf. a.a.O. 20–24; also Rott dates “4 IX (32)”, Rott, J., Correspondance de Bucer. Liste alphabetique des correspondants, Straßburg 1979, 23: on Bucer and Calvin much differently in a systematictheological, comparative perspective: Kroon, M. de, Martin Bucer und Johannes Calvin, Göttingen 1991. 28 Cf. in detail the synopsis by Lang, Calvins Bekehrung, 49–52. 29 Cf. Lang, a.a.O., 46; Text der Paraclesis am einfachsten in: Erasmus von Rotterdam, Ausgewählte Schriften Latin and Germain. ed. by Welzig, W., Bd. 3, Darmstadt 1967, 2–37; see also: Scholl, in: CSA 1.1, 5. 30 Cf. WA 10 III, 400,3ff; CSA 1.1, 12,17ff. 31 WA 10 III, 400,4. 32 WA 10 III, 400,6. 33 “Ergo evangelium [bonum] est nuncium et salutifera de Christo praedicatio, quod a Deo patre missus sit, ut omnibus opem ferat et vitam eternam conciliet.” CSA 1.1, 12,20–22. 34 CSA 1.1, 10,4f; 12,28.

Thomas Kaufmann

157

Different than in Luther’s sermon, the continuation of the speech also primarily deals with the criticism of the “sophistae”35 , who “thresh empty straw, throw words around hairsplittingly, but don’t have to say anything about faith, about the love of God, about the forgiveness of sins, about grace, about the rectification and the real good deeds […]”. 36 The radical theory of grace as a true, even godly philosophy 37 becomes the measuring instrument for criticism of the present theological teaching institutions and church body; it is connected with a basic tendency of the theology of suffering, that – in this extreme – can either be found in Erasmus or in the mentioned sermon by Luther and that – as it reminds us of Calvin’s description in the letter to Salodet 38 of his turn in life as it was brought to him – might depict something like the religious and theological founding cornerstone of his reformation: if we really knew what it meant to be called in front of Christ’s tribunal, we would give ourselves over to the piety and the spirit completely and would receive the happenings, temptations and miseries that God lays upon us gladly. Salvation is promised to those who suffer for God and only trust in his grace. 39 Surely, it would be questionable to overstress the mentioned differences in the accentuation or even to interpret them as an expression of a selfrelying theological theory of Calvin. But still they let us realise that the author of the Parisian rector’s speech was able to take in Luther’s thoughts and formulations without merely reproducing his central theological thoughts. By Calvin’s seeing God as the cause and the reason of human misery – unlike Luther 40 – the question about the unalterable salvific will in God rises to specific importance. Calvin’s theology – so it seems – takes its root in his religion; Luther was a stimulating author for him who gave him food for thought on the basis of a theology of grace without compromise, who helped him to articulate criticism of the ancient regime of the church, and who brought the 35 CSA 1.1, 12,29. 36 Cited according to the translation of Scholl, CSA 1.1, 13,32–35: “sophistae […], qui de lana caprina perpetuo contendunt, rixantur, altercantur, nihil de fide, nihil de amore Dei et nihil de remissione peccatorum, nihil de gratia, nihil de iustificatione, nihil de veris operibus disserunt […].” CSA 1.1, 12,29–32. 37 CSA 1.1, 14–10; 16,23. 38 Cf. CSA 1.1, 16,31ff; CSA 1.2, 418,33f. 39 “[…] an nescimus, viri fratres, quoniam omnes stabimus ante tribunal Christi? It si plane intelligeremus, soli pietati, soli spiritui incumberemus. Nos calamitatibus, aegritudine, afflictionibus, tribulationibus a Deo exercere gauderemus. Nam eos beatus esse Christus pronunciat qui in his lugent, qui in suis viribus desperant […].” CSA 1.1, 16,30–18,2; but cf. WA 10 III, 405,27ff (on Mt 5,4). 40 WA 10 III, 405,27–406,6. In Luther’s interpretation of the Beatitude concerning those who suffer affliction (Mt 5,4) it is God who consoles them „inwardly“ (406,3), but who does not impose the affliction.

158

Luther and Calvin

iustificatio sola fide, only through Christ’s promise 41 , close to him. But as a guiding star to be followed unconditionally, Luther was probably not even for the theological neophyte that Calvin was. His reception of Luther was from the outset influenced by an awareness of differences of perspective within the Reformation and by the intention to hinder or narrow its influence in his primary field of work, the Protestant movement in his French homeland. With this perspective, Calvin’s earliest contact with Luther corresponded especially to the one with Bucer, who, since 1525, knowing the confusing effects of the argument about the Lord’s Supper on the sympathizers of the reforming movement propagated a concentration on Luther’s main Protestant teachings which camouflaged the sharpness of the theological opposites. 42 Also the second, more extensive theological text that we own from Calvin’s own hand, his French preface to the Bible by Olivetan from 1535 43 , a formative influence of Luther’s (especially his tract “De captivitate Babylonica” (1520) and his leaflet “Dass Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei”44 that was translated into the Latin in 1524 by Justus Jonas 45 and in 1525 by Johannes Lonicer) can be proven. 41 “Evangelium remissionem peccatorum et iustificationem gratis pollicetur. Neque enim accepti sumus Deo quod legi satisfaciamus, sed ex sola Christi promissione, de qua qui dubitat pie vivere non potest et gehennae incendium sibi parat.” CSA 1.1, 18,29–33. The central terminological meaning of the promissio points in a different way to the reception – also certainly to be presupposed (cf. Oberman, Subita Conversio, 291 with n. 58; Detmers, Reformation, 254; 262 u.ö.; CSA 1.1, 30; Ganoczy, A., Le jeune Calvin, Genèse et évulution de sa vocation réformatrice [VIEG 40], Wiesbaden 1960, 137 ) – of Luther’s De captivitate Babylonica (1520) (cf. WA 6, 513, 24–315, 26); on Luther’s concept of promissio see still: Bayer, O., Promissio. Geschichte der reformatorischen Wende in Luthers Theologie [FKDG 24], Göttingen 1971. 42 Cf. somewhat Bcor II, 11,29ff; Bcor II, 46,4–8; 191,38ff; on 1525 see also Herminjard I, 387; BAO 1, 423 with n. 1; cf. also Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 319; 327; 368f. 43 CO 9 (CR 37), 787–822; CSA 1.1, 27–32 (introduction by Ernst Saxer); 34–51 (FrenchGerman edition of the text). The thesis expressed by Bernhard Roussel (François Lambert, Pierre Caroli, Guillaume Farel … et Jean Calvin [1530–1536], in: Neuser, Calvinus Servus Christi, 35– 52, here: 41), that the introductory text of the Olivetan Bible addressed to Jewish readers derives not from Calvin, but with the initials “V.F.C.” is from W.F. Capito, is taken up by newer research, strengthened and in regard to content established at length. Cf. recently: Detmers, A., Reformation und Judentum. Israel-Lehren und Einstellungen zum Judentum von Luther bis zum frühen Calvin [Judentum und Christentum Bd. 7], Stuttgart 2001, 268ff; On Calvin and the Jews cf. recently: Lange van Ravenswaay, J.M.J., Die Juden in Calvins Predigten, in: Detmers, A.; the same (ed.), Bundeseinheit und Gottesvolk. Reformierter Protestantismus und Judentum im Europa des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts [Emder Beiträge zum reformierten Protestantismus 9], Wuppertal 2005, 59–70. 44 On the interpretation of this writing: Kaufmann, Th., Luthers “Judenschriften” in ihren historischen Kontexten [NAWG Phil. hist. Kl. 6, 2005], Göttingen 2005, 14ff. 45 WA 11, 309f; cf. Benzing, Lutherbibliographie, Nr. 1540–1542; VD 16 L 4316–18; Köhler, Bibl. II, 454 Nr. 2570 (Jonas-Übersetzung, Wittenberg 1524), Ex. MF 1779 Nr. 4579.

Thomas Kaufmann

159

The wide prospect of salvation history, which Calvin spans in his preface from the creation and the fall into sin to the “nouvelle alliance” 46 between God and humankind, receives its inner structure and dynamic especially through God’s promises that point towards Christ. The terminology that Calvin uses, especially the terms “la promess” 47 and “testament” 48 in the meaning of the promise which was given through authentic means, can only be understood against the background of Luther’s relevant use of words in his revolutionary script about the sacraments from the summer of 1520. Even the term “alliance” 49 is to be understood as synonymous with “testamentum” and finds parallels in the analogisation of pactum, foedus and testamentum in De captivitate Babylonica. 50 The new covenant (nouvelle alliance) 51 of the definitive, indestructible reconciliation between God and mankind, which was established in the God-man Christ, was existent as hope in a promise from the beginning of the world immediately after Adam’s fall. 52 For the promise was already given to Adam (Gen. 3–15) that the snake’s head will be crushed through the descendants of Eve. This ‘Protevangelium’ 53 , as Luther called it, stands in the beginning of a line of promises in the Old Testament of the coming Messiah; also, the second proof that Calvin uses, the promise of descendants for Abraham (Gen. 12,38), can be found in Luther’s writings, in “De captivitate Babylonica”54 as well as in “Das Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei” 55 . The fact that Calvin requires the knowledge of Luther’s first “Judenschrift” of 1523, isn’t only evidenced by christologically interpreted verses 46 CSA 1.1, 40,2. 47 CSA 1.1, 40,13.17; 50,35; in the plural: 42,8.27; 52,23; as a verb form: “le Messiah avoit de foys esté promis au Vieil Testament”, 44,20f. 48 CSA 1.1, 46,37: “Et telle alliance a esté confirmée et passée soubz instrumentes autentiques, du testament et tesmoingnage qui leur a baillé.” 38,12–14. 49 CSA 1.1, 38,12; 40,2. 50 “Hoc testamentum Christi praefiguratum est in omnibus promissionibus dei ab initio mundi […]. Inde usitatissima sunt illa in scripturis verba pactum, foedus, testamentum domini. Quibus significabatur deus olim moriturus. Nam ubi testamentum est, ideo necesse fuit eum mori […].” WA 6, 514,1–8. 51 See note 46. 52 CSA 1.1, 40,12–16: “Car mesme à Adam incontinent apres sa ruyne, pour le consoler et reconforter fut donné la promesse, que par la semence de la femme seroit brisée la teste du serpent. Qui estoit à dire que par Iesus Christ nay d’une vierge, la puissance de Satan seroit abatue et rompue.” CSA 1.1, 40,12–16. “Sic Adae past lapsum dedit hanc promissionem, dicens ad serpentem ‘Inimicitias pronam inter te et mulierem, inter semen tuum, et semen illius, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo illius’. In hoc promissionis verbo Adam cum suis tanquan in gremio dei portatus est et fide illius servatus […].” WA 6, 514,26–30. 53 Cf. to some extent WA 29, 264, 16; 36, 680, 20f. 54 WA 6, 514,35f. 55 WA 11, 316,5ff; 317,30ff; the reference to “Gen. 22” [317,30] by Luther changes nothing in this regard, since Gen 22,18 takes Gen 12,3 up again.

160

Luther and Calvin

of the Old Testament 56 , but also in the scope of argumentation that focuses on the arguments from the Jews: Moses and the prophets proclaimed or even predicted Christ in exactly the same way in which he appeared after the witness of the New Testament. Through his promises, God distinguished Israel among all other nations. 57 The impressive harmony between the witness of the Old and New Testament 58 supports the messianic way of reading of the relevant dicta and proves the Jewish interpretation ab ovo as an impossible solution. Calvin’s hermeneutic and salvation-historic convictions, found in his French preface to the Bible by Olivetan, actualise the early reformative impulses of Luther’s theology of promise about 15 years after their first publication, i.e. in a historic situation in which Luther didn’t distance himself from this concept but the concept had already lost quite a bit of its original hermeneutical and organisational powers. In Calvin’s reception of Luther the advanced, in itself estranged, Reformation met its youthful original. Now a few short comments about the first edition of the Institutes, the very text which research has used for the last 150 years 59 to prove convincingly that Luther’s writings, above all the Latin version of his Smaller Catechism, but also “De libertate Christiania”, “De Captivitate Babylonica”, the Kirchenpostille and many more were used as a source for this successful book. With the exception of the “Sermon of the sacrament of body and blood of Christ against the Radicals”(1526) 60 that was published in a Latin translation in 1527, these were all texts by Luther that in terms of time were written before and in terms of the subject were written about something else than the centrifugal controversy within the Reformation about the Lord’s Supper. As a reference for the construction of a Protestant foundational teaching these texts, which were in terms of time and subject written before inner-Protestant estrangements, might have seemed to be the most suitable. For what Calvin wanted was a depiction of the Protestant teaching for the 56 Isa 7,14: CSA 1.1, 40,28–30; WA 11, 320,21ff; Gen 49,10: CSA 1.1, 40,31ff; WA 11, 325,25ff; Dan 9,24: CSA 1.1, 40,40ff; WA 11, 331,23ff; Gal 4,4: CSA 1.1, 42,31ff; WA 11, 319,22ff. 57 CSA 1.1, 42,24ff; cf. 44,20ff. 58 CSA 1.1, 46,13ff. 59 As the oldest relevant work which points to Calvin’s dependence upon the Latin version of Luther’s Kleinem Katechismus has deemed it, according to A. Lang (Quellen, 104 note 18): Stähelin, E., Johannes Calvin [LASVBRK IV.1], Elberfeld 1863, I, 75, note. The question is constantly treated; in my opinion esp. helpful are Diehl, W., Calvins Auslegung des Dekalogs in der ersten Ausgabe seiner Institutio und Luthers Katechismen, in: ThStKr 1898, 141–162; Lang, Quellen; Wendel, Calvin, 101ff; Ganoczy, Le jeune Calvin, 139ff; for further literature on the Institutio of 1536 cf. Calvin Theological Journal. 60 Cf. above n. 24; on the meaning of the writing in the context of the conflict over the Lord’s Supper cf. Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 274; 281; 372f; 378; 379; 384.

Thomas Kaufmann

161

troubled brothers in the faith in France; it was important to show evidence of the peaceful character of the Protestant movement that was in agreement with the Church Fathers as far as possible and it was important to broaden the societal and political basis of the Reformation.61 The form of teaching that served this intention was mainly fed by the biblical testimony read in light of Luther’s early reformative texts, only dealt with the horribiles istae 62 dissensions of the controversy about the Lord’s Supper as much as absolutely needed, and through that served the consolidation of a common Protestant profile in opposite to the overpowering Catholic enemy. The remarkably self-reliant position on the theology of the Lord’s Supper, that the 26-year-old Calvin, who was working theologically autodidactively, found in exile in Basel, aimed at a solution that combined the true and effective giving character of the sacrament with the focus on the manducatio spiritualis and, thus, was meant to be theologically and theologypolitically integrative. 63 The depiction of the teaching of the Lord’s supper in Calvin’s Institutes from 1536 is an impressive evidence of his differentiating way of dealing with Luther and the contradictory effects of his theology in the time before or after the controversy over the Lord’s Supper: Calvin’s sustaining reception of “De Captivitate Babylonica” and probably also Luther’s sermon about the Lord’s Supper from 1519 64 was already (in 1536) opposing the rejection of the so called Ubiquitätslehre that Calvin knew but certainly could not have known through his own reading. 65 Calvin’s ambivalent judgement of Luther, that we are going to look at in the following, take their root in the controversy about the Lord’s Supper. The early reformative Luther that he knew by heart represented the essential content of the Reformation for the young Frenchman like nothing and nobody else; the Luther of the argument about the Lord’s Supper within the Reformation, whom Calvin theologically hardly knew, was for him a dark, threatening figure that had to be judged foremost in moral terms. Especially

61 See in this regard esp. the dedicatory preface to Francis I, in: CSA 1.1, 59–107. 62 OS I, 139. 63 “Quo tamen, in tanta opinionum turba et varietate, una certaque Dei veritas nobis constet, cogitemus primum, spirituale quiddam esse sacramentum, quo Dominus non ventres nostros, sed animas pascere voluit […]. Deinde ipsum spiritualiter obtinere, satis habeamus, sic enim in vitam ipsum obtinebimus: quod ipsum est percepisse, quidquid ex sacramento fructus percipi potest. Hanc cogitationem ubi quis animo praesumpserit ac meditatus fuerit, facile intelliget quomodo Christi corpus in sacramento nobis offeratur, nempe vere et efficaciter […].” OS I, 139f. 64 WA 2, 742–758; Lat. trans. 1524, WA 2, 741; reference to relevant parallels (OS I, 145; WA 2, 743f) in Ganoczy, Le jeune Calvin, 148f. 65 OS I, 140f. The most Christologically relevant details concerning the teaching of the mode of presence were contained only in Luther’s larger writing on the Lord’s Supper from 1528 (cf. WA 26, 327ff), but this work did not appear in a Latin translation, and it is likely that Calvin had known Luther’s teaching in its most elaborated form entirely second hand.

162

Luther and Calvin

in the mirror of Calvin’s ambivalent reception of Luther, Oberman’s thesis of “two Reformations” proves to be rather questionable.

3. Calvin spoke more often of Luther that of himself; he did that in controversial theological writings as well as in letters, in public and in private context. In his exegetical work Calvin will have used Luther’s commentaries regularly and without restraint, besides other interpreters. 66 The fact that relations to the so called Lutherans was deeply and irreparably destroyed after the argument with Joachim Westphal, didn’t keep Calvin from talking about Luther positively; naturally, comments like this have to be analysed in their specific context and under consideration of rhetorical strategies. For the praise of the Wittenberger master was also used as a polemic against his mediocre mimics – “Luther’s monkeys”. 67 Intemperance, that one had to tolerate of Luther in awareness of his singular heroic greatness – for Calvin took him as a “remarkable apostle of Christ, through whom the purity of the gospel in our times was renewed” 68 – weren’t conceded were the Lutherans were concerned. Regrading the horde of Luther-monkeys, that were led and pushed forward by Nikolaus von Amsdorf, a crazy, brainless man, who already goaded Luther into his fatal short proclamation against the Zürcher (1544), 69 Calvin chose bitter words. That Calvin didn’t give up his own connection with the Wittenberger, above all the conflicts with those who claimed to speak with Luther’s authority, is a not unimportant part of his greatness in world history.

66 Exemplarily in regard to the interpretation of the Psalms: CO 32 (CR 60), 350; cf. Selderhuis, Gott in der Mitte, 273. 67 Cf. somewhat Calvin to M. Schenk 22.4.1560, in: Schwarz III, Nr. 621, 1055 ; Calvin to Bullinger 11.5.1560, in: Schwarz III, Nr. 623, 1057 . On the Westphal-controversy cf. Tylenda, J.N., Calvin and Westphal: Two Eucharistic Theologies in Conflict, in: Neuser, W.H./Selderhuis, H.J./Spijker, W. van ’t (eds.), Calvin’s Books, FS Peter de Klerk, Heerenveen 1997, 9–21. 68 So in the Responsio contra Pighium de libro arbitrio (1543), CO 6 (CR 34), 250; cf. 6, 459. “De Luthero non est quod dubiam coniecturam sumat: quando nunc quque, sicut hactenus, non dissimulanter testamur, eum nos habere pro insigni Christi apostolo, cuius maxime opera et ministris restituta hoc tempore fuerit evangelii positas.” CO 6 (CR 34), 250. In the Supplex Exhortatio (1543) it reads: “Quum Deus initio Lutherum et alios excitavit, qui nobis facem ad reperiendam salutis viam praetulerunt […].” CO 6 (CR 34), 459. In a letter to the pastor of Mömpelgard (8.5. 1544) he dubbed Luther as “prudentia et gravitate praeditus” and endowed with “ingenii acumine,” CO 11 (CR 39), 705. 69 Calvin to Bullinger 25.11.1544; Schwarz I, Nr. 120, 285f .

Thomas Kaufmann

163

Considering Calvin’s struggle with the Lutherans it is important to keep in mind that those were mostly influenced by the later Luther and that Luther’s early reformative texts which were especially important for Calvin’s understanding of him played a rather subordinate role for the growing second generation of Lutheran theologians. The story of controversies within the Reformation is always accompanied by the tensions between the “young” and the “old” Luther and his respective reception. 70 But let us now look at single comments in their chronological order. For Luther, the young Frenchman firstly appeared in the horizon of his attention in November 1536, when he heard through Vadian of Farel’s and Calvin’s work in Geneva. 71 In the context of the Fürstentag of Frankfurt 1539 the pastor of the francophone church in Strasbourg, who was until then already expelled from Geneva, met Melanchthon for the first time and talked to him about the Kirchengüterfrage, the Lord’s Supper Agreement, and the Kirchenzucht; 72 besides that he was supposed to report to the present imperial agency about the situation of the Protestants in France. 73 Luther was informed of his presence in a letter; at least Mykonius must have assumed that Luther was familiar with Calvin’s name. 74 Half a year later, Luther sent greetings to the Frenchman through Bucer and told him that he had read his libellus against Sadolet “cum singulari voluptate”. 75 But one shouldn’t take this friendly signal for more than it was, for in a table speech Luther complained around this time about the fact that Calvin was hiding his opinion about the Lord’s Supper; one shouldn’t read books of those people too much. 76 Luther took Calvin as a “vir doctus, sed valde suspectus de errore

70 Cf. Kaufmann, Th., Der “alte” und der “junge” Luther als theologisches Problem, forthcoming in a collection offered by Christoph Bultmann and Volker Leppin on Luther; on the reception of Luther in the second generation see also various sections in: Kaufmann, Konfession und Kultur. 71 WABr 7, Nr. 3109, 595–599, here: 598, 90–94; in any case already with the characterization, this “homines Galli” being “non linguae modo peritia, sed pietate etiam et eruditione insignes” (a.a.O., Z. 93f). 72 MBW Bd. 2 Nr. 2152; cf. 2103; CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 322–332 Nr. 162 and 164; for the context: Scheible, H., Melanchthon. Eine Biographie, München 1997, esp. 121f. 73 Cf. WABr 8, 388 n. 9. 74 “Fuerunt cum eo [sc. Johannes Sturm] Calvinus et aliquot alii eruditi Iuvenes.” WABr 8, Nr. 3308, 386–389; here: 387,34f (Mykonius an Luther 3.3.1539). 75 WABr 8, Nr. 3394, 568–570 (Luther to Bucer 14.10.1539), here: 569,29–31: “Bene vale [sc. Bucer], et salutabis D. Johannem Sturmium et Joh. Calvinum reverenter, quorum libellus cum singulari voluptate legi.” On Calvin’s answer to Sadolet cf. the references in CSA 1.2, 337ff. In a letter to Farel (20.11.1539) Calvin cites this sentence largely verbatim (CO 10/2 [CR 38/2], 432; WABr 8, 570 n. 40); cf. Schwarz I, Nr. 43, 136f; cf. also CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 402. 76 “Sic Calvinus de re sacramenta occultat suam sententiam. Sie sein irr und konnens nicht reden. Quia veritatis oratio simplex est. Man leß mir ire bucher nicht vill!” WATr 5, Nr. 5303, 51,19–21 (19.10.1540).

164

Luther and Calvin

sacramentarium” 77 , so far his last known comment of the rather scarce remarks about him. For Calvin’s judgement of Luther it is very interesting to see how he dealt with Luther’s praise about the answer to Sadolet in his conversation with his companion Farel. From a letter by Melanchthon he had additional information that Calvin was very much in Luther’s favour. 78 Through the messenger, Melanchthon reported that Calvin was darkened in Luther’s opinion, however, because of his opinion about the Lord’s Supper in the Sadolet-script. Luther had – according to Melanchthon – a closer look at the respective paragraph, realised that it was written against him and then said that he hopes that Calvin would once think better of them. 79 That he still sent friendly and appreciative greetings with Bucer, was understood by Calvin as an expression of open-mindedness and temperance. 80 But it remained typical for their relation that they didn’t correspond directly but sent greetings via Bucer or Melanchthon. 81 Only on one occasion did Calvin wrote directly to Luther, but sent his letter to Melanchthon and left it to him to decide whether he wanted to give it to Luther or not. Melanchthon decided against it, pointing to Luther’s mistrust; instead of writing about the Nikodemismus, especially in France, as it asked for as an expert’s opinion, which Melanchthon decided to write himself, 82 Luther was only to write about the sacraments. 83 Calvin’s caution

77 WATr 5, Nr. 6050, 461,18f (undated, ca. 1545, cf. aaO, n. 7). 78 “Philippus autem ita scribebat: Lutherus et Pomeranus Calvinum et Sturmium iussuerat salutari. Calvinus magnam gratiam iusit.” CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 432; cf. MBW Bd. 2, Nr. 2290; cf. Herminjard VI, Nr. 835, 122–132, esp. 131. The Bugenhagen-letter does not appear to be extant, cf. Rott, Liste. 79 CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 432; CSA 1.2, 385f = OS I, 472f = CO 5 (CR 33), 399f probably concerns the passage; a specifically anti-Lutheran point is found of course in the presentation of the teaching on the Lord’s Supper in the Sadolet writing, especially in the rejection of a “localis circumscriptio” (CSA 1.2, 384,21) of the life of Christ, that is, in the critique of the ‘descending’ [‘Herabziehung’] of Christ’s gloriousness into the earthly elements (“ne gloriosum Christi corpus ad terrena detrahatur”, CSA 1.2, 384,22) among the explicit critique of the doctrine of transsubstantiation. Luther’s judgment concerning Calvin’s suspect-ness [‘Suspektheit’] in regard to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper likely relates to his emphatic insistance upon teaching the presence of Christ in the meal: “Praesentiam Christi, qua nos illi inseramur, a coena minime excludimus.” CSA 1.2, 384,19f. 80 “Cogita [sc. Farel] Lutheri ingenuitatem. […] Tanta moderatione [sc. Luthers] si non frangimus sumus plane saxei.” CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 432. The ‘satisfactio’, which Calvin, pursuant to his declaration vis-à-vis Farel (ibid.), intended in the preface to his Romans Commentary to be attached to Luther (dat. 15.11.1539, CR 38/2, Nr. 191, 402–406), was not occasioned among explicit naming of names, but in the confidence of a communal effort at brotherly understanding in the course of communal work at the interpretation of Scripture, cf. esp. a.a.O. 405. 81 Cf. WABr 9, Nr. 3549, 264–266, here: 265,39 [Bucer to Luther 8.11.1540, Luther greets Calvin in connection with the Colloquy]; cf. WABr 9, 260,77; WABr 10, Nr. 4053, 706ff. 82 MBW 4, Nr. 3886; CR 5, 734–739; CO 6 (CR 34), 621–624.

Thomas Kaufmann

165

that was supported by Melanchthon 84 was certainly aimed at avoiding causing another eruption of the argument about the Lord’s Supper, which was flaming up again after Luther’s “short proclamation” of 1544. 85 Calvin’s caution also showed how little his euphoric proclamation about Luther as a “remarkable apostle of Christ”, that he stated in his script about free will against Pighius (1543) 86 and that must have become known to Luther 87 , was worth as a protection against the temperamental outbursts over antisacramentism of the choleric ruffian from Wittenberg. Calvin’s letter to Luther, the content of which Melanchthon received through a messenger – the sealed original was send back to Geneva88 – includes a few remarkable tendencies which were typical of Calvin’s demeanour towards the Wittenberger: on the one hand, the title ‘Father’ is used by Calvin three times, 89 which was – with the background that this was or could have been the first direct contact between the two – a clear acknowledgement of Luther’s advanced standing, the shepherd and servant of Christ, but also expressed emotional closeness. Luther is addressed as the highest human authority in the Church of Jesus Christ, as its honourable shepherd and highest servant – basically as the Protestant pope. Calvin excuses himself for bothering Luther only because of the emergency situation of the Protestant Christians in France. For some of the brothers in the faith, who recognised the truth of the Reformation, didn’t dare to give a public confession and lived instead as Nicodemeus. He himself had already

83 21.1.1545, Calvin to Melanchthon; MBW 4, Nr. 3803; CO 12 (CR 40), 9–12; Schwarz I, Nr. 123, 289f; 21.1.1545, Calvin to Luther; WABr 11, Nr. 4272, 26ff; CO 12 (CR 40), 6–8; Schwarz I, Nr. 122, 288f; Melanchthon to Calvin 17.4.1545 (never sent) MBW 4, Nr. 3884; the same, MBW 4, Nr. 3885; CO 12 (CR 40), 61f; Report CR 5, 734–739 Nr. 3176; CO 6 (CR 34), 621–624; MBW 4, Nr. 3886. 84 Bucer reacted similarly in September 1544 (WABr 11, 27 n. 5; MBW 4, Nr. 3682; cf. WABr 10, 653f); one feared a further escalation of the newly-broken open Lord’s Supper controversy; in particular the situation naturally should be avoided in which Bucer, Calvin, and others would be sucked into the wake of the various Züricher who encountered Luther’s contempt. 85 Cf. MBW 4, Nr. 3803; CO 12 (CR 40), 9–12. 86 CO 6 (CR 39), 250 cit. n. 68; on Pigge cf. Jedin, H., Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges [RGST 55], Münster/W. 1931, esp. 40ff; cf. Zeeden, Bild, 225; Bäumer, R., A. Pigge, in: Iserloh, E. (ed.), Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit Bd. 1 [KLK 45], Münster 1984, 98–106; Rimbach, H., Gnade und Erkenntnis in Calvins Prädestinationslehre [Kontexte 19], Frankfurt/M. and others 1996, 123ff. 87 Cf. the references in WABr 11, Nr. 4072, 27f; CO 12 (CR 40), 6f. 88 WABr 11, 26f. 89 First in the introductory salutation: “Excellentissimo Christianae Ecclesiae Pastori, D. Martino Luthero, Patri mihi plurimum observando”, WABr 11, 28,1f; the beginning of the passage narrating the actual matter of concern reads: “Nunc ergo, Pater in Domino plurimum observande, per Christum te obtestor […].” 28,27f. And in the closing salutation: “Vale, Clarissime Vir, Praestantissime Christi Minister ac Pater mihi semper observande.” 29,39f.

166

Luther and Calvin

written against it; 90 he was enclosing this libelli for Luther to have a look into it or to let others read it and have it reported to him. 91 Calvin didn’t hide the fact that his French brothers were asking for Luther’s judgement and that he himself was hoping for an enforcement of the reformative fight in France as an outcome of this. 92 He was acting as a petitioner serving others and stressed the common reformative interest in the fight against papist sacrilege. 93 With massive deployment of humility and respect, Calvin underlines just how uncomfortable he feels by bothering Luther from his many important tasks, but urgent need begs for just a few words of his opinion. 94 The ending of the letter is rather astonishingly personal: “Oh, if it was only possible for me to fly to were I could at least spend a few hours of community with you. For I would rather – and it would also be better – not only discuss personally the mentioned question (that is the Nikodemismus), but also other personal matters. But what is not possible on earth will be granted to us soon, as I hope, in God’s kingdom”. 95 The only letter, which was sent from the youngest and soon most important theologian of the European Protestantism to the aging father of the German Reformation and which tragically was send back to Geneva unopened, is the touching document of a deep connection and a unmoveable trust that a personal conversation with Luther could find a way out of the disputes about the Lord’s Supper. The letter documents Calvin’s trust in the unity of the Reformation as well as the impossibility of giving this trust an empiric shape. Calvin never courted Luther’s favour; he also never flattered him – as he stressed in his contact with Bullinger96 – but maintained his freedom against the Wittenberger. But in his freedom he acknowledged Luther’s outstanding historic importance as an “apostle of Christ”, who renewed the purity of the gospel in his time through his work and his service. 97 Despite his clear 90 On Calvin’s struggle against Nicodemism cf. the introduction to the Epistolae Duae (1537), in: CSA 1.2, 263ff; and on Calvin’s written apology: 1544 [1543], in: CSA 3, 209ff. 91 Cf. WABr 11, 28,10ff; 28,27ff. 92 WABr 11, 28,15–22. 93 WABr 11, 28,5. 94 “[…] ut sententiam tuam paucis verbis rescribas.” WABr 11, 28,32; “sed, quae tua est aequitas, cum non nisi necessitate coactus id faciam, veniam te mihi daturum confido.” 28,34– 29,35. 95 “Utianm isthuc mihi, quo saltem ad paucas horas tuo congressu fruerer, liceret advolare! Mallem enim et longe praestaret, non de hac quaestione modo, sed de aliis etiam coram tecum agere. Verum, quod hic in terris non datur, brevi, ut spero, in regno Dei nobis continget.” WABr 11, 29,35–39. 96 Calvin to Bullinger 21.1.1549, CO 13 (CR 41), 164–166; Schwarz II, Nr. 255, 447f. 97 See n. 68. Somewhat instructive is the comparison, employed vis-à-vis Farel, between Zwingli and Luther (26.2.1540: “[…] nam si inter se comparantur [sc. Luther und Calvin], scis

Thomas Kaufmann

167

theological criticism of the Wittenberger in single matters, Calvin defended Luther even against critical voices within of his own camp. Calvin’s own independence against Luther was also a main reason for his disapproval of Bucer’s partly hazy, dissimulating diplomacy in theology98 , which was leaning towards a hiding of opposites and a strategic adaptation to Luther 99 – in spite of all openness for communication in the question about the Lord’s Supper. “I would love nothing better than if Luther was willing to accept us with our confession”, he informed Bucer, “but he is not the only respectable person in God’s church.[…] What I am supposed to think of Luther, I don’t know, although I am convinced of his true piety.[…]”. 100 He didn’t hide neither his astonishment about Luther’s Christology nor about Brenz’s Ubiquitätslehre. 101 ipse quanto intervallo Lutherus excellat.” CO 11 (CR 39), 23–26, here: 24; Schwarz I, Nr. 45, 140–142, here: 140), which itself judged against an especially prevalent veneration of Zwingli in Zürich: “The good people [in Zürich] immediately burn with anger, when one boasts about preferring their Zwingli to Luther. As if the Gospel would founder if Zwingli disappeared! And indeed Zwingli is not served the least injustice in this; for you yourself know how much Luther outshines him, when one compares the two.” Cit. in Schwarz I, 140; cf. the positive appraisal of Oekolampad over against that of Zwingli in: MBW 4, Nr. 3803. 98 Cp. with my interpretation of Bucer’s role in the early Lord’s Supper controversy: Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie; various contributions offer a clearly different view of the matter in the volume: Martin Bucer zwischen Zwingli und Luther, as n. 16, therein especially Reinhold Friedrich (Ein Streit um Worte? Bucers Position in der Abendmahlsfrage im Jahr 1530, aaO, 49– 65). In his dissertation (Martin Bucer – “Fanatiker der Einheit”? Seine Stellungnahmen zu theologischen Fragen seiner Zeit, Diss. Theol. masch. Neuchatel 1989 [printed: Bonn 2002]) Friedrich had already taken the matter here-restated for granted, unfortunately however without any interaction with my findings and hypotheses for reconstruction. 99 Cf. Calvin’s letter to Bucer from 12.1.1538, CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 137–144, esp. 138f; Schwarz I, Nr. 15, 58–64, esp. 58f. 100 Cit. according to Schwarz I, 59. 101 Cf. to some extent a.a.O., 58f; Calvin to Bucer Oktober 1549 (CO 13 [CR 41], 437–440, here: 439; Schwarz II, Nr. 282, 495–497, here: 497). In a letter to the interim refugee Bucer, already situated in English exile, Calvin emphasized [Okt. 1549] that against Luther’s statement about the ‘adorable sacrament’ (see above n. 25; 67; CO 13 [CR 41], 439; cf. CO 15 [CR 43], 305), which again conjures up idolatry, the separations rehearsed in the Consensus Tigurinus (cf. CSA 4, 1ff; cf. CSA 4, 27,25ff with n. 25) were necessary, cf. CO 13 (CR 41), 437ff; Schwarz II, Nr. 282, 495–497, here: 497. In the context of his controversy with Westphal, Calvin expressed in opposition to Vermigli, that he was not content with Bucer’s mediating activity in the question about the Lord’s Supper: “For Butzer acts in order to soften the defiance of Luther and his kind, with the cost of such subservience, that he remains entirely unclear in particular words. Another reason that compelled him to avoid given expressions was that he, not completely candidly, wanted to hide the disgrace of his earlier, unwise utterances, as he himself often had to hear it from me.” Calvin to Vermigli 18.1.1555, CO 15 (CR 43), 386–389, here: 386; Schwarz II, Nr. 433, 740–743, here: 741. Calvin’s view of the matter is by the way an argument in favor of my interpretation of Bucer’s role in the early Lord’s Supper conflict, and against the strongly leveled view of Bucer’s conduct before and after 1528, held previously by Walther Köhler, today Reinhold Friedrich and others (see n. 98), something I was not formerly sufficiently aware of. Calvin found fault with Bucer over this, that he wanted to partially ‘save’ Zwingli’s, in his view, definitively false

168

Luther and Calvin

He certainly agreed with Bucer that differences in customs weren’t a reason to cut themselves off from Luther 102 ; but for Calvin it was also an undisputable fact that you had to look to Wittenberg to know who to blame for the new escalation of the argument about the Lord’s Supper after Luther’s “short proclamation”. 103 He wrote to Melanchthon – just shortly after his unopened letter to Luther came back to Geneva: “the Zurich’s started worse; but to what lengths will your Pericles himself be carried away in his immeasurable flashing anger? […] At least I, as someone honouring him from my heart, feel deeply embarrassed for him. But the worst is, nobody dares to oppose him, not even to raise a hand. We all owe him a lot, I have to admit. But I would happily call him the highest authority, if he were just able to keep his temper”. 104 The intemperance of the bullnecked God-barbarian from Saxony soured Calvin’s loyalty, for he was deeply convinced of the disintegrating effect of Luther’s polemic and the advantage that Rome would gain from it. By comparing the Lutherans with Paul’s opponents in Jerusalem, he acknowledged on the one hand the fact that the gospel once started going out from Jerusalem/Wittenberg, but stressed on the other hand that the youngest representatives in Wittenberg fell far short of the greatness of the arch apostle, were causing trouble, and weren’t liked more from Luther than from Calvin himself. 105 Especially because Calvin saw Luther as “naturally inclined to being carried away by passion”106 , the connection to him and the theology of the Lord’s Supper through convoluted, round about interpretations; Calvin to Zebedée 19.5.1539, CO 10/2 (CR 38/2), 344–347, here: 345f; Schwarz I, Nr. 36, 116–118, here: 117. Regarding Brenz there were however convergences concerning behavior toward the interim (Calvin to Bullinger 21.1.1549, CO 13 [CR 41], 164–166; Schwarz II, Nr. 457f), whereas Calvin held Amsdorf as a ‘mistake’, irrespective of both clear-cut refusals of the interim (CO 13 [CR 41], 439). 102 April 1539, Calvin to Farel with reference to a conversation with Melanchthon over ceremonial differences, CO 10/2 (CR38/2), 330–332, here: 331; Schwarz I, Nr. 35, 112–116, here: 115. 103 Calvin to Farel 10.10.1545; CO 11 (CR 39), 754f; Schwarz I, Nr. 118, 279f. 104 28.6.1545, Calvin to Melanchthon, CO 12 (CR 40), 98–100; MBW 4, Nr. 3928; German translation according to Schwarz I, Nr. 135, 308f, here: 308. 105 Calvin to the pastor of Mömpelgard, 8.5.1544; CO 11 (CR 39), 704–708, here: 705; Schwarz I, Nr. 113, 270–273, here: 270; on the Wittenberg-Jerusalem comparison in outline see also Calvin to M. Schenk (Augsburg) 22.4.1560, CO 18 (CR 46), 61f, here: 61; Schwarz III, Nr. 621, 1054f, here: 1054. 106 Calvin to the pastors in Zürich, 13.11.1554; CO 15 (CR 43), 303–307, here: 305: “Sed quum videbam hominem [sc. Luther] nativa alioqui intemperie elatum tales spumes evomere, prout aliunde erat impulsus, sepultis illis contentionibus, sumpsi quod ad pacem aptius erat.” Schwarz II, Nr. 422, 720–722, here: 721. But in the same writings Calvin refers to the context of the Worms Colloquy, that the margrave of Baden had sent to Luther modifications to the articles of the Lord’s Supper in the CA made by Melanchthon, in order to bring him out against the highland Germans (Oberdeutschen). “And there Luther gave for once in his life an example of temperance, in that he let this traitor [the envoy, a prince from Anhalt] slip away and in fact voluntarily

Thomas Kaufmann

169

parroting Lutheran berserkers wasn’t supposed to be influenced by intemperance from his side. The incredible qualitative distance, which Calvin sensed between Luther and his followers, made it possible for him to keep himself to Luther against the Lutherans and to integrate the Wittenberger Reformer into his universal perspective of the history of theology: Luther had stormed the fortress of popish tyranny and made popery shake107 ; if he was alive, whose temperament was to be rebuked, but whose merits were still far preferable to the ones of those 108 , who called themselves to be his followers, the deep crevice that was formed in many controversies with Luther’s “monkeys”109 , could have been avoided. Luther’s decisive services, which were always remembered from the faith-exile of Geneva in all the struggles within the Reformation, were the facts which started the decline of the organised kingdom of the popish devil, are seen as the first the glow of the gospel and as such pushed open the door to salvation and that he, who only wanted to heal and improve, step by step realised that only a “ab radice”, i.e. a radical Reformation was able to renew the church.110

4. Calvin mediated the consciousness that the light of the gospel started shining again through Luther after centuries of popish darkness, to the reforrevealed to us his evil designs.” A.a.O., 722; on Calvin with respect to the Worms Colloquy cf. Ganzer, K./Mühlen, K.-H. zur (eds.), Akten der deutschen Religionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert: Zweiter Band: Das Wormser Religionsgespräch (1540/41), 2 Bd.e, Göttingen 2002 (Calvin in the index); similarly, there is a citation of Luther’s forbearance concerning Marbach in Straßburg 25.8.1554, CO 15 (CR 43), 211–214, here: 212f; Schwarz II, Nr. 409, 701–703, here: 702; in August 1554 (Calvin to Melanchthon 27.8.1554; CO 15, 215–217; MBW 7, Nr. 7273; Schwarz II, Nr. 411, 705) Calvin appealed to Melanchthon to say that that above all Luther had struggled his entire life to leave the sacraments to their effectuality. But he safeguarded exactly this, so that Calvin can present himself as nothing less than the one who sustains Luther’s decisive intention in his sacramental teachings; cf. also Calvin to M. Schalling 25.3.1557, CO 16 (CR 44), 428–431; Schwarz III, Nr. 522, 883–885. 107 Calvin, dedicatory preface to the commentary on the Catholic letters to Eduard VI of England; CO 14 (CR 42), 30–37, here: 31: “Res quidem hactenus clara ac testata fuit, ex quo labefactari coepit a Luthero, quotquot illam tyrannidis arcem occuparunt […].” Cf. Schwarz II, Nr. 311, 542–550, here: 543. 108 Calvin to M. Sidemann (Erfurt), 14.3.1555; CO 15 (CR 43), 501f; Schwarz II, Nr. 444, 764. 109 Cf. just: CO 15 (CR 43), 384; CO 18 (CR 46), 62; CO 18 (CR 46), 84; CO 20 (CR 48), 76. 110 Cf. esp.: Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii adversus calumnia Alberti Pighii (1543), CO 6 (CR 34), 225–404, see above n. 86.

170

Luther and Calvin

med churches which he created, which were able to survive with the help of his theology, and even received a impressive, expansive power to live. He held himself to Luther more than any other leading theologian of the forming, reformed Protestantism and stressed the facts that connected him with Luther within the main basic decisions of reformed theology more than the moments of separation, that he still knew of in all their sharpness. He kept himself to Luther against all theologian party liners and maintained the common frontier against Rome in all the dynamics of denominalisation. From the perspective of the enclosed West European Protestantism that formed the French exile all his life, the commonalities of Reformation seemed to be more important than the denominationally dividing, which were gaining more and more central importance especially in the empire. Considering Calvin and his effects on Europe it becomes questionable if the relatively plausible denominational model as a concept of interpretation in German history has the same striking force for the European history of Premodernity. 111 Calvin’s intellectual independence and inner freedom from Luther was so far beyond the measurement of the self-reliance that was aimed for and reached by the so-called Luther-students where the Wittenberger Reformer was concerned, that it would rather lead to misunderstanding than explanation to call Calvin a “student of Luther”. Certainly his life’s work didn’t serve any other Reformation that the one that took its beginning in Luther 112 : the one Reformation in the diversity of its different shapes and cultural formations, the contradictions of its theolo111 Insofar as it is possibly not just an expression of ignorance about the Konfessionalisierungsforschung, when the volume by Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke and Gillian Lewis: Calvinism in Europe 1540–1620, Cambridge 1994, foregoes a discussion of paradigms of confessionalism. For Heinz Schilling Calvin was nevertheless that theologian, who in comparison with Luther, Loyola, Zwingli, and others “institutionally and theologically has laid the most sustainable basis for a comprehensive influence on the academy in the spirit of modern confessionalism and his standards of thought and behavior.” Luther, Loyola, Calvin und die europäische Neuzeit, in: ARG 85, 1994, 5–34, here: 24f. On the discussion of confessionalism in regard to the Reformation era cf.. Strohm, Chr., Ethik im frühen Calvinismus [AKG 65], Berlin and others 1996, as well as Heinz Schilling’s dispute with Bodo Nischan, in: Nochmals “Zweite Reformation” in Deutschland, in: ZHF 23, 1996, 501–524. 112 Against the triple-layered beginning of early modern European religious history framed in the perspective of religious-social history by Heinz Schilling (Am Anfang war Luther, Loyola und Calvin – ein religionssoziologisch-entwicklungsgeschichtlicher Vergleich [1993], in: the same., Ausgewählte Abhandlungen zur europäischen Reformations- und Konfessionsgeschichte [Historische Forschungen 75], Berlin 2002, 3–10), but also against the new presentation of Reformation history situated in the 1495 Reichsreform by Helga Schnabel-Schüle (Die Reformation 1495– 1555, Reclam 17048, Stuttgart 2006), I take it as a matter of imperative fact on ecclesial- theological- and general-historical grounds that the process of the Reformation in its essence developed from Luther forward; cf. exemplarily for the time being: Kaufmann, Th., Vorreformatorische Laienbibel und reformatorisches Evangelium, in: ZThK 101, 2004, 138–174.

Thomas Kaufmann

171

gies and organisational forms, the distinctions in the development of confessions, its theories on politics and society, the one Reformation in the openness of its historic contexts and the diversity of its concretions. A historic conception, which would begin a different, second Reformation with Calvin after the first, Luther’s, could refer undoubtedly to Luther’s “monkeys” but hardly to Calvin. As longs as one wants to grant the term Reformation in the future a specific historiographical meaning, one should decline it in the singular: Luther and Calvin – one reformation.

Calvin and à Lasco: A Comparative Study of Two Ecclesiastical Ordinances

Akira Demura

1. Preliminary GLAUKAS EIS ATHENAS (Ululas Athenas; Owls to Athens) – Erasmus in his Adages refers to “stupid traders who transport their wares to a place where they are more abundant anyway”. 1 In his Annotation, Erasmus further comments that the metaphor fits better to the things of the mind: “soand-so teaches a man wiser than himself”. 2 Hence, the stupidity, audacity, or even worse, the impertinence of taking à Lasco to Emden – all the way from the Far East –, is utterly self-evident. Allow me, therefore, to explain just briefly how I have come to be interested in this Reformer since my student days. The following sketch might coincide also, in a broad sense, with the growing maturity of the Reformation studies in my country, Japan. My first acquaintance with the name of this Reformer goes back to the time when I was working on my thesis in the Tokyo Union Theological Seminary (Th.M., 1959) with the overall interest in the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Geneva, in which I have remained ever since then.3 I happened to find Hermann Diem in his Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft making a passing reference to à Lasco, although I could not go any further because of the total lack of primary sources. My second encounter with à Lasco took place in the graduate seminar on the Reformation history conducted by Prof. Roland Bainton at Yale Divinity School (1960–1961), when I was

1 Poll-van de Lisdonk, M.L. van/Phillip, M.M. (eds.), Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, II, 1, Amsterdam et al. 1993, 222–224. Cf. Bainton, R.H., Erasmus of Christendom, New York 1969, 46. Japanese translation by Akira Demura (Tokyo 1971, 2006). 2 Phillip, M.M. (ed.)/Mynors, R.A.B. (ann.), Collected Works of Erasmus, Adages I, 1, Toronto 1982, Vol. I/ii. No. 11, 152f. 3 Demura, A., A Study of ‘Les Ordonnances ecclésiastiques de l’Eglise de Genève’, in: Journal of Theology, Tokyo, Vol. 17 (1959), 119–157. Vol. 18 (1960), 42–88.

Akira Demura

173

assigned a reading report from Petrus Bartels’ a century-old Johannes a Lasco 4 and Hermann Dalton’s Johannes a Lasco. 5 Even then, à Lasco remained only a name for me because I was more interested in Martin Bucer, and soon thereafter, in Johannes Oecolampadius, of whose life and thought a modest dissertation was completed in 1964.6 Recently, I found this thesis roundly reviewed and pungently criticized in Olaf Kuhr’s book, Die Macht des Bannes und der Buße, as utterly insufficient in primary source research and entirely equivocal in conclusion; I shall not try to apologize. 7 I should only be grateful that I had twice the honor of being a seminar leader in this Congress on Oecolampadius, first in Geneva (1982), then in Edinburgh (1994). 8 My third and far more substantial encounter with à Lasco happened in the archives of the Eden Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., in the summer of 1982, when I came across a handwritten copy of the London Ordinances in High German translation. According to the cover pages, a certain lady, who found the original Kirchenordnung by Johann von Lasco (Heidelberg, 1563) in the British Museum, copied the whole book and entrusted it to James I. Good, a famed professor of the history of mission there, so that it be added to their collection (1915), because the seminary had long cherished its Reformed heritage as the descendants of the German immigrants. Later on, I could identify this with the critical edition of Emil Sehling’s Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts. 9 This handwritten text allowed me to acquire the first-hand knowledge of the London Ordinances in its entirety, including à Lasco’s concept of plural ministry as well as his strong emphasis on church discipline, aiming at the purity of the 4 Bartels, P., Johannes a Lasco: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformierten Kirche, Bd. 9. Baum, J.W. et al. (eds.), Elberfeld 1860. 5 Dalton, H., Johannes a Lasco: Beitrag zur Reformationsgeschichte Polens, Deutschlands und Englands, Gotha 1881 (reprint: B. de Graaf, Nieuwkoop 1970). Cf. Evans, M.J. (tr.), John à Lasco: his early life and labours: his contribution to the history of the Reformation in Poland, Germany, and England, London 1886. 6 Demura, A., Church Discipline according to Johannes Oecolampadius in the Setting of his Life and Thought, Princeton 1964; unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 352ff; later to be expanded and published in Japanese as A Study of the Swiss Reformation, Tokyo 1971, 1983, 2005, 455ff. 7 Kuhr, O., Die Macht des Bannes und der Buße: Kirchenzucht und Erneuerung der Kirche bei Johannes Oekolampad (1482–1531), in: Rudolf, D./Ulrich, G. (eds.), Basler und Berner Studien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie, Bd. 68, Bern et al. 1999. See especially 19ff. 8 Demura, A., Calvin’s and Oecolampadius’ Concept of Church Discipline, in: Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custodus: Die Referate des Internationalen Kongresses für Calvinforschung vom 6. bis 9. September 1982 in Genf, Frankfurt a. M. 1984, 187–189. Ibid., Two Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans: Calvin and Oecolampadius, in: Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Proceedings of the VI. International Congress on Calvin Research, Edinburgh Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Vol. XXXVI, Kirkville 1997, 165–188. 9 Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Bd. VII/2. Sehling, E. (ed.), Niedersachsen II.Hälfte. Die außerwelfischen Lande l. Halbband, Tübingen 1963.

174

Calvin and à Lasco

Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper under the alert supervision of the collaborating preachers and lay elders. My fifty-page essay (1983–1984) was, most likely, the very first to introduce the name of Jan Laski and his London Ordinances to Japanese readers. 10 Since then, nonetheless, I have had no opportunity to work on à Lasco any further primarily because I busied myself, for more than 20 years, co-editing, translating, and annotating the 15volume Corpus Reformatorum Japonicum (Writings of the Reformers in Japanese) 11 , so to speak, in which an attempt was made to cover, as comprehensively as possible, the Protestant reformation as well as the Catholic and Radical reformations.

2. Some Characteristics of the London Ordinances So much for my own personal experiences with à Lasco, I would now come to the main part of this paper. In view of the staggering amount of the preceding accomplishments on à Lasco and his reform endeavors, during the last two decades, in particular, there seems very little, or practically nothing, left to be added to. The reprint of the nineteenth century Herman Dalton’s old biography (1970), or the German translation of Oskar Bartel’s work 12 may reflect the continuing interest in this Polish Reformer, while the establishment of this Bibliothek, with a wide range of publications and activities, is a telling testimony to the importance of this Reformer. Candidly, it is by no means easy, for a Far Easterner, even just to keep up with these new publications, such as Johannes a Lasco: Polnischer Baron, Humanist und europäischer Reformator 13 , capably edited by Prof. Christoph 10 Demura, A., Jan Laski and the ‘London Ordinances,’ I, in: The Bulletin of Tohoku Gakuin University [Church and Theology], Vol. 15 (1984), 219–240. Ibid., II, Vol. 16. (1985), 121– 146. 11 Demura A., et al. (eds. & trs.), Tokyo 1983–2003. En passant, a brief note on the present stage of the Reformation studies in Japan may be in order here. In spite of a rather commendatory reference made by Prof. Wilhelm Neuser, on the occasion of the last Calvin Congress in Princeton, that “in Korea as well as in Japan numerous up-and-coming researchers […] are already playing an important role,” such major publications as M. Morii’s Jean Calvin – A Destiny, 2005; Y. Akagi’s The Eucharistic Teaching of the Reformers, 2005; N. Watanabe’s A History of the Protestant Doctrines, 2006; or my own An Outline History of the Reformation, 2006, are still by the hands of senior generation. Cf. Morita, Y., Japanische Geschichtsschreibung zur schweizerischen Reformation. Eine Auswahlbibliographie, in: Zwingliana Bd. XXVI (1999), 99–134. 12 Bartel, O., Jan Laski: Leben und Werk des polnischen Reformators (Arnold Starke übers.), Berlin 1964, 1981. 13 Strohm, C. (ed.), Johannes à Lasco (1499–1560). Polnischer Baron, Humanist und europäischer Reformator: Beiträge zum internationalen Symposium vom 14.–17. Oktober 1999 in der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek Emden, Tübingen 2000.

Akira Demura

175

Strohm, or a fine compilement, Johannes a Lasco: ein Leben in Büchern und Briefen 14 , and Johannes a Lasco in Ostfriesland both by Henning Jürgens. 15 Such highly specialized studies as Dirk Rodgers’ John à Lasco in England 16 or Andrew Petegree’s Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London 17 are but few examples of à Lasco researches in the English language. The detailed and informative introduction by Annelise Sprengler-Ruppental to Emil Sehling’s Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen 18 provides the basis for all other later researches, of course. In spite of the grandiloquent tone of my presentation, a comparative study, I would rather concentrate my attention only on the problem of the mode of administering of and participating in the Lord’s Supper both in Geneva and other Continental Reformed cities in comparison with à Lasco’s London refugee congregation chiefly because of the restriction in time and space and, of course, partly because of my handicap in the exposure to the primary sources. More positively, however, with the Japanese church situation behind me, namely, the problem of the so-called open, or more properly, free communion, that is, the participation in the Eucharist of yet unbaptized church attendants (seekers, if one may call them so), now seems to be one of the burning issues of the United Church of Christ in Japan, under an apparently creditable protestation against the ostensible discrimination or segregation, although the UCC-J Constitutions and Ordinances quite explicitly eliminate such deviations, much less the administration of the sacraments by those preachers who have been licensed but not yet ordained. 19 Needless to say that this problem of admitting the unbaptized to the Lord’s Table is in no way peculiar to Japan or to the so-called younger churches but is definitely so universal at this age of inter-religion dialogues and encounters. Apart from those contemporary complications, the distinctive facets of à Lasco’s London Ordinances appear to be obvious. The closedness of the communion is taken for granted, all too naturally. The prescribed stages of examining and screening the participants epitomize this closedness. The 14 Jürgens, H.P. (ed.), Johannes a Lasco. Ein Leben in Büchern und Briefen. Eine Ausstellung der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek vom 15.10. bis 28.11.1999, in: Veröffentlichungen der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek Grosse Kirche Emden I, 1999. 15 Jürgens, H.P., Johannes a Lasco in Ostfriesland: Der Werdegang eines europäischen Reformators, in: Spätmittelalter und Reformation, Neue Reihe 18, Tübingen 2002. 16 Rodgers, D.W., John à Lasco in England, in: American University Studies, Series VII. Theology and Religion Vol. 168, New York et al., 1994. 17 Pettegree, A., Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth Century London, in: Oxford Historical Monographs, Oxford 1986. Cf. Ibid., Emden and the Dutch Revolt: Exile and the Development of Reformed Protestantism, Oxford 1992. 18 Sehling, E., Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen, 307–359, 552–578. 19 Fukuin to Sekai [The Gospel and the World], Tokyo 2005, Vol. 61, No. 1.

176

Calvin and à Lasco

process begins with the formal announcement two weeks ahead of the actual administration and with the public examination and the exhortation by means of forty some catechetical questions-and-answers: it ends up with the signing of the desiring participants in front of the entire congregation. Another special service on Saturday afternoon before the communion day finalizes the process with the formal promulgation of those who had been excommunicated. 20 Then comes the communion day. The congregation gathers together as early as at eight o’clock in the morning. I shall come back later, in somewhat greater detail, to the modes and manners of the communion service itself. Here, I would only parenthetically point out the differences between Geneva and London. We know that Calvin’s original proposal (both in the 1537 draft Articles and in the 1541/1560–1561 Ordonnances) of frequent administration of the Lord’s Supper ended up, for reason of unavoidable concessions, in the monthly celebration rotating among three or four parish churches in the city, whereas there were no such alternatives for the London refugee congregation.21 This can, of course, be explained, partly, by the difference in the size of the congregation. Geneva with its population of roughly 10,000 to 12,000 could never be competitive in terms of the exhaustiveness for meticulous preparations, the London refugee congregation numbering less than 1,000 at the most 22 , not to mention their clear sense of commitment to their confessional position. What Calvin had to carry on his shoulders was exactly the socioreligious reality of the sixteenth century reformed city state, namely, the prevailing concept of coextensiveness or coterminousness, of two powers, the relation of which he later defined as “coniointes et inseparables”, yet 20 Summarized from: Joannis a Lasco Opera tam edita quam inedita. Duobus voluminibus comprehensa, (ed. Abraham Kuyper), Amsterdam 1866, Volumen II. Rodgers, John à Lasco. Spinks, B.D., From the Lord and “The BestReformed Churches”: A Study of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the English Puritan and Separatist Traditions 1550–1633, Vol. I, Roma 1984. See especially the English translation of the related sections by Lane, D.G.: John à Lasco’s ‘Forma ac Ratio’ 1555, 157–176. 21 Elsie A. McKee very persuasively proves that, although the Genevan parishioners enjoyed the liberty of attending any chapel to hear sermons, they “were bound to their home parishes” when they took part in the Lord’s Supper.; Calvin and His Colleagues as Pastors: Some New Insights into the Collegial Ministry of Word and Sacraments, in: Selderhuis, Herman J. (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research Princeton, August 20–24, 2002, Genève 2004, 9ff. See especially, 22. 22 Diarmaid MacCulloch estimates the total number of à Lasco’s two Foreigners congregations as roughly 5,000; The importance of Jan Laski in the English Reformation, in: Strohm (ed.), Johannes a Lasco, 315–345, especially, 323. Pettegree assumes the same number as the entire German-speaking refugees residing in London, whereas the active and regularly attending members amounted between 600 and 800 (Foreign Protestant Communities, 24, 77). According to Pettegree, the number of those who first registered their names as aspirants after the communion was 489, including 135 female members; by 1553, the total number almost doubled.

Akira Demura

177

“ne sont point confuses,” but “discerné l’un avec l’autre”23 , although this remained, fundamentally, an ideal hardly to be realized. In contrast, founded certainly by the royal sanction of the English establishment, the Foreigners Church was situated at the farthest extreme from the civil control. In one word, à Lasco could enjoy the freedom to substantiate whatever he regarded as the restoration of the Apostolic purity. These precommunion preparations far exceeded the demands of any other magisterial reformers. 24 From here on, I try to summarize, either in original Forma ac Ratio or in its partial translations (German, Dutch or English) what is prescribed concerning the manner of eucharistic distribution and participation (Coenae ceremonia ad hunc modum) in the Cathedral of the Friars Church. 25 There stands the communion table, covered by a clean linen table cloth, at the center of which are placed four glasses filled with wine as well as three pewter plates. On one of the plates is placed the roughly cut (“in breite schnidten”; “in breide stucken te voeren ghesneden”) white house bread (“das weisse haussbrot”; “witte huysbroot”), from which the rest of the two are to be filled with the bread broken by the hand of the administrating minister (Ecclesiast). After a one-hour sermon which is focused on the explication of the mystery of the Supper and another final exhortation to the purity of life and doctrine, the minister comes down from the pulpit to take seat at the center of the communion table, with other ministers of the Word, elders and deacons sitting around the table without anyone in front of the minister so that “at all times he can be easily seen and heard by the whole congregation” in the pews. The following are somewhat abridged quotations from Lane’s translation in Bryan D. Spinks’ From the Lord and “The Best Reformed Churches”. 26 In the sight of the whole congregation the Minister takes bread into his hand from the larger plate which is full of bread, and […] says in a loud voice and with clear words, “The bread which we break is a sharing in the body of Christ”. […] he breaks the bread […] until he has filled both smaller plates […] with the bread so broken, as much as is sufficient for one sitting at the table […]. Meanwhile four cups, […] are filled with wine and two are put on each side of the smaller plates […] the Minister distributes one at a time the now broken break, […] to those sitting next to him on

23 Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta II, 362. 24 Rodgers, John à Lasco, 72. 25 Joannis a Lasco Opera, 114ff. “Ritus Coenae Dominicae in Ecclesia peregrinorum Londini”. Cf. Micron, M., De christlicke ordinancien der nederlantscher ghemeinten te London (1554), in: Dankbaar, W.F. (ed.), Kerkhistorische Studien behorende bij het Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis …, Deel VII, 95ff. “Wat up den dach des Nachtmaels ghedaen werdt. Cap. 18”. 26 Spinks, From the Lord …, especially 157–173. Forma ac Ratio in: Joannis a Lasco Opera, 81ff, 159ff.

178

Calvin and à Lasco

either side […]. At the same time the Minister himself too takes and eats a piece of bread and then passes the smaller plates with the broken bread to the ends of the table on either side, […] When the Minister sees that all the table have eaten of the bread, he takes a cup into his hand and then says in a loud voice, “The cup of blessing […] is a sharing in the blood of Christ”. […] Then giving two cups to either side, he says. “Take, drink and remember that the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ was for us poured out upon the beam of the cross for the remission of all our sins”. […] the Minister himself drinks from one of them, and then all the others at the table […] until everyone has drunk. When everyone at that sitting has drunk, all rise from the table, except only the Minister […] to administer the Supper to all the rest of the congregation […] While this [6th Chapter of the Gospel according to John] is being read, the congregation comes to the Lord’s table from both sides of the church and from the ends of the table to its middle come up on either side of the table until the whole table is full, first the men and in their due order, then the women.

The quotation may have been all too lengthy. My sole point lies in emphasizing à Lasco’s almost stubborn insistence upon, or to borrow MacCulloch’s expression, his “preoccupation with” 27 sitting around the Lord’s Table, which he regarded as the only authentically reformed mode of distributing the Lord’s Supper after the pattern of the Apostolic purity (“puritatem Apostolicam et Christi exemplum”). 28 It is not that à Lasco denies other three possible basic patterns of participating in the sacrament: standing, bended knees, and walking.29 Without denying the validity and relevance of each mode, however, he persistently maintains the meaningfulness of “accumbere” because “without any controversy, Christ had instituted his coena ‘accumbentibus’ with his Apostles”. 30 According to à Lasco, time and place may not have been definite; yet the mode itself (“actio ipsa”) was ascertained. While we discuss the historical precedents of this mode (“panis et poculi distributione et participatione mensae accumbimus”), we may recognize an illustration of à Lasco’s hermeneutical principles. It was natural that this kind of literalism was felt by Thomas Cranmer, e.g., as similar to that of the sectarian Biblicism. In a 27 MacCulloch, The importance of Jan Laski, 333. 28 Forma ac Ratio, 115. “Postremo id dedimus operam, ut ad puritatem Apostolicam et Christi Domini exemplum in Coenae suae administratione quam proxime accederemus, quod equidem nostri esse officii putavimus, …” 29 Forma ac Ratio, 116–118. “Genuflexioni ac stationi, denique et ambulationi” (116); “in statione neque in genuflexione neque etiam in ambulatione” (117); “aut stationem genuflexionem aut ambulationem” (118). 30 Forma ac Ratio, 117. “Cumque satis constet ex historica Euangelistarum narratione, Christum Dominum exemplo nobis […] suo consessum seu accubitum in Coenae suae actione commendasse, […] Imo vero cum in typica illa agni olim Paschalis coena existimandum non est, ullam omnino actionem observatam fuisse, quae non suum aliquod et quidem minime contemnendum mysterium haberet.”

Akira Demura

179

broader historical context, the manner of the reception in Eucharist was, at this very point of 1551, one of the most urgent issues in the councils at Trent or Augsburg, needless to add the domestic efforts towards the liturgical uniformity within the Anglican establishment.

3. Precedents of the “Seated Communion” A great deal of study has been made as to the origins and theological ratiocinations of the seated communion so strongly propounded by à Lasco in the London Ordinances. The introductory analysis of Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen 31 quotes the cases of Aquilomontanus(1489–1548) at the congregation of Borssum, where, already in the year 1531, the quarterly celebration was observed “ad mensam accedunt,” to cite only one example. In a rather old research, J. Weerda refers to such cases as Aportanus in Emden or Rese in Norden, already as early as in 1528–1530, when the altar had been removed and, instead, a table was set where the participants presumably (“vermutlich”) sat to take white bread, instead of hostia, into their own hands. 32 In sharp contrast, there can be found no reference to the seated communion in the documents related to the city of Emden, such as the Ordinances of the year 1529 or even of 1535, when à Lasco had already been appointed as Superintendent. 33 To be more particular, in the latter, the congregation is prescribed to gather together in the choir and quietly bend the knees (“ordentlich knylen”) and receive unleavened bread. It is explicitly enjoined that “se na eygener gudtdunkelheit an eynen discke sick setten und hussbacken broet”. 34 There is not the slightest doubt that à Lasco himself, at this point, acquiesced in this injunction of the local ordinances, thus receiving the elements on his knees. The sixth article of the 1535 Eastfriesland Ordinances makes it clear that there should be no drastic changes in this matter. 35 It is obvious that changes had yet to come. In addition, fifty years later, in the Emden Ordinances of 1594, this manner of seated communion 31 On Aportanus, Sehling, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen, 315; on Aquilomontanus, 340. 32 Weerda, J., Entstehung und Entwicklung der Gottesdienstordnungen der reformierten Kirche in Emden, 1956, 17–47. 33 Sehling, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen, “Kirchenordnung 1529”, 360ff; “Kirchenordungen 1535”, 373ff. 34 Ibid., 377. Anmerkung, 50. 35 Ibid., 393ff. “Welcke dat hoichwerdige sacrament des lives und blodes Christi Jesu, wan desulvige im aventmael nach dem bevele Christi gehandelt weerden, slicht broet und wyn efte noch vorachtliker ein gebacken brodt und dergeliken spottlick noemen” (394).

180

Calvin and à Lasco

does not appear either, because, though the congregation certainly did come to the Lord’s Table, they would receive the elements standing.36 We now take up very briefly the parallel cases both in Geneva and Zürich. In Calvin’s Geneva, La Forme des priers et chantz ecclesiastiques, sanctioned in 1559, directs as follows: “while the minister distributes the bread and the wine, the congregation is advised to go ‘there’ with reverence and in good order”. 37 According to the annotation by the editors of OS, here ‘y’ indicates, in the 1545 version, explicitly “a la saincte table” 38 , although there is no allusion as to the type of bread or the manner to receive the elements: statio, genuflexio, or ambulatio. I would very much like to learn the recent findings of the archival researches that would shed light on these points. Contrarily, in Zürich it is certain that the congregation remained in their pews, sitting. It is not likely that they stood up, one after other, when they received the elements which were carried by the designated servers and were to be received by the communicants. 39 James F. White, in his Protestant Worship endorses this assumption: “there was no avoiding communion, for the bread and wine were carried about to the people in the pews, where each broke off a piece of bread and then drank from the cup”. 40 The tentative conclusion is that, except for a few scattered and rather insignificant preceding cases on the Continent, particularly in East Friesland, seated communion was, without doubt, one of the most palpable and unique characteristics of the London Ordinances, because it was the visible sign of “à Lasco’s determination to return to the pure model of the apostolic church and the practicality which runs through the whole order,” to borrow the words of Petegree. 41 Sarcasm could, of course, be made, as Thomas Cranmer did, in this case, however, more directly to John Knox, who insisted: whatever is not commanded in the scripture, is against the scripture and 36 Ibid., 494ff. 37 Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta II, 49. “Ce fait, les Ministres distribuent le pain et le Calice au peuple, Ayant adverty qu’on y vienne avec reverence et par bon ordre et modestie Chrestienne, il reçoit le premier le pain et le vin, puis le donne au Diacre et consequemment à toute l’Eglise, […]”. 38 Loc. cit., note (e). 39 Egli, E. et al. (eds.), Huldrich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, Bd. IV, München, Nr.51. “Action oder bruch des nachtmals, gedechtnus oder dancksagung Christi, wie sy uff osteren zu Zürich angehebt wirt im jar 1525”, 23. “Demnach tragind die verordneten diener das ungeheble [ungesäuertes] brot harumb, und nemme eyn yetlicher glöubiger mit siner eygnen hand einen bitz oder mundvol darvon, oder lasß im dasselbig bieten durch den diener, der das brot harumb treit. Und so die mit dem brot so vil vorggangen sind, das ein yeder sin stücklin gessen habe, so gangind die anderen diener mit dem tranck hinnach, und gäbind glycherwyß einem yetlicken ze trincken”. 40 White, J.F., Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition, Louisville, London et al. 1989, 58ff. 41 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, 60.

Akira Demura

181

utterly unlawful and ungodly.42 This was exactly the chief ground of the errors of the Anabaptists and of diverse other sects. The radical pursuance of this kind of literalist sola scriptura scripta principle might lead to the conclusion that one should sit or lie down on the floor in the communion, since it was ascertained to have been the prevailing custom of the first century Mediterranean world. In full recognition that the question of “statio”, “genuflexio”, “ambulatio”, or “accumbatio” is no more than adiaphora, at least, to our contemporary eyes, à Lasco’s seriousness and persistence in this matter may justify our further inquiry. A Lasco’s almost impassioned commitment to the sitting is succinctly vindicated in Martin Micronius’ High German translation (Microns Ordinancien, 1554 43 ) on the following bases. When we sit together at the table (“das gemein zusammensitzen an den tisch”), although we do not condemn other Christian communities, we propound it as following the example of Christ, who ate at one and the same table with his disciples, thus instituting the Supper, because it was fundamentally the festive meal of Passover for the children of Israel. We would follow this example after the manner the Apostles had set forth. It is also the anticipation (“vorbild”) of our future glory in Christ’s kingdom. It does not seem that there is anything particularly illuminating or renovating in this eucharistic theology. It is simply a summary of broadly reformed sacramental understanding. The problem may lie in the practical feasibility of such a pattern of celebration of the Supper: the innumerable repetition of sittings, even though the service begins as early as at eight o’clock in the morning. At first glance, it may appear to be an idealization or a wish projection after the failure of actual realization back in Emden. Except for such small local congregations as Norden and other similar towns, à Lasco had failed to substantiate his ideal even in Emden, the population of which counted something around 3000 according to Jürgens and others. 44 Petrus Bartels goes so far as to say that, in Emden, one had the alternative of kneeling or sitting 45 , which does not seem very probable.46 A Lasco had to concede there to the kneeling reception. In London, in sharp contrast, à Lasco had a free hand. The three years (June 1550–July 1553) 42 MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life, New Haven & London 1996, 526. 43 Sehling, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen, 552ff. Anhang: Die KO der Londoner Fremdlingsgemeinde a Lascos in ihrer verkürzten und deutschen Fassung (Micron Ordinacien), especially, Cap. XIV. “Form des nachtmals”, 614f. 44 Jürgens, Johannes a Lasco in Ostfriesland, 184. About 10 percent of the entire population is supposed to have been converted to Anabaptism under the influence of Melchior Hoffman. The urgency of confronting the sectarian erosion is highly understandable. 45 Bartels, Johannes à Lasco, 142. 46 Sehling, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen, 321.

182

Calvin and à Lasco

with his refugee congregation were the “most successful of his career”. 47 His London congregation was the model or test case or even “a show window” of how far a church could be “restituted” back to the “puritatem Apostolicam […] juxta doctrinam duntaxat atque observationem Apostolicam instituerentur”. 48 As regards the size of the Foreigners Church, historians vary in their estimation. The rough estimate of both Dutch-German speaking and FrenchWaloon speaking congregations may be something between 3000 to 4000 in total during the years of 1550 through 1553, although the regularly attending church members remained considerably less, perhaps, between 600 and 800. The figure itself may not be so astounding. Without the parochial system of any kind, however, the efforts to organize the congregation, scattered so widely in many parts of the city, under his supervision, must have been overwhelming. To return to the present point, in view of the size of the congregation, whatever it may have been, the observance of the seated communion looks to be tantamount to extreme hardship, if not the product of imaginary idealization. Honestly, was it factually and practically feasible? According to Petegree, the Cathedral of Austin Friars was first founded in the year of 1253, at the height of the Franciscan movement. 49 It was remodeled in 1354 to enjoy the status of being the largest and most prominent among the English Friars churches. In this connection, I had a special pleasure of corresponding with the archivist of the present-day Dutch Church, at 7 Austin Friars, London. C. A. Knook’s report is worth quoting here. The Medieval church building which was granted by King Edward VI without the choir and the Transept which were separated by a wall… The inside of the building was destroyed by a fire in 1862 but was then rebuilt. In October 1940, however, the building was totally destroyed by a bomb. The new church which was built on the site is smaller than the old one which had become too large (November 23/ December 12, 2005). 47 Rodgers, John à Lasco, 27. Cf. Kayser, R., Johannes a Lasco und die Londoner Flüchtlingsgemeinde in Hamburg, in: Zeitschrift des Vereins für Hamburgische Geschichte, Bd. XXXVII, Hamburg 1938, 5: “So schuf Lasco die erste ganz staatsfreie evangelische Gemeinde und blieb neben dem Täufertum nicht ohne Einfluss auf den Ursprung der englischen ‘Brownisten’und Kongregationalisten des englischen Puritanertums”. Sebastian Castellio’s failed attempts to have contacts with England, and, if possible, to move there, even before the outbreak of the toleration controversy, may be interpreted from his view on Staatsfreiheit of the London congregation. Cf. Guggisberg, H.R., Sebastian Castellio 1515–1563: Humanist und Verteidiger der religiösen Toleranz im konfessionellem Zeitalter, Göttingen 1997, 58ff. Japanese translation by Akira Demura, Tokyo 2006. 48 Forma ac Ratio, 10 (=Dedication to King Edward VI). 49 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, 36. note 53. Cf. note 24 above.

Akira Demura

183

He also enclosed three postcards of the old church building, which he says are more likely than not dating from after 1862. Knook also sent me a copy of the seating plan of the old church without the date. The seating capacity counts roughly some 1500 excluding those around the pulpit, estimated to be around 200 more. The plan shows a communion table, separated by the rail between the vestries. Knook, however, is not sure whether the table was set at the same place in the 1550’s when the Foreigners Church was at the peak of its activities. His final comment is that they still have communion service sitting at the common table – which is enlarged by tresles and covered by a linen table cloth passing round bread and wine. To conclude: à Lasco’s seated communion was a reality and his description quite faithfully reflects what and how it was or, at least, should have desirably been during his three years in London. His sole concern to consolidate the Abendmahlsgemeinde as the restoration of the Biblical and Apostolic authenticity seems to have been accomplished. Then, the Marian Restoration broke into.

4. The Anabaptist Challenge and Response Quite distinct from Calvin, to whom the notae ecclesiae were two – the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, à Lasco shared the view with Martin Bucer, to be amplified by John Knox and others later, that there are three notae ecclesiae: namely, the Word, Sacraments and Discipline. Since there are numerous studies on à Lasco’s concept of ecclesiastical discipline, including, most recently, Strohm’s 25page essay, Kirchenzucht und Ethik bei a Lasco, 50 in which he takes notice of the regrettable paucity of literature that goes beyond the parallelism and probable influences of Zwingli, Bucer and Calvin. According to Strohm, while à Lasco was still in Emden, he was most heavily influenced by Zwingli, whereas, after his move to London, his fundamental sources for his understanding and practice of church discipline came more from Bucer and/or Calvin. Strohm does not forget to refer to the probable influence of Johannes Oecolampadius upon à Lasco, the possibility which has until now been rather underestimated. To be certain, à Lasco did have personal acquaintance with Oecolampadius during his earlier study years in Basel. Furthermore, it is highly probable that à Lasco had a printed copy of the

50

“Kirchenzucht und Ethik bei a Lasco”, in: Strohm (ed.), Johannes a Lasco, 145–171.

184

Calvin and à Lasco

Basel Reformer’s celebrated address to the city council (“Oratio de reducenda excommunicatione”) of the year 1530. 51 My point in this paper consists neither in reiterating the importance of church discipline for à Lasco nor in tracing its historical and theological backgrounds. These go, so to speak, as a matter of course. There is also unanimity among researchers as regards the importance of the Anabaptist contentions toward the formation of à Lasco’s concept of church discipline. The limitation of time and space does not allow any further description concerning his private debates with the followers of David Joris as well as his public disputations with Menno Simons in the year 1544. 52 It can safely be said that the Reformers’ strong emphasis on the necessity of church discipline for the restitution of the purity of the pristine Christianity be regarded as the interactive response to the Anabaptist criticism of the state churches. In the fall of 1997, on the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of Zwingliverein, I read a short paper (“A Comparative [again!] Study of Zwingli’s Elenchus and Calvin’s Briève instruction” [later, “From Zwingli to Calvin” 53 ]) in which I tried to describe this challenge-and-response interaction, between the reformed state churches and Anabaptism, for the furtherance of church discipline as catalytic or catalyzing in the sense that catalyst material accelerates chemical reactions otherwise improbable while it remains unchanged in itself. Granted that a metaphor is neither more nor less than a metaphor, there is no way to deny that the encounters, either personally, face to face, or by way of literary permeation, between the mag51 Staehelin, E. (bearb.), Briefe und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads. Zum 400-jährigen Jubiläum der Basler Reformation (2 Bde.). Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, Bde. X, XIX, Leipzig 1927, 1934, Nr. 750. II, 448. Cf. Rodgers, John à Lasco, 56ff, 85, note 45. Strohm, Kirchenzucht und Ethik., in: Johannes a Lasco, 157f. Cf. Baker, J.W., Christian Discipline, Church and State, and Toleration: Bullinger, Calvin, and Basel 1530–1555, in: Oberman, H. et al. (eds.), Reformierte Erbe, Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80. Geburtstag, Zwingliana, 19/1, Zürich 1992, 35–48. Baker deals with the conflicts and confrontations among the three cities (Zürich, Geneva and Basel) mainly on predestination and tolerance, therefore, not specifically on discipline. 52 Visser, P., A Lasco wedder uns: A Lasco und die Täufer und Nonkonformisten, in: Strohm (ed.), Johannes a Lasco, 299–313. See especially 306f. “Die ostfriesische Landeskirche hat dank a Lasco – nicht nur aus Angst – oder Konkurrenzerwägungen – als erste und für lange Zeit auch als einzige reformierte Kirche die Mennoniten ernst genommen”. Jürgens, Johannes a Lasco in Ostfriesland, 245ff. Konflikt mit den Täufern: Mennoniten und Joristen, 313. 53 Demura, A., From Zwingli to Calvin: A Comparative Study of Zwingli’s Elenchus and Calvin’s Briève instruction, in: Die Zürcher Reformation. Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen [Wissenschaftliche Tagung zum hundertjährigen Bestehens des Zwinglivereins], Bern et al. 2001, 87–99. Broadly speaking, I am indebted to David A. Weir for the usage of this terminology. In his book, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth Century Reformation Thought, Oxford 1990, Weir tries to describe Sebastian Castellio as the forerunner or “catalyst” of the later development of federal theology in Zacharias Ursinus, lamentably without much success.

Akira Demura

185

isterial Reformers and Anabaptist opponents were the momentum toward this reinforced emphasis on church discipline. Admittedly, this terminology catalysis may not be the most appropriate for us to comprehend the whole picture. At least, however, this is the way in which I look at the problem of how the numerical minority, for example, Christianity in Japan, may be able to contribute to the cultural as well as religious or ideological alterations of the entire society, as it was the case with the first infiltration of Catholic Christianity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries or that of Protestant groups in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries throughout the course of the opening of the nation to the outer world. My major point, at any rate, is that, if Anabaptist contributions can in no case be negligible for the re-establishment of disciplinary measures on the side of the state churches, something similar may well be said with regard to the inception of and the insistence upon the seated communion in the Foreigners Church in London. To be brief, is this mode of participation in the Lord’s Supper an expression of à Lasco’s appreciative reception of the Anabaptist biblical hermeneutics, with or without being aware of it? In order to surpass a great deal of uncertainty and dubiousness in this way of contention, of course, historically and theologically, we need to analyze further more. As is widely known, both Zwingli’s Elenchus and Calvin’s Briève instruction are the refutations, respectively, against the notorious Anabaptist document, usually known as the Schleitheim Confession, composed clandestinely in late February, 1527, by the group of the so-called Swiss Brethren. Even a quick comparison will make it clear that, between the time when Zwingli hastily drafted his refutation in July, 1527 (only a few months after the composition of the document) and the time when Calvin published his refutation (1544), an unmistakable shift or transition of diagram in history had taken place even within the framework of the city state churches. 54 In this conjunction, Kenneth R. Davis’ article, No discipline, No 54 In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus Hudrychi Zwinglii, in: Huldrych Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke VI/1, 21–196. (English translation by Henry Preble & George W. Gilmore, Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists 1527; Samuel M. Jackson (ed.), Ulrich Zwingli Selected Works, 21972). Briève instruction pour armer tous bons fideles contre les erreurs de la secte commune des Anabaptistes, in: Calvini Opera VII, 45–151 (English translation by Benjamin W. Farley John Calvin Treatise against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines, Grand Rapids 1982. An article by Richard Stauffer, Zwingli et Calvin, Critiques de la Confession de Schleitheim, is a comparative study of two treatises. See Marc Lienhard (ed.), Les debuts et les caractéristiques de l’anabaptisme. Actes du Colloque organisé par la Faculté de Théologie Protestante de Strasbourg 20–22 Fevrier, 1975. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées, The Hague 1977, 126–146. Thoroughgoing as Stauffer’s analysis may be, the article does not go beyond a rather static parallelism. Cf. Balke W., Calvijn en de Doperse Radikalen, Amsterdam 1977. See especially, Hoofd-

186

Calvin and à Lasco

Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition 55 is extremely elucidating, because he tries to trace the possibility of Anabaptists influencing the initiation and strengthening of church discipline among the Swiss-Rhein magisterial reformers, including Oecolampadius, Bucer or Capito. To our great regret, however, his reference to Calvin is lamentably scarce and that to à Lasco is totally missing. Once again, with all these nuances of the degree and extent, it may safely be concluded that there is a consensus among scholars with regard to the Anabaptist impact on the consolidation of church discipline among the reformed churches. If that be the case, is it not possible to trace the origin of the seated communion, at least, partly, to the earliest Anabaptist emphasis on the close association of the Word, Baptism and God’s Table (“tisch gottes”)? Here again, the documentary sources may not necessarily be superfluous. We have to be extremely careful of the spasm of time. The Schleitheim Confession was drafted and circulated in the latter half of 1520’s or in early 1530’s, while we are here dealing with the 1540’s and, more limitedly, mid-1550’s. During these years, a considerable length of time elapsed. Those who confronted the Zürich reformer (“ultrazwinglianer” according to Fritz Blanke56 or “hyper-Zwinglians” according to George Williams and others 57 ), or those who annoyed even the usually tolerant Strasburg Reformers had all gone away. The radicals that à Lasco had to face were those of the second generation. If we fail to acknowledge this simple fact, we may be committing the same mistake of anachronism into which Calvin himself had fallen without being aware of it, when he asserts that it was he himself that had introduced this concept of autonomous ecclesiastical discipline and not those poor ignorant Anabaptists, who were no other than mere imitators. 58 I am not contending that à Lasco’s introduction of sitting reception of the Lord’s Supper was the product under the direct influence of the earlier Anabaptist insistence upon the close connection of baptism (Glaubensstuck 7. Genève 1541–1564, 4. Calvijn en de Confessio Schlattensis. Strübind, A., Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz, Berlin 2003. See especially Kap. 12. Das Schleitheim Bekenntnis. 55 Davis, K.R., No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition, in: The Sixteenth Century Journal XIII (1982), 43–58. In this connection, it may be of some interest to know that Sebastian Castellio, that staunch opponent of Calvin, possessed a copy of this Briève instruction in his library. (Guggisberg, H.R., Sebastian Castellio, 118. Anm. 49). Castellio’s hidden sympathy with Anabaptism might have been rooted, at least partially, in his knowledge he had acquired from this treatise, even prior to his expulsion from Geneva. 56 Blanke, F., Brüder in Christo. Die Geschichte der ältesten Täufergemeinde. Zollikon 1525, Zürich 1955. 57 Williams, G.H., The Radical Reformation, Philadelphia 1962 (Kirkville: The Sixteenth Century Journal Publisher, 31992). 58 Calvini Opera VII, 65.

Akira Demura

187

/Gläubigentaufe) and Scripture reading (Prophezei) with the bread breaking, even though a quick glance over the earliest Anabaptist documents, especially the court records, will reveal their determined commitment to the association of Baptism and the Supper. The first entries of the Quellen und Forschungen zur Täufergeschichte (vol. 1) are full of such materials. The entry No. 29 59 , for example, describes one of the earliest rebaptism at the house of Ruedi Thoman on the eve of January 25, 1525, where “wie sy hettind den tisch gottes uff gericht und tauftind einander”60 , and Georg Blaurock “nam ein brot und brach das selb ze stuken auch hat er by ihm ein gschir mit win”. 61 The entry No. 42b records the hearing of Blaurock himself. 62 Any attempt at exhaustiveness in this conjunction cannot be expected, however. The above-mentioned monograph by Andrea Strübind on the pristine stage of Anabaptism, Eifriger als Zwingli, 63 may pass as comprehensive as the noted third edition of George Williams’ The Radical Reformation. Regrettably, however, she does not seem particularly interested in the manner or mode of those primitive bread-breakings practiced by those overimpassioned followers of Zwingli. As regards the very first communion which took place on the evening of January 22, 1525, at the farm house of Jakob Hottinger in the village of Zollikon, it can safely be assumed that they all sat at the everyday table and partook of the home-baked Bauernbrot and, possibly, of home-brewed wine. So far as I could cover the contemporary source materials, there are no explicit references to the seated participation on the occasion of bread-breaking, however. Most likely, they took it for granted so long as they tried to follow and imitate the Apostolic purity that was instituted by the Lord himself. The only unequivocal text that clearly indicates the seated participation in the Supper can be found in Balthasar Hubmaier’s Ein Form des Nachtmals Christi (1527) 64 , printed in Nikolsburg, where he had already been successful in founding a kind of Anabaptist state church. In this liturgical formula, Hubmaier very carefully prescribes the use of regular bread and wine in the Supper, saying “Alss dann sollen sy den tisch mit gmainem brot 59 Muralt, L. von/Schmid, W. (eds.), Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, Bd. I: Zürich, Zürich 1952/1972), 37–39. 60 Ibid., 38. 61 Loc.cit. 62 Ibid., 50. “[…] so sich habe lassen touffenn und vom tisch dess Herren geessenn, wie es gott sinen jungeren im letschten nachtmal geben habe. Und sige ouch allen begerenden zu willen worden inn beiden stucken.” 63 Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli. See especially Kap. 8. Die Entwicklung in Zollikon (Januar bis März 1525) Kap. 10. Charakteristika der Täuferbewegung. 64 Westin, G./Bergsten, T. (eds.), Balthasar Hubmaier Schriften, in: Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, Bd. XXIX, Heidelberg 1962. See especially, 355ff.

188

Calvin and à Lasco

vnd wein beraitten. Ob aber das trinckgschir silbren, hueltzen oder Zinen sey, ist gar nichts daran gelegen”. 65 Interesting enough, toward the end of the first prescription, Hubmaier refers to the clothings. “Yedoch sollen die Essenden erberlich beklaydt sein vnd bey einander sitzen mit zucht, on alle klapperey vnd zanckhung”.66 Quite obviously, the participants, who were merely the recent converts to the Hubmaier type of Anabaptism, took seats around the Lord’s Table. In the third section, “der Priester [presiding minister]” is enjoined to exhort the attendants “anzuende, inbruennstig vnnd hitzig,” in order to make the hearts of “Tischsitzer” inflamed (“entzuendet”) to the Passion and the Death of the Savior. 67 Then follow nine questions, in total, to prepare the participants (“Beysitzer”) to be thoroughly knowledgeable of the mystery of this sacrament. The most noteworthy paragraph seems to refer to the actual distribution of elements by the “Priester [Bischoff]”. It goes as follows: “Yetz so nimmt der Priester das brot, brichs vnnd beuet es den Beysitzenden in ire hennd vnd sagt: Der herr Jesus in der nacht, da er verrattenn…” 68 Even if it can be ascertained that, in the formula of Hubmaier of 1527, the seated communion was prescribed and actually practiced in Nikolsburg, it does not imply that it was widely accepted and practiced by other groups of Anabaptists with equal stringency. After all, Hubmaier remained a lonely figure even among the earliest Swiss Brethren. Quite obviously, therefore, it can hardly be confirmed that the observance of the seated communion in London reflects the early Anabaptists’ common custom. On the contrary, the Anabaptists whom à Lasco encountered and debated with were mostly Menno Simons and his followers. 69 To our great regret, however, the perusal of Menno Simons' voluminous Complete Writings does not provide us with a clue to this question. Menno Simons shows little or no interest in the mode or manner of participating in the Lord’s Supper except for a brief reference to the intolerability of observing “the deviating, errant, papal, daytime meal, and neglecting the Lord’s nighttime meal” (Admonition to the Amsterdam Melchiorites around the year 1546).70 At any rate, this passage is all too casual and cursory to ground the custom of seated communion upon it. In connection with the Lord’s Supper, à Lasco and Menno Simons had so much else to argue over, for they debated more

65 Ibid., 355. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., 359. 68 Ibid., 362. 69 Wenger, J.C. (ed.), The Complete Writings of Menno Simons c.1496–1561 (Leonard Verduin tr.), Scottdale 1956, 19, 94, 142ff, 149. 70 Ibid., 1025.

Akira Demura

189

upon the nature of Christ’s humanity in the sacrament. 71 The custom of the seated communion, so distinguishably characteristic in the London Foreigners Church, was too short-lived and ephemeral. My contention in favor of the Anabaptist parallelism may possibly be too feeble in documentation. Toward the end of the above-mentioned monograph on the early Anabaptist history, Strübind has an extremely suggestive passage, in which she says, in effect, that, when the solid positive source materials are lacking in favor of the researcher, “ideologische Konjektion und Kombination – ein Euphemismus für Spekulation – may replace the conclusion”.72 In order to substantiate such a speculative conclusion, one needs to have more factual knowledge of the reality of the London Foreigners Church on the one hand, and the exploration of Anabaptist theology of the Lord’s Supper (“tisch gottes”), where there is much to be desired compared with their theology of baptism, on the other. Anabaptism remained a social minority, even in the case of the Mennonites. They did not change, essentially. Yet, their catalyzing contributions for the furtherance and consolidation of the mainline co-extensive/coterminous reformations, including Calvin’s Geneva church, may and can be appreciatively confirmed. They were, so to speak, the salt of the earth, as it is, or should be, the case in my own country, Japan.

71 Cf. Janse, W., Calvin, a Lasco und Beza: Eine gemeinsame Abendmahlserklärung (Mai 1556)? Bericht eines Forschungsseminars mit offenem Ausgang, in: Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, 209–231. 72 Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli, 549.

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin, commentateurs de l’Épître aux Romains

Annie Noblesse-Rocher Les relations de Jacques Sadolet (1477–1547) avec Jean Calvin furent scellées au coin de la discorde par leur célèbre échange épistolaire de 1539. Le 18 mars, le Cardinal de Carpentras adressait au Sénat et au peuple de Genève une Épître “par laquelle il tent(ait) de les ramener sous l’obéissance de l’évêque de Rome”. 1 Les intentions exprimées par le Cardinal de Carpentras dans son Épître de 1539 étaient courtoises mais fermes: Jacques Sadolet louait d’abord les Genevois, au moyen d’une captatio benevolentiae, espérant les amener ainsi à résipiscence: Très chers frères en Christ […] je me suis pris à aimer la noblesse de votre cité, sa bonne ordonnance et son style de gouvernement, cette dignité des citoyens; je louais surtout cette humanité qui est la vôtre, approuvée de tous, à l’égard des étrangers résidents ou passagers […]. Alors que je me trouvais à Carpentras, entendant à votre propos un grand luxe de rumeurs, je ne doutais pas que vous et nous, – qui, autrefois, vis-à-vis de Dieu ne faisions qu’un dans la droite piété, – si ce même Dieu tournait vers nous son visage avec une très grande bienveillance –, allions revenir à un accord unanime des cœurs. 2

Mais le Cardinal mettait aussitôt en garde les Genevois contre les ennemis de l’unité de l’Église: Jour après jour, me furent rapportés les actes perpétrés, à travers villes et villages du fort courageux peuple suisse, par des cauteleux, ennemis de l’unité et de la paix

1 Sadoleti, J., ... Epistola ad Senatum populumque genevensem, qua in obedientiam romani pontificis eos reducere conatur, Lyon 1539; Sadoleti, J., Cardinalis et Episcopi Carpentoractensis viri disertissimi Opera quae extant omnia, 2, Vérone 1737–1738 (4: In Pauli epistolam ad Romanos commentariorum libri tres), 171–186. 2 “Carissimi in Christo fratres […] amare jam tum coepi nobilitatem urbis vestrae, ordinem formamque reipublicae dignitatem civium, et illam im primis vestram laudabam ac probatam apud omnes, erga externos homines et advenas, humanitatem […] Carpentoracti cum essem, audiremque multa quotidie de vobis, quae partim quidem mihi dolerem, partim etiam spem nonullam excitarent: ut non diffiderem, nos et vos, qui fuimus quondam in recta erga Deum religione unanimes, eodem Deo benignius nos respiciente, ad eundem consensum cordium esse redituros”, Sadoleti, … Opera, 2, 1737–1738, 172.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

191

chrétiennes, des fourbes qui finirent par jeter les germes d’une maligne discorde parmi vous, en instrumentalisant votre cité. 3

Le prélat évoquait implicitement l’influence de Jean Calvin sur la Réforme genevoise. Depuis 1536, le Picard tentait en effet d’imprimer son sceau sur l’Église genevoise, mais en vain: en 1538, à la suite d’un conflit qui l’opposait aux autorités civiles sur des questions liturgiques et disciplinaires, Jean Calvin, démis de ses fonctions pastorales, avait quitté Genève et s’était installé à Strasbourg. Le Cardinal voulait-il profiter de la situation? En d’autres termes, était-il informé des réticences d’une partie de la population genevoise à la Réforme? Espérait-il reconstituer le parti catholique de la ville? Dans les mois précédents, le Cardinal de Carpentras avait entrepris des démarches similaires traduisant sa préoccupation devant l’avancée des idées évangéliques dans l’Empire: en 1537, il avait adressé une lettre, restée sans réponse, à Philippe Mélanchthon, puis une autre à Jean Sturm, déclenchant une vive polémique. Jacques Sadolet avait écrit, dans le même sens, à George, Duc de Saxe, en 1537 encore, pour le mettre en garde contre la doctrine déstabilisante des luthériens. 4 Au moment où les tensions ne cessaient de monter dans le Royaume de France, comme suites à l’ affaire des Placards, et que tout espoir de compromis religieux dans l’Empire semblait éteint 5 , il pouvait s’avérer opportun de croiser à nouveau le fer. Mais la réponse, comme l’on sait, ne se fit pas attendre. Jean Calvin rédigea une réponse 6 virulente et audacieuse, presque impudente, étant donnés l’âge et la position sociale des deux protagonistes: le jeune pasteur de l’Église évangélique francophone, exilé à Strasbourg, prenait de haut l’un des représentants les plus en vue de la Curie romaine, ancien secrétaire aux Brefs pontificaux, familier d’Érasme et commensal des humanistes Reginald Pole et Petro Bembo. En fait, cette hardiesse tirait bénéfice de l’humiliante déconvenue subie en 1535 par Jacques Sadolet. Auteur d’un commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains, les In Pauli epistolam ad Romanos commentariorum libri tres 7 , le Cardinal de Carpentras s’était 3 “Postquam fuit ad aures meas delatum, homines quosdma astutos, inimicos christinae unitatis et pacis, id quod in aliis antea nonnullis fortissimae gentis Helvetiorum oppidis et plagis jam fecissent, item in vobis et civitate vestra malae discordiae semina jecisse”, Sadoleti, … Opera, 2, 1737–1738, 172. 4 Sadoleti, …Opera, 1, 1737–1738, 250–251. 5 Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, Band 5, Strassburg und Munster im Kamp um den rechten Glauben 1532–1534, Stipperich, R. (ed.), Gütersloh 1978, 259–359. Roussel, B., Martin Bucer et Jacques Sadolet: la Concorde possible (automne 1535)?, BSHPF (1976/4), 508. 6 Épître de Jacques Sadolet avec la réponse de Jean Calvin (1540), in: Backus, I./Chimelli, C. (eds.), La Vraie piété: divers traités de Jean Calvin. (et) Confession de foi de Guillaume Farel, Genève 1986, 504–512. Millet, O., Calvin et la dynamique de la parole, étude de rhétorique réformée, Paris 1992, 504–512. 7 Sadoleti, J., … In Pauli epistolam ad Romanos commentariorum libri tres, Lyon 1535.

192

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

vu soupçonné d’hétérodoxie à propos de sa conception de la justification de l’homme: il avait subi la censure de la Faculté de Paris et son ouvrage avait été mis au ban par le Maître du Sacré Palais, Tommaso Badia, à l’été 1535, par effet préventif de la censure. Quelles étaient les raisons de cet ostracisme théologique? La négligence de la grâce prévenante et l’absence de citations d’auteurs scolastiques tardifs (Durand, Capreolus, Occam) avaient suscité l’indignation de la Faculté, convaincue d’avoir affaire à un traité semi-pélagien. 8 Jacques Sadolet dans une lettre à son ami Érasme, en juillet 1533, avait, il est vrai, dévoilé imprudemment son projet: il s’agissait pour lui de concevoir une charte entre Augustin et Pélage, sur l’issue de la grâce et des mérites, une alteram viam. 9 D’autres raisons avaient pu conduire à la condamnation de l’ouvrage de Sadolet. Les indications sont peu nombreuses et imprécises. Mais il semble que, tout autant que l’aveu de la via altera, ce soit la présence de nombreuses références à Érasme qui aient suscité la méfiance des prélats. 10 Le cardinal accepta de faire amende honorable, non sans réticence: un conflit de plusieurs mois l’opposa à son adversaire, Badia, et seules l’amitié et la diplomatie du cardinal Gasparo Contarini firent plier le colérique Jacques Sadolet, qui ne voyait dans ces entraves que d’inutiles raffinements polémiques. Une deuxième édition corrigée de ses In Pauli epistolam ad Romanos commentariorum libri tres parut en 1536 chez Simon Gryphius à Venise; il s’agissait d’une version, augmentée d’extraits du De Spiritu et littera d’Augustin, anti-pélagiens 11 ; mais celle-ci céda rapidement la place à de nouvelles et nombreuses réimpressions de la première mouture, “fautive”, à Lyon dès 1537, puis à Vérone jusqu’à la fin du XVIIIe siècle!

1. L’interprétation de la justice de l’homme, au centre des débats Le temps passa…Dans son Epître aux Genevois, Jacques Sadolet faisait preuve de la plus stricte orthodoxie, dénonçant ces “inventeurs de nouveau-

8 Plessis d’Argenté C. (du), Collectio judiciorum, I, VIII, Paris 1728, 87–88. Douglas, Jacopo Sadoleto, 87–88. 9 Sadoleti, J., Epistolarum libri sexdecim, nunc multo quam antehac umquam diligentius recogniti, atque in lucem aediti, II, Cologne 1590, 172–173. 10 Roussel, Martin Bucer et Jacques Sadolet, 516. 11 Le principal ajout concerne Romains 9,7–26 et la grâce prévenante: “Gratia Dei omnis quidem ex ipso Deo est, donumque ejus liberale, et proprium, quod nullo a nostro parte merito, sed a divina beneficentia totum proficiscitur”, Sadoleti, … Opera, 4, 1737–1738, 247 B; Douglas, Jacopo Sadoleto, 91–93.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

193

tés” 12 qu’étaient les évangéliques, sans négliger un point central de la polémique, la justificatio per fidem: Nous obtenons le bien de notre salut éternel et total, par la seule foi en Dieu et en Jésus-Christ. Quand je dis par la foi seule, je ne la comprends pas ainsi que la comprennent ces inventeurs de nouveautés […] Quand nous disons que c’est par la foi seule en Dieu et en Jésus-Christ que nous pouvons être sauvés, nous estimons que dans cette foi doit être aussi, et surtout, comprise la charité, principe et cause très probable de notre salut. 13

Cette conception était celle défendue par les théologiens traditionnels comme Jean Eck qui avait conçu un résumé des lieux communs contre les luthériens, l’Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutteranos (Landshut 1525), réfutation des Loci communes rerum theologicarum de Philippe Mélanchthon (1521). Dans cet Enchiridion, à l’article sur la foi et les œuvres (De fide et operibus), l’adversaire de Luther exposait les lignes de force de son argumentation, celles qui furent sans cesse réaffirmées dans les débats et les controverses jusqu’au Concile de Trente: le salus sola fide devait comprendre intrinsèquement les œuvres de l’amour, l’amour étant meilleur et plus parfait que la foi. 14 Les controverses, dans le contexte de la Diète d’Augsbourg, ne faisaient que s’amplifier, lorsque Calvin rédigea sa fougueuse réponse au Cardinal Sadolet: il était en passe d’achever, à Strasbourg la rédaction de son propre commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains, le Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos 15 , qui parut en 1540, quelque mois après son échange épistolaire avec Jacques Sadolet. Dès lors, l’on pouvait s’attendre à ce que la polémique se poursuivît à travers ce commentaire, dont l’un des passages-clefs, Romains 1,17 (Le Juste vivra par la foi) avait suscité des débats passionnés entre partisans de la foi traditionnelle et évangéliques, et pouvait servir de fer de lance contre le Cardinal. Martin Luther s’était d’ailleurs livré à une vive critique du Cardinal de Carpentras, dans son Enarratio 12 La novitas qualifie les hérésiarques, du point de vue de l’orthodoxie, depuis Tertullien , Meijering, E.P., Bemerkungen zu Tertullians Polemik gegen Marcion (Adversus Marcionum 1,1– 25), Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976/2), 81–108. 13 “Assequimur […] bonum […] nostrae perpetuae universaeque salutis, fide in Deum sola et in Iesum Christum. Cum dico fide sola, non ita intelligo, quamadmodum isti novarum rerum repertores intelligunt […] Cum dicimus fide sola in Deum et Iesum Christum salvos nos esse posse, in hac ipsa fide caritatem vel in primis comprehendam esse ducimus, quae princeps et potissima nostrae salutatis caussa”, Sadoleti, … Opera, 2, 1737–1738, 176 A et 177A. 14 “Charitas est melior et perfectior fide”, Eck, Iohannes, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae 1525–1543, Fraenkel P. (ed.), Münster (Westf.) 1979, 96. 15 Ioannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Parker T.H.L/Parker D.C. (eds.), Genève 1999 (Opera exegetica XIII). Le commentaire est dédicacé en 1939, édité en 1540, puis réédité en 1551 et 1556.

194

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

Psalmi LI (1538), l’accusant d’interpréter la justice de l’homme comme étant simplement la pratique des liturgies et cérémonies. 16 Ce qui était, effectivement, l’interprétation du psaume 50 (h 51), 20 défendue par le prélat. Dans les milieux évangéliques en effet, depuis les années 1520, la question de la justificatio per fidem, creuset, comme les deux autres solae (gratia, Scriptura) de la concentration de la foi et de la piété, était l’objet de nouvelles définitions.17 Ainsi, à Wittenberg, la Disputatio du 25 septembre 1516 puis celle de Leipzig, le 13 janvier 1517, permettaient à Karlstadt et à Luther de prendre position, à propos du De Spiritu et littera de l’évêque d’Hippone et de ses écrits anti-pélagiens. 18 Une alternative se dessinait promouvant d’une part une justification inhérente à la nature humaine (comme le soutint Karlstadt, situant la justification au sein du cadre “Loi et grâce”, dans la ligne de pensée de Jean Staupitz), d’autre part une justitia aliena, une justice totalement extérieure à l’homme, dans une perspective luthérienne. Les Loci communes (1521) de Philippe Mélanchthon apportèrent une dimension juridique à la question, face au droit romain: l’aspect forensique de la justice et de la loi divine s’exprimait au moyen de catégories du droit romain: la justificatio est une acceptilatio, c’est-à-dire une remise verbale de dette sans aucun paiement en contrepartie.19 Une production abondante de commentaires sur l’Épître aux Romains traduisait l’intensité de ces débats, depuis que Luther avait rédigé, en 1515–1516, son cours sur l’Épître aux Romains. 20 Philippe Mélanchthon la définissait à nouveau frais la question, dès 1522, dans ses Annotationes: Une [justice] est politique […] lorsque la raison humaine accomplit les œuvres bonnes, ou civiles 21 […] Mais l’Évangile nous montre une tout autre justice qu’on appel16 WA 40/2, 453–454. Jacobi Sadoleti Interpretatio In Psalmum 50, Lyon 1533, 18: “Sed quoniam huiusmodi dacra et hostias aspernetur Deus, dare sese illi et dicare verum et iustum sacrificium, quod est spiritus humilitatus, et cor contritum, quod unum sacrificium grate et libenter ab omnibus accipiat Deus. In quibus quidem verbis perspicue, ut haesitationi, locus non relinquatur, utriusque legis et veteris et novae ceremoniae, ac mysteria comprehensa sunt …”, c. 4 v. 17 Hamm, B., The Reformation of Faith in the Context of the Late Medieval Theology and Piety, Leiden/Boston, 2004, 4–18 et 50–87. McGrath, A.E., Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Cambridge 32005, 6–7. Loewenich, W. (von), Duplex Justitia. Luthers Stellung z. einer Unionsformel des 16. Jh. Festg. z. 85. Geb. von Joseph Lortz, Mainz/Wiesbaden 1972. 18 Sur l’évolution des écrits augustiniens, avant et après la crise pélagienne, voir McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 40–48. 19 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 235–248. 20 WA 56 (XI), Der Brief an die Römer (Glossen, 3–154; Scholien, 157–528). En 1535– 1536, Luther publie plusieurs prédications sur l’Epître dont celle sur Romains 6,3; en 1546 encore, une prédication sur Romains 12,3 (WA 51, 123–134). 21 “Altera est politica, […] cum opera bona, seu civilia, ratio humana efficit”, CR 15, 446, 1–3; 20–24.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

195

le la justice de la foi. Car l’Evangile enseigne que le Christ, le fils de Dieu fut donné pour nous, et que la justice devant Dieu consiste à croire que nos péchés nous sont remis à cause du Christ, ou que nous sommes reçus dans la grâce du Père à cause du Christ. 22

Les théologiens d’Allemagne du Sud ne furent pas en reste: Martin Bucer publia, trois ans auparavant, son œuvre fouillée, ses Metaphrases et enarrationes perpetuae epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli dont Calvin eut la primeur au moment de l’affaire Sadolet. Le Strasbourgeois s’y montrait proche de la conception éthique de Zwingli et d’Œcolampade: la duplex justificatio bucérienne, sensiblement différente de celle de Mélanchthon, supposait, après une justification première, qui permettait le pardon des péchés et rendait l’homme juste (la iustificatio impii, c’est-à-dire forensique), fondée sur les épîtres pauliniennes, une justification seconde (iustificatio pii), fondée sur l’épître de Jacques, rendant les œuvres nécessaires, dans le sens d’une sanctification 23 , postérieure à la première justification. Proche de la conception de la double justice défendue par Jacques Sadolet, la conception bucérienne s’en différencie, comme nous le verrons, sur un point essentiel: le refus de l’initium fidei.

2. Une lecture synoptique de Romains 1,17: exégèse et rhétorique chez Sadolet et Calvin Dans ce contexte, il peut sembler étonnant que les allusions au commentaire de Jacques Sadolet dans le commentaire de Jean Calvin soient ténues: les éditeurs n’en relèvent que trois, implicites, dont une seule sur Romains 1,17. Jean Calvin n’aurait-il pas lu le commentaire du Cardinal de Carpentras? Il est presque certain au contraire qu’il connaissait les In Pauli epistolam ad Romanos commentariorum libri tres. Sa familiarité avec Martin Bucer le laisse penser, car le Réformateur strasbourgeois avait publié en 1536 ses volumineuses Metaphrases et enarrationes perpetuae epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli (1536); Jean Calvin connaissait parfaitement le commentaire bucérien, dont il loue la prolixité (non sans quelques réserves, liées à son manque de lisibilité) dans la Dédicace à Symon Grynée, en ouverture 22 “Evangelium longe aliam iustitiam ostendit, quae vocatur iustitia fidei. Nam Evangelium docet Christum filium Dei pro nobis datum esse, et iustitiam coram Deo esse, credere quod peccata nostra propter Christum nobis condonentur, seu quod propter Christum recipiamur in gratiam patris”, CR 15, 443, 1–3, 20–21 et 444, 1. 23 Martini Buceri Metaphrases et enarrationes perpetuae epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli ... Tomus primus. Continens metaphrasim et enarrationem in Epistolam ad Romanos ..., Strasbourg 1536 (Bâle 21562), 231 A–B; 232 D–E.

196

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

de son commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains. 24 Quant à Martin Bucer, il avait lu le commentaire de Sadolet. Il l’évoquait dans ses Metaphrases pour repousser farouchement l’accusation portée par Jacques Sadolet, dans son propre commentaire, à propos de l’usage immodéré de la liberté par les évangéliques. 25 Cerner les raisons de cette discrétion de Calvin est impossible, au regard des sources historiques, mais il est possible de mesurer la distance qui séparait les deux protagonistes, et ce dans le domaine exégétique, herméneutique et théologique. Une étude systématique des deux commentaires, comme le fit Riemer Faber pour Calvin et Mélanchthon, permettrait certainement d’évaluer la théologie respective des deux protagonistes, en fonction du type d’humanisme auquel ils se rattachent. 26 Pour l’heure, la visée bien modeste de cette étude est de mettre en évidence les pratiques exégétiques de Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin, leurs points de convergence et de divergence, et les conséquences de celles-ci sur leur interprétation théologique de la justification de l’homme, grâce à une lecture synoptique de Romains 1,17 (Le juste vivra par la foi) dans leurs deux commentaires sur l’Épître aux Romains: leurs formes générales, et l’interprétation de la quaestio principalis, la justificatio per fidem sont examinées du point de vue de la rhétorique, comme moyen exégétique et comme herméneutique. La fides, dans les cercles évangéliques, dans les années 1530–1550, étant, tout autant qu’une fiducia, une persuasio 27 , une grande partie de l’exégèse réformatrice de l’Écriture dérive de l’application systématique au texte biblique de notions empruntées à la rhétorique. 28 Celle-ci est aussi utilisée dans les commentaires de Jacques Sadolet, fruit de ses fréquentations des cercles littéraires romains, foyers de réflexion sur le “bon usage” de Cicéron dans la littérature chrétienne.29 Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin sont des humanistes. Ils le sont au sens où, pour reprendre l’expression de François Wendel, dans leurs œuvres, ils mettent “en avant la rhétorique”.30 L’un et l’autre, héritiers de Cicéron (Sadolet) et de Quintilien (Calvin), ont combattu l’humanisme panthéiste, représenté par Petro Bembo, du côté de Sadolet, et par Corneille Agrippa, Rabelais, ou Bonaventure Desperiers, du 24 Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 5, 1–5. 25 Roussel, Martin Bucer et Jacques Sadolet, 511. 26 Faber, R., The Humanism of Melanchthon and of Calvin, in: Frank, G./Selderhuis, H.J. (eds.), Melanchthon und der Calvinismus, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2005 (Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten, Bd. 9), 11–25. 27 Millet, O., Réforme protestante et rhétorique, in: Histoire de la rhétorique dans l’Europe moderne (1450–1950), publiée sous la direction de Marc Fumaroli, Paris 1999, 265–266. Idem, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole, 212. 28 Millet, Réforme protestante et rhétorique, 271. 29 L’un des témoins de ces débats est le Ciceronianus d’Érasme (1528). 30 Wendel, F., Calvin et l’humanisme, Paris 1976, 77.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

197

côté de Calvin. L’un et l’autre ont dû trouver la juste façon d’insérer dans l’herméneutique biblique cet héritage. Quelle part ce contexte humaniste at-il pris dans leur exégèse et leur herméneutique de la justification? Telle est la question que nous nous sommes posée en commençant cette étude.

3. Jacques Sadolet et son commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains La personnalité et la vie de Jacques Sadolet ont joué un rôle certain dans l’élaboration de ses commentaires bibliques. Bien moins nombreuses que celles de Jean Calvin, les biographies du Cardinal ont épousé les heurs et malheurs de l’historiographie et traduisent surtout les controverses qui ont agité la vie du Cardinal. 31 Jacques Sadolet était en fait le type même du prélat italien, humaniste, formé au néo-platonisme de Pic de la Mirandole32 et de Gilles de Viterbe33 , mais aussi à l’aristotélisme padouan, qu’il épousa, non sans retenue, en 1531. Auprès du Cardinal Oliviero Caraffa, Sadolet découvrit un milieu soucieux d’une réforme morale de l’Église: secrétaire aux Brefs 34 de Léon IX (à partir de 1511), puis de Clément VII (1524– 1527), il fut élu évêque de Carpentras en 1527; ses lettres et ses décisions synodales révèlèrent un pasteur attentif, mais aussi un vigoureux pourfendeur, sans concession, des dissidences chrétiennes, vaudoises en particulier, et du judaïsme. Assez tardivement, à partir de 1525, Jacques Sadolet se tourna vers l’exégèse et la théologie: il rédigea un commentaire du psaume 50, sur lequel nous reviendrons, puis du psaume 93. Dès 1531, Sadolet entreprit son De laudibus philosophiae, un essai visant à reconstituer la seconde partie de l’Hortensius de Cicéron, dans le but de délivrer la philosophie des effets dégradants des commentaires médiévaux – comprenons de la scolastique tardive –. Mais il interrompit cette œuvre pour rédiger ses In Pauli epistolam ad Romanos commentariorum libri tres. 35

31 Concernant ces questions historiographiques, voir Rheinhard, W., Die Reform in der Diözese Carpentras unter den Bischöfen Jacopo Sadoleto, Paolo Sadoleto, Jacopo Sacrati und Francesco Sadoleto 1517–1596, Munster/Westfalen 1966, 19–21. 32 “Summa voluptate affecerunt me literae tuae, recognovi enim in illis tuam pristinam virtutem conjunctam singulari erga me benevolentia: quarum alteram in te colui, atque admiratus sum”, Sadoleti, … Opera, 1, 1737–1738, 72. 33 “Amo enim Egidium Cardinalem hominem minus commode mihi molestum est valere in modum […] Nam cum omni eximia virtute et humanitate praeditus est: tum et mihi et tibi semper fuit amicissimus” (mars 1538), Sadoleti, … Opera, 1, 1737–1738, 8. 34 Pietro Bembo, Les Azolains/Gli Asolani, XLV, Piéjus M.-F. (ed.), Paris 2006. 35 Sadoleti, … In Pauli.

198

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

3.1 Un „roman exégétique”? Le commentaire de Sadolet sur l’épître aux Romains est une œuvre qui, par sa forme même, ne manque pas d’attrait. Bernard Roussel l’a qualifiée de “roman exégétique”, sans doute parce que réalité et fiction se mêlent dans ce commentaire mettant en scène divers personnages décédés pour la plupart et sans qu’aucune source n’atteste cette rencontre: Guillaume du Bellay, Thomas Cajetan, Agostino Trivulzio, légat en France jusqu’en 1534, Gilles de Viterbe (mort en 1532) 36 se retrouvent ainsi dans les jardins littéraires de Jacques Sadolet sur le Quirinal, à Rome. Mais en fait, autre qu’un roman, le commentaire de Jacques Sadolet s’inscrit dans la tradition des Dialogues fictifs, noués entre deux personnages afin d’éclaircir un sujet philosophique, entretiens bucoliques, en faveur dans l’humanisme italien des années 1480–1530: dialogues lucianesques dans lesquels les morts dialoguent entre eux ou cicéroniens, dans la tradition des Tusculanes. C’est à ce second groupe qu’appartiennent en particulier l’œuvre-maîtresse de Petro Bembo 37 , Gli Asolani (1515), dont Jacques Sadolet, son ami intime, a débattu lors d’un dîner littéraire, sans doute dans les jardins de sa résidence romaine. Le plus connu des traités de Petro Bembo, une défense et illustration de la littérature en langue vulgaire, Le Prose, est précisément un des manifestes de ce genre dialogique, entretien fictif avec un défunt38 : en trois livres, Bembo met en scène un dialogue inauguré à l’hiver 1502 chez Carlo, son frère, mort l’année suivante, associé, à l’instar de Jules Sadolet, à l’interprétation de l’œuvre. 39 Là est sans doute l’une des sources formelles du commentaire de Sadolet. Mais, fait rare dans l’histoire de l’exégèse biblique à la Renaissance, le Cardinal applique ce genre du dialogue à un commentaire scripturaire. 40 Le principal interlocuteur du Cardinal dans ce dialogue fictif est son frère Jules, mort en 1523: Nous consacrons cet [ouvrage] au nom et à la mémoire de mon très cher, mon excellent frère, pour partager avec lui les mystères de la religion chrétienne, auxquels il s’adonna avec une continuelle ferveur, et les écrits de ce docteur [s. Paul] éminent 36 Roussel, Martin Bucer et Jacques Sadolet, 507–524; ici: 515. 37 Les Asolini, dialogue sur l’amour, achevé en 1502, est lu la même année dans le cercle littéraire entretenu par Jacques Sadolet. La correspondance des deux amis traduit leurs divergences sur la question du renouveau de l’humanisme par la production d’œuvres en langue vulgaire: l’on sait que les humanistes toscans y sont hostiles. 38 Godard, A., Le dialogue à la Renaissance, Paris 2001, 77–78. 39 Godard, Le dialogue à la Renaissance, XV. 40 Proches des préoccupations du cardinal, les Collationes quinque super Epistolam ad Romanos (Anvers, 1529) de Titelmans, furent elles aussi rédigées sous forme de dialogue fictif mettant en scène Érasme, Valla et Lefèvre d’Étaples, voir Meier-Oeser, S./Tittelmans, Frans, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Bd XII (1997), 190–192.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

199

parmi tous les peuples, et la doctrine dont [cette épître] est la plus subtile explication. Et si nous prenons le parti d’imiter la tradition des dialogues, nous ne nous en attachons pas moins aux expressions et aux mots. N’est-ce pas la façon, semble-t-il, la plus adéquate et la plus commode pour traiter tantôt des personnes et tantôt des choses divines, par questions-réponses, en cas de doute. Mais venons-en à notre affaire et notre projet: alors que j’étais, pendant les fêtes de Pentecôte, sur le Quirinal, sur la voie Alta Semita, dans mes jardins somme toute agréables et luxuriants, alors que déjà la chaleur du jour et de l’été croissaient, je m’assis à l’ombre, au hasard, tenant en mains les Épîtres de Paul en grec: j’étais en train de les lire avec une grande attention […] lorsque, soudain, de façon inopinée, mon frère Jules me rejoignit; nous nous saluâmes mutuellement 41 […]: – Je lisais l’épître aux Romains, dis-je; de partout en jaillissent les mystères célestes et cachés. – Justement, me répondit [Jules], j’ai collationné un certain nombre de lieu à propos desquels je souhaiterais connaître ton interprétation. 42

Cet artifice littéraire trahit sans doute la difficulté de la tâche que s’est assignée Jacques Sadolet, comme il l’avoue dans une lettre à Matthieu Gibert, évêque de Vérone, le 27 octobre 1531: “J’écris ici le commentaire de l’Épître aux Romains. Assurément ce sujet est hérissé de difficultés, mais je m’applique à les faire disparaître, et vous verrez vous-même qu’un grand nombre de pensées de l’Apôtre, exprimées en termes obscurs et inintelligibles, se montreront plus claires et plus lucides par le soin que je mets à les dégager des ambages qui les environnent. J’y consacre mon temps, mes veilles et toute mon application”.43 L’année suivante, le Cardinal peine toujours autant, rivé à sa tâche: “Je travaille à un ouvrage difficile; c’est 41 Sadoleti … Opera, 4, 1737–1738, 983–984. 42 “Dabimus hoc charissimi, atque optimis fratris nomini, ac memoriae ut christianae pietatis mysteria, quibus ille maxime semper deditus fuit, et summi doctoris cunctarum gentium scripta, atque doctrinas, quarum altissima est explicatio, cum eo communicemus. Nec, si dialogorum morem fuerimus imitari, idcirco minus omneis sententias, verbaque persequemur; Quin aptius hoc quoque, et commodius videri poterit, si alternis divinisque personis suo quidque loco et interrogabitur, et respondébitur. Sed ut ad rem, et ad propositum veniamus, cum in Romae diebus festis Pentecostes in hortis meis essem, quos in Quirinali colle est, ad altam semitam, satis amoenos uberesque habebam, cumque iam diei, et temporis calor increbresceret, consedi forte sub umbra quadam, volumen Pauli epistolarum Graecum in manibus habens, eamque in eo legendo sane quam attentus, cum inopinato accessit ad me Iulius frater, et continuo salute data et acceptaque: Non tu, inquit, mi frater unquam ne ociosis quidem, festisque diebus ocio esse potes: etsi hoc tibi puo optatum et suave esse ocium, si quid legas, aut scribas, quando te fere omne tempus principis et curiae negotiis tribuere necesse est, in quo video saepe quam sis maximis occupationibus districtus[…] Epistolam legebam ad Romanos illam ipsam, inquam, quae tota maxime scatet coelestibus, obstrusisque mysteriis. Per opportune vero hoc, ille, inquit, collecta enim iam habebam ex illa aliquot loca, de quibus sententiam tuam percontarer”, Ibidem, 983–985. 43 Ricard (abbé), Histoire du Cardinal Sadolet suivie de pièces justificatives, Avignon 1872, 57.

200

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

l’interprétation de l’Épître de saint Paul aux Romains […] Je l’ai terminé et l’ai expédié à son Eminence [le Cardinal de Tournon], dans l’intention qu’il fut soumis à l’appréciation et à la critique des savants qui unissent une saine doctrine à la justesse de l’esprit”. 44 Jacques Sadolet décrit sa méthode: “Ayant entrepris d’expliquer l’Epître de saint Paul aux Romains, et ayant eu la patience de consacrer un temps fort long à parcourir divers commentaires qu’en ont fait plusieurs interprètes, il me semblait que je n’atteignais pas le but de mes désirs, qui était de comprendre parfaitement le sens de cette Épître […] Il y avait toutefois dans l’Apôtre quelque chose de plus caché, de plus subtil, de plus obscur qui me paraissait ne pas avoir été saisi par [ces commentateurs anciens]. Je me mis à étudier saint Paul dans saint Paul lui-même, et je m’appliquais, seul dans mon cabinet et pendant fort longtemps, à le méditer, à peser ses expressions, à examiner le sens qu’on pouvait lui donner”. 45 Dans l’Épître de son Interpretatio In Psalmum Miserere mei Deus (50, h 51), dédiée à Gian Matteo Giberti, Jacques Sadolet livre les principaux éléments de sa méthode exégétique. Après avoir rappelé l’importance de la vera pietas, qui incite les âmes à l’amour de Dieu, il définit le sens spirituel de l’Ecriture transmis dans la significatio rerum: Suscité par un tien désir, bien légitime, et par ta bienveillance, j’ai accepté la tâche, non pas d’interpréter ce psaume, lui seul, mais de le prendre comme exemple: il s’agit, à mon sens, de tout interpréter, non pas avec une égale profusion, mais avec méthode: alors, ces pensées mystiques et divines pourraient non seulement se révéler à ceux qui les scrutent, mais aussi inciter les âmes en progrès à désirer l’amour de Dieu et le culte de cette science divine. En effet, ceux qui insistent sur le sens littéral, ou qui n’admettent pas ce qui va au-delà, [je veux dire] le sens moral, mystique ou allégorique, me semblent faire des coupures injustifiées dans le corps [du texte], qu’il faut interpréter comme un tout; c’est comme si, dans une statue de Phidias, l’on en venait à montrer seulement son piédestal, ou une partie de ses membres, alors qu’on désirait connaître l’œuvre toute entière. Pour ce qui me concerne, je ne pense pas qu’il faille tout confondre. Franchement, qui se permettrait d’agir ainsi, eu égard à l’infinie richesse du saint Esprit, dont la force ne cesse de pénétrer à chaque instant les réalités universelles? 46

44 Ricard (abbé), Histoire du Cardinal Sadolet, 56–57. 45 Lettre du Cardinal Gaspard Contaren (26 novembre 1535), voir Ricard (abbé), Histoire du Cardinal Sadolet, 60. 46 “Suscepi igitur tuo adductus, unius Psalmi munus, non tam intrepretendi nunc quidem, quam exempli in eo edendi: ad quod meo quidem judicio, omnem huiusmodo interpretationem tractari oporteret, non eadem fortassis ubique copia, sed eundem ad modum, quo sensa illa mystica et divina, non solum scrutantibus patere possent, sed adhiberentur animis quoque ad amorem Dei et huius caelestis scientiae cultum accendendis. Nam qui in una insistunt litera, aut qui moralem sensum duntaxat, quique mysticum, allegoricumve suscipiunt, ii mihi videntur in eo corpore, quod tractandum totum est, sectiones facere minime necessarias; ut si in Phidiae statua, cum integrum

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

201

Il est probable que cette méfiance de Jacques Sadolet pour la lecture littérale du texte soit liée à sa méconnaissance de l’hébreu (voire à son antijudaïsme virulent, tel qu’il s’exprime dans son Oratio in Judaeos? mais aucun lien explicite n’apparaît entre ces œuvres) et à sa préférence pour le grec de la Septante. C’est en érasmien que le Cardinal pratique une exégèse “traditionnelle” selon trois des quatre sens médiévaux: littéral, allégorique et tropologique: “Nous disons qu’il faut d’abord exposer la lettre, puis ensuite, une fois les allégories posées sur ce socle, il faut de la même manière construire les tropologies”. En réponse à une lettre à son ami, l’archevêque de Salerne, Federico Fregose, qui lui posait la question de l’interprétation du ravissement de Paul au Troisième ciel (2 Corinthiens 12,2–4), Jacques Sadolet dévoile son but: la recherche d’une exégèse spirituelle, celle des sens cachés, c’est-à-dire la poursuite de la significatio rei: Tu cherches ce que fut ce ‘troisième ciel’ vers lequel fut élevé Paul. Ce n’est pas dans les astres, mais dans la pensée divine qu’il habite. Car ce ‘troisième’ possède la force du superlatif et Paul ajoute aussitôt que là, dans ce lieu, ce sont des paroles cachées, qu’il a entendues, et non des merveilles 47 qu’il a contemplées. Cette mention du ciel ne signifie pas tant un lieu qu’une chose (significatio rei) […] À coup sûr, je prévoyais et m’attendais à ce que tu me jettes dans de très grandes difficultés: si j’interprétais le sein d’Abraham comme étant le Royaume des Cieux, tu pourrais ajouter (à force de recherche et d’interrogation): est-ce que quelqu’un, avant la venue et le mystère du Christ, pouvait vraiment entrer dans le Royaume des Cieux? Pourtant, tu connais l’éminente analogie qui s’attache à ces réalités: le Troisième ciel est le siège du Dieu très grand et prééminent: certes, nous échafaudons là des hypothèses plutôt que nous saisissons une connaissance sûre […] Quant à ce que tu estimes être le sens selon l’hébreu, même si moi je suis habitué à une autre signification, ce n’est pas parce que je mésestime la langue hébraïque, mais c’est parce que je me suis toujours adonné au grec: certes, ton appréciation est valable parce que tu peux facilement affirmer que les choses sont telles que tu les dis: compétent et avisé dans les deux langues, tu possèdes la plus grande faculté d’en juger […] Que les deux testaments puissent être des allégories, je n’en ai pas reçu la confirmation du Dieu-Esprit; quant à ce degré de vérité que tu penses être égal dans l’un et l’autre, il me semble, à moi, différent. Car les ombres sont les ombres et le corps vraiment le corps. La différence qui sépare la vérité des ombres et celle du corps n’est pas mince: dans les deux, le vrai s’équivaut à part égale, mais le vrai ne s’équivaut pas. Ainsi le ciel est bien l’escabeau des pieds de Dieu, même si, en parlant du ciel, nous disons également qu’il est l’escabeau de Dieu, et que c’est Dieu aussi: il va de soi pourtant qu’il existe simulacrum cognoscere averemus, basim ipsam tantummodo, aut aliquod seorsum membrum niterentur demonstrare. Neque ago hoc, quod ego omnia putem confundenda. Qui enim id liceat, in tam immensa spiritus Sanctus copia, cuius momento in universa permeans vis est?”, Sadoleti Interpretatio In Psalmum 50, 262, a.1–2. 47 La vulgate donne: “Et audivit arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui” (2 Co 12,4a). Nous traduisons spectacula par “merveilles” comme l’on parle des sept merveilles (spectacula) du mond.

202

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

un abîme de vérité entre Dieu et l’escabeau de ses pieds. Il faut vraiment laisser cela à des arbitres plus subtils! […] Pour ce qui me concerne, je mets le plus grand soin possible à rechercher les sens cachés et secrets dans les évangiles et Paul.48

Ces sens cachés sont précisément des lieux théologiques les plus obscurs (loca obscuriora), comme le précise Jacques Sadolet dans la lettre à Federico Fregose, que nous avons déjà citée; il y confirme sa lecture d’Augustin, d’Ambroise, de Jérôme pour l’ explicatio rerum, mais aussi de Thomas, de Chrysostome et de Théophylacte. Cette explicatio ou significatio rerum est caractéristique d’une exégèse spirituelle, héritière du De Doctrina christiana d’Augustin qui distingue la signification des mots (significatio vocum) et de la signification des réalités (significatio rerum): “Tout enseignement concerne ou des choses ou des signes, mais les choses s’apprennent par le moyens des signes”. 49 Comme l’a souligné Gilbert Dahan, le sens mystique se fonde sur cette signification des res: c’est ainsi encore chez Thomas d’Aquin dans son In Epistolam ad Galatas 4,24: “Il y a une double signification: l’une par les mots, l’autre par les réalités que les mots signifient. Cela est spécifique à l’Écriture sainte […] Cette signification par laquelle les mots signifient concerne le sens littéral ou historique. La signification par laquelle les réalités désignées par des mots désignent encore d’autres réalités concerne le sens mystique” 50 et les lieux les plus obscurs.

48 “Certe quod providebam et expectabam, potusses tu me in maximas difficultates coniicere: si qua sinum abrahae egnum intelligi coelorum dixi, illud apposuisses quaerendo et percunctando, num ante adventum et mysterium Christi quisquam omnino homo in coelorum regnum introire potuisset. Scis enim his de rebus, quae sit, et quanta contentio. Tertium autem coelum sedem esse summi et praepotentis Dei, coniectura enim magis, quam cognitione certa suscipmus […] Quod Hebraicae linguae tantum tribuendum putas, ego etsi alia solitus sum esse sententia, non quod linguam illam unquam improbarim, sed quod Graecis semper magis fui deditus: tamen cum tantum tuum iudicium sit, facile tibi assentior, rem ita se habere, ut tu dicis: hoc etiam magis, quod tu utriusque linguae egregie peritus et prudens, summam diiudicandi facultatem habere potes […] Deo Cherubin neque ego inficiatus sum duo testamenta recte posse allegorias et tamen ratio illa veritatis, quam in ambobus eundem gradum tenere uis, aliquantum mihi diversa uidetur; Nam et umbrae uere sunt umbrae et corpus uere corpus: interest tamen non parum inter umbrarum et corporis ueritatem: utrinque enim aequaliter uerum est, sed non aequale uerum. Sic et coelum scabellum pedum Dei, etsi de eo aeque uere coelum esse id dicimus atque Deum esse: longo tamen differt ueritatis intervallo a scabello suorum pedum Deus. Uerum haec subtilioribus istis disceptatoribus reliquenda sunt […] Mihi illud potissimum curae est, ut in Euangeliis et Paulo abstrusos et reconditos indagem sensus…”, Sadoleti, J., ... Opera quae exstant omnia ... Nunc primum e variis bibliothecis simul edita et aucta. Ad haec Antonii Florebelli, ... Orationes III, Mayence 1607, 61–66. 49 Augustin, De Doctrina christiana, Paris (Institut d’études augustiniennes) 1997, I, 2, 2. Dahan, G., Exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval, XIIe–XIVe siècle, Paris 1999, 302. 50 Dahan, Exégèse chrétienne de la Bible, 300.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

203

3.2 La justification Quand il commente Romains 1,17: Le juste vivra par la foi, Jacques Sadolet affirme explicitement “qu’il faut interpréter [ce verset] spirituellement” (spiritualiter intelligendum). Cette interprétation spirituelle est mise en œuvre grâce à une synecdoque et se révèle être une double justification: La justice nous est révélée à partir de la foi à travers la foi. Donc cette puissance de Dieu (virtus Dei), qui fait se lever les morts, justifie aussi les impies […]. Et cela d’une double façon: la justice elle-même agit justement et elle rend justes les hommes qui comptent sur eux-mêmes, et qui s’accordent à elle avec foi. Cette justice, qui est la condamnation des délictueux, est tout autant la récompense des mérites […]. Mais la justice n’est jamais justice en soi. Il faut le remarquer: la justice est présentée ici en place du genre ‘vertu’. 51

Sadolet envisage la justitia comme la pars pro toto des vertus. Il fait référence implicitement à l’Éthique à Nicomaque (V, I, 15: “La justice contient toutes les autres vertus”). Pour Aristote, la justice est la somme de toutes les vertus. Elle est distributive (à chacun selon ses mérites et ses besoins) et corrective. Mais, pour Jacques Sadolet, cette justice distributive doit être encore dépassée: la justice, parce qu’elle est le premier attribut de Dieu, est aussi, surtout, la bonté universelle et l’innocence: “En effet, la justice, poursuit Sadolet, n’est pas toujours cette vertu, qui préside aux jugements et aux peines ou récompenses à distribuer, mais, dans la plus stricte vérité et de toute évidence, la justice est la vertu universelle […] elle en est le sommet. Dans l’Écriture, la justice est l’attribut de Dieu, comme il est dit:’ta justice est justice pour l’Eternité et ta loi est vérité’ […] et: ‘Sa lumière se lève sur toi comme l’aurore et sa justice paraît sur toi’. Il faut comprendre ici la justice en place de toute bonté, humanité et bienveillance […] L’Écriture dit encore: ‘cherche d’abord le Royaume de Dieu et sa justice’. Il faut comprendre. L’indice de cette justice divine et absolue est ce que nous appelons la bonté universelle: lorsque quelqu’un est juste, ce n’est pas parce qu’il accomplit des actes intègres, mais parce que par bonté et par innocence, il est honoré parmi les siens, n’accomplissant rien qui ne soit contraire aux lois et aux bonnes moeurs ”. 52 L’on aura reconnu comme source de ce passage le De Officiis, à l’ouverture du Livre Second: pour Cicéron, dans la vie publique, les devoirs découlent de la beauté morale et des genres de vertus dont la justice est la pièce centrale: “C’est donc à cette hauteur d’âme surtout la justice – la seule vertu qui vaille aux hommes l’appellation de gens de bien – qui apparaît à la foule quelque chose d’exceptionnel, et non sans raison. Trois conditions on été posées en vue de la gloire:

51 “Iustitia enim Dei in ipso revelatur ex fide in fidem […] Virtus Dei igitur […] excitare mortuos valet, et iustificare impios […] Atque id dupliciter, quod est iuste ipsa agit, et eos facit iustos, qui sese permittunt, et sese ad eam cum fide conferunt. Et illa iustitia, quae delinquentibus poenam, bene autem meritis premium refert”, Sadoleti, … In Pauli, 21. 52 Sadoleti, Opera omnia, 1738, t. IV, 215B.

204

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

et elles ont toutes réalisées dans la justice: et la bienveillance, du fait que la justice veut être utile au plus grand nombre, et pour al même raison la confiance et l’admiration, du fait que la justice méprise et délaisse les biens vers lesquels la plupart des hommes sont emportés” (De Officiis XI, 38).

Dans la suite de son commentaire, Sadolet défend l’idée d’une restauration progressive de l’image divine en l’homme, une capacité intérieure naturelle de foi et de connaissance, antérieure à la venue de la grâce, qui seule peut parachever le processus de salut; il s’agit de l’initium fidei: il existe quelque chose en l’homme qui déclenche le processus de régénération: “Voila le vrai commencement de la foi (initium fidei): Quand nous nous tournons par notre volonté propre vers le plus grand et souverain Bien, nous trouvons en lui une puissance et une force dans laquelle est contenue la liberté de notre âme. Il ne s’agit pas de l’effet d’oeuvres méritoires mais d’une disposition propre à l’homme”. 53 Dans son De Laudibus philosophiae, Jacques Sadolet avait présenté la raison comme l’ultime étape dans l’âme humaine permettant d’accéder à la Vérité divine. Il poursuit cette réflexion dans son commentaire aux Romains: le processus de rédemption se développe sur le fondement d’une capacité au bien, naturelle. Certes, l’homme est perfectionné et sauvé par la grâce: sans elle, il ne peut avoir accès à Dieu cependant (tamen, l’adverbe est employé de façon récurrente tout au long de la démonstration) quelque chose en l’homme inaugure le processus de régénération; cet initium fidei provient du désir d’être sauvé et l’homme peut contribuer par l’inclination de sa volonté à ce commencement de grâce. L’adverbe tamen est employé de façon récurrente dans la démonstration de Jacques Sadolet:il existe en l’homme un antécédent à la grâce, une juste disposition favorisant l’accueil de la grâce prévenante. En cela, Jacques Sadolet se montre proche de son maître Gilles de Viterbe, qui s’attache à démontrer dans son grand commentaire des Sentences de Pierre Lombard, que l’homme pour être sauvé peut, sinon doit, accomplir que ce Dieu est en soi: Facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam suam (“Dieu ne refuse pas sa grâce à ceux qui font ce que Dieu est en soi”). Cette formule empruntée à Pierre Lombard connaîtra une bonne fortune dans la Somme théologique de Thomas d’Aquin (Ia. IIae, qu. 109, a6, ad 2: “L’homme se prépare à la grâce en faisant ce qui est en son pouvoir, car à celui qui agit ainsi, Dieu ne refuse pas sa grâce (Luc 11,13). Il est donc en notre pouvoir de nous préparer à la grâce”) 54 ou dans son commentaire du Livre II des Sentences du Lombard (d.28, q. 1, a.4 ad 4).

53 54

Sadoleti, Opera omnia, 1738, t. IV, 215B. Thomas d’Aquin, Somme théologique, Paris, 1997, t.2, 755.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

205

4. Le Compendium de Jean Calvin La démarche de Jean Calvin est différente et marque la rupture relative, mais la rupture tout de même, qui caractérise l’exégèse réformée de la deuxième génération: tout en revendiquant la rhétorique comme moyen d’interprétation de l’Ecriture, il refuse d’associer, comme le fait Jacques Sadolet, sens scripturaires traditionnels et “lieux” pour l’interprétation du texte. 55 Dans son Adresse au lecteur, ouvrant son Institution de la Religion chrétienne en effet, Jean Calvin reconnaît avoir conçu un commentaire scripturaire dont il exclut d’emblée les lieux pour les réserver à son œuvre systématique: “Ie pense avoir tellement compris la somme de la Religion chrétienne en toutes ses parties et l’avoir digérée en tel ordre […] que celuy qui aura bien compris la forme d’enseigner que i’ay suivye, pourra aisément juger et se résoudre de ce qu’il doit chercher dans l’Escriture, et a quel but il faut rapporter le contenu d’icele. Et pourtant il n’est ià besoin qu’en mes Commentaires, auxquels i’expose les livres de l’Escriture saincte, i’entre en longues disputes de matières qui sont là traitées, veu que le présent livre est une adresse générale pour guider ceux qui désirent d’estre aydez”.56 En excluant les lieux théologiques, Calvin se concentre sur l’aspect méthodique et rhétorique de l’épître. Dans sa lettre-préface du Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos dédiée à Symon Grynée, Calvin précise son objectif: “La principale vertu d’un herméneute consistait en une brièveté perspicace (perspicua brevitate)” 57 ; cette perspicuitas est une vertu rhétorique dont use un orateur qui présente ainsi la cause de sa narratio, c’est-à-dire l’énoncé des points de litige et la présentation des parties à plaider (Quintilien, Institutio oratoria, 4.2.31; 4.8.9–10) 58 ; cet amour de la concision (amor compendii) est au service d’une utilité (utilitas) 59 . L’utilitas et la brievitas sont les deux conditions requises pour qu’un compendium, comme le recommande la Ratio vel compendium vera theologiae d’Érasme (1519), soit un ouvrage qui puisse énoncer les arguments défendant une cause, l’articulation des preuves (sta-

55 Voir Bütgen, P., Doctrine et allégorie au début de la Réforme. Melanchthon, in: Dahan, G./Goulet R. (eds.), Allégorie des poètes, allégorie des philosophes. Études sur la poétique et l’herméneutique de l’allégorie de l’Antiquité à la Réforme, Paris 2005, 289–322. Nous nous permettons de nuancer: Bucer est, à cet égard, dans ses Metaphrases sur l’Épître aux Romains, un maillon intermédiaire. 56 Jean Calvin, Institution de la religion chrestienne, Benoît J.-D. (ed.), Paris 1957, 24. 57 “[…] praecipuam interpretis virtutem in perspicua brevitate esse positam”, Ioannis Calvini Commentarius 3. 58 Girardin, B., Rhétorique et théologique. Calvin. Le Commentaire de l’Épître aux Romains, Paris 1979, 228. 59 Ioannis Calvini Commentarius 3, 9 et 19. Girardin, Rhétorique et théologique, 284.

206

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

tus causae), au moyen d’un découpage (divisio) rigoureux. 60 L’utilitas, dont Calvin se refuse à préciser le sens, vise à répartir les objets et les parties61 d’une dispositio, de façon méthodique62 . Le commentaire calvinien est construit en effet autour d’une affirmation centrale, la quaestio principalis (il s’agit du lieu de la justificatio per fidem) et organisé partiellement selon les six rubriques de l’Institutio oratoria: exordium, narratio, confirmatio, confutatio, peroratio. La séquence concernant Romains 1,17, après une mise évidence des liens unissant salut, justice et Évangile 63 , s’ouvre véritablement grâce une allusion à Jacques Sadolet: “D’aucuns pensent que cette justice ne consiste pas seulement en la rémission gratuite des péchés mais en partie aussi en la grâce de la régénération”. La questio principalis est ainsi posée d’emblée, mais, comme dans les sommes scolastiques par l’argument contraire et opposé à l’opinion de l’auteur. Calvin répond à cette quaestio par une declaratio: “Quant à moi, j’entends que nous sommes établis en la vie, par ce que le Seigneur nous réconcilie à soi gratuitement”. 64 Il est maintenant question de la foi: “Tandis qu’il avait ci-devant à tous les croyants, il met maintenant de foi, car la justice nous est offerte par l’Evangile, et nous la recevons par la foi”. 65 Puis vient la confirmatio, qui correspond à la définition qu’en donne le Grand et vray art de pleine Rhétorique de Pierre Fabri: “Après la division vient la confirmation qui par argument ou raisons l’on accroist son autorité en affermant la cause de son intention (status causae), car après le fait narré et les particions faites, il fault que les raisons principales tendantes a la fin de ce que l’on en veult suader ou dissuader soient anoblies par confirmation…” 66 Calvin confirme par un appel à l’autorité de l’Écriture, en l’occurrence “le témoignage du prophète Habacuc”, non sans avoir rappelé sa réticence à la continuité des deux Testaments (si “certains pensent que ces mots comportent tacitement une comparaison de l’Ancien Testament au Nouveau, c’est un discours plus subtil que ferme”; est-ce une allusion à l’exégèse bucérienne?): “Comme il est écrit: le juste vivra par la foi. Il prouve cette justice de la foi par le témoignage du prophète Habacuc; car celui-ci, prophétisant la ruine des orgueilleux ajoute en même temps que la 60 Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarishen Rhetorik, Münich 1960, Bd. 2, 203–206. 61 “Utilis rerum ac partium distributio”, Quintilien, De Institutione oratoria, 7, 1,1. 62 Lausberg, Handbuch der literarishen Rhetorik, Bd. 2, 209. 63 Ioannis Calvini Commentarius 28, 8–11. Jean Calvin, Commentaires sur le Nouveau Testament, t. 4, Épître aux Romains, J.-M. Nicole (ed.), Genève 1960, 34. 64 Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 28, 11–13. Jean Calvin, Commentaires, 35. 65 Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 28, 14–18. Jean Calvin, Commentaires, 35. 66 Fabri P., Le grand et vrey art de pleine Rhétorique, publié et introduit, notes et gloses par Héron, A., Genèse 1969, 78.

Annie Noblesse-Rocher

207

vie des justes consiste et est ferme en la foi. Or si nous ne vivons devant Dieu que par la justice, il s’ensuit donc que notre justice gît en la foi”. 67 L’étude grammaticale du temps des verbes permet d’effectuer l’exégèse du verset (Le juste vivra de foi): “Il use du temps futur, en disant vivra, pour indiquer la ferme perpétuité de cette vie dont il parle, comme s’il eût dit qu’elle ne sera point transitoire, mais durera à jamais […] Il n’y a que la foi seule qui apporte une vie durable”. Calvin parvient maintenant à la résolution de la quaestio initiale, au lieu. Il rappelle que ce verset parle de foi et non de justice gratuite explicitement: “Il est vrai qu’il (Paul) ne traite pas de propos délibéré ce point de doctrine; il ne fait donc aucune mention de la justice gratuite; mais toutefois, en considérant la nature de la foi, il apparaît suffisamment que ce témoignage est bien et dûment appliqué au propos qui est ici traité”. 68 Puis il énonce sa propre compréhension de cette question: “Nous recueillons nécessairement qu’il y a une mutuelle correspondance entre la foi et l’Évangile; car parce qu’il est dit que le juste vivra par la foi, il en conclut qu’on reçoit cette vielà par l’Évangile”. 69 Le lien entre justice et foi est donné par l’Évangile, seul donateur de la vie durable. Calvin conclut en énonçant le pivot (cardo) et le statum (causae) (en d’autres termes, le scopus): “Maintenant nous avons le but et le principal point de cette première partie de l’Épître à savoir que nous sommes justifiés par la seule miséricorde de Dieu par la foi”. 70 Lorsqu’il commente Romains 3,27 (“Nous concluons donc que l’homme est justifié par la foi, sans les œuvres de la Loi”), Calvin apporte une conclusion définitive à sa compréhension de la justification, et résout la quaestio (ou propositio) principalis par une allusion aux affirmations de Jean Eck sur la supériorité de l’amour sur la foi: “[Paul] recueille maintenant la principale proposition: ‘C’est une chose qui éclaire beaucoup la justification par la foi, quand on exclut nommément les œuvres. C’est pourquoi il n’y a rien qu’aujourd’hui nos adversaires ne tâchent davantage que de brouiller la foi avec les mérites des œuvres. Ils confessent bien que l’homme est justifié par la foi, mais pas par la foi seule. Au contraire, ils attribuent à la charité la vertu de justifier, quoiqu’en paroles ils la donnent à la foi’”. 71

67 68 69 70 71

Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 28, 26–28. Jean Calvin, Commentaires, 35. Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 29, 5–9. Jean Calvin, Commentaires, 35. Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 29, 8–9. Jean Calvin, Commentaires, 35 Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 29, 10–12. Jean Calvin, Commentaires, 36. Ioannis Calvini Commentarius, 76, 27–34. Jean Calvin, Commentaires, 89.

208

Jacques Sadolet et Jean Calvin

5. En conclusion L’étude de ce seul lieu de la justification par la foi dans les commentaires sur Romains 1,17 de Jacques Sadolet et jean Calvin permet de mettre en évidence leur appartenance à des humanismes différents; n’adhèrent-ils pas l’humanisme général pour l’un (Sadolet), et à l’humanisme particulier 72 , défini comme un programme d’étude culturelle et de pédagogique pour l’autre (Calvin)? Leurs pratiques exégétiques semblent le confirmer. Jean Calvin structure son commentaire de Romains 1,17 selon un ordre rhétorique, emprunté à l’Institutio oratoria de Quintilien, mais aussi à la tradition juridique. 73 La pratique philologique de Calvin comme moyen exégétique, dans ce passage, même ténue, ne le rattache-t-il pas aussi Calvin à l’humanisme particulier? Jacques Sadolet quant à lui, par la forme de son commentaire sur les Romains, qui est loin d’être une Épître “méthodique” selon ses vues, souscrit à la tradition du premier humanisme italien, traversé par le désir d’y inculturer l’Évangile. Les pratiques exégétiques révèlent bien des conceptions théologiques différentes. Jacques sadolet use encore simultanéménet des sens scripturaies médiévaux, favorise une exégèse spirituelle, de type augustino-thomiste et érasmien, fondée sur la recherche de la significatio rerum. Calvin procède tout autrement: l’Écriture seule est sa norme d’interprétation, son autorité la seule reconnue, et l’Évangile est le principe herméneutique, le tout étant servi par des notions rhétoriques en vigueur dans l’exégèse juridique.

72 Kristeller, P.O, Renaissance Thought. The Classic, Scholastic and Humanist Strains, New-York, 1961, 9. 73 Monheit, M.K., Youg Calvin. Textual interpretation and Roman Law, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et renaissance 59 (1997/2), 263–282.

Theory in Practice: Calvin’s Ecclesiology in the French Churches

Raymond Mentzer John Calvin was clearly among the preeminent Christian theologians of the sixteenth century. This aspect of Calvin’s legacy has been long and widely recognized. He also displayed enormous talent, indeed genius, for the reorganization of the Christian church. Calvin’s contribution in this latter regard was substantial and important, yet perhaps has not been as readily appreciated, particularly for regions outside Geneva. Accordingly, it is to this facet of Calvin’s contribution – his ecclesiology and its consequences – that I should like to direct attention. To begin, how did Calvin understand the institutional character of the church? What, moreover, did he seek to accomplish in his reform of ecclesiastical institutions? What were the theological foundations for his activities in this realm? How and to what extent were his ideas put into practice? What effect did Calvin’s designs and accomplishments in the field of ecclesiology have on the organization and operation of Reformed churches beyond Geneva, especially in his native France? Might it even be claimed that certain aspects of Calvin’s ecclesiology as instituted by the Reformed Churches of France came closer to the theoretical model or possibly represented a freer or purer form? Calvin had much to say, both directly and indirectly, about church polity. Although there were some exceptions, notably in Hungary, the elementary component in early modern Reformed ecclesiastical structure was the local church and its consistory. The consistory was an administrative and semijudicial body composed of the ordained pastors of the local church and elected laymen serving as elders and, outside Geneva, deacons. These ecclesiastical officials assembled on a regular schedule, typically once a week, to confer on matters of church administration, the supervision of social assistance programs, and, most famously, the implementation of morals control. Consistorial enforcement of discipline was crucial for Calvin. It went directly to the necessity of screening the faithful for the Lord’s Supper. Only persons deemed qualified by virtue of sound belief and proper behavior could participate in the sacramental meal. On the other hand, when Reformed communities in the larger European landscape established consistories, the focus widened beyond church discipline and morals control to

210

Theory in Practice

include ecclesiastical management, direction over financial affairs, and provision of poor relief. The other salient characteristic of most churches in the Reformed tradition was an elaborate hierarchy of synods and colloquies, which served as a unifying force at the regional and national levels. Surprisingly, Calvin did not articulate an elaborate design for ecclesiastical governance beyond arrangements for the individual church. He certainly did not offer a detailed explanation of synodal polity and its significance. His comments in the Institutes of the Christian Religion1 are nearly silent on the subject, and aside from limited, intermittent observations in letters to the French churches 2 , he never vigorously promoted synodal organization. Geneva, moreover, did not hold synods. In the Reformed setting, these ecclesiastical assemblies appeared earliest in France, which in turn affected events in the Netherlands. The Church of Scotland also enacted a similar, if slightly modified system. And while the issues surrounding Reformed synodal polity are important and warrant close investigation, I defer to other scholars, notably Bernard Roussel, who is preparing an edition of the Actes des Synodes nationaux des Églises réformées de France for the sixteenth century and whose familiarity with these matters is far greater than mine. Rather, I wish to concentrate my remarks on Calvin’s ideas regarding the consistory and its place within the local church, the manner whereby arrangements initially unfolded in Geneva, and, above all, practice among the Reformed Churches of France during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Let us begin then with a brief summary of Calvin’s comments on church discipline and the consistory. The enforcement of discipline was the primary function of the consistory at Geneva, and ecclesiastical discipline was extremely important for Calvin and his followers. Calvin maintained that the marks of a true church were “the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution”. Discipline stood directly alongside these two identifying marks, though it was more a mark of the Christian and went to the wellbeing of the earthly church. Thus, in addressing the Apostolic model of the church in his 1539 debate with Cardinal Sadoleto, Calvin argued that “there are three things upon which the safety of the Church is founded, namely, doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments”. 3 Others such as

1 Inst. 4.7.8 and 4.9. Calvin, J., Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.), Philadelphia 1960, 1126–1127 and 1166–1179. 2 See, for instance, Calvin aux fidèles de France, in: Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (ed. G. Baum/E. Cunitz/E. Reuss; 59 vols.), Brunswick 1863–1900, 17: 710–716. 3 Olin, J.C. (ed.), John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, New York 1966, 63. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.1.10, Calvin observed: “Symbola ecclesia

Raymond Mentzer

211

Theodore Beza and John Knox were, if anything, more emphatic in their approach, deeming discipline – the promotion of virtue and punishment of sin – an important mark of the church.4 In addition, both the Scots Confession of 1560 and the Belgic Confession of 1561 insisted upon discipline as a mark. The former termed ecclesiastical discipline uprightlie ministered a note, sign or assured token of the trew kirk of God; the latter referred to it as one of three “marques pour connaître la vraie Église”. 5 Calvin characterized discipline as the sinews of the church 6 and in his Harmonium Evangelica offered an explicit, Scripturally-based justification for its exercise by the consistory. 7 The key Biblical text was Matthew 18,15–17 in which Jesus instructed his followers: If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone […] if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you […] if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Calvin argued that because the Christian church did not exist when Jesus uttered the pivotal words “tell it to the church”, he must have meant some Jewish institution, most likely the Sanhedrin, a tribunal composed of both priests and laymen. The Reformed consistory, also made up of clergy and lay persons, was in turn the appropriate sort of subsequent Christian ecclesiastical body for the implementation of church discipline. 8 These ideas became practice with the 1541 Genevan Ecclesiastical Ordinances 9 , an explicit statement of the constitution of the Christian church. The municipal legislation, in whose drafting Calvin exercised a strong hand, opened with a precise and concise summary. dignoscendae, verbi praedicationem sacramentorumque observationem posuimus”. Calvin, CO, 2: 754. 4 Bèze, Th. de, Confession de la foy chrestienne, contenant la confirmation d’icelle, et la refutation des superstitions contraires, Geneva 1559, 156–157; Knox, J., The forme of prayers and ministration of Sacraments, etc. used in the English Congregation of Geneva, Geneva 1556, 39. Sunshine, G., Discipline as the Third Mark of the Church: Three Views, Calvin Theological Journal 33 (1998): 469–480. 5 Scots Confession, article 18. Belgic Confession, article 29. Schaff, Ph., The Creeds of Christendom (6th ed.; 3 vols.), Grand Rapids 1998 (Reprint of 1931 New York edition), 3: 419– 420 and 461–462. 6 See, for example, Calvin, J., Inst. 4.12.1, in CO, 2: 905. 7 Calvin, J., Harmonium Evangelica, in CO, 45: 514–515. 8 Kingdon, R.M., La discipline ecclésiatique vue de Zurich et Genève au temps de la Réformation: l’usage de Matthieu 18,15–17 par les réformateurs, Revue de théologie et de philosophie 133 (2001): 343–355. 9 For their complete text: Ordonnances ecclésiastiques, in: Kingdon, R.M./Bergier, J.-F. (eds.), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève, vol 1, 1546–1553, Geneva 1964, 1–13. Ecclesiastical Ordinances, in: Hughes, Ph.E. (ed. and trans.), The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin, Grand Rapids 1966, 35–49.

212

Theory in Practice

Firstly, there are four official orders which our Lord instituted for the government of His Church, namely: pastors; secondly, doctors; thirdly, elders [...] and, fourthly, deacons. If then we wish to have the Church well ordered and maintained in its entirety, we must observe this form of government.

The Ordinances proceeded to explain in detail the duties of each of the four offices or ministries. The pastors were to “proclaim the Word of God [...] administer the sacraments, and [...] exercise fraternal discipline together with the elders [...]”. The members of the second office – that of doctor or teacher – were to “instruct the faithful in sound doctrine [...]”. In reality, the doctors trained future pastors in educational institutions such as the Academy of Lausanne and later that of Geneva. For their part, the Reformed Churches of France established more than a half dozen academies along similar lines. 10 The elders, according to the Genevan Ordinances, had the special, albeit controversial duty to “watch over the life of each person, to admonish in a friendly manner those [...] at fault [... and ...] to administer fraternal discipline.” Fourthly, the deacons cared for the needs of the poor and other members of the congregation who were in distress. The final section of the Ordinances explained the consistory, indicating that the pastors and elders were to gather each Thursday “to see whether there is any disorder in the Church and to consult together concerning remedies [...]”. The text also provided specific guidance regarding those faults over which the consistory had jurisdiction and suggested the appropriate corrective measures. When the French churches began to organize in the late 1550s and early 1560s, their ecclesiastical leaders were keenly aware of this design. Most were familiar with the Institutes and other of Calvin’s writings. More importantly, many among them, having visited and studied at Geneva, had first-hand knowledge of the system’s operation. Moreover, once churches and consistories had been established, the French pastors and elders wrote to Calvin, seeking advice on consistorial practice. They asked him, for instance, whether individuals appearing before the consistory should be made to swear an oath. His response was that the consistory ought to “proceed cautiously.” People must understand the necessity of speaking the truth, yet they must not confuse the consistory with a secular law court. On a related subject, was it permissible to elect civil magistrates such as judges and other judicial officers to serve as elder? Again, Calvin answered in the

10 Maag, K., Seminary or University?: The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560–1620, Aldershot 1996; idem, The Huguenot Academies: Preparing for an Uncertain Future, in: Mentzer, R.A./Spicer, A. (eds.), Society and Culture in the Huguenot World, 1559– 1685, Cambridge 2002, 139–156.

Raymond Mentzer

213

affirmative, while noting that, in these cases, the consistory should take care that the individual not confuse the civil and ecclesiastical offices. 11 The institutional structure of the French churches, nevertheless, possessed its own Gallic personality. Though accepting the theoretical model proposed by Calvin and first introduced at Geneva, French pastors and elders modified practice in significant ways to fit their particular circumstances. The organization, procedures, and even the jurisdiction of the consistory diverged between Geneva and France. The differences reflect, in part, the size, culture, social structure, and political constitutions of the two entities. Geneva was a small self-governing city, ruled by a series of interlocking councils whose members belonged to a fairly homogenous bourgeoisie. With the Reformation, Reformed Christianity became the exclusive religion of Geneva. France, on the other hand, was an immense and diverse country. It was the largest and most populous of the western European monarchial states. The kingdom enjoyed enormous financial resources and was a major diplomatic and military power. It also remained predominantly Catholic; Protestants were never more than a minority, amounting to some six or seven percent of the population at the end of the sixteenth century. The differences between Geneva and France inevitably meant that, despite adherence to a common set of Christian beliefs and traditions, the Reformed church for each area would acquire its own character. The approximate French equivalent to the Genevan Ecclesiastical Ordinances was the Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France. It was a longer and more encompassing document than the Ecclesiastical Ordinances. It also possessed an intrinsically organic quality; the national synods continually updated, amended and elaborated its many provisions. Particularly thorny questions often originated with local congregations, rose slowly through the colloquies and provincial synods, and eventually reached the national level, where their resolution could be incorporated into the Discipline. 12 Delegates to the first national synod, meeting secretly at Paris 1559, drafted the initial kingdom-wide Discipline. It established the panoply of regulations and customs governing the church. Every church was expected to have a current copy of the Discipline and members of the consistory were required to be familiar with its contents. Indeed, elders and deacons usually had to sign the Confession of Faith and the Discipline at the moment of their election or upon a renewal of their annual terms of office. They promi-

11 CO, 19: 245–246. 12 Among the better available editions are d’Huisseau, I., La Discipline des Eglises réformées de France ou l’ordre par lequel elles sont conduites et gouvernées, Geneva 1666; and Méjan, F., Discipline de l’Eglise Réformée de France annotée et précédée d’une introduction, Paris 1947.

214

Theory in Practice

sed to uphold the provisions contained in the two statements. Both, after all, provided the essential direction for their activities. Much like its Genevan counterpart, the French Discipline opened with a lengthy explanation of the four ministries. It defined the offices of pastor, doctor, elder and deacon, explaining carefully the necessary qualifications, the procedures for selection, and the responsibilities associated with each. The next section described the institutional structure of the church with individual chapters on the consistory, colloquy, and synods both provincial and national. The Discipline then turned to the liturgy, prescribing the manner for worship, fixing the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and clarifying with painstaking detail the regulations surrounding marriage. The final chapter elucidated a variety of moral failings and offered advice to ecclesiastical authorities for dealing with these problems and punishing offenders. The responsibilities of the French national synod for articulating collective statements of belief such as the Confession of Faith, establishing kingdom-wide church order through the Discipline, and adjudicating complicated disputes were fundamental in the promotion of stability and unity. Still, local churches, particularly during the earliest years of reform, composed their own Disciplines. The Disciplines of Bayeux and Saint-Lô, both written in 1563, and that Nîmes, formulated at a later date (likely after the mid1580s), had much in common with the national Discipline. At the same time, they satisfied local needs for explicit guidance in the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs. 13 The Police de l’Église réformée de Bayeux was a detailed statement with long descriptions of the offices of pastor, elder and deacon, along with the role of the schoolmaster. In general, the French Disciplines and even the national Confession of Faith had little to say about the office of doctor, preferring instead to address pedagogical concerns at nearly every level from catechetical instruction and local primary schools to the regional academies. 14 Other sections of the Bayeux church order explained Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, consistorial censure, marriage, visitation of the sick, and burial. The Discipline de l’Église de Saint-Lô was an equally systematic text, although it too possessed several distinctive features. 13 Kingdon, R.M./Mentzer, R.A./Reulos, M., ‘Disciplines’ réformées du XVIe siècle français: une découverte faite aux Etats-Unis, Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 130 (1984): 69–86. Reulos, M., Police et discipline de l’Église de Saint-Lô (1563), in: Les débuts des communautés réformées dans l’actuel Département de la Manche (Cotentin et Avranches), in: Réforme et Contre-réforme en Normandie, special issue of Revue du Département de la Manche 24 (1982, fascicules 93–94–95): 31–61. Archives Départementales, Gard, 42 J 28, fols 372–375. 14 The French Confession of Faith, for example, mentions only pasteurs, surveillants and diacres. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:376.

Raymond Mentzer

215

Among other matters, it confided disciplinary responsibility entirely to the pastors and elders 15 , thereby excluding deacons who had involvement with these matters in most other French churches. In addition, the Saint-Lô church order was the only French Reformed Discipline to delineate closely the role of the magistrate within the church. Not surprisingly, the civil authorities were to help enforce discipline and insure, for example, that taverns were closed during the sermon service. The Memoyre de l’ordre qu’on tient au consistoire de Nymes covered much of the same ground, but was a far sparer document. All three statements clarified local practices with regard to a number of issues that the national Discipline discussed only in broad fashion. Thus, the Nîmes Memoyre de l’ordre made clear that the pastors presided over the consistory according to a systematic rotation. It also fixed the order of business, established procedures for the collection and disbursement of funds for the poor, and specified visitations of the municipal collège. Throughout the Reformed world, the relationship between ecclesiastical and civil authorities had profound repercussions. Under Genevan constitutional arrangements, the consistory was in effect a committee of the municipal government. 16 Among other things, it reported to the Small Council, which governed the city on a daily basis. In addition, the twelve elders, who served on the Genevan consistory, were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the city’s ruling councils. 17 They were political officials, who also shouldered considerable responsibility for the religious reform of the community. While the pastors, under Calvin’s immediate direction, communicated the truths of Christianity regularly from the pulpit and through weekly catechism lessons, the elders supervised a transformation of ordinary people’s way of life and labored to instill a new set of religious habits and devotional practices. Although the pastors and elders worked together in reforming society, the latter had a powerful voice in the conduct of consistorial affairs. In his capacity as elder, one of Geneva’s four syndics, the city’s principal executive officers, presided over the consistory’s weekly meetings. The critical reform of manners plainly had political repercussions and required the extensive practical knowledge and well-honed political skills of elected council members. These municipal governing officers wished to monitor and supervise the Reformation. This was, after all, their community; its stability and well-being were crucial. 15 “Singulièrement les Ministres et Anciens veilleront et s’enquerront des scandales de l’Église pour les reprendre et censurer [...]”. Reulos, Police et discipline de l’Église de Saint-Lô, Revue du Département de la Manche 24 (1982, fascicules 93–94–95): 50. 16 Kingdon, R.M., Nostalgia for Catholic Rituals in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Meuffels, O. (ed.), Grenzgänge der Theologie, Professor Alexandre Ganoczy zum 75. Geburtstag, Münster 2004, 209. 17 Ordonnances Ecclésiastiques, Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs, 1: 7.

216

Theory in Practice

In France, the absence of a cooperative association between the Reformed churches and the monarchical state lent consistorial organization a far different tone. Given the antagonistic, often violent relationship between the Protestant churches and the Catholic crown, Reformed ecclesiastical officials had, in ironic fashion, relatively free rein to make the changes they deemed necessary for religious reform. The king was, on the whole, more interested in eradicating the Reformed churches than in policing them. For their part, the Huguenot nobles directed their endeavors mainly toward military and political affairs. Municipal officials in those cities and towns which the Huguenots controlled were similarly inclined. Although there were exceptions, such as the nobleman and several municipal consuls who served as elders at Meyrueis in the late sixteenth century 18 , members of the political elite, whether feudal lords or urban patricians, tended not to serve on the consistory. The elders were, to be sure, part of the emerging bourgeoisie; many were professionals drawn from the ranks of merchants, lawyers, physicians and prosperous artisans. Yet the close association of elders and municipal authorities as found in Geneva was not duplicated in France. Moreover, unlike Geneva, a pastor rather than an elder presided over the meetings of the consistory. The French elders certainly watched over the moral well-being of the faithful and they shared with the deacons enormous responsibility for the financial security of the church. Nonetheless, the pastors held primary leadership, especially during the sixteenth century, in the vigorous campaign to reform Christianity and remodel people’s religious conduct. Some ministers could be extremely assertive, if not strident. At Camarès, for example, the pastor Bernard Constans issued his own list of sins and tolerated no interference from anyone, even the civil magistrate, who might wish to challenge his authority over the local church. 19 The differences in the political constitutions of Geneva and France had substantial consequences. The Genevan Small Council managed church finances to include both the collection of revenues and payment of pastor’s salaries. 20 Indeed, it hired and fired the pastors. The municipal government enacted legislation vital to religious reform and even controlled some de-

18 Bibliothèque de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, Paris, Ms 453, fols 76f–77 and 86. Garrisson, J., Protestants du Midi 1559–1598, Toulouse 1980, 95 offers some precise data on nobles and municipal officials who served on the consistory at Nîmes, Montauban and elsewhere. 19 Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Paris, Ms 6563, Registre du consistoire de Pont-de-Camarès, fols 62v–63. 20 Kingdon, R.M., Catechesis in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Engen, J. van (ed.), Educating People of Faith, Grand Rapids 2004, 298.

Raymond Mentzer

217

tails of consistorial procedure. 21 The French Reformed churches, on the other hand, received virtually no financial assistance from the state, but had complete autonomy in the appointment of pastors. These arrangements also meant that they were responsible for compensating the pastors. During the seventeenth century, the pastors and elders of many French churches often found themselves in an extremely contentious discussion over the payment of the pastor’s salary. Pastors occasionally threatened to find new posts unless their salaries, which were always in arrears, were paid. In the end, the pastors lost this battle and, most everywhere in France, were forced to accept a salary reduction of twenty-five percent, going typically from 400 to 300 livres per year. The French consistories were similarly autonomous, to both advantage and disadvantage, in the reform of the community. They could summon suspected sinners and the witnesses to various misdeeds, but had no legal power over them. In comparison, the pastors and elders of Geneva had at their disposal a wide range of punishments for those who had transgressed on the moral order by committing sins such as domestic quarreling, absence from sermon service, gambling, dancing and fornication. The consistory and civic authorities of Geneva cooperated to impose a variety of corrective penalties. Wrongdoers could be verbally censured, made to perform public reparation, excommunicated, or referred to the municipal authorities for sanctions that included fines and imprisonment, banishment and corporal punishment. When the Genevan consistory found men and women guilty of adultery, the city government might subsequently exile or even execute the offenders. 22 While the French consistories chastised wrongdoers in no uncertain terms for many of the same faults, the penalties fell within a far narrower range. Lacking support from the state, the French churches could not directly or indirectly impose fines, request imprisonment, or recommend banishment. Cooperation between Reformed religious officials and secular authorities in France was largely restricted to major Protestant towns such as Castres and La Rochelle, Montauban and Nîmes, and even then seems to have involved no more than the consistory and municipal council informing one another regarding adulterers and fornicators so that each could punish the offenders in its own fashion.23 During the 1590s, for example, several women accused of fornication at Montauban appeared before consular justice as well as before the consistory. Most of them seem to have come to the 21 Lambert, Th.A., Preaching, Praying and Policing the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Geneva (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: University of Wisconsin, 1998), 17–18. 22 Kingdon, R.M., Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, Cambridge 1995. 23 Mentzer, R.A., Morals and Moral Regulation in Protestant France, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 31:1 (Summer, 2000): 1–20.

218

Theory in Practice

consistory’s attention by way of municipal justice. More often than not, investigatory initiative rested with municipal authorities. On several occasions, the Montauban consistory explicitly instructed its elders to review the consular trial transcripts and report on their findings. The consistory afterward summoned the defendants and relevant witnesses for questioning and suitable ecclesiastical chastisement. 24 Similar collaborative efforts appear to have existed in some other Protestant towns. To the east, the consistory and municipal officers of Nîmes also worked together for the creation and enforcement of moral order. 25 There, ecclesiastical authorities were more likely to refer fornicators and adulterers to municipal justice following their appearance before the consistory. Yet aside from these rather isolated cases, the French churches had little hope of supportive and mutually reinforcing relationships between church and state. The unique character of the French Reformed Churches is perhaps nowhere more striking than in the exercise of excommunication, which barred an individual from participation in the sacraments, notably the Lord’s Supper. It was the most severe of all ecclesiastical punishments and was typically a last resort, invoked when pastoral counsel and consistorial admonition failed to bring about penitence and reconciliation. The absence of a close rapport between church and state meant that the French consistories had considerable independence in applying this grave ecclesiastical penalty. The consistories excommunicated as they saw fit and could only be challenged by the colloquies and synods. In many imperial German and Swiss citystates, by way of contrast, the secular magistrate retained strict control over excommunication. 26 It was a complicated matter with significant political, civic and social ramifications; church officials might not always comprehend the intricacies. Geneva, where the consistory, largely at Calvin’s insistence, had the right to excommunicate was unusual. Still, let us not forget that the Genevan elders were political officers and, thus, the magistracy retained a strong voice in the process. Even so, debate over the right to excommunicate occurred sporadically. 27 Tensions surfaced in 1553 due to

24 Archives Départementales, Tarn-et-Garonne, I 1, fols 163 and 328. 25 Chareyre, Ph., ‘The Great Difficulties One Must Bear to Follow Jesus Christ’: Morality at Sixteenth-Century Nîmes, in: Mentzer, R.A. (ed.), Sin and the Calvinists: Morals Control and the Consistory in the Reformed Tradition, Kirksville 1994, 66 and 76. 26 A helpful recent exploration of the conflict between church and state over control of excommunication is Bruening, M., Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528–1559, Dordrecht 2005. 27 Early in the Genevan Reformation, the Small Council had decreed that individuals could not be excommunicated for refusal to swear an oath to the new Confession of Faith. The secular authorities did, however, reserve the right to banish them. Naphy, W.G., Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, Manchester 1994, 27.

Raymond Mentzer

219

Calvin’s suspension of Philibert Berthelier from the Lord’s Supper. 28 Berthelier, who belonged to the Perrin clan that opposed Calvin, avoided open conflict, at least on this point. The incident, nonetheless, revealed the potentially explosive nature of the discussion over which institution – church or state – ultimately wielded the power to excommunicate. Later, in the early seventeenth century, the Small Council again challenged the consistory on the issue. 29 The French consistories were far less constrained in their employ of excommunication, but the situation had its drawbacks. The Reformed Churches of France did not need permission from political authorities to exclude men and women from the sacraments. Without the backing of the state, however, the effect was diminished. Ecclesiastical authorities were at pains to limit social and economic contacts between excommunicates and other members of the congregation. The consistory, moreover, was unable to restrict the legal rights of excommunicates. It could not, for instance, prevent them from pursuing civil or criminal suits in the court system as had been the case under earlier medieval arrangements. 30 Protestant church leaders in France had extensive discretion regarding excommunication, but the consequences were attenuated. The very composition of the consistory varied among the various national Reformed churches. Only pastors and elders sat on the Genevan consistory. In France, the deacons were also included, though their status and authority rarely matched that of the pastors and elders. Many French churches had six, eight or more elders, but only one or two deacons. Even a large and important Protestant town such as Nîmes had only one deacon for every two of its elders. Though the meaning of the term deacon evolved during the initial years of the French Reformation, the function and duties were ultimately much the same as at Geneva. The deacons attended to the needs of the poor whose suffering the Christian had a divinely ordained charge to help alleviate. Nonetheless, the manner whereby they discharged their responsibilities differed markedly. Reformed churches throughout Europe allocated enormous energy and financial resources to assist the needy. The pastors, elders and deacons saw themselves as obedient to scriptural injunctions to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick. Poor people, furthermore, could not be allowed to live as vagrants on the margins of the community. They needed to 28 On this subject, see Grosse, Chr., L’excommunication de Philibert Berthelier. Histoire d’un conflit d’identité aux premiers temps de la Réforme genevoise (1547–1555), Geneva 1995. 29 Ibid., 184–185. Cottret, B., Calvin: A Biography, (trans. M. Wallace McDonald), Grand Rapids and Edinburgh 2000, 195–196. Lambert, Preaching, Praying and Policing, 222–223 and 250–255. 30 Mentzer, R.A., Marking the Taboo: Excommunication in French Reformed Churches, in: Sin and the Calvinists, 97–128.

220

Theory in Practice

be integrated into the assembly of the faithful, properly supervised by church authorities, and taught correct Christian virtue. Again, the differences between Genevan and Gallic responses to the challenge of helping the impoverished were significant. While in both cases, the deacons were lay ecclesiastical officials whose primary duty was to aid the indigent, they operated within quite different institutional frameworks. Even before the drafting of the Genevan Ecclesiastical Ordinances, the city had established a Hôpital Général, which reorganized and reformed its medieval social welfare programs. Poor relief was under the control of the municipal authorities. Calvin gave the system ecclesiastical approbation and, in some ways, sanctified it. He designated as deacons the persons who attended to the operation of the Hôpital Général, but neither the Genevan pastors nor the consistory exercised direct control over them. 31 In France, the consistory explicitly managed the details of social assistance. Rather than establishing a separate institution such as the Genevan Hôpital Général, the French consistories administered cash funds. Most French churches maintained two separate funds: one for the poor, another for the pastor’s salary and related expenses – the bourse des pauvres and the bourse de l’église. Every consistory constantly received and reviewed petitions from persons in distress. Owing to meager assets, the consistory was forced to make difficult decisions regarding those requests which it could honor. It then directed the deacons to undertake the specific courses of action upon which it had settled.32 In addition, the deacons sat on the French consistory alongside the pastors and elders. They spoke and were heard. Finally, depending upon the locality, their duties overlapped with the responsibilities of the elders, and vice versa. Deacons sometimes assisted in supervising the behavior of members of the community and elders might well help to identify and aid persons who were in economic trouble. The division of labor between deacon and elder was not hard and fast. The consistory’s principal task, the implementation of discipline, was intimately related to the life of worship and, in particular, participation in the quarterly celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. French pastors usually announced the service two or three weeks in advance, allowing members of the congregation ample time to undertake the necessary spiritual preparation. Some churches went even further. The elders of Coutras in the French southwest reported to the consistory on the “manner of living, morals and other things” for each member of the congregation on the Sunday preceding 31 Kingdon, R.M., Social Welfare in Calvin’s Geneva, American Historical Review 76 (1971): 50–69. 32 Mentzer, R.A., Organizational Endeavour and Charitable Impulse in Sixteenth-Century France: The Case of Protestant Nîmes, French History 5 (1991): 1–29.

Raymond Mentzer

221

the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. 33 Everywhere within the French Reformed community, the consistory invited notorious sinners and excommunicates to seek forgiveness during the period leading up to the Eucharist. This sacred communal meal was the appropriate moment for repentance and the restoration of communal harmony. Churches also offered mandatory adult catechism lessons during this preparatory period. In most French churches, the elders distributed entry counters – sometimes paper chits, on other occasions leaden tokens – at the conclusion of catechism. The tokens were subsequently collected at the communion service, at either the communion table or the temple door. No one could participate without one.34 Ultimately, the use of tokens to control access to the Eucharist proved sufficiently effective that some churches adapted the system for other related purposes. Thus, the Church of Mougon in the region of Poitou extended the practice to Baptism and marriage. No one could present an infant for Baptism or obtain permission to marry at Mougon without producing a token obtained from her or his elder and thereby attesting to good standing in the church. 35 At the same time, the tokens were another feature that distinguished the efforts of the French Reformed Churches. Calvin had, in fact, proposed this very system for Geneva. In late January 1560, he and Pierre Viret urged adoption of a token system to regulate admission to the Genevan Communion service. Addressing the city’s Small Council, they proposed that “the church introduce a token system in order to avoid the danger of those who profane the Lord’s Supper”. Only persons who had provided testimony to their faith would be given a token, without which no one would be admitted to the Supper. A few days later, the ruling council firmly rejected the idea of “making leaden tokens to give to those who wish to receive the Lord’s Supper”. 36 The Venerable Company of Pastors raised the issue several times in the early seventeenth century, again without positive response from the Genevan magistrates. Still, with Calvin’s encouragement 37 , probably in 1561, the Reformed Churches of France developed an intricate token system which flourished well into the eigh-

33 Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Paris, Ms 6559, fol 13. 34 Anjubault, M.M./Chardon, H., Papier et registre du Consistoire de l’Eglise du Mans, réformée selon l’Evangile, 1560–1561 (1561–1562 nouveau style), Le Mans 1867, 35–36. Mentzer, R.A., The Printed Catechism and Religious Instruction in the French Reformed Churches, in: Barnes, R.B./Kolb, R.A./Presley, P.L. (eds.), Habent sua fata libelli. Books Have Their Own Destiny. Essays in Honor of Robert V. Schnucker, Kirksville 1998, 93–101. 35 Mentzer, R.A., The Reformed Churches of France and the Visual Arts, in: Finney, P.C. (ed.), Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition, Grand Rapids 1999, 221. 36 Archives d’État de Genève, Registres des Conseils, vol. 55 (1559–60), fols 185 (30 January 1560) and 186v (1 February 1560). 37 CO, 17:711.

222

Theory in Practice

teenth century, long after Louis XIV had outlawed Protestant worship in the kingdom. These comments on the implementation of Calvin’s ecclesiology by the Reformed Churches of France are, of course, more suggestive than definitive. Even so, I hope that they reveal something of the manner by which churches outside Geneva embraced Calvin’s model, but modified it to suit their particular circumstances. French Reformed leaders were entirely in agreement with Calvin’s overall views regarding the institutional character of the Christian church. They readily established consistories for their individual churches and introduced the four ministries that Calvin had delineated, even if the office of doctor seems not to have developed beyond embryonic form. Ecclesiastical authorities in France were equally cognizant of other practices that Calvin had endorsed in his writings and inaugurated at Geneva. Because the French churches enjoyed substantial independence of action, they were relatively uninhibited in their introduction of elements whose institution at Geneva Calvin found challenging or impossible. Perhaps the best examples are the French churches’ complete control over excommunication and their employ of communion tokens. These same French churches also possessed great latitude in the appointment of ecclesiastical officers such as pastors and elders, the design of programs for provision of poor relief, the formulation of ecclesiastical polity, the drafting of confessional declarations as well as national and local church orders, and the exercise of church discipline. The French state took no particular interest in the supervision of these matters. More accurately, the French monarchy opposed the very existence of the Reformed churches and therefore mostly ignored their internal polity. The crown frequently persecuted Protestants and, at best, suffered their existence. Clearly, the French Reformed churches never had the state support that was so crucial to the success of any early modern church. They were, as a result, constantly confronted by crushing financial burdens and never certain of their legal status. Yet these very conditions, oppressive as they were, allowed the autonomous French Reformed churches to undertake initiatives that Protestant political authorities in other parts Europe opposed or disallowed altogether. To respond then to our original query, it would not be unreasonable to claim that while the position of the French churches was unpleasant and difficult, it did provide them significant freedom of action as they set about putting into practice Calvin’s views on the structure and function of the Christian church. Whether the results came closer to Calvin’s ideal than elsewhere in the Reformed world is, of course, a far more complicated and decidedly more delicate problem.

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst of All Possible Christians?

Irena Backus Lives of the Reformers written in the sixteenth century, which are my current research project 1 , are a literary genre, which is much more common than sixteenth century specialists tend to think. So far they have never been given the full attention they deserve probably because they were hardly ever anthologised at the time, and often appeared in a clandestine format such as prefaces to works. Written by friends and disciples of the deceased reformers, they were a potential source of embarrassment. As we shall see they were intended as encomia and not as critical accounts of religious leaders’ lives. They very rarely referred to documents and did not even aim at exhaustivity, concentrating on the subject’s personal virtue and sanctity and services rendered to the Protestant cause. They were rooted in several ancient traditions: the Greco-Roman funeral oration, Lives of statesmen, heroes, philosophers etc, which flourished in the latter phase of the Roman Empire when it became important to federate its far flung subjects under a common heritage. They were normally diffused as collections, Plutarch’s Lives being the classic example. These genres were in turn adapted by Christians, giving funeral orations (such as those of Gregory of Nazianzus), Lives of bishops, Possidius’ Life of Augustine being a case in point 2 and eventually Lives of martyrs and saints, with their characteristic accounts of miracles, which were also diffused as collections such as the Vitaspatrum and the Legenda aurea. The Greco-Roman model of biography was revived in the Renaissance, which saw the publication of many collections of Lives of illustrious individuals. 3 The intention of these was to provide ethical examples of illustrious lives as subjects of imitation. 1 In progress: A Monograph on Writing Lives in Reformation Europe. 2 On the Lives of bishops of the Early Church see See Vite dei Santi, a cura di Christine Mohrmann, III: Vita di Cipriano, Vita di Ambrogio, Vita di Agostino. Testo critico e commento a cura di A.A.R. Bastiaensen (translated into Italian by L. Canali and C. Catena), Milan 1997. Hereafter cited as: Mohrmann. 3 For example: Egenolph, C., Virorum qui superiori nostroque saeculo eruditione et doctrina illustres atque memorabiles fuerunt Vitae. Iam primum in hoc volumen collectae. // Terentius: inspicere tanquam in speculum vitas hominum iubeo atque ex aliis sumere exemplum sibi, Frankfurt 1536.

224

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

Sixteenth century Protestant biographers inherited all these traditions. They were often theologians as well as humanists and also familiar with medieval hagiography. Their chief methodological problem was therefore to avoid falling into the trap of Protestant hagiography without modelling their accounts too closely on Greco-Roman imperial biographies or on the Renaissance model, which was lay by definition. This was not always easy to manage. Most often Lives of the reformers were written to silence criticisms of the deceased and rumours surrounding them. This apologetic perspective entailed an exaggerated emphasis on the subject’s piety with the result that volens nolens he came to resemble a saint minus only the martyrdom and the miracles. At the same time the Reformation saw the rise of a new type of biography in the form of Reformers’ Lives written by adversaries, the intention of which was to turn the faithful away from the Reformation. They were scathing, libellous and particularly virulent in tone. This genre, pioneered by Bolsec, was particularly popular in France and in Scotland in the latter half of the sixteenth century and in the early seventeenth century. Calvin’s Lives provide a particularly apt illustration of some of the tensions attendant on the genre. Even more to the point they provide an explanation of Calvin’s image or rather images, which haunt him to this day. They also show that there was such a thing as the Genevan approach to biography and that this approach was not anodyne. It will not be possible to exhaust the subject of Calvin’s Lives today. I shall focus on the pro-Calvin Lives by Beza and Colladon (1564, 1565 and 1575) and on the anti-Calvin Life by Bolsec, as something of a trend setter. In examining Beza’s first Life of Calvin I shall be referring to Possidius’ Life of Augustine as providing a likely model albeit not one explicitly named as such by Beza.

1. Calvin as seen by Beza in 1564 As is well-known, all three different versions of Life of Calvin were produced between 1564 and 1575. The latter version was frequently reprinted in the seventeenth century. All contain Calvin’s will and a list of his works in an appendix. Beza wrote the first version in French as a preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Joshua which the reformer left unpublished on his death in 1564 and which his successor had published by Perrin in Geneva in 1564.4 In the same year Beza had it published separately under the title Discours 4 105.

See Gardy, F., Bibliographie des œuvres de Théodore de Bèze, Geneva 1960, no. 173,

Irena Backus

225

de M. Théodore de Besze, contenant en bref l’histoire de la vie et mort de Maistre Iean Caluin avec le Testament et derniere volonté dudict Calvin. Et le catalogue des liures par luy composez. 1564. 5 Gardy lists four separate imprints of the leaflet all dating from 1564, and printed respectively in Orléans by Eloi Gibier, with no printer’s address, in Saint-Lô by Thomas Bouchard and in Orléans with no printer’s name. The leaflet of 63 pages contains a preface by the printer, presumably Eloi Gibier, which points to a fundamental difficulty surrounding the publication. According to it, there is no risk of a Life of Calvin veering towards hagiography or fomenting superstition. On the contrary, he considers Beza’s Life too short having been intended only as a preface and the reader must not think that the remembrance of someone as important as the Genevan reformer can be encompassed in such a short work. 6 However, this does not make it worthless. What then is the specificity of Beza’s biography? Still according to the printer, its object is above all to edify the reader. As he puts it: Friendly reader, I am offering to you this summary account containing the life and death of the faithful servant of God, John Calvin, in whom you will see marvellous examples of assaults which he bore to defend the doctrine of the Son of God and also the help God gives to his own when his honour and glory are at stake. 7

It is also meant to help further the Protestant cause “as it will surely give you hope of expecting a fine and complete account of everything he did, which will profit greatly the progress of God’s church”. 8 Beza’s Life of Calvin is thus an account of a person and not of an instrument of God’s providence. Calvin’s Life provides an edifying example of someone who bore countless assaults in his struggle to establish the true doctrine of God. Knowing about Calvin the man and what he had to endure is matter for an 5 I shall be referring to the imprint of this edition (also published in 1564) which bears no printer’s address. See Gardy, Bibliographie, no. 175, 105. 6 Beza, Discours, 2: Imprimeur au lecteur: “Cependant ne trouue estrange si ce discours ne commence par la forme accoustumee aux Hystoriographes, car l’intention de l’autheur qui est M. Theodore de Besze, semblablement bon seruiteur de Dieu, et compagnon de M. Iean Caluin en l’oeuure du Seigneur, n’a esté de le publier comme une histoire, ains seulement pour vne preface aux commentaires dudict Caluin sur le liure de Josue, mis en lumiere depuis son trespas. Ie t’ay bien voulu aduertir de ce, affin que tu ne pensasses que la memore d’un si grand personnage se peut contenter d’vn si petit discours (combien qu’il soit diligemment et veritablement fait)[…]”. 7 Beza, Discours, 2: Imprimeur au lecteur “Amy Lecteur, ie t’offre ce present sommaire contenant la vie et mort du fidele seruiteur de Dieu M. Iean Caluin par lequel tu verras de merueilleux examples des assaux qu’il a soustenus pour deffendre la doctrine du Fils de Dieu, et aussi quelle assistence Dieu fait aux siens quand il est question de son honneur et gloire”. 8 Beza, Discours, 2: Imprimeur au lecteur: “[…] lequel te servira seulement de te donner esperance d’attendre vne belle et ample histoire de ses faits et gestes, qui profitera grandement à l’aduancement de l’Eglise de Dieu […]”.

226

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

official biography which will profit the church. This introduction to Beza’s Life is all the more surprising when we bear in mind Calvin’s own discretion about himself and his open aversion to becoming an exemplum or any sort of cult figure after his death and a fear of it happening despite his wishes. The tone set by the preface to Beza’s Life would show that his fear was warranted. The wish expressed in the preface of seeing a full Life of Calvin remained unfulfilled until the nineteenth and the twentieth century which saw a flourishing of biographies of the reformer. However, the very fact that Beza who initially hid his account in a preface, produced a French pamphlet-sized version of it in that same year would show that the pressure was there already in 1564. Between 1564 and early 1565 the Discours underwent further eight French imprints including one in a new issue of Calvin’s Commentary on Joshua. 9 It was anthologised in the Histoire d’excellens personnages which in its first edition of 1555 consisted of French versions of biographies of Luther, Oecolampadius and Zwingli.10 It was also translated into Latin, English and German.11 Unlike the Lives of other reformers, Calvin’s Life was to undergo extensive revisions and transformations. Thus the French version was first of all augmented by Nicolas Colladon and published as a preface to Calvin’s Commentaires svr le liure de Iosué in 1565. 12 This version was then reprinted five times between 1565 and 1663 both separately and as part of the commentary. Finally in 1575 Beza completely rewrote the Life appending the new version to his edition of Ioannis Caluini Epistolae et responsa which were subsequently re-edited in 1576 and 1657.13 The same version of the Life was also inserted in the 1617 edition of Calvin’s Opera theologica and in the 1654 Leiden edition of the Institutes. 14 9 See Gardy, Bibliographie, nos. 175–182. 10 Cf. article by Carbonnier-Burkard, M., Une histoire d’excellents personnages, in: Zinguer, I./Yardeni, M. (eds.), Les deux Réformes chrétiennes. Propagande et diffusion, Leiden 2004, 43–59. This is one of the very rare attempts to create an anthology of reformers’ lives, which fell rather flat. 11 See Gardy, Bibliographie, nos. 184–187. 12 Commentaires de M. Iean Calvin svr le liure de Iosué. Auec une Preface de Theodore de Besze, contenant en brief l’histoire de la vie et mort d’iceluy: augmentee depuis la premiere edition deduite selon l’ordre du temps, quasi d’an en an … A Geneve, De l’imprimerie de François Perrin. 1565. Cf. Gardy, Bibliographie, no. 189, 112. I shall be referring here to the version in Ioannis Caluini opera quae supersunt omnia, (ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss), vol. 21, Braunschweig 1879 (cited heafter as CO. 21), col. 50–115. 13 Ioannis Caluini Epistolae et responsa […] Eiusdem I. Caluini Vita a Theodoro Beza Geneuensis ecclesiae ministro accurate descripta […] Omnia nunc primum in lucem edita, Geneva, Pierre Saint-André, 1575. Cf. Gardy, Bibliographie, no. 200, 119. For the later editions see ibid., nos. 201–203, 206. 14 See Gardy, Bibliographie, no. 204–205.

Irena Backus

227

Why was it necessary to redo Calvin’s Life twice when the Lives of other Reformers never underwent more than one version by any one author? Given that none of the Lives produced was as extensive as the printer of the 1564 version of the Discours would have wished, comprehensiveness cannot have provided the sole motive. Before examining the three versions , it is important to say something about the role played by Nicolas Colladon. His name never appears in the work and we know him to have been the author of the second Life only because Beza reveals as much in his Apologia altera ad F. Claudium de Xaintes which figures in the second volume of Tractatus theologici: You say that it was I who called Elisha’s words ‘my father, my father’ after Calvin as he was leaving this life. But, as everyone here knows, it was not I who wrote or published this Life but my erstwhile colleague, Nicolas Colladon, although admittedly he did include in it the preface which I wrote to the French version of Joshua and which treats of Calvin’s life and death. 15

However, despite the fact that Beza admitted to Colladon being the author, his name did not figure anywhere. In 1983 Daniel Ménager 16 following Herminjard argued that it was far more likely that Beza himself was the author as the references in the first person could only apply to Beza and not to Colladon. Why the subterfuge? Still according to Ménager, it was due to the reference to 2 Kings 2,13 which acts as an epigraph: “my father, my father, the chariots and the horsemen of Israel” – Elisha’s cry at seeing Elijah translated into Heaven. The phrase in itself was innocent enough and was more of standard expression of grief at the death of leader than indication of a wish to identify Calvin with Elijah. Berthold Haller used it in the former sense in a letter to Beza. 17 However, Cavin’s Catholic opponents, especially Claude de Saintes in 1567, were quick to see it as a sign of Protestant idolatry. This was coupled with the fact that some Protestants such as 15 See CO. 21, 10: “Ego historiam illam quod omnes hic norunt neque scripsi neque edidi sed qui tum erat mihi collega Nicolaus Colladonius, quamuis in eam sit translatum quod de Caluini vita et obitu quadam in Iosuam praefatione Gallica fueram praefatus”. 16 Ménager, D., Théodore de Bèze, biographe de Calvin, in: Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 45 (1983), 231–255, esp. 244–247. 17 Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, recueillie par Hippolyte Aubert (ed. A. Dufour, H. Meylan and others), Geneva 1960 – (in progress) vol. 5, 85: Haller to Beza, 23 June 1564: “Quamuis non possim non plurimum dolere propter obitum clarissimi et maximi viri D. Caluini et cum Elizaeo clamare: ‘currus et auriga Israelis’, tamen illi gratulor quod Dominus ipsum ex miseriis huius mundi et praesenti saeculo malo liberauit et ad regnum suum coeleste transtulit.” Ménager who cites the phrase (245–246) sees it as indicative of the fact that his friends and disciples identified Calvin with Elijah. However, the contrast between the reference and the part of the sentence beginning “tamen illi gratulor […]” shows that Haller is using it as a metaphor. Olivier Millet informs me that the quotation was something of a commonplace to mark the death of a religious leader in the sixteenth century.

228

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

Simonius expressed the view (also in 1567) that biographies of Calvin were likely to render the Protestants vulnerable to the accusation of being worshippers of Calvin rather than Christ. 18 According to Ménager, these factors combined together sufficed to make Beza deny the authorship of the second Life in 1568. However, this does not explain why he then wrote another Life in 1575. Indeed, the only reason could be, was that he felt that the first was far too short and the second, although fuller, too liable to criticism and in some sense even more likely than the Discours to discredit Calvin biographies. Even more importantly, there was no reason to misattribute the Life to Colladon especially and the latter never denied his authorship. Furthermore, it is a known fact that Colladon, as his Commentary on the Apocalypse shows, was far more explicit than Beza (or for that matter Calvin)19 about the eschatological significance of the Reformation and far more given to revealing hidden details of Calvin’s life which he prided himself on knowing. Thus any biblical reference with eschatological overtones could only be attributed to Colladon. Moreover, the radical difference of tone between the second Life and the other two speaks for a different authorship. I shall examine the Lives in chronological order. What does the Discours have in common with Possidius’ Life of Augustine? Firstly, there is the way it was published: as preface to a biblical Commentary. Even though it is legitimate to surmise that Beza thus wanted to respect Calvin’s wish for discretion, it is a fact that Possidius’ Life which was available in print since 1484 was initially published as a preface to Augustine’s selected works. The structure and the content of the Life played an important role in the way Beza structured Calvin’s biography. Possidius first of all gave a chronological account of Augustine’s life, following it by a section on his hero’s morals and by a section on his last days and death. Throughout his account he emphasised the role of grace, Augustine’s services to the North African Church, his struggle against heretics. He gave a detailed account of both his public and private morals and stressed that he died a good Christian death.20 Beza wrote his biography of Calvin in rather different circumstances. He did not have anything like the Confessions to draw on and he wanted to underplay the personal element without removing it altogether, which is why he starts his Life with an account of Calvin’s doctrine and his struggles against heresies of his time: 18 Ménager, Théodore de Bèze, 246. 19 See Backus, I., The Beast. Interpretations of Daniel 7,2–9 and Apocalypse 13,1–4, 11–12, in: Lutheran, Zwinglian and Calvinist Circles in Sixteenth Century, Reformation and Renaissance Review, 2000, no. 3, 59–77. Eadem, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich and Wittenberg, New York 2000, 66–74. 20 On the structure of Possidius’ Life of Augustine see Mohrmann (as in note 1), XLII– LXIII.

Irena Backus

229

Indeed, as for his doctrine which I shall address first, it is so far from the truth that the very number of its opponents renders it suspect to all people of sound judgement that, on the contrary, it can serve as a good argument of its solidity. This is especially true as no one who ever opposed it was aware that they were criticising not just a man but one who was a true servant of God. 21

There follows a chronological catalogue of all the heresies combated by Calvin. The catalogue falls into two parts; the first part contains the main heresies, the second subsidiary ones. Among Calvin’s main opponents Beza lists the Anabaptists, Caroli, Servetus, Bolsec, and the Antitrinitarians. Second order heretics include Pighius, Sadolet, Joachim Westphal and Tilleman Hesshusen. Although Beza does not say so in so many words, what makes them second order is the fact that, unlike the first category, they all issue from established Churches. Castellio and Bauduin get a section to themselves. One of the distinctly un-Possidian features of Beza’s biography is a long excursus on his own disagreements with Castellio which only ended with the latter’s death in 1563. Even though he feels qualms about including it, he does nothing to remove it and justifies this by appealing to the edifying value of such warnings: I know that this long discourse will displease some as if I were speaking as a man of immoderate passions who could not even let the dead rest in their tombs, but I can protest before God that I never hated him when he was alive and that I never had any personal dealings with him, good or bad. So, far be it from me to hate and persecuted the dead who are given over to the judgement of God. But I wanted to voice this so that everyone keeps away from his books and from disciples that he left behind.22

Castellio had been dead since 1563 but his Conseil à la France désolée with its doctrine of religious toleration found an echo in France and could still constitute a threat to the progress of Genevan Reformation. Beza’s Calvin, rather like Possidius’ Augustine, is shown to be the model churchman who spent most of his time combating heresies, so much so that Beza concludes that his account of it exhausts the major part of Calvin’s life which was in his view “one perpetual doctrine, in what he said, what he 21 Beza, Discours, 4: “Or, quant à sa doctrine, de laquelle je veux parler en premier lieu, tant s’en faut que la multitude de ceux qui luy ont contredit la doivent rendre suspecte envers toutes gens de bon jugement qu’au contraire cela seul pourroit servir de certain argument pour l’approuver, d’autant que nul ne s’y est jamais opposé qui n’ait expérimenté qu’il s’adressoit non point contre un homme, mais contre un vray serviteur de Dieu”. 22 Beza, Discours, 15: “Je sçay bien que ce long discours sera trouvé mauvais par aucuns, comme si j’en parlois en homme passionné et ne pouvois même souffrir les morts se reposer en leur sépulchre, mais je puis protester devant Dieuque jamais je n’ay hay le personnage vivant, avec lequel aussi je n’eus jamais affaire particulier en bien ni en mal; tant s’en faut que maintenant je voulusse hayr et pourchasser les morts qui sont remis au jugement du Seigneur. Mais il a falu que cecy fust entendu afin que chascun se garde de ses livres et disciples qu’il a laissez après luy”.

230

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

wrote and in his morals and way of life”. 23 However, Beza does not stop his biography there. Had he done so, he would have produced more of an account of Calvin as instrument of God than a biography. Unlike Possidius who separated the factual account of Augustine’s life from a description of his public and private morals, Beza interweaves the two. After the standard account of Calvin’s origins and education, he gives an idealised account of his expulsion from and return to Geneva. In the rest of the account he interweaves his subject’s public and private morality. Calvin according to him had total integrity, worked harder than any man in the service of the church. He had extremely fragile health and despite this he endured the exceptionally heavy charge that God placed upon his shoulders. He was of exceptional temperance and most of the time contented himself with one meal taken every twenty four hours. Contrary to the accusations of some, he was not in the least vainglorious or ambitious, never abused his position, and never made any important decisions without consulting his colleagues. His attire and the furnishings of his home were of the utmost modesty. He never dedicated his works to important patrons. Although, in contrast with Augustine, Calvin was married, Beza stresses that his marriage was of the most chaste despite the accusations of adultery levelled not so much at him as at those close to him (in fact his sister-in-law). But according to Beza, similar things happened in the house of Jacob and David. But he has yet to be born, the man who could so much as suspect him of whom we speak […] He lived for about nine years in the state of chaste matrimony. After his wife’s death he remained a widower for 16 years until his death […] Who could be a stauncher enemy of any adultery? It is true that the Lord tested him on this through persons who were close to him. Far worse things happened in the house of Jacob and David. 24

Beza naturally does not mean that during his nine years of marriage Calvin abstained altogether from sexual intercourse with his wife. More likely, he means that during that time the conjugal act was limited to a minimum necessary for procreation. Calvin and Idelette did in fact have one son who died a few days after his birth in July 1542 as attested very briefly by Cal23 Beza, Discours, 17: “Voilà les principaux combats que ce bon personnage a soustenus heureusement pour la vérité du Seigneur. Au reste par ce discours je pense avoir traité la pluspart de sa vie, car qu’a-ce esté autre chose de sa vie qu’une perpetuelle doctrine, tant par paroles que par escrits, et par toutes ses mœurs et façons de vivre?”. 24 Beza, Discours, 33–34: “Mais il est a naistre qui jamais en ait mesmes soupconnés celuy dont nous parlons en lieu où il ait conversé. Il a vescu enuiron neuf ans en mariage en toute chasteté; sa femme estant décédée, il a demeuré en viduité l’espace d’environ 16 ans et jusques à la mort […] Qui a esté le plus rigoureux ennemi de toute paillardise? Il est vray que le Seigneur l’a exercé sur ce fait en des personnes qui le touchoyent de près. Il est arrivé pis encore en la maison de Jacob et de David”.

Irena Backus

231

vin’s correspondence for that year with Pierre Viret and Jean Sturm. 25 It is not clear that Beza ever knew this. Apart from his chastity, Calvin was characterised, according to Beza, by his clemency towards heretics and by his vehemence which no-one could confuse with a choleric temperament. It goes without saying that he had a good death. 26 This summary suffices to show that Beza adapted the Possidian model to his first Life of Calvin. Allowing for difference of context, period and public, Beza, like Augustine’s biographer, insists on his subject’s struggle against heretics, his services to the church, the interference of divine grace, his high level of public and private morality, and more especially his chastity. Like Possidius, Beza wastes no time on psychological insights.

2. Colladon By ordering events in Calvin’s life in a strictly chronological fashion Colladon does away with the Possidian model. Calvin’s Life now focuses much more on events and this means that the reformer is shown not so much as a static model as someone interacting with the environment. This should make the Life much closer to the modern conception of historical biography. However, this is not the case for various reasons. Firstly, the biographer’s object is not to situate his subject in the history of his period but to prove that his life shows him to be called by God and armed by Him with holy perseverance until the day of his death to edify his own orally and in writing. 27 Thus, as Colladon stresses that anything that happens happens only because of God’s will, the life of Calvin only makes sense because it is a part of providence. However, despite being couched in this providential framework, Colladon’s biography contains all sorts of anecdotes about Calvin which incidentally do not figure in the Discours. At the same time he devotes a great deal more attention than Beza to Calvin’s works and is very careful to establish their chronology. As Ménager28 pointed out, Colla25 See Herminjard, A.L. (ed.), Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française, 9 vols, Geneva; Georg, H. and Fischbacher, P.G., 1866–1897, vol. 8, no. 1149 (letter from Calvin to Viret, 19 August [1542]), 103 and no. 1173 (letter from Jean Sturm to Calvin, 29 October [1542], 170. 26 W. Lindanus in his Historia tragica of 1564 (French version: Discours en forme de dialogue ou histoire tragique, Paris 1566) mentions that most of the reformers encountered bad and ignoble ends (147r). 27 CO., 21, 52–53. 28 Ménager, 243.

232

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

don introduces anecdotes such as the theft of Calvin’s horse when he was on his way to Basel in 1536 29 , his risking his life to quell a rebellion of the Council of 200 on 16 December 1547 30 , or joking with his friends that he did not produce a second edition of the Traité des reliques (1546) because they failed to provide him with further examples of fake relics. 31 He also shows privileged knowledge of Calvin’s intellectual gifts, his memory in particular, and cites several examples of its prodigious capacity. 32 These anecdotes are not arbitrary and, pace Ménager, neither are they intended simply to liven up the account. Representing himself as one of the friends who received from Calvin conversational pearls that the general public was not privy to was one of Colladon’s claims to fame. 33 The anecdotes are thus meant to point to him as author while authenticating the account. Another feature of his Life of Calvin is its construction on a yearly basis according to the Chronicle model. This means that he structures it more as a series of struggles than a Life or a biography in the modern sense. We might further note the frequency with which he cites dates. There seems to be two reasons for this. Colladon is motivated partly by the desire to establish an accurate chronology of Calvin’s published works thus reinforcing Beza’s initial contention that the man was the doctrine. 34 However, he also sets out to show that God intervened directly in the history of Geneva during Calvin’s time, beginning with his return in 1541: Thus he settled in Geneva on the 13th September 1541, in the company of M. Viret. And it was at this point that God demonstrated his miraculous mercy upon the people of Geneva. For given that the deliverance of Israel was put back forty years when they rejected Moses, is it not true that the people of Geneva deserved to be forever in servitude to the tyranny of the Devil and the Roman Antichrist once they rejected Calvin and his associates, those excellent and faithful servants of the Lord? And yet God allowed that this did not impede the building of our Church for any longer than three years. 35

29 CO. 21, 53. 30 CO. 21, 69. 31 CO. 21, 68. 32 CO. 21, 108–109. 33 For his claim that he had privileged knowledge of Calvin’s view of the Apocalypse see Backus, I., Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse, New York and Oxford 2000, 71–73. 34 See e.g. CO. 21, 62–63: “Davantage il commença à escrire sur sainct Paul, dediant son commentaire de l’Epistre aux Romains à M. Simon Grynée, le plus docte des allemans et son grand ami. La date dudit Commentaire est de l’an 1539, le 18 octobre. Aussi il escrivit en François un petit Traité et bien familier, de la Cene du Seigneur pour l’usage de ceux de la langue Françoyse […]”. 35 CO. 21, 64: “Par ainsi il fut restabli derechef à Genève, l’an 1541, le 13 de septembre trouuant là pour son compagnon M. Viret. En cest endroit se monstra merveilleuse la misericorde de Dieu envers le peuple de Genève. Car si le peuple ancien reiettant Moyse, la deliurance fut

Irena Backus

233

Calvin’s certamen comes to an end with his death described by Colladon at great length as the paradigm of a death of true servant of God exercising a public function. This is followed by the part on Calvin’s lack of ambition, morals etc. which takes on a more expressly apologetic colouring than in the Discours. What Colladon has done is writing a much more apologetic account of Calvin’s life and work, basing it explicitly on personal knowledge. These elements alter completely the Discours which has been reordered to fit into this framework.

3. Beza’s second Life of Calvin Beza’s second Life of Calvin represents a further stage in the growing awareness in the Protestant camp of what it meant to write the biography of a reformer. It is important to note that Beza appends the Life to his Edition of Calvin’s letters thus linking implicitly a biography and the letter as a documentary source. However, this does not make Beza into a modern biographer. Nowhere does he suggest that he based his work on the letters, which we know to have been very carefully selected for public use. 36 Their function is to confirm a certain image of the reformer and not bring the reader closer to the man or to reveal hitherto unknown facts about him. In fact, it is legitimate to contend that one feature of favourable religious biography of the period that concerns us is to reveal only what is expected by the pious faithful or what public decorum demands. It is indeed a striking feature of Calvin’s three Lives that the same man is revealed in all three. The only new facts added such as dates of works or anecdotes are carefully chosen so as not to disturb his image. That being said, Beza in 1575 had to face up squarely to the issue of creating a Calvin cult, on an analogy with saint-worship. He abandoned the model adopted by the Discours and refined somewhat the chronological account of the second Life. More importantly, however, he added a methodological and ideological justification: Let them clamour, those who got hold of the idea through ignorance and those who are wicked, that we worship Luther, Zwingli and Calvin as if they were gods while retardee quarante ans, le peuple de Geneve n’estoit-il pas bien digne d’estre à iamais asservi sous la tyrannie du diable et de l’Antechrist romain, quand il avoit reietté Calvin et ses compagnons, fideles et excellens serviteurs du Seigneur? Et toutesfois Dieu n’a permis que pour cela ait esté différé l’edifice de ceste Eglise que trois ans seulement”. 36 See Ménager, Théodore de Bèze, 249–251, esp. 250: “La Correspondance, déjà soigneusement triée pour n’offenser ni la mémoire de Calvin, ni la susceptibilité des destinataires, ne passe pas finalement dans la biographie”.

234

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

very frequently decrying as idolaters those who worship saints. Let them shout, I say, as loudly and as long as they want. We have an answer ready. It is one thing to commemorate the labours, the words and the actions that holy men performed or uttered in the cause of religion – for good men become better through knowing these things while the wicked are condemned, that being our sole purpose in this sort of writing. It is, however, quite another thing to do as they do, which is either to deface the lives of truly holy men with tales which are as impious as they are inept (this what Abdias, whoever he was, did with the Lives of the Apostles), or to fabricate tales from the most disgusting lies (generally called golden legends in barbarian vocabulary, but I call them stinking legends suitable for removal) and finally to bring back into use the images of pagan gods, with only the names changed. 37

The function of the reformers’ Lives is ethical and edifying. They bear no relation to the Lives of the saints and do not mingle fact and fiction. They do not attribute supernatural powers to their subjects, nor are they meant to encourage people to worship them. In his attempt to define the genre further, Beza adds: There is no one in my view, he says, who does not admit that amidst all God’s works men are to be recognised and honoured above all, and among these mortals, especially those who have distinguished themselves by their teaching and by their saintliness. It is not for nothing that Daniel [12,3] compares saintly men to stars who by their splendour point the way to blessedness to others. Those who allow their light to be completely extinguished at their death deserve themselves to be invaded by darkness much thicker than before. 38

By acknowledging this Beza confirms the tradition that had been tacitly taking shape since the early 1530s. 39 While rejecting mediaeval Lives of the saints and taking up a rather vague stance on uses of the Possidian or for that matter the pagan model, this tradition affirms that select individuals are crucial for the fulfilling of God’s plan and that their Lives have a role to play in the spiritual itinerary of the faithful. This in Beza’s view requires a particular style to avoid any confusion with Greco-Roman Lives on the one hand and Lives of the Saints on the other hand: I did not want to imitate those who do not so much point up the truth as render it suspect to some by adopting a panegyric or epideictic style. Therefore I have striven to write not as ornately but as truthfully as possible and have preferred to use a simple narrative style. 40

37 CO. 21, 119–120. 38 CO. 21, 120. 39 I try to trace it in my study in progress on Writing Lives in Reformation Europe, to appear in Aldershot (Ashgate) in the course of 2008. 40 CO. 21, 120.

Irena Backus

235

This apparently routine sentence reveals a methodological awareness not shown in the Discours. Beza in 1575 consciously departs both from the antique model of biography as a variant of a funeral panegyric and from the model of saints’ Lives. The Life of a reformer, especially one as important as Calvin, should obey its own laws. Colladon had set the tone, by specifying that he set out Calvin’s Life in chronological order for the sake of simplicity but it is Beza who defines the genre. A Protestant biography is supposed to be truthful in the sense of not containing any admixture of the miraculous or legendary. It is also supposed to be plain so as to distinguish it from the Lives of heroes of pagan antiquity. However, as its aim is to edify the faithful, it conserves important elements of Roman imperial biographies by providing a role model or a source of inspiration with which the faithful can identify. It is not for nothing that this third biography of Calvin is also the first Protestant biography to publish a physical description of its subject à la Suetonius and in the spirit of Varro’s Imagines, albeit it does so in a summary form and only after the account of his death. Beza describes Calvin as of medium height, of very pale and dull complexion with eyes which remained bright until he died, sign of penetrating intelligence. 41 Beza was obviously in the process of developing a conception of Protestant biography which would crystallise five years later in a somewhat different form in the Icones. According to it, the hero is placed in a biographical tradition going back to the Roman Empire while retaining a distinctive Christian colouring. This entails a certain standardisation or emblematisation which is why Beza reduces considerably Colladon’s detailed defence of Calvin’s character and morals. Although he is aware that Calvin is still being accused of all sorts of excesses including false miracles 42 , he does not feel that a detailed apology is called for. Furthermore, he dismisses the accusations of ambition, cruelty, greed etc. as routine. All great men of Pagan Antiquity were accused of these and similar crimes, he contends. As for true servants of God they have always been the object of opprobrium. In this third version of his biography Calvin is raised to the status of a Hercules Christianus. 43 Beza’s Life of Calvin in its final version thus marks the beginning not only of a new style of religious biography but also of a new perception of the role of individuals in implementing God’s plan. Calvin is not a saint, but contrary to what might be expected given the Protestant concept of predestination, he is not a cipher either. With his second Life of 41 CO. 21, 170: “Statura fuit mediocri, colore subpallido et nigricante, oculis ad mortem vsque limpidis”. 42 This accusation first appears in W. Lindanus in 1564. In the French version of the work Discours en forme de dialogue ou histoire tragique (Paris 1566) it figures on 128r. It was taken up by several Catholic writers. 43 CO. 21, 170.

236

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

Calvin Beza put forward the notion of the Christian hero which was to propagate itself until well into the twentieth century and which finds its full expression in the Geneva Reformation Monument.

4. Jerome Bolsec Jerome Bolsec wrote his Life of Calvin in 1577 as a response to Beza’s first Life of the reformer. It is not necessary to introduce Bolsec in detail. Suffice it to say that in his last years he returned to the Catholic Church, settled in France and published his Lives of Calvin (1577) and Beza (1582). 44 Although he spent much of his life in conflict with Calvin, the two Lives he published were intended to strike at Beza rather than at the author of the Institutes who had been dead since 1564. What is significant about his Lives is not that they were hostile but that they were published as Lives as opposed to the biographical notices on Calvin by Roman Catholic authors such as e. g. Dupréau, Lindanus, Florimond de Raemond or Laurentius Surius , which were concealed within larger works of history of heresy. This would suggest that Bolsec saw the threat of both the reformers, Calvin in particular, attaining to the status of a saint partly thanks to Beza’s biography. He therefore set out to destroy the image of Geneva in France as quickly and effectively as possible. Whether Bolsec’s works were factually true or false is not something that need concern us here. To say that they arose in a polemical context is to say very little. It is far more important to note that any hint of the existence of Protestant saints posed a threat in certain Catholic circles; otherwise Bolsec’s works would not have encountered their enduring success. In the preface to the first edition addressed to Pierre d’Espine, archbishop of Lyon and primate of France, Bolsec shows full awareness of ancient biographical genre and his own distortion of it. Indeed, hostile Lives were not practised in Antiquity. Ancient lawyers preferred to exercise their rhetorical skills in their clients’ defence rather than as attorneys for the prosecution. Of Cicero’s rare extant prosecuting speeches he singles out those against Verres, governor of Sicily notorious for his avarice and lasciviousness. 45 44 On Bolsec see Holtrop, Ph., The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination from 1551 until 1555, Lewiston 1993 and literature cited ibid. 45 The preface is included in the Latin translation of the Life of 1580 (De Ioannis Caluini magni quondam Geneuensium ministri vita, moribus, rebus gestis ac denique morte. Historia ad reuerendissimum archiepiscopum et comitem Lugdunensem per Hieronymum Bolsecum medicum Lugdunensem conscripta et nunc ex gallico eius Parisiis impresso exemplari Latine reddita.

Irena Backus

237

As well as deviating from the antique biographical style, Bolsec knows that he is flouting the basic rhetorical rule of not speaking ill of the dead.46 However, he considers that one way of avoiding that accusation is to reinterpret the proverb “praise only is to be lavished after death” so as to mean: […] not that we should praise all men once they are dead, but that men who did perform great and illustrious deeds in their lifetime should not be given excessive praise while still alive in order not to encourage adulation and more importantly because it is only at the end of their lives that we can say what they did that was good and that what was bad. 47

Bolsec seeks to justify himself thus in the eyes of many people who he knows will hold it against him that he “wanted to bring out into the open the many vicious deeds of John Calvin after his death” in contrast with Beza and his laudatory Discours. 48 In his own defence he cites Plato according to whom “he who is immersed in sordid deeds and nonetheless passes for a good man so that he is elevated to the highest public position, wreaks more damage upon the common weal than all those citizens generally acknowledged as bad of whom nothing is expected.” 49 He is the first of Calvin’s hostile biographers to insist on the reformer’s calamitous influence on France and on his role in the wanton destruction of his native country “and the neighbouring lands”. According to Bolsec, Calvin was directly responsible for turning countless simple souls away from the Roman Catholic Church. However, his real adversary is not so much Calvin himself as Beza who in Bolsec’s view dares contend in the Discours that his mentor was more important and led a purer life than all the apostles, doctors and their successors put together. 50 With its hagiographical tone, the Discours was indeed likely to influence some Catholic faithful to defect to the Protestant camp, hence Bolsec’s determination to “counter Beza’s lies”. 51

Coloniae, apud Ludouicum Alectorium et haeredes Iacobi Soteris, anno 1580. (Hereafter: Bolsec, Calvin, 1580), 3–7 but disappears from subsequent editions and translations. I have consulted the 1580 Latin version after ascertaining that it is a faithful rendering of the French original. 46 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 3: “Et surdo maledicendum etiam non esse vulgo iactatum prouerbium est, quod de absente vel de vita functo potest intelligi. Atque huc etiam pertinet quod non minus vulgo dicitur, nimirum vt post funera atque mortem laudes”. 47 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 3–4. 48 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 4. 49 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 4. 50 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 4–5. 51 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 5: “silentium abrumpere coactus sum vt eodem zelo atque spiritu qui me anno 1552 incitabat vt praesens praesenti in eo ipsi Geneuae coegerant coetu atque concilio palam resisterem etiam nunc permotus et instigatus manum calamo admouerem et Bezae me obuium obiicerem eiusque mendacia confutarem quibus in magnum diuinae gloriae praeiudicium

238

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

He takes God as witness that he is not motivated by any personal dislike of either of the two reformers but partly by zeal to let the truth come to the fore and partly by sympathy with all those simple souls whose ruin and perdition the Genevan reformers brought about. 52 One obvious question arises at this point: why did Bolsec wait so long before publishing his Life of Calvin? He justifies the delay claiming that he had planned to do this for some years but that all sorts of hindrances and impediments had been put in his way by “God’s ancient enemy” so that the first opportune moment did not come until 13 years after Calvin’s death. 53 The moment was wellchosen indeed as it coincided with the time when France was at its weakest after the 7th War of Religion which ended with the treaty of Bergérac in June 1577. It was also the time of hardening positions and the rise to power of the ultra-Catholic Guises with whom d’ Espine was associated. Moreover, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Bolsec was seeking revenge not so much on Calvin himself but on his disciples who conspired to blacken his Bolsec’s name, or, as he put it: The followers and servants of the Calvinist sect have not only set all sorts of deadly traps against my person but have also waged and do to this day wage a war against me aiming to make me the object of general hatred. Not only do they write vicious invectives against me and spread all sorts of rumours about me with their fabrications, they also secretly send clandestine letters against me to their comrades, as has often come to my knowledge. 54

What better way to counter his enemies and clear himself than to blacken the reputation of the leader of the Calvinist Reformation against whom he had stood out over 20 years ago? On what sources is Bolsec’s account based? Although he swears to their soundness, if we examine his statement, we see that he all but openly admits to relying on fabrication, rumour and hearsay. This is how he describes them: And I call the same God to witness that I am not aware of having written anything that goes against my knowledge of the facts and my conscience, but that what I write is based on truth. I have taken it either from the official documents and accounts in Calvin’s own hand or got knowledge of it from the oral accounts of men of highest authority or saw it with my own eyes and touched it with my own hands. 55

et ad ecclesiae domus Dei euidentem, qui malitiosissimus Sathanae minister fuit, eum syncerum ac praecellentem Dei seruum fuisse asserere ac praedicare est ausus”. 52 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 5. 53 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 5–6. 54 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 6. 55 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 5: “Iam hoc quoque eundum testor Deum nihil me hoc tractatu complexum quod contra meam conscientiam scriptum esse mihi conscius sim, sed quae scribo,

Irena Backus

239

There were no official accounts, let alone ones written by Calvin himself, which attested to the reformer’s iniquity. The phrase simply conveys an illusion of objective use of written sources. As for oral accounts of men of highest authority whose names Bolsec does not reveal, sixteenth century readers would have expected some mention of names but here again none was forthcoming. That left Bolsec’s assurance of his privileged status as first-hand witness and accentuated his claim that it was his word against Beza’s and that his was more reliable because better supported by mysterious written and oral accounts. Bolsec’s Life of Calvin falls into twenty six chapters and it is difficult to situate it in any genre given that his intention was to write a purportedly historical account which flouts the convention of “not speaking ill of the dead” for which no literary models were established. In practice, Bolsec anticipates the accusation of “speaking ill of the dead” by situating Calvin in the long line of heresies going back to the Sadducees and the Pharisees and continuing in an unbroken line to Calvin’s Geneva. Now, although there were no biographies of ancient heretics, biography in the ancient world being a laudatory exercise only, fragmentary accounts of heretics’ lives and doings did exist and were known via Epiphanius of Salamis and other authors. By definition, within the Christian tradition, a heretic less still a heresiarch, dead or alive could not be portrayed in a favourable light. He had to be persuasive, hypocritical, acting for his own glory while leading numerous souls to perdition, preferably debauched. In a word he had to lead an ignoble life which ended fittingly with an ignoble death. Hence the famous legendary account of the death of Arius found dead in the lavatory with his bowels burst out into his lap, which was propagated by Epihanius’ Panarion (Haer. 69) among other sources. Bolsec therefore opens his work with an extremely superficial and brief account of ancient heresies, both Jewish and Christian without worrying too much about the chronological order. Among the Christian heresies he has Carpocrates (a 2nd century Gnostic) follow Arius. Carpocrates with his licentious ethic is followed by Ebion and his introduction of Mosaic ceremonies into the teaching of the Gospel. Despite the time gap, Bolsec groups together Basilides, Marcion and Manes as sharing dualism and determinism. He has them followed by Pelagius and his denial of the original sin. This, he specifies, is only the beginning of “aliorum phanaticorum caterua”. Bolsec is no more concerned with giving a history of heresy than with personalities of different heretics. His succinct account is simply intended to omnia veritate niti et vel ex tabula ac testimoniis ea me manu ipsius Caluini conscriptis desumpsisse vel referentibus maximae auctoritatis viris cognouisse vel meis oculis conspexisse manuque palpasse”.

240

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

show that Satan used Calvin as tool to bring back all these heresies previously condemned and to assemble them in Geneva. 56 As regards Calvin, he is, in Bolsec’s view, the reincarnation of all heresies, an impersonal tool of the devil rather than a consenting accomplice. Like Beza in his Discours, he concentrates on the reformer’s morals, actions and death on the one hand and his doctrine on the other, according to the time-honoured principle that no man who leads a wicked life can be a good Christian. The worse the morals, the worse the heresy. Bolsec’s Life is of special importance because it is at the origin of several completely unfounded rumours. Its success was huge if we go just by the number of editions and translations it received at the time. The French version was published simultaneously in Lyon and in Paris in 1577 and reprinted in Paris in 1582. It was translated word for word into Latin by an anonymous translator in 1580 and 1582 and published in Cologne. Its existence in Latin from 1580 onwards also meant that it could be and was translated into other vernacular languages. The German translation appeared in 1580 and was reprinted in 1581 and 1631 while a Dutch translation was published in 1581 and a Polish version in 1583. Although it was rapidly discredited, it continued to be printed in Catholic circles until 1875. As has been shown by other sixteenth and particularly seventeenth century Catholic biographers of Calvin, Bolsec’s account of Calvin’s youth conflates at least two people from Noyon called Jean Cauvin. 57 To this conflation he adds a certain amount of rumour and fiction to thus give his reader a full portrait of Calvin’s iniquitous youth, the hallmark of any heretic. He begins by claiming that already the reformer’s father Gérard Cauvin was a blasphemer. 58 We know in fact thanks to Jacques Le Vasseur, a hostile but honest chronicler of the Noyon Cathedral, that al-

56 Bolsec, Calvin, 1580, 20–21: “Caeterum nostro hoc aeuo eundem illum Dei aduersarium et pacis atque Christianae concordiae hostem apparet praecipuas potissimasque ex iis quas recensuimus haeresibus falsisque dogmatibus , quae iam olim confutata fuere ac damnata , quasi in vnam massem conflatas in Geneuense oppidum rursus inuexisse idque //21// Ioannis Caluini Nouiodunensis opera atque studio”. 57 Cf. also Dufour, Th., Calviniana, in: Mélanges offerts à M. Émile Picot, membre de l’Institut, par ses amis et élèves, Paris 1913, 1–16 esp. 13–16. 58 Histoire de la vie, mœurs, actes, doctrines, constance et mort de Jean Calvin, jadis ministre de Genève. Recueilly par M. Hierosme Bolsec, docteur médecin à Lyon. Cited here after Histoire des vies, meurs, actes, doctrine et mort des trois principaux hérétiques de notre temps, à savoir, Martin Luther, Jean Calvin et Théodore de Bèze, iadis archiministre de Genève. Recueillie par Noel Talepied C. de Pontoise et M. Hierosme Hermes Bolsec Docteur Medecin à Lyon. Le tout pour aduertir et diuertir les Catholiques de ne se laisser abuser par leurs doctrines mortiferes. Iouxte la copie imprimee à Douay par Iean Bogard, 1616, 39f–124f, (Hereafter referred to as: Bolsec, Calvin).

Irena Backus

241

though Gérard Cauvin speculated with the church’s money59 and died excommunicated, there is no record of him ever having been convicted of blasphemy. Bolsec further claims Calvin himself was convicted of sodomy as a young cleric, a crime for which he would have been burned at the stake had the sentence not been commuted at the last moment to branding with a fleur-de-lys on the shoulder. Under the weight of this opprobrium Calvin, according to our biographer, sold his benefices and left for Germany and Ferrara. In fact as is well documented by the same Le Vasseur, a certain Jean Cauvin, Roman Catholic vicar of Noyon was deprived of his livings for refusing to abandon his dissolute lifestyle. The description might have well suited young Calvin, were it not for the date, January 1553, when Calvin had been well and truly settled in Geneva since 1541.60 As for branding to escape a death sentence, no records of it exist in connexion with any of the Noyon clergy of the 1530s; this piece of information was discredited as a myth in the 1580s. Bolsec stresses that Calvin before leaving Noyon changed his name from Cauvin to Calvin “either through ignorance or in full knowledge of the fact that it went well with his morals very similar to those of that vindictive and wicked Calvinus to whom Juvenal attributes the words ‘vengeance is the sweetest good’”. 61 It is indeed very doubtful that Calvin would have taken the name of the greedy, vindictive antihero of Juvenal’s 13th Satire. He was much more likely inspired either by the Roman advocate mentioned by Cicero or by the proconsul of that name. It follows, at least in Bolsec’s view, that given his general depravity, Calvin’s initial attempts to reform Geneva were nothing other than incitement to revolt against the civil authorities. 62 As regards his morals, they never improved. Not content with the charge of sodomy, considered as a heresy in itself, Bolsec accuses the reformer of having intercourse with most of the city’s married women under the cover of pastoral guidance. Although admitting that he has no proof of the reformer’s promiscuity, Bolsec weaves together rumours put about by “several people of sound judgement” and calculated to make Calvin appear as the local lecher and his home as a seat of depravity. Interestingly enough he makes no mention of 59 See Annales de l’Eglise de Noyon jadis dite de Vermand, ou le troisiesme liure des Antiquitez, Chroniques ou plustost Histoire de la Cathedrale de Noyon. Par M. Iacques le Vasseur, docteur en theologie de la Faculté de Paris, doyen et chanoine deladite Eglise, Paris, 1633, chap. 90, 1151. 60 See Le Vasseur, Annales, 1170–1171. Le Vasseur points out the confusion. For other examples of confusion of Calvin with his diverse namesakes, not exploited by Bolsec, see Dufour, Calviniana, 11–16. 61 Bolsec, Calvin, 40f. 62 Bolsec, Calvin, 49r: “Et d’auentage, ils dirent mille opprobres et vilenies contre les sindiques et seigneurs du Conseil, tachans à esmouoir sedition et d’inflammer le peuple contre les gouerneurs et magistrats, entreprise vrayment diabolique …”.

242

Calvin. Saint, Hero or the Worst?

the reformer’s marriage. This is how he describes his dealings with the opposite sex: I know that […] there was talk of many married and unmarried women who regularly went to see him at his home unaccompanied, except for a small child carrying a Bible under his arm. If they met a relative or a friend along the way who asked where they were going, they would say demurely that they were going to visit that holy man to get a resolution to a doubt. And they stayed for a long time. There was particular talk and rumours concerning the wife of a foreign nobleman who took refuge here for religious reasons and whose name I shall not reveal out of respect. I will say though that he lived near Geneva, just next to Saconay in the territory of Gex. The lady in question was young, beautiful and gay. She often went to dine with Calvin and stayed overnight when her husband was out of the country […]. 63

“Rumours concerning the wife of a foreign nobleman” refer to Calvin’s fairly close relations with Jacques de Falais (d. 1556) and his wife Yolande de Brederode, both of whom he converted to the Reformation. Yolande was initially more responsive than her husband and the reformer did no doubt make use of her to influence her consort. 64 However, things did not turn out as Calvin would have wished: de Falais did indeed convert and settled in 1548 for a short time in Veigy in the proximity of Geneva but the couple’s friendship with Calvin did not survive de Falais’ sympathies for Joris and Castellio or for that matter the nobleman’s support of Bolsec. Bolsec’s insinuation of Yolande’s adultery with Calvin would suggest that the erstwhile Carmelite was quite unconstrained by any sentiment of posthumous loyalty to his defender. Predictably, he has Calvin die of phtiriasis after a miserable life, his diverse maladies proving in Bolsec’s eyes his ungodliness. “For, he says, apart from the many illnesses mentioned by Beza, Calvin was also tormented by an ill with which, or so we read, God in his justice vexed those of God’s enemies, who wanted to usurp his glory and honour, that is: their whole bodies itch being eaten by lice and other vermin, and they develop a particularly stinking and virulent ulcer at the base of their private parts where they are wretchedly chewed by crab-lice”. 65 Furthermore, still according to Bolsec, Calvin died cursing all his writings and desperately rewriting for the last time his Institutes, ultimate proof of inconstancy. Indeed, he concludes, if the first Institutes were as perfect as Bolsec claims they were, why did Calvin rewrite the work so many times? 66 63 Bolsec, Calvin, 70r–70f. 64 The best recent treatment of the de Falais episode is by Mirjam van Veen, In excelso honoris gradu. Johannes Calvin und Jacques de Falais, Zwingliana 32 (2005), 5–22. See also sources and literature cited ibid. 65 Bolsec, Calvin, 101f. 66 Bolsec, Calvin, 103r–103f.

Irena Backus

243

What may seem surprising is not so much the fact that Bolsec accuses Calvin of sexual depravity and other forms of untold wickedness but that his image of the reformer encountered success despite him openly admitting to its being founded on rumours. However, it must not be forgotten that Bolsec’s aim was to contradict Beza’s Discours. As such, his Life of Calvin turns out to be the perfect obverse of Beza’s 1564 composition. Whereas Beza praises Calvin’s chastity and austerity, Bolsec credits him with total licentiousness. To Beza’s praises of the reformer’s zeal and capacity for hard work, Bolsec opposes an obsessive interest with the rewriting of one work, in itself a proof of inconstancy. Where Calvin’s successor expounds on Calvin’s marriage as a model of what a pious marriage should be, the exCarmelite does not even advert to it in his treatment of Calvin as the local seducer of married women. Whereas Beza praises Calvin’s good death, Bolsec has him die a miserable death in solitude, as behoves a heresiarch, who embodies all the ancient heresies. While Beza exalts Calvin’s kindness to heretics, Bolsec has him bear the entire responsibility for the death of Servetus, a myth which turned out to have an astonishingly long life, despite many attempts to disprove it. Bolsec at the time when he reacted against Beza’s Discours with his Life of Calvin did not know Beza’s 1575 Life in which Calvin’s successor explicitly lays down criteria for truthfulness. Had Beza done so already in 1564, Bolsec’s job would have been much more difficult. As it was, however, Beza’s first Discours seemed to augur the birth of Calvinist hagiography, an impression he and Colladon strove to wipe out with their subsequent attempts at the Genevan reformer’s biography. In this they proved rather less successful than Bolsec was in his purpose of blackening the reformer’s reputation. The dual standardised Calvin, vicious heretic to some, a saintly inhuman hero to others, still haunts Calvin historiography to this day, as witnessed by various attempts in recent years to recover the human face of Calvin. 67

67 See eg. Stauffer, R., L’humanité de Calvin, Neuchâtel 1964 or: Perrot, A., Le visage humain de Jean Calvin, Geneva 1986.

A “Sincere and Clear Message”. Four Remonstrant Ministers Against the Falsehoods and Innovations of Calvin

Frank van der Pol In the Reformed Churches in the northern Netherlands a conflict arose between Calvinists and Remonstrants. This contribution traces the development of this conflict from a local viewpoint by focusing on a rift between four Remonstrant ministers and their opponents in the early modern city of Kampen in the province of Overijssel. At the end of the first decade of the seventeenth century Remonstrant feelings about predestination had mounted and intensified. The city’s four Remonstrant ministers 1 had publicly spelled out their views, most notably, by publishing a pamphlet on the subject of predestination, entitled a “Sincere and Clear Message” (Oprecht ende Claer Bericht), in 1617. 2 This paper focuses on an alleged unreliable citation from John Calvin.

1. Historical context, and structure of the message The year in which the Claer Bericht was published, 1617, was marked by significant political and theological turmoil. In July, Maurits, Prince of Orange, had attended the church service of a Contra-Remonstrant minister, thereby publicly declaring his opposition to the Remonstrants. The Kampen town council, hitherto a staunch supporter of the Remonstrants, finally 1 This concerns (1) Thomas Goswinius (1596–1619), born in Kampen, because of Remonstrantism deposited on 24 Apr. 1619 by the synod of Dordt; (2) Everardus Voscuilius (1610–1619, deposited 22 May 1619); (3) Johannes Schotlerus (1616–1619, deposited the same date); and (4) Assuerus Matthisius (1617–1619, deposited 24 Apr. 1619). 2 “Oprecht ende Claer Bericht waer in cortelijck teghens een ander ghestelt is: 1. Wat die Predicanten van Campen hier ondergeschreven van die hedensdaechsche verschillen, over ’t stuck van de Praedestinatie met den ancleve van dien, voor die oude Suyvere Waerheijt nae Godes woort, gevoelen. II. Wat die selvige oock daer tegens, als onwaerheijden ende niuwicheijden (uijt verschijdene Schriften van sommighe ten huidigendage Suijver-genoemde Leeraers getrouwelijck uijtgetrocken) van geheeler herten verwerpen”, 20p, small 4o, Campen: Willem Berendtss in S. Lucas, Anno 1617. A specimen of the treatise is in the city archive of Kampen.

Frank van der Pol

245

sided with the Contra-Remonstrants. Two years previously, the local government had intervened in a doctrinal controversy which had arisen between the two parties. After delivering a sermon on predestination, the Kampen ministers had been summoned to the town hall, where they were ordered to desist from criticising the doctrine of predestination both in the pulpit and in public. A year later (March 1616), the provincial government followed suit with a prohibition on sermons on predestination. Support for the Remonstrants gradually eroded, and local, provincial and national governments demanded that the Reformed Church uphold the proclamations of the Synod of Dordrecht. 3 It was during the initial phase of this shift, on 29 September 1617, that the Remonstrant pamphlet was published. The four authors were denounced by the provincial Synod of Overijssel in 1618 and, one year later, by the national Synod of Dordrecht. Finally they were expelled from office and the Synod of Dordrecht banned their pamphlet. 4 An antithetical line runs through the entire document, which consists of fourteen articles and takes the form of a confession of faith.5 On the title page, the four authors state what they want to achieve with their “Sincere and Clear Message”. They want to follow predestination as “the old pure Truth based on the Word of God” and to reject “falsehoods and innovations”. They want to protect churchgoers against the disabuses of theological innovators. 6 The left column contains the arguments of the four Kampen ministers, supported by Biblical texts. These are contrasted with citations in the right column 7 from the theologians that they reject. In a joint declaration, the ministers “repudiated wholeheartedly” the writings of these theologians. In this contribution the focus is on the right column, the “false-

3 Van der Pol, F., De reformatie te Kampen, Kampen 1990, 383f. A survey of the turbulent period of the (Contra-) Remonstrant dispute and the involvement of the city and church in national ecclesiastical and political events, in Van der Pol, F., Religious diversity and everyday Ethics in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch City Kampen, Church History, Studies in Christianity & Culture 71, 2002–1, 16–62, esp. 30–36. 4 A detailed rendering of the disciplinary case against the Kampen ministers in: Kuyper, H.H., De Post-Acta van de Nationale Synode Dordrecht 1618–19, 213–222. During the synod a parcel with one hundred copies of the treatise was seized. Brandt, G., Historie der Reformatie, Rotterdam 1704, Bd. III: 193. 5 The epilogue mentions the term “our Confession” (onse Belijdenisse, onse Bekentenisse). 6 The title-page mentions: “published, compelled by necessity; as an instruction of the simples, against all such calumny, by which they are falsely slandered about novelties and alteration in the doctrine”, (Ter noot in druck verveerdiget tot onderrichtinge der eenvoudigen, tegens alle sulcke lasteringen, waermede sij dies angaende van niuwicheijden ende gemaeckte veranderingen in die leere, valschelijck worden beworpen). In the epilogue the authors characterize their document as “our warning” (onse waarschouwinge). 7 From this design article X only differs. According to the authors, “there is no difference” about the theme of it, i.e. the “grace of God in Christ”.

246

A “Sincere and Clear Message”

hoods and innovations”, i.e., on the citations from the Contra-Remonstrant opponents and those whom they invoke. 8 Eight months later Contra-Remonstrant minister Hiëronymus Vogellius of Hasselt published an exhaustive response to the Claer Bericht, entitled the “Sincere and Clear Counter-Message” (Opreght ende klaer Tegenberight). This document played an important part in the ecclesiastical act of procedure against the four Remonstrant ministers at the provincial synod and the national Synod of Dordrecht, where Vogellius was a delegate. 9 The Tegen-beright addresses the fourteen articles of the Remonstrant Claer Bericht in their entirety, including the quotations from Scripture. Article by article, Vogellius defends the innovations of the Contra-Remonstrants in the form of contra-articles. The authors of the Claer Bericht claimed that their opponents had been “reliably quoted”.10 However, Vogellius argues to the contrary and accuses the Kampen ministers of caricaturisation. “False”, and “falsehoods perpetrated against Calvin”, are words that regularly return by Vogellius. A few months later, further allegations of inexactitude and even intentional distortion were brought against the Claer Bericht by the provincial Synod of Overijssel. The Claer Bericht points the finger at many excellent ministers. According to the indictment, the words of reliable ministers are distorted and their meaning inverted.11

8 The treatise records a great number of innovators: Acronius, Beza, Calvijn, Donteclock, Geselius, Gomarus, Grevinchoven, Lubbertus, Maccovius, Pareus, Perkins, Piscator, Polanus, Hubertus Sturmius en Zanchius. 9 Vogellius, H., Opreght ende klaer tegen-beright tegen ’t Libel byden Kamperen Remonstrantschen leeraren Thomam Goswinium, Everardum Voscuilium, Assuerum Matthisium, Iohannem Schutlerum in druk verveerdight, onder den schonen titel van Opreght ende claer berigt (etc.), [28], 269, Amsterdam: Marten Jansz. Brandt, in de Ghereformeerde Catechismus, Anno 1618. In the framework of the political and religious change, Vogellius was alloted to Kampen as an assistance minister. About Vogellius and his writing on the provincial synod, and his delegation to the national synod of Dordrecht, see Reitsma, J./Veen, S.D. van, Acta Prov. en Partic. Synoden, Bd. V, Groningen 1896, 299, 305f, 310. 10 Or, as the authors verbalize it on the title-page: “Falsehoods and innovations (faithfully extracted from several writings of some nowadays purely-called ministers” (Onwaerheijden ende niuwicheijden (uyt verscheijdene Schriften van sommighe ten huidigendage Suijver-genoemde Leeraers getrouwelijck uijtgetrocken). 11 Reitsma/Van Veen, Acta Prov. en Partic. Synoden, Bd. V, 300: “distorting the words of trustworthy ministers and inventing to these words a contrary sense”, (der getrouwe leeraeren woorden verkerende ende haer contrarie sin aendichtende).

Frank van der Pol

247

2. Four articles against Calvin In vocabulary borrowed from Scripture, the Kampen ministers expound their view of predestination. In four of the fourteen articles, they take up their position against Calvin: Article II: on the thesis that God has, from eternity, elected those who believe in Christ and persist in that belief. Persistency in belief becomes a precondition for election. The fides praevisio is obviously a point of relevance in this regard. Article IV: on the thesis that rejection originates from God’s will to demonstrate his power and wrath. God has decided to condemn the unbeliever and the unrepentant to eternal death. The decree of rejection depends on the human being who sins and rejects in unbelief. Article VI: on the thesis that man has been created that he might know his Creator, and live with him in eternal happiness. In paradise, man had the freedom to choose God and reject evil. The thesis suggests that this freedom continued after the Fall. Article XII: on the thesis that God calls man to salvation and gives everyone sufficient grace to answer this invitation. However, some people do not make use of this opportunity. The thesis implies that the effect of God’s call depends on man.

This article examines whether the Claer Bericht does justice to Calvin. Normally, the rejected doctrine is addressed in full for each article as the disclaimed sentence as a whole resounds. The sections in italics always relate to Calvin, especially Institutes 3:21–24.

3. The foundation of election In Article II the doctrine that God has elected a small number of human beings not because of their faith, perseverance or any other quality, not even for Christ’s sake, but purely, because he wants so, as demonstration of his mercy is rejected as false. 12 The italics refer to Calvin’s Institutes (the 1559 edition), 3:22:11. 13

12 Claer Bericht, article II: “God heeft int besluit van sijne verkiesinge / verre het weijnichste deel der menschen die salicheijt toegestemt / sonder aenmerkinge van haer Gelove / volhardinge / ofte eenige andere goede qualiteijt; selfs oec niet eigenlijck door Christum als den Middelaer, noch om Christi wille als om sijne verdiensten, Maer alleene / om dat het hem soe belieft heeft / tot bewijs sijner barmherticheyt”. 13 With reference to: “Ergo si non possumus rationem assignare, cur suos misericordia dignetur, nisi quoniam ita illi placet” (CO.2, 678). The italics in the Articles of Clear Bericht that refer to Calvin’s Institutes are always mine.

248

A “Sincere and Clear Message”

Vogellius in his Tegen-beright argues that these words are quoted out of context and do not reflect Calvin’s stance. 14 Calvin wants to exclude election on the basis of works and certainly does not wish to imply that God does not consider faith or Christ and his merits in his decree of election. The short rendition in the Claer Bericht fails to reflect the true meaning behind Calvin’s words and therefore misrepresents them. According to Vogellius, Calvin’s teaching is not false or innovative. On the contrary, the Kampen Remonstrants defame God’s truth and adopt the Pelagian heresy. Vogellius has a point; for the short rendition is part of a statement that should, strictly speaking, be treated as a whole. Calvin certainly does not say that God in his election dismisses Christ’s redemptive works. However, the design of Claer Bericht seems to leave this impression. In fact, in Book 3 Calvin expounds his doctrine of predestination as an aspect of the doctrine of redemption through Christ. Predestination is discussed in connection with the benefits conferred by Christ and Calvin takes belief in Christ as his starting point. However, he rejects election as dependent on a human act of faith and any interpretation of election through Christ with faith as the precondition.15 The Kampen Remonstrants rejected unconditional predestination and taught that God’s decree of election was conditioned by faith, which then manifested itself in good works. Calvin firmly rejects faith as the precondition of election and salvation. Predestination is not grounded on God’s foreknowledge of merit or worthiness. Calvin affirms unconditional election without any human input. Election is a deliberate act of God, based solely on his will and pleasure. And Man cannot impose conditions on God’s freedom to elect.

4. The basis for God’s reprobation Article IV rejects the false new doctrine that reprobation only originates from the pleasure of God (1) without considering foreseen merits or unwor14 Klaer Tegen-beright, 33: “And though some of Calvin’s own words have been recorded by the Kampen Remonstrants, they however were not brought forth in such a sens and intention, as Calvin used them”, (Ende hoewel eenighe Calvini eyghen worden van de K[amper] R[emonstranten] werden verhaelt / soo en werdense dogh in sulken sin ende ooghmerk niet voort ghebraght / alsse Calvinus heeft ghebruykt). 15 According to Calvin, belief indeed is connected with election, however it takes a second place. Calvin resolutely rejects the prospective knowledge of God, praescientia Dei, as cause of predestination. He reacts against belief, good works and against praescientia Dei in causal connection with predestination. Kroon, M. de, De eer van God en het heil van de mens. Bijdrage tot het verstaan van de theologie van Johannes Calvijn naar zijn Institutie, Leiden 1996, esp. 139ff of: De predestinatie naar haar bipolaire structuur, c.w., 136–155.

Frank van der Pol

249

thiness, unbelief and other sins. The damnation of the reprobates serves the glory of God (2). Therefore the reprobates must not complain about their damnation or wish that they had never been born. They should thank God for reprobating them for the sake of his glory. 16 For the Kampen ministers actual unbelief is the sole cause of reprobation. 17 They see reprobation as conditional on God’s foreknowledge of lack of faith. They criticise Calvin, because he sees God’s will as absolute with regard to reprobation. They refer to his Institutes in the italicised passages (1 and 2).18 The Remonstrants’ reference to Calvin is short, while their opponent Vogellius works on a broader scale. He even cites the whole of Institutes 3:23:2 with the exception of the opening sentence.19 He declares that, in this section, Calvin deals with the highest cause of reprobation, namely, God’s righteous and perfect will. Vogellius also refers to Institutes 3:23:8 20 , where Calvin warns against scrutinising the obscure and unfathomable will of God as a determinant of damnation. Instead it is better to pay heed to corrupt human nature, as a visible and more intelligible deter-

16 Claer Bericht, article IV: “God heeft verre het meeste deel der Menschen verworpen, Of in aensien (Als eenige seggen) van die Sonde Adams / hoewel niet als oorsaeke van deese verwerpinge: of (Als andere drijven) sonder enich ansien van haere voergesiene Verdiensten / onweerdicheijt / Ongeloove / Ofte eenige andere Sonde (want het oeck eene lasteringe is / te seggen / dat God sommige om haer voergesiene ongelove verworpen hebbe Maer alleene nae sijn welbehaegen (1), opdat hy door hare verdoemenisse sijne eere verklaren mochte (2). In welken respecte het deesen verworpenen oock beeter is / Dat sij eewich verdoemt worden / Dan dat sij noijt waren geboren gweest. Hebben mede geene oorsaeke over God te klagen / Maer veele eer hem te dancken / Om dat hij haer naemelijck tot veele goede eijnden / Ende int besonder tot sijner eeren heeft verworpen”. 17 Claer Bericht, Remonstrant thesis IV: Reprobation is a decree of God’s anger, by which He from eternity condemned to eternal death the unbelievers and the unrepentant people, in order to demonstrate his power and wrath. Unbelievers and unrepentant men are rejected from eternity. 18 (1): “Si nudo eius arbitrio […] in aeternam mortem praedestinantur”, 3:23:2 (CO.2, 700); “indurationem non minus in manu Dei et arbitrio esse quam misericordiam”, 3:23 (CO.2, 698). (2): “Quia […] suscitati sunt ad gloriam eius sua damnatione illustrandam”, 3:24:14 (CO.2, 724). 19 Vogellius presents the Dutch translation of : “Multis modis cum Deo litigant sulti homines, […]. Deum fore victorem quoties ab homine mortali iudicabitur” (CO.2, 699, 700). He also gives the second citation, from 3:24:14, well-balanced in the framework. This central sentence cited by the Remonstrants refers to: “Restat nunc ut videamus cur […] quia iusto sed inscrutabili Dei iudicio suscitati sunt ad gloriam eius sua damnatione illustrandam” (CO.2, 724). Vogellius gives the concerning article from the beginning. Klaer Tegen-berigt, 71. 20 Vogellius quote from 3:23:8: “Derhalven laet ons liever in de verdorven natuere des menschelijken gheslaghts, de openbare oorsake, die ons de naeste is, aenmerken van de verdoemenisse, dan dat wy de verborghene ende gantsch onbegrijpelijke in Godts Praedestinatie souden ondersoeken”. (This refers to: “Quare in corrupta potius humani generis natura evidentem damnationis causam, quae nobis propinquior est, contemplemur, quam absconditam ac penitus incomprehensibilem inquiramus in Dei praedestinatione” (CO.2, 705). Without working-out Vogellius also refers to 3:24:14 and to 3:23:3.

250

A “Sincere and Clear Message”

minant of damnation.21 According to Calvin, God is responsible for the reprobation of Man 22 , yet at the same time he affirms Man’s personal responsibility for sinning and rejecting his message. Vogellius further responds to the Remonstrant criticism by stressing that Calvin emphatically rejects the slanderous claims that God’s will regarding reprobation rests on absolute power. God condemns men for their ungodliness, wickedness and ingratitude. The reprobates are deserving of his righteous judgement. However, that is not the whole story. The distinction between believers and non-believers is determined by a more quintessential force than unbelief and unrepentance. It centres on God’s eternal decree to harden some hearts against him. The reprobates will rightly be damned because of their own wickedness, although the reason behind their stubbornness (contumacia) has to be sought in God’s immutable decree (immutabile decretum). We cannot know why God elects some and condemns others. Calvin refers to the glory of God. However contradictory and poignant it may sound, even in the very depths of his ruin, the reprobate is still serving the glory of God. 23 Calvin also appeals to the inscrutability of God’s ways. 24 He limits human thinking in his docta ignorantia, ending Part 3:24:14 as follows: “If all this remains mysterious to us, we have to remain ignorant, where God’s wisdom rises to a sublime level”. 25 God’s will and decree are profoundly mysterious, yet there is no sign of absoluta potentia, 21 Calvin does not limit God’s freedom in rejecting. Those whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children. “Quos ergo Deus praeterit, reprobat; neque alia de causa nisi […] illos vult excludere”, 3:23:1 (CO.2, 698); and 3:21:5: “aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur” (CO.2, 683). 22 By the reprobates God’s honour lightens: “in hunc finem excitentur reprobi, ut Dei gloria per illos illustretur”, 3:22:11 (CO.2, 698); in their ruin these to death ordained glorify the name of God: “concilio nutuque suo ita ordinat, ut […] morti devoti, qui suo exitio ipsius nomen glorificent”, 3:23:6 (CO.2, 703). De Kroon, De eer van God, 150, 154. 23 “Agitur de incomprehensibili eius consilio”, 3:23:1 (CO.2, 698). Calvin admits that he does not understand how the will of God and the guilt and responsibility of man go together. The ‘why’ of God’s reprobation we don’t know. 24 “Aliquid nescire non recusemus, ubi se Dei sapientia in suam sublimatem attollit”, 3:24:14 (CO.2, 724f). See also De Kroon, De eer van God, 150f. 25 Calvin is firmly opposed to the idea that God in his reprobation might act on absoluta potentia. He calls this unholy (profanum) and detestable (detestabile). God is not without law (exlex). In Tegen-beright (70) Vogellius cites Calvin: “Noghtans en voeren wy niet in het versiersel van de absolute maght: het welke / ghelijck het onheyligh is / alsoo moet het ons met reght verfoeyelijck wesen. Wy en versieren God niet sonder wet / die sigh selfs wet is; Godts wille en is niet alleene suyver van allen ghebreke / maer is den oppersten reghel van volmaecktheyt / is oock de wet aller wetten. en geen buiten de wet staande God, daar Hij toch zichzelf de wet is; Hij is het hoogste richtsnoer van de volkomenheid, ook de wet van alle wetten”. This refers to: “Neque tamen commentum ingerimus absolutae potentiae: quod sicuti profanum est, ita meriot destabile nobis esse debet. Non fingimus Deum exlegem, qui sibi ipsi lex est […] summa perfectionis regula, etiam legum omnium lex est”, 3:23:2 (CO.2, 700).

Frank van der Pol

251

as the Claer Bericht suggests. For God could have condemned all persons to perdition with perfect justice. All have sinned and are therefore subject to divine judgement. Vogellius rightly draws attention to the broader context of the short statement from 3:23:2. Thus, it becomes clear that Calvin specifically repudiates the notion of God as an absolute and arbitrary power. God is not arbitrary. 26 In reprobation, God’s justice is manifest. God is the remote cause, but Man is still the proximate cause, in being responsible for his own sin. 27 The Kampen Remonstrants take no account of Calvin’s writings on the hardening and blinding of reprobates on the one hand and righteous damnation for their sins on the other. Calvin holds the reprobates responsible for their own wickedness. For that they will be justly condemned. At the same time, however, it must be said that, through God’s righteous but inscrutable judgment, the reprobates glorify God in their damnation. The first and second causes go together and cannot be extricated. 28 Vogellius rightly concludes that the Kampen Remonstrants have isolated Calvin’s statement – reprobation only originates from the pleasure of God – from its context. Their second critical remark in Article IV – The damnation of the reprobates serves the glory of God – can no longer be trusted as it unjustly suggests that Calvin chooses the glory of God at the expense of humanity.

5. Created to eternal damnation Thesis VI of the Kampen Remonstrants says that God created man that he might rightly know his Creator and live with him in eternal happiness. The Kampen ministers reject as false the notion that God created the greatest part of Man (1) to eternal damnation. That means (2) that some might be damned on purpose. The first italicised statement refers to Institutes 3:21:5,

26 Torrance, J.B., The concept of federal theology, in: Neuser W.H. (ed.), Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, Grand Rapids 1994, 19. 27 The decree of reprobation refers to sinful humanity. Unbelief and disobedience to the Word have two reasons: “the wickedness and fault of their hearts; at the same time they are to this refusal predestinated, in order to demonstrate the honour of God with their damnation” (Malitia pravitasque cordis eorum; inscrutabile Dei iudicium ad gloriam eius sua damnatione illustranda, see 3:24:14 in CO2, 724). 28 On the issue of reprobation formulates the paradoxical line of God’s irrevocable decree of reprobation of man, who remains responsible. The reprobate is responsible for his own unbelief. At the same time God’s sovereignty in the reprobate is characterised by the free pleasure of God’s will.

252

A “Sincere and Clear Message”

3:24:12. 29 The ministers also criticise a quotation from Calvin that harks back to Romans 9,18: “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden”. 30 In Calvin’s predestinarian interpretation of the ninth chapter of Romans, verse 18 is a key passage on unconditional particular election and reprobation. The Remonstrant criticism connected with this verse concerns the words: “that they might be damned on purpose”. In his response Vogellius again emphasises the selective nature of the quotation. For, in the sections mentioned, Calvin does not speak of the original creation of mankind, but about to be predestined, and he first provides a definition of predestination.31 Calvin does indeed use the word creation, but provides sufficient indication that he is not dealing with the first, actual creation of man in the incorrupt image of God, but rather with creation through procreation in the image of the corrupt human being, who lies under the wrath and anger of God. Calvin does not address the cause that moves God to create, but focuses on the destiny for which some are born. God knows Man’s destiny before he is born, because he has ordained it so by His decree. Calvin then speaks about the administration of reprobation, not about creation. 32

29 (1): “Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aetererna praeordinatur”, 3:21:5 (CO.2, 683); “Quos ergo […] et mortis exitium creavit, ut irae suae organa forent, et severitatis exempla, eos, ut in finem suum perveniant”, 3:24:12 (CO.2, 722). Central statements: “All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to life, others to eternal damnation; accordingly as each has been created for one or the other of these ends, we say that he was been predestinated to life or to death”. And: The reprobate God created for […] destruction in death, to become the instruments of his wrath, and examples of his severity, because he destined them to destruction”. 30 (2): “Quemadmodum et Salomo docet non modo praecognitum fuisse impiorum interitum, sed impios ipsos fuisse destinato creatos ut perirent Prover. 16,4)”, Comm. Rom. 9,18 (CO.49, 184). 31 “Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes ; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatioaeterna praeordinatur. Itaque, prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus.”, 3:21:5 (CO.2, 683). 32 Klaer Tegen-beright, 94: “Gelijk hy ook door het woort eynde / niet eyghentlijck te verstaen en geeft / de eyghentlijke oorsake / die God bewegen soude totte scheppinghe (als of de eeuwige verdoemenisse / als het eynde God soude beweghen / de verworpene te scheppen: het welke verre is) maer de conditie / ende ghelegentheyt haers uytganghs / ghelijk hy te voren spreekt / totte welke sommige geboren worden.” And 95: “Alsof Calvinus seyde: dat God / de ghene / die gheschapen ofte gheboren worden om de eeuwighe doodt tot haer uyterste te vesueren om haer sonden / door Godts seer rechtveerdighe toorn ende oordeel […] om hare sonden wille / tot haer verderf te komen. Wy sien dan dat Calvinus eighentlijk spreekt van de uytvoeringhe der verwerpinghe niet van de scheppinghe”. Cf 3:24:12 (CO.2, 722): “Praedestinationi igitur suae viam facit summus ille arbiter, ubi quos semel reprobavit, lucis suae communicatione orbatos deserit in caecitate”.

Frank van der Pol

253

Vogellius’ criticisms are accurate. According to Calvin, the insinuation of evil into God’s perfect creation remains a profound mystery. However, Man has his own responsibility and the reprobates have to suffer the grievous eternal consequences of this. The reason for their ruin is that they have degenerated from God’s pure creation into vicious and impure perversity. All are, without exception, under divine judgement because of their sinfulness. God could, with perfect justice, have condemned all persons to perdition. Instead, he singles out some for eternal life and others for eternal condemnation with no regard for merits or demerits. By divine decree some were bound for ruin. They are created – here that means born – for eternal damnation (or for the day of evil as Solomon puts it in Proverbs 16,4).

6. Reprobation, preaching and the cause of unbelief Finally, let us turn our attention to Article XII of the Claer Bericht. The Kampen ministers reject as false the notion that God does not give the reprobates as much grace as they need for salvation. They use the following words against Calvin: (1) God indeed calls them however in order that they become more deaf. He enkindles for them the light however in order that they become more blind. He instructs them however in order that they remain more stupid. He gives them physic however in order that they may not recover. This criticism by the Remonstrant ministers refers to Institutes 3:24:13. 33 Vogellius (183ff.) declares that the ministers have borrowed this point of criticism from a Remonstrant pamphlet that was reprinted time and again in Kampen, commonly referred to as the “blasphemous, fire-worthy falsehood-leaflet of Kampen”. 34 Vogellius sums up a number of textual distortions. In their rendition of the Institutes, the Kampen ministers make several causal connections which Calvin himself did not make. They repeatedly translate the term ut as in order that, as if Calvin was declaring that the goal of God’s preaching was to inflict greater deafness on the reprobates; that he sent them his light, in order that they would become more blind; that he delivered his doctrine in order that they would become more stupid; and that he gave them physic in order that they would not be restored to health. 33 (1): “Ecce, vocem ad eos dirigit, sed ut magis obsurdescant; lucem accendit, sed ut reddantur caeciores; doctrinam profert, sed qua magis obstupescant; remedium adhibet, sed ne sanentur”, 3:24:13 (CO.2, 723). 34 Some months later, the provincial synod of Overijssel uses still more vehement terms against this pamphlet: it is a “ungodly leaflet, in which the doctrine of the reformed churches has been calumniate in the highest way”. Reitsma /Van Veen, Bd. V, 301.

254

A “Sincere and Clear Message”

Vogellius also declares that the word ‘qua’ in the sentence “doctrinam profert, sed qua magis obstupescant” is emphatically not used in a causal sense. Calvin does not focus on the goal that God had in mind with his preaching. 35 He describes an occasional result, that came about through the preaching. According to Calvin, greater deafness, blindness, stupidity and incurability is accidental to the gospel. Human agency is responsible for the negative results. 36 In Article XII the Kampen Remonstrants raise a second objection against Calvin, namely (2) that God’s reprobation is the principal cause of their unbelief. Remarkably, the sources of this statement are nowhere to be found in the Institutes. 37 It is also abundantly clear that the key element of this statement, namely, that God’s reprobation is the “principal” cause of unbelief, had been added by the Kampen ministers. Hence, God becomes the author of unbelief. Calvin’s own account is totally different: “The reprobates have to expect a more severe judgment, for they repudiate the evidence of God’s love”. 38 Or “Nobody is lost or victimised undeservedly”.39 And “that the reprobates do not obey the Word of God is due to the wickedness and the fault of their hearts”. 40 Or “from those who hear the external Word, yet do not obey, all innocence will be taken away”. 41 In the sections quoted, Calvin teaches double predestination, but still maintains that the reprobate is singularly responsible for his unbelief. He denies any injustice to the reprobate, who is responsible for his unbelief because of his sinful disobedience to the revealed will of God. The Kampen Remonstrants look for remote causes, blaming heaven for unbelief. According to Calvin, God is not the author of unbelief. We must not hold God responsible for disbe35 Claer Bericht, 185: “Set Calvinus uytdrukkelijk / het woordeken qua door ofte met welke: de K[amper] R[emonstranten] en hadden uyt dit woordt niet alleen behooren de voorgaende woordekens (ut, ut) te verklaren na Calvini meyninghe / maer hier besonderlijk het selve niet te verkeeren met oversettinghe: opdat / dewijle Calvini meyninghe niet en is te beduyden / het eynde dat Godt voor soude ghehadt hebben / maer de uytkomsten / die door oft met de Predicatie als occasie onstaen waeren / niet uyt de eyghen werkinghe der Predicatie / maer uyt de toevallighe boossheyt der verworpenen. […] Schrijft Calvinus sleghtelijk / maer datse niet genesen souden worden: de K[amper] R[emonstranten] setten opdat […]”. 36 As he declares at the end of 3:24:13 (CO.2, 724): “Quid, inquies, sibi vult Dominus eos docendo, a quibus ne intelligatur curat? Considera unde vitium, et desines interrogare. In verbo enim qualiscunque sit obscuritas, satis tamen semper est lucis ad convincendam impiorum conscientiam”. 37 The Remonstrant ministers refer to 3:23:1 and 3:24:14. 38 “Quia reprobos manet gravius iudicium, quod testimonium amoris Dei repudient”, 3:24:2 (CO.2, 713). 39 “Afferimus nullos perire immerentes”, 3:24:12 (CO.2, 722). 40 “Quod igitur sibi patefacto Dei verbo non obtemperant reprobi, probe id in malitiam prvatatemque cordis eorum reiicientur”, 3:24:14 (CO.2, 724). 41 “Quia etsi vox externa tantum inexcusabiles reddit quie eam audiunt, neque obsequuntur”, 3:24:15 (CO.2, 725).

Frank van der Pol

255

lief and sin, but human decision and guilt. So this Remonstrant attack on Calvin’s definition of reprobation is also inaccurate.

7. Calvin, a producer of falsehoods and innovations? The “Sincere and Clear Message” published by the four Remonstrant ministers in Kampen prior to the national Synod of Dordrecht was intended as a joint declaration against falsehoods and innovations. It portrayed the Contra-Remonstrants as heretics. Two different versions of the doctrine of predestination lay at the heart of this conflict. John Calvin’s vision of eternal election and reprobation was the subject of bitter debate. They came under fierce attack. The Remonstrants saw his ideas on predestination as theological innovation. However, for Calvin himself, predestination was a mystery of divine revelation. He stresses repeatedly that all thinking on this subject must be centred on, derived from and witnessed by Scripture. He interprets human experience in the light of Scripture, in which the observable pattern of responses to the gospel reflects a mystery: some people are predestined to accept God’s promises and others to reject them. 42 Some are set apart for eternal life, others for eternal damnation (3:21:5).43 According to Calvin, this is a biblical principle, not a theological innovation.44 The Remonstrants’ “Sincere and Clear Message” is a prime example of the popular pamphlet genre. 45 Its structure is clearly problematic. The excerpts from texts by no fewer than fifteen authors were intentionally synthesised. The Kampen Remonstrants provide no additional commentary and leave the readers to draw their own conclusions. The result is ventriloquism: a serious offence, especially given that the Claer Bericht was purportedly written to instruct simple people and warn them against falsehoods and innovations. The Klaer Tegen-beright of Vogellius offers a precise diagnosis of the problem: the Kampen Remonstrants show too little respect for the context in which Calvin’s statements were made. By analysing their

42 McGrath, A.E., Calvin on Predestination, Reformation Thought, Oxford 31999, 138f. 43 “Sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur” (CO.2, 683). 44 De Kroon, De eer van God, 154. 45 For the pamphlet genre see: Ozment, S., The Social History of the Reformation. What can we learn from Pamphlets?, in: Köhler, H.-J., Flugschriften als Massenmedium der Reformationszeit, Stuttgart 1981, 171–203; Cole, R.G., The Reformation Pamphlet and Communication Processes, in Köhler, H.-J., ibid, 139–161; Eisenstein, E.L., The printing Press as an Agent of Change. Communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe, Vol. I, II, Cambridge, repr. 1993; Harline, C.E., Pamphlets, Printing, and political Culture in the early Dutch Republic, Dordrecht 1987.

256

A “Sincere and Clear Message”

citation from Calvin, it is clear, that frequently the original purport of his words is maliciously ignored. On the other hand, although the voluminous answer of Vogellius gives an honest reflection of the doctrinal ideas of Calvin, his phrasing is very persuasive. Commenting upon attacks made upon Calvin, Vogellius repeatedly uses the rhetoric of violence. Sometimes his polemic has even a vitriolic tone. 46 This illustrates, that the period of tension between Calvinists and Remonstrants stimulated strong responses in the popular book market. With both kinds of printings – the short pamphlet of the four Remontrants, as well as the exhaustive polemic of Vogellius – preachers in the Dutch Republic tried to influence the predestinarian discussion among the reading public. 47

46 Merely the dedication of the treatise already contains 18 exclamation marks, a strong indication of the persuasive phraseology of the whole work. The title-page mentions: “atrocious heresy”. Vogellius condems the remonstrant rendering of Calvin as “altogether betrayal” (71), “violent treachery” (72), “malicious composed” (90), “untrue averment” (90), “cheating” (90), “ungodly denial” (90), “pagan, yea more than epicurean godlessness” (91), “very false” (92). 47 The tactical use of the printing press by opinion leaders was an important issue in the predestinarian controversy in the Netherlands. See Hakkenberg, M.A, The predestinarian controversy in the Netherlands, 1600–1620, diss. Univ. California 1989.

Transmitting the Text: Understanding the Translation Process in Calvin’s Déclaration

Joy Kleinstuber Many of Calvin’s Latin texts were translated into French, but how did this actually happen? What was the procedure? Did Calvin translate the text himself, or did someone else do it? The aim of this paper is to look at some features of the Déclaration 1 , the French translation of the Defensio 2 , Calvin’s text against Michael Servetus. What happened to this French text, as a result of being translated from the Latin, and what can these features tell us about the translation process? This text is remarkable for its large number of specific references. There are so many because the main purpose of the Defensio/Déclaration was to point out the error of Servetus’s ideas, as written in his Christianismi Restitutio. The majority of these references are either Biblical or to Servetus’s book. When comparing the two texts, one of the most striking features is the large number of discrepancies between the way references are given in the French translation and in the Latin original.3 This is the first feature that we are going to consider. It might be expected that references would simply have been translated (where necessary), and copied from one text to another, but this is far from being the case. While these discrepancies are many and various, in order to look at them a little more closely, it is convenient to put them into three broad categories: omission of an entire reference or part of a reference, addition of an entire reference or part of a reference, and differences in page numbers, section numbers or – for Biblical 1 Déclaration pour maintenir la vraye foy que tiennent tous Chrestiens de la Trinité des personnes en un seul Dieu, Geneva 1554. 2 Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate, contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti Hispani: ubi ostenditur haereticos iure Gladii coercendos esse, & nominatim de homine hoc tam impio iuste & merito sumptum Genevae fuisse supplicium, Geneva 1554. This is a composite text. It reproduces some of the contemporary official documents related to Servetus’s trial, in amongst sections purpose-written by Calvin and an extract from a previous correspondence between Servetus and Calvin. While most of it was written – directly or indirectly – by Calvin, there is a letter written by the ministers of the Zurich church and there are various parts from the pen of Servetus himself. 3 See Appendix 1.

258

Transmitting the Text

references – chapter numbers. What is of interest to us are the reasons behind these discrepancies. Why did they happen? How could they have happened? Relatively speaking, there are not many complete references omitted. Almost half of these occur in the first eighty pages or so of the Déclaration, and are omissions of marginal notes in the Latin text. There are only five marginal notes in the French text, the last one being on page 86, and these correspond to marginal notes in the Defensio. It is likely that marginal notes were planned for the French text to correspond to those in the Latin, but that after reproducing a small number of these, it was decided that they were not worth the extra time and trouble for the printer. 4 And by the time that decision was made, it was probably too late to replace them with references in the body of the text, as the type had already been set. Regarding the other references omitted, the one to Matthew 17 5 may be because there is already a reference to Matthew 17 on page 75 of the Defensio and the translator saw this and thought that he had already included it. Otherwise, there are a small number in the latter part of the text which could be the result of carelessness or, more likely, haste. There are a large number of cases where part of a reference is omitted in the French, but in the vast majority of these, what is omitted is information such as the name of a section or a line number. 6 This is more precise information which is, in a way, superfluous, as the reference generally stands very well without it. It is likely, therefore, that the translator considered these extra details unnecessary and decided to leave them out, again to save time. There is one instance of where the translator has clearly copied the first and last parts of two references together but missed the intervening details 7 , a normal hasard of copying or translating. We have found only five instances of additions of or to, references in the French translation. 8 Four of these are Biblical references and the remaining one is to the Christianismi Restitutio. Two are additions of an entire reference and three are additions to a reference. Most of them are in the first quarter of the translation, but one is later on in the text. It looks as if the translator started out intending to make vague references in the Latin more precise in the French, but simply stopped doing this – possibly even unconsciously – because of pressure of time. There are many other places where 4 The Defensio has eighteen marginal notes, with the last one, on page 57, corresponding to the final one in the Déclaration. They presumably stopped for the same reason. The text of the Defensio runs from page 3 to page 261; the Déclaration, from page 3 to page 356. 5 Appendix 1: 45. 6 For example, Appendix 1:21–24. 7 Appendix 1:51. 8 Appendix 1:6, 12, 17, 31, 119.

Joy Kleinstuber

259

this could have happened, but did not. It may well be that the details added were added from memory. 9 There are twenty-five instances of discrepancies in actual numbers given. These are fairly evenly spread throughout the Déclaration. How can such mistakes be explained? In ten of these instances, it is possible that a number in the Latin text has been mistaken for another which has a similar shape. 10 For this to happen, the translator must have been working from a manuscript Latin text, which is certainly possible: As both the Defensio and the Déclaration were produced in haste, it is possible to imagine that the translator worked from the original Latin manuscript when it came back from the officina of Robert Estienne, or even as various parts of it came back one by one. Let us look in a little more detail at these ten instances. The number changes are as follows: 6 ĺ 8 (twice), 9 ĺ 1, 3 ĺ 2, 7 ĺ 4, 5 ĺ 6, 6 ĺ 5, 7 ĺ 1, 1 ĺ 7, 2 ĺ 1. That 6 ĺ 8 occurs twice, reinforces this possibility. The fact that there is 6 ĺ 5 as well as 5 ĺ 6 suggests that each of these may have been mistaken for the other. The same can be said for 1 ĺ 7 and 7 ĺ 1. 7 ĺ 4 seems a very likely mistake, once the 7 is written with a bar across it. Of the remaining three, 9 ĺ 1 and 2 ĺ 1 seem plausible, with 3 ĺ 2 being the least likely. In all but one of these cases 11 , the number given in the Latin text is correct, meaning that the references given in the French translation are actually inaccurate. 12 Six more of these discrepancies can plausibly be attributed to carelessness. 13 In three of these cases, the complete reference has not been copied – one number has been left out: 33 ĺ 3, 158 ĺ 58, 30 ĺ 3. In another case, the correct numbers have been copied in an incorrect order: 198 ĺ 189. There is one example of a number being incorrectly added: 75 ĺ 705. In the case where 443 has become 441, the first two digits are the same. Because of this, it is possible that the translator copied the number from pagina 441 (ten lines before this in the published Latin text) instead of the one from pagina 443, lower down. These discrepancies could have been the fault of the typesetter, of course. Because of their nature, however, it seems 9 If this was the case, most of this added information was correct, but not all. See asterisked items in Appendix 1. 10 Appendix 1:19, 32, 50, 54, 57, 58, 60, 91, 108, 121. 11 Appendix 1:32. For item 60, CO has page 257, the same page number as the original Latin text. However, Tony Lane notes that the page number should be 251: Tertullianus totus noster? Calvin’s use of Tertullian, in: Reformation & Renaissance Review 4:1, June 2002, 33. 12 Regarding the accuracy, or otherwise, of these references, it is worth commenting that a large number of the references in the Defensio/ Déclaration are to a book – the Christianismi Restitutio – that was not available, as nearly all copies of it had been burned. See also Engammare, M., Calvin connaissait-il la Bible? Les citations de l’Ecriture dans ses sermons sur la Genèse, in: Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 141:2, avril-mai-juin 1995. 13 Appendix 1:41, 68, 70, 98, 111, 124.

260

Transmitting the Text

less likely that they were caused by someone who had difficulties reading a manuscript text, than by a translator who was being careless – due to tiredness and/ or haste. In two of these cases, the number in the Déclaration is actually the correct number. 14 Of the nine remaining instances, 1 has become 0 in three of them 15 , but this is probably a coincidence, as it does not seem likely that the former could be mistaken for the latter. Out of the total twenty-five discrepancies, four are correct in the Déclaration. These cases can either be seen as a result of the situations described above and coincidence, as corrections on the part of the translator or as a combination of both of these. Throughout the Déclaration – and particularly towards the end – there are words which, on first sight, appear to be typographical errors, the fault of the typesetter. The words in question, however, are not words wrongly spelt, which is the form “typos” generally take. Each is a word (or contraction of two words) in its own right, is correctly spelt and, having a different meaning, is inappropriate in its context. This is the second feature that we are going to consider. What is most striking about these erroneous words is that each one has the same – or a very similar – sound as the word that it clearly should be. The intended words can be easily inferred from context in the French text and can generally be confirmed by a direct or indirect translation of the relevant part of the Latin text. Examples of these words in their contexts can be found in Appendix 2. How can the existence of these words be explained? In each case, one word has clearly been mistaken for another word, because of its sound. A reasonable explanation, therefore, seems to be that it was spoken and heard, before it was written. Let us look at the stages that a word would have to go through, for this to happen. 1. First of all, there is the Latin word in the (either manuscript or printed) Latin text. 2. Next, the word is translated mentally into a French word. 3. Then, this French word is spoken. 4. This French word is heard and understood by the listener. 5. The French word as understood is written down by the listener. We will take it that the people involved are Calvin and a secretary. The crucial moment, here, is stage four. At this point, the secretary hears the French word wrongly, and writes down the incorrect word. The typesetter subsequently looks at it and sets the type in this way. The result is that the incorrect French word is printed. Let us take the words in example 16 through these stages. Calvin sees Deitas in the Latin text and mentally translates this as déité. Then he says 14 15

Appendix 1:41, 68. Appendix 1:34, 40, 78.

Joy Kleinstuber

261

the word déité. The secretary does not hear déité, but dignité, and this is the word he writes down. 16 But is this likely? Would a secretary write down words which make nonsense of the sentences/ clauses they are in? It is certainly possible. Writing from dictation, and probably at some speed, leaves very little – or no – time for thought about what is being written down. There is, of course, the possibility that some of these words as printed are “typos” – typesetting errors not based on any reason whatsoever. For example, it seems possible that a typesetter could see quelle, but set the type with an apostrophe – automatically, and out of habit. In the case of the rest of the errors, it is unlikely that a typesetter would have looked at one word and then immediately composed a different word. We would conclude that it is quite possible the secretary sometimes mis-heard words while he was writing down what Calvin was dictating. Based on this, we would suggest that some of the translating, at least, for the Déclaration was done by Calvin translating aloud from the Latin text in front of him, dictating to a secretary. At this 2006 Calvin conference, it was put to me 17 that Calvin either did all of this translation, or none of it. It seems to be generally agreed, by scholars familiar with Calvin’s written style, that Calvin was responsible for this translation, or at least for some of it. The reason given is that only Calvin the translator would have taken such liberties with the text.18 The two features of the Déclaration looked at in this paper support this view overall – the first, more tentatively, and the second, strongly – bringing other information to bear on the situation.19 The translator, tired and in a hurry, 16 Some of the examples in Appendix 3 (2, 9, 11 and 16) could give an interesting insight into the pronunciation of French at the time. 17 By Prof. Wilhelm Neuser. 18 It was suggested to me by Prof. Francis Higman (in a personal communication) that Calvin was responsible for some parts of this translation, at least; see also his “Calvin and the Art of Translation,” Western Canadian Studies in Modern Languages and Literature 2 (1970). Olivier Millet supports this view: Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: Etude de rhétorique réformée, Geneva 1992. The editors of the Calvini Opera are of the same opinion. They say of the Déclaration: “Minus presse latinum archetypum sequitur, imo multifariam ab eo differt et demptis additis mutatis plurimis textus particulis, modo minoribus, modo etiam longioribus, saepius libere decurrit ut vix a vero aberrare dixeris si quis ad ipsum Calvinum autorem hanc lectionis varietatem referat.” Vol. VIII, Prolegomena, XXXIII. 19 There is plenty of other evidence from this translation which points to Calvin being the translator. For example, the nature of what is – or is not – left out of it. This was another question raised by Prof. Neuser at the conference, who gave the example of the De la prédestination éternelle, where difficult theological passages in the De aeterna Dei praedestinatione are omitted, presumably because Calvin felt that these were not suitable for the readership. The case of the Déclaration is different. There are only four omissions of any length (2 – 6 lines), and none of these is of a difficult nature. One is certainly repetition, but it is difficult to see the reason for the other three. Most of the omissions in the Déclaration are short (1 – 5 words) and it is difficult – if not impossible – to look at them in isolation, to separate them from discussion of the style of translation.

262

Transmitting the Text

whose eye sometimes wandered up or down the page, sometimes leaving out references or parts of references, could certainly have been Calvin, especially as many of the omissions can be seen as conscious decisions, as opposed to carelessness. 20 The translator who added references or parts of references is more likely to have been Calvin, than anyone else. Another person translating would not have taken this responsibility. And if this text – or parts of it – was transmitted orally to a secretary, it is not possible to see a plausible context where anyone else would have done this. The person who did the dictating could only have been Calvin. A not unfamiliar picture, therefore, comes into focus: Calvin working in haste – and these particular texts, after all, were of a particular urgency – writing the earlier parts of the translation himself, and dictating the later parts to a secretary in order to save time. “Libellus brevis est ac tumultuarie conscriptus”, Calvin wrote to Bullinger. 21 He was talking, here, about the Defensio, but as he wrote this text and prepared the translation almost simultaneously, it is likely that he was describing the Déclaration as well.

Throughout the more difficult passages, the translator helps the reader by adding, omitting, simplifying and explaining. It is as if he wants the less-informed reader to understand absolutely everything that the more-informed reader has understood in the Latin text. This points very strongly to Calvin doing the translating. 20 This is a translator who distinguishes between important and less important information. 21 7 Calendas Martii 1552; CO 15,39–40.

Joy Kleinstuber

263

Appendix 1 Difference in References between the Defensio and the Déclaration An asterisk beside a number indicates that it is incorrect. We have based this on the CO Defensio (VIII: 457–644) for references to the Christianismi Restitutio and the Bible. For Church fathers, we have examined the original texts. We have only checked the twenty–five instances where there is a discrepancy between the French and Latin texts.

1

Déclaration p. 12: car en l’Epistre qu’il a faict imprimer contre moy, il esmeut ceste question …

2 3 4

p. 24: no ref. p. 27: marginal ref.: Pseaume 18. p. 32: S. Augustin respond …, no ref.

5

p. 34: … la prophetie d’Isaie … monstre clairement …, no ref. p. 35: Plutost à l’opposite, David au second Pseaume l’arme & l’equipe d’un barreau de fer, pour casser les testes à ses ennemis. p. 36: Iesus Christ dit …, no ref. p. 38: Plusieurs aussi s’abusent au dire de Gamaliel …, no ref. p. 47: no ref. p. 49: Consacrez, dit-il [Moyse] …, no ref. p. 61: S. Paul en un autre passage …, no ref. p. 73: Sainct Paul … au premier chapitre aux Romains, & au quatrieme. p. 76: Or S. Paul a bien une autre facon de parler, quand il dit que … p. 80: … ce que dict S. Paul …, no ref.

6

7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14

Defensio p. 8: Nam ex triginta epistolis quas velut ad me scriptas in publicum edidit, vigesima septima hanc quaestionem continet … p. 15: marginal ref.: Ioha 8. f. 44 p. 18: marginal ref.: Psal. 18. g. 45. p. 20: marginal ref.: Ad Bonifaciam Epist. 50, & aliis locis. p. 21: marginal ref.: Esa. 42. a. 3. p. 22: Quin potius sceptro ferreo armatur, quo inimicorum capita conterat. p. 23: marginal ref.: Matt. 13. d. 29 p. 24: marginal ref.: Act. 5. f. 34. p. 30: marginal ref.: Deut. 13. c. 12 p. 31: marginal ref.: Exo. 32. f. 29. p. 39: marginal ref.: Philip. 2. a. 6. p. 46: Paulus testatur …, no ref.

p. 49: marginal ref.: 2. Corin. 5. a. 6 p. 52: Rom. 15. Also marginal ref.: Rom. 15. b. 8

264

Transmitting the Text Déclaration p. 80: … la priere de Iacob …, no ref.

15 16

p. 81: … comme aussi sainct Paul en parle aux Ephesiens …, no ref. p. 82: … le propos de S. Paul qui est recité au mesme livre des Actes …. no ref. p. 86: marginal ref.: 1. Cor. 11 p. 100: 2. livre de Trinitate pag. 86* p. 101: Audict livre second pag. 77. p. 104: dialogue. 2. page 263 p. 104: dialog. 2. pag. 268 p. 104: dialogue 2. pag. 271 p. 104: dialogue. 2. pag. 272 p. 105: livre 1. de Trinit. pag. 22 p. 105: Dialogue 2, page 264 p. 105: Dialog. 2. pag. 208 p. 106: Dialog. 1, page 205 p. 106: Dialogue premier pag. 231 p. 106: Dialogue 1, page 226 p. 107: livre cinquieme de Trinitate, page 192 p. 107: Dialog. Premier page 218 p. 109: contre Marcion, page 200. & 201 p. 110: livre de la Resurrection de la chair, page 40* p. 110: cinquieme livre contre Marcion, page135, & 136 p. 110: S. Paul au 1. des Coloss. p. 110: au mesme livre, page 351 p. 110: au mesme livre, page,(sic) 353. & 354 p. 111: en la page 32, & 34 p. 112: en la page 70* p. 112: Dan. 3. chap. p. 112: complete sentence omitted

17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

22

Defensio p. 52: Genes. 48. Also marginal ref.: Gene. 48. c. 16 p. 52: 2 ad Ephesios. Also marginal ref.: Ephes. 2. c. 13 p. 53: … illud Pauli ad Iudaeos …

p. 56: marginal ref.: 1. Cor. 11. f. 28 p. 65: lib. 2. de Trinit. pag. 66 p. 66: Libro 2. de Trin. pa. 77 p. 68: Dial. 2. de Trini. Pa. 263 p. 68: Dial. 2. de Trin. pa. 268 p. 68: Dial. 2. de Trin. pa. 271 p. 68: Dialo. 2. de Trin. pag. 272 p. 69: Li. 2. de Tri. pa. 22 p. 69: Dialog. 2. de Trin pag. 264 p. 69: Dial. 1. de Trin. pa. 208 p. 69: Dialo. 1. de Trin. pag. 205 p. 70: Dial. 1. de Trin. pag. 231 p. 70: Dial. 1. de Trin. pag. 226 p. 70: no ref. p. 70: Dial. 1. pag. 216 p. 72: lib. 2. contra Marcionem, pagi. 200 & 201 p. 73: lib. De Resurrectione carnis, pag. 41 p. 73: lib. 5, contra Marcionem, pag. 175, & 136 22 p. 73: dictum Apostoli ad Coloss. p. 73: eodem lib. 5. pag. 351 p. 73: eodem lib. 5. pag. 353 & 354 p. 75: pag. 32 & 34, eodem libro p. 75: eodem lib. pag. 71 p. 75: Danielis 33 p. 75: Haec & alia citat Tertullianus dicta pag. 431.& 432.

Both texts are wrong here: the correct pages are 335 and 336.

Joy Kleinstuber

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Déclaration p. 112: le passage d’Exode p. 112: Matthieu 18* p. 112: no ref. p. 113: au mesme livre, chapitre 15, page 215 p. 113: au mesme livre, chapitre 8, page 211 p. 113: au mesme livre, chapitre 37, page 242, & 243 p. 113: le passage d’Isaie p. 113: au livre cinquieme, page 218* p. 113: ... & au livre second, chapitre 2. page 263 p. 114: au livre second, chapitre 2,* page 76 p. 114: au chapitre 47, page 115 p. 114: au livre quatrieme, chap. 33, pag. 225* p. 114: en la page 15 p. 115: au mesme livre, pag. 21 p. 115: au livre 2, page 34* p. 120: pa. 6. p. 120: same annot., no ref. p. 122: Tertull. pag. 251 p. 126: Tertullien en la pag. 422.& 423. p. 126: Regarde en la lig. 4. 5. & 6. p. 126: same annot., no ref. p. 129: pag. 369 p. 131: same annot., no ref. p. 132: same annot., no ref. p. 132: Au mesme livre p. 132: pag. 705 p. 132: same annot., no ref. p. 132: pag. 441* p. 134: same annot., no ref. p. 134: le 16. passage de Tertull. p. 134: les mots d’Irenée, no ref. p. 138: Irenée au mesme livre

265

Defensio p. 75: locum Exodi, ca. 33 p. 75: Matth. 17. p. 75: Matth. 17 p. 76: eodem lib. 4. cap. 15. pag. 215 p. 76: eodem lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 211 p. 76: eodem lib. 4. ca. 37. pag. 242, & 243 p. 76: dictum Esaiae cap. 6 p. 77: lib. 5, pag. 298 p. 77: … & lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 66, & lib. 4. cap. 52. pag. 263. p. 77: lib. 2. ca. 10. pag. 76 p. 77: eodem lib. ca. 47. pag. 115 p. 78: li. 4. ca. 33. pag. 235 p. 78: eadem pag. 15 p. 78: eodem lib.1. pag. 21 p. 78: lib. 2. pag. 37 p. 84: pag. 5. p. 84: pag. 182. & 733 p. 85: Tertullianus pagina 257 p. 88: Tertullianus pag. 422, linea 4, & 423, linea 1 p. 88: no ref. p. 88: pag. 442 p. 90: pagina 369. & 422 p. 92: linea 9 p. 92: lin. 2 p. 93: Eadem pag. p. 93: pag. 75 p. 93: linea 13 p. 93: pagina 443 p. 94: linea ulti. p. 94: XVII. Tertulliani locum p. 95: verba Irenaei, linea 23 p. 98: Eodem libro, pag. 216

266

Transmitting the Text

76

Déclaration p. 139: au mesme livre, sur la fin de la page 239 p. 140: l’Epistre 9 à Calvin, no ref.

77 78 79

p. 140: l’Apologie, no ref. p. 140: Aux Philippiens, pa. 30* p. 141: omitted

80

p. 142: pag. 24, 273, 704, & ensuyvant p. 144: pag. 163. 164. 704, &c. p. 145: Et en un autre lieu il dit …, no ref. p. 144: page 734.* 705 p. 146: Tertullien, page 369, 422, &c.

75

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

Defensio p. 98: eodem lib. 4, circa finem paginae 239 p. 99: epistola nona ad Calvinum, pagina 602 p. 99: Apologia, pag. 703 p. 100: Idem ad Phili. pag. 31 p. 100: …& in Epistola tua 6, pag. 590 p. 101: pag. 24, & pag. 273. & 704, 705, & seq. p. 102: pag. 163. 164. 704. 705, &c. p. 103: Romanorum 1

p. 104: pag. 704. 705, & alibi passim. p. 104: Tertullianus, pag. 369. 422. & 442. p. 150: comme dit Ignace, no ref. p. 108: ut ait Ignatius, pag. 12. p. 151: Irenée, no ref. p. 109: Irenaeus 217 pag. p. 152: same annot., no ref. p. 109: pag. 201 p. 152: same annot., no ref. p. 109: 1 Iohannis 5 p. 153: pag. 263 p. 110: pagi. 263, linea 1 p. 153: same annot., no ref. p. 110: pag. 29, & 442 p. 153: page 120, & la page 156* p. 110: pag 120, & 256 p. 153: same annot., no ref. p. 110: pa. 120. & 256 p. 154: same annot., no ref. p. 111: Ioannis 3 p. 154: Tertullianus, no ref. p. 111: Tertullianus, pag. 443, linea ultima p. 156: le second dialogue pa. 270 pp. 112–113: Dialogum 2. pag. 270 & 271 p. 157: same annot., no ref. p. 113: Ephes. 5 p. 159: pag. 140 p. 114: pagina 140 & 141 p. 160: pag. 189* p. 115: pagina 198 p. 160: en la pag. 191. &c. p. 115: paginam 191, 192, 196 & 265 p. 162: 1.Co. 3, 2. Corin. 6. Iean 14. p. 117: 1. Corin. 3, & 2. Corin. 6, Iohan. 14, Act. 2. p. 163: Genese 2, & 3* p. 118: Genesis 2, & 6 p. 165: Iosue 5: 9* & 10* des Iuges p. 119: Iosue 5, & Iudicum 6 p. 166: pag 178. & aux lieux semblab- p. 120: pag. 178, 225, 260, & aliis les locis

Joy Kleinstuber

104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Déclaration p. 190: Au cinquieme livre de la Trinité p. 192: l’Epi. 6, no ref. p. 194: la page neufieme p. 196: en la pa. 85 p. 196: En l’Apologie, pa. 594*

122 123

p. 197: un petit devant p. 198: Tout au commencement du livre de la Regeneration p. 198: la page 58* p. 199: page 165 p. 199: page 263 p. 200: l’Epistre sixieme p. 201: page 270 p. 202: page 150 p. 203: en la page 705 p. 206: en la page 695 p. 207: 1. chap. De S. Iean p. 208: en l’Epistre sixiesme p. 208: au livre troisiesme de la Trinité p. 209: no ref. p. 221: c’est de son propre texte

124 125 126

p. 243: page 3* p. 243: no ref. p. 248: page 399

127 128 129

p. 251: page 721* p. 260: omitted p. 262: ce que nous avons recité cy dessus … à savoir … p. 266: au second livre de la Trinité, page 250 p. 267: page 231 p. 275: pag. 273 p. 275: la sentence de sainct Paul p. 276: sainct Paul nous advertit

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

130 131 132 133 134

267

Defensio p. 137: Libro quinto de Trinitate, pag. 164 p. 139: Epistola 6, pag. 189 p. 141: lib. 1 de Trinitate, pag. 9 p. 142: lib. 2. de Trinit. pag. 85 p. 142: In Apologia ad Melancthonem, pag. 694 p. 142: priore pag. p. 143: Libro de Regeneratione superna, versu septimo p. 144: pagina 158 p. 144: Lib. 5. pag. 165 p. 144: Dialogo 2, pag. 263 p. 145: Epistola 6, pag. 590 p. 146: dialogo secundo, pag. 270 p. 146: lib. 4. de Trinit. pag. 150 p. 147: Apologia, pag. 705 p. 149: in Apologia, pag. 695 p. 150: Iohannis locus p. 151: Epistola sexta … pag. 591 p. 151: lib. de Trinitate 3, pag. 96 p. 151: pag. 704 p. 161: ad verbum libro 4, de Regeneratione p. 177: pag. 30 p. 177: page 86 p. 181: lib. de orbis perditione 1, pag. 399 p. 183: pa. 121 p. 190: paulo post p. 192: quod prius ex Apologia citavimus … pagina 122 p. 195: Dial. 2. de Trinit. pag. 250 p. 195: dial. 1. pa. 231 p. 201: Dialogo 2. pag. 273 p. 202: 1. Corinth. 12 p. 202: Ephe. 4

268 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

Transmitting the Text Déclaration p. 284: l’Epistre 6 p. 284: no ref. p. 285: omitted p. 292: pa. 267 p. 310: selon S. Paul p. 312: en la pag. 363. alleguant le tesmoignage de Moyse p. 315: pa. 228 p. 317: omitted p. 323: à Melancthon, pa. 719 p. 334: En la pag. 327, & celles qui suyvent aprés p. 343: no ref.

Defensio p. 207: Epistola 6, pagina 589 p. 207: in Apologia, pagina 698 p. 209: Eadem pagina p. 215: dialogo secundo, pag. 267 p. 228: Ephes. 4 p. 229: nam pag. 363, Mosis testimonium ex 1. Deuteronomii cap. citans p. 232: Dialo. 1. pag. 228 p. 233: pagina sequente p. 238: in Apologia ad Melancthonem, pag. 719 p. 246: Libro 2. de Lege & Evangelio, pag. 327, & novem sequentibus p. 253: pagina 673

Joy Kleinstuber

269

Appendix 2 Examples of Possible Oral Transmission/ Dictation in the Déclaration 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Déclaration p. 6: nous voyons comment une grande partie s’esgaye en ses folles imaginations et si (= s’y) desborde sans mesure p. 9: ie ne (= n’ay) voulu point estre plus sage que mon Maistre ne me permet p. 55: Nous verrons cy apres … quels blasphemes et absurditez execrables luy sons (= sont) eschappées en parlant à nous pp. 159–160: sinon qu’il confesse que par ce mot d’Hypostase il signifie pour tout potage un nombre (= un ombre) simple p. 160: Dieu determinant en son conseil eternel d’avoir un Fils visible, par ce moyen c’est (= s’est) rendu visible p. 163: nul oeil n’a veu, & nulle aureille n’a ouy qu’elles (= quelles) sont ces choses eternelles, qui nous sont apprestées en Dieu p. 229: Que Servet se desveloppe de ce lien, et puis nous verrons qu’elle (quelle) est la nature de la Parolle. p. 242: la sentence de sainct Paul au 12. de la premiere aux Corinthiens, que nonobstant qu’il y ait varietez de dons, il n’y a qu’un seul Esprit, duquel il (= ils) nous viennent. pp. 250–251: Car en voyant, dit-il, c’est (= cest) image il est dict que ie voy Dieu p. 251: Qu’elle (= Quelle) distinction d’hypostase aura-il plus …?

Defensio p. 4: videmus quam audacter lasciviant plurimi in suis commentis

p. 7: nolui supra magistri regulam sapere p. 35: Porro quam absurdae execrandaeque blasphemiae illi inter loquendum exciderint, alibi forte opportunius dicetur. p. 115: nisi fateri velit hypostasin nihil aliud esse quam umbram

p. 115: Deus aeterna sua ratione Filium sibi visibilem decernens, hoc modo visibilem se exhibuit p. 117: Oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, quae sunt haec aeterna nobis ita in Deo parata. p. 167: Ab hoc nodo se expediat Servetus, post de Verbi natura videbimus. p. 176: illud Pauli 1. ad Corint. 12, varietates donorum esse, sed unum, et eundem Spiritum.

p. 183: Nam expressam, inquit, illam effigiam videns, dicor videre Deum p. 183: Qualis nunc hypostaseon distinctio?

270 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Transmitting the Text Déclaration p. 254: il dit que tout ainsi que par l’Incarnation la Parolle a esté faicte chair aux creatures (= ou creature) p. 256: D’avantage, qu’elle (= quelle) absurdité y auroit-il d’assubiectir la substance de Dieu à passions humaines? p. 256: Pour excuser cela, Servet me barbouille de ie ne say qu’elle (= quelle) union hypostatique de la Parolle qui deifie la chair p. 257: Servet dit, qu’il a honte de ma bestise, car ces (= ses) parolles sont telles que Dieu a dispensé la Parolle et l’Esprit au corps et en l’ame de Christ. p. 259: n’est-ce pas diminué (= diminuer) la gloire de Christ, ou retrancher de l’integrité de sa substance p. 282: ie respon que par ces mots est monstré la fragilité de la creature, plustost qu’une dignité (= deité) essencielle. p. 289: Nous avons exposé cy dessus, qu’elle (=quelle) meschanceté c’a esté à luy d’enclore la Deité en toutes creatures p. 309: Que dira-il aussi de cest adolescent donc (= dont) sainct Luc fait mention, lequel estant accablé de sommeil,tomba de la fenestre? p. 354: Dont il infere que les promesses sont superflues en priant: mesmes que ceux qui si (= s’y) appuyent sont insensez

Defensio p. 186: Sicut par incarnationem, inquit … Verbum effectum est caro, vel creatura p. 187: Adhaec, quam absurdum erit humanis affectibus subiicere Dei substantiam? p. 187: Nunc hypostaticam Verbi unionem obtendit, quae carnem Deificat. p. 188: Et tamen Servetum bestialitatis meae pudet … Haec enim sunt eius verba, quod Deus Verbum et Spiritum in corpus et animam Christi dispensaverit. p. 189: Annon illa gloriae eius fuit diminutio, vel mutila substantiae p. 206: His verbis potius notatur fragilis creatura, quam essentialis Deitas. p. 212: Quam impie Deitatis substantiam includat in omnibus creaturis, iam supra exposuimus. p. 227: Quid etiam de illo adulescente dicet, qui sopore oppressus ex fenestra decidit? p. 260: Unde infertur in precibus supervacuas esse promissiones: imo absurde facere eos, qui precandi fiduciam inde sumant

Calvin’s View of Augustine and the Donatist Church

In-Sub Ahn

1. Introduction This paper will explore Calvin’s use of the Donatists movement in relation to Augustine. Calvin’s quotations of the Donatists appear throughout Calvin’s major writings: from his dedicational letter of the Institutes (1536), his Institutes (1559), his various biblical Commentaries. Calvin’s use of the Donatist movement reveals Calvin’s thoughts on the ecclesiological issues, such as the power of the Pope, the validity of Baptism, the ecclesiology of the mixed Church, Church discipline, and the relation of Church and State. We will conduct this research from several points of view. How and why did Calvin use the Donatist controversy in his writings? By citing the Donatists, which idea did Calvin try to explain? Which theological way did, finally, Calvin choose in the dynamic context of the sixteenth century? Was his method successful or not?

2. Calvin’s ecclesiological thoughts in his use of the Donatist controversy 2.1 The Church of the Reformation, preserving the thoughts of the early Church: Against the Roman Catholic Church and the Anabaptists 2.1.1 Dedication of Institutes (1536) According to Calvin’s dedicational letter of the Institutes, Calvin and the Reformation leaders were suspected of preaching “recently formed,” “new” and “strange” teachings. The Roman Catholic theologians attacked the reformers, for spreading a false gospel and breaking the unity of the universal Church. However, Calvin rejected his opponents’ assault. According to Calvin the reformed Church kept the true gospel which originated with Christ. In this sense Calvin “used” the Donatist controversy.

272

Augustine and the Donatist Church

The Donatists of old overwhelmed the simplicity of the multitude with this batteringram: that they were mighty in miracles. We, therefore, now answer our adversaries as Augustine then answered the Donatists: the Lord made us wary of these miracle workers when he predicted that false prophets with lying signs and prodigies would come to draw even the elect (if possible) into error […]. 1

According to Calvin, the Donatist Churches tried to delude the people into believing that their Churches were true because of their miracles. However, as Augustine asserted, the true Church did not attempt to make the people believe in the false doctrine by temptation. According to Calvin, the Church of the Reformation kept the true gospel because of the miracle of the Bible. 2.1.2 Comm. Col. 1,23. (CO 52,92) (1548) Secondly, by using the Donatist controversy, Calvin argued, in his Commentary on Col. 1,23, that the reformed Church preserved the truth which all the historical Churches received. It is also no common help for fortifying us against so many assaults, that we have the consent of the whole Church – such, I mean, as is worthy of so distinguished a title. We also cordially subscribe to the views of Augustine, who refutes the Donatists by this argument particularly, that they bring forward a gospel that is in all the Churches unheard of and unknown. 2

Calvin fully agreed with Augustine in this matter. In Calvin’s thought, Augustine refuted the Donatists, since they misunderstood the Gospel through a false ecclesiology. According to Calvin, the sixteenth-century papists chose the same mistaken way which the Donatists did in the fourth century. The Roman Catholic Church ignored and even refused the Gospel of the Prophets and the Apostles of the early Church. In their preaching they wrongly urged the people to admit the doctrine which the Roman Catholic Church had recognized. In this matter, Calvin opposed Roman Catholicism, by using Augustine’s argument against the Donatists. In accordance with Calvin’s emphasis, the Church of the Reformation aimed to preach the Gospel of the Apostles. 2.2 A critique of the supreme authority of the Pope: against the Roman Catholic Church. The second category of Calvin’s use of Donatists concerns the supreme authority of the Roman Pope. 1 2

Calvin, Institutes, dedication. Calvin, CO 52,92. (=Comm. Col. 1,23) (1548).

In-Sub Ahn

273

2.2.1 Comm. Ac. 10,15. (CO 48,233–235) (1552) Calvin’s use of the Donatists appeared in his Commentary on the Acts, chapter 10,15, which was published in 1552. As touching meats, after the abrogating of the law, God pronounceth that they are all pure and clean. If, on the other side, there start up a mortal man, making a new difference, forbidding certain, he taketh unto himself the authority and power of God by sacrilegious boldness. Of this stamp were the old heretics, Montanus, Priscillianus, the Donatists, the Tatians, and all the Encratites. Afterwards the Pope, to the end he might bind all those sects in a bundle, made a law concerning meats. 3

God proclaimed that all foods are pure and clean. However, according to Calvin, the Donatists set their own rules above God’s Word, so that they made a difference among the foods as being clean or not. Calvin recognized that this is a kind of provocation against God. Thus, Calvin equated this Pope-centered tyrannical structure of Roman Catholicism with that of the Donatist Churches. In Calvin’s thoughts, the Pope set the rule not to eat flesh on special days, just as the Donatists did. Calvin considered this attitude a dishonour of the authority of the Word of God. In this way, by mentioning the Donatist controversy, Calvin argued that the Word of God has the supreme and the final authority, rather than the Pope. 2.2.2 Institutes, 4. 7. 10. (CO 2,830–831) (1559) Calvin, also in his Institutes, tackled the Roman Catholic members on the matters of the supremacy of the Pope, by using the Donatists controversy. It appeared in the chapter four of Calvin’s Institutes. But, to settle this question once for all, one historical incident will make plain what the jurisdiction of the Roman bishop was in the early period. Donatus of Casae Nigrae had accused Caecilian, bishop of Carthage. The accused man was condemned, his case unheard […]. But let us hear what took place afterward. Caecilian wins there; Donatus of Casae Nigrae falls by his slanderous action; he appeals; Constantine commits the judgment of the appeal to the bishop of Arles […]. 4

When Calvin mentioned the origin of the supremacy of the Pope, Calvin reminded his readers of the historical accident which happened in the North Africa in the fourth century. Donatus of Casae Nigrae in North Africa laid a formal complaint before the court of the pope in Rome, against Caecilian, the Roman bishop of Carthage. The Roman Church could not make an independent conclusion concerning this case. Thus, Melchiades, the bishop of Rome, sent this case to Constantine, the Roman emperor. As a result, with the assistance of other Church leaders from Italy, Gaul and Spain, the 3 4

Calvin, CO 48,235–233. (=Comm. Ac. 10,15) (1552). Calvin, CO 2,830–831. (=Institutes, 4.7.10) (1559)

274

Augustine and the Donatist Church

Roman bishop had to deal with this case. 5 Calvin believed that this incident clearly sketched the relative authority of the Roman bishop in the beginning of the Christian Church. In addition, when Donatus, the loser, appealed to a higher court against, Constantine, the Roman emperor, let the bishop of Arles settle this case. When Calvin described the North African case, he strongly tried to point out that there was no absolute supremacy of the Roman Pope in the early Church, dislike the sixteenth century’s Roman Catholic argument. 2.3 The validity of Baptism: Against the Anabaptists and Roman Catholicism The third category of Calvin’s use of the Donatists appeared mostly in the context of the validity of the Baptism, and almost all the quotations were employed to refute the Anabaptists. 2.3.1 Comm. John 4,2. (CO 47, 77–78) (1553) First of all, in Calvin’s commentary on John 4,2 we will encounter Calvin’s use of the Donatists. And this is sufficient for refuting the Anabaptists, who maintain that, when the minister is a wicked man, the Baptism is also vitiated, and, by means of this absurdity, disturb the Church; as Augustine has very properly employed the same argument against the Donatists. 6

According to Calvin, Baptism was validated not by the weight of the ministers’ characteristics. Calvin wrote us to remember that Jesus delegated the humble disciples to baptize. According to Calvin the authority of Baptism was based on Christ who is the real operator of Baptism, whether the minister who administrated the Baptism was faulty or not. 7 In this context, Calvin used the Donatist controversy again, in order to refute the Anabaptists. When the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century argued that Baptism was invalid if the operator was imperfect, Calvin heard the voice of the Donatists of the fourth century. In this matter, Calvin agreed with Augustine. As a result, by using the Donatist controversy, Calvin refuted the Anabap5 Calvin, CO 2,830–831. (=Institutes, 4.7.10) (1559). “The case then came to the Emperor Constantine. Since he wished the case to be settled by judgment of the church, the emperor committed the hearing of it to Melchiades, bishop of Rome, to whom Constantine added some colleagues from Italy, Gaul, and Spain”. 6 Calvin, CO 47,77–78. (=Comm. John 4,2) (1553). 7 Calvin, CO 47,77–78. (=Comm. John 4,2) (1553). “Now if the Baptism administered by a man is Christ’s Baptism, it will not cease to be Christ’s Baptism whoever be the minister”.

In-Sub Ahn

275

tists just as Augustine had refuted the Donatists. Calvin confirmed that the validity of Baptism depended on Christ, not on the human administrator. 2.3.2 Institutes, 4. 15. 8. (CO 2,966–967) (1559) In his Institutes, Calvin repeated his argument that Christ is the real giver of the inward grace, and the operating minister was just an administrator of Baptism. What could the apostles boast beyond this? And what those who baptize today? For they are only ministers of the outward sign, but Christ is the author of inward grace, as those same ancient writers everywhere teach, and especially Augustine, who in controversy with the Donatists relied chiefly on this argument: whosoever may baptize, Christ alone presides. 8

Those who administrated Baptism just performed the external sign. The inner grace, however, originated from Christ. When Calvin used the Donatist controversy in his Institutes, he accepted Augustine’s logic in his refutation of the Donatists. Baptism is really effective under Christ’s administration, no matter who administers it. 2.3.3 Institutes, 4. 15. 16. (CO 2,971) (1559) Calvin’s Institutes consistently returned to the Donatist controversy. The authority of Baptism did not come from the minister’s merit. Noticeable, Calvin described the Baptism of which God is the prime author as “the promise” He gives. This argument neatly refutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the force and value of the sacrament by the worth of the minister. Such today are our Catabaptists, who deny that we have been duly baptized because we were baptized by impious and idolatrous men under the papal government. They therefore passionately urge rebaptism. 9

The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century denied Baptism under the papal system. Thus, they argued re-baptism. However, according to Calvin’s use of the Donatists controversy, Baptism originated from God, no matter who administered it. Therefore it is not necessary to be re-baptized. If Baptism came from God, the promise of God is included in it. As Calvin clearly explained, this promise is the “forgiveness of sins, mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification, and participation in Christ”.10 This Calvinistic

8 Calvin, CO 2,966–967. (=Institutes, 4.15.8) (1559). 9 Calvin, CO 2,971. (=Institutes, 4.15.16) (1559). 10 Calvin, CO 2,971. (=Institutes, 4.15.16) (1559). “But if it was the Baptism of God, it surely had, enclosed in itself, the promise of forgiveness of sins, mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification, and participation in Christ”.

276

Augustine and the Donatist Church

understanding of Baptism provides modern Christians with the spiritual instruction concerning the benefit of Baptism. 2.3.4 Institutes, 4. 19. 10 (CO 2,1073) (1559) Calvin again argued about the authority of Baptism, when he criticized the Roman Catholic Church which regarded confirmation much more important than Baptism. But in the first reason, do they not betray themselves to be Donatists, who reckon the force of the sacrament from the worthiness of the minister? However, I shall admit that confirmation may be called worthier by the worthiness of the bishop’s hand. But if someone inquire of them the source of this very great privilege of the bishop, what reason will they bring forward but their own whim? 11

According to Calvin, the Roman Catholic theologians took the same course as the Donatists of the fourth century, because both of them argued that the validity of Sacrament lay with the minister. In this case Sacrament originated from man, whose mind has a possibility of change. In Calvin’s view it falls into err. Thus, this attitude clearly showed that Calvin used the Donatist controversy, in order to refute the theory of the Roman Catholic Confirmation as Anabaptist. In accordance with Calvin’s argument, both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anabaptists committed an error in that they derived the validity of Sacrament from the minister, not from God. 2.4 Ecclesiology as the mixed Church (permixta ecclesia): against the Anabaptists 2.4.1 Comm. Eph. 1,4. (CO 51,147–148) (1548) When M. Bucer, the famous reformer of Strasbourg, went to work in Cambridge in his later years, he took pleasure in using Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians in his lecture on Ephesians. 12 Bucer dealt with the matter of Christian life in relation to ecclesiology. Calvin, in his Commentary on Ephesians, used the Donatist controversy, to argue that God’s election of the saints did not imply that the elect could be self-indulgent. The inference, too, which the Catharists, Celestines, and Donatists drew from these words, that we may attain perfection in this life, is without foundation. This is the

11 Calvin, CO 2,1073. (=Institutes, 4.19.10) (1559). 12 Spijker, W. van ‘t, The Influence of Bucer on Calvin as becomes evident from the Institutes, in: Geest, Woord en Kerk, Kampen 1991, 94–113.

In-Sub Ahn

277

goal to which the whole course of our life must be directed, and we shall not reach it till we have finished our course. 13

Calvin emphasized the inseparable relation between “the grace of election” and the “holiness of life.” While the Donatists intended to accomplish the holy life in this world, according to Calvin, this perfection is a goal which can only be approached in a life-long effort. Even though, there are, in a moral sense, imperfect Christians in the Churches of the Reformation, it cannot be a reason of the separation from this Church. However, the grace of election does not allow the Christians to be indulgent, since the Christians are to be expected to pursue the pious life as long as they live. 2.4.2 Comm. Ps. 15,1. (CO 31,142–144) (1557) In his Commentary on the Psalms, using the Donatist controversy again, Calvin explained his thoughts on the Church. Yet the experience of all ages teaches us how dangerous a temptation it is when we behold the Church of God, which ought to be free from all polluting stains, and to shine in uncorrupted purity, cherishing in her bosom many ungodly hypocrites, or wicked persons. From this the Catharists, Novatians, and Donatists, took occasion in former times to separate themselves from the fellowship of the godly. 14

The Donatists separated from the universal Church because they could not accept any impious Christians within the earthly Church. In Calvin’s time, the Anabaptists also tried to divide the Church for a similar cause. 15 In this situation, Calvin explained the idea of the true Church. Calvin only confirmed that the true Church could be separated by Christ himself in an eschatological context. It is from here that Calvin drew his concept of the ethics of Christians who are living in the mixed Church. It can be explained with two points. First, with patience, should Christians live on this earth. The Christians are to try to correct their faults as far as possible. However, Calvin recommended that they must endure until the fulfilment of their efforts. Second, in accordance with Calvin’s recommendation, Christians should try to purify their life on this earth. Even if the earthly Church, as a mixed community, can never attain the perfect level of moral life, Christians should struggle for the holy life. Calvin, however, pointed out that the saints should not try to be separate from the Church because of the imperfection of the earthly Church, as a mixed assembly. 13 Calvin, CO 51,147–148. (=Comm. Eph. 1,4) (1548). 14 Calvin, CO 31,142–144. (=Comm. Ps. 15,1) (1557). 15 Calvin, CO 31,142–144. (=Comm. Ps. 15,1) (1557). “The Anabaptists, at the present day, renew the same schisms, because it does not seem to them that a church in which vices are tolerated can be a true church”.

278

Augustine and the Donatist Church

2.4.3 Comm. Ps. 26,5. (CO 31,266–267) (1557) In his Commentary on the Psalms, Calvin described the Anabaptists’ mistake as in line with the Donatists in the fourth century. In Calvin’s view, both of them separated themselves from the universal Church, while worrying about their personal contamination by the evil. Many err in this way grievously; imagining when they see the evil mingled with the good, that they will be infected with pollution, unless they immediately withdraw themselves from the whole congregation. This preciseness drove the Donatists of old, and prior to them the Cathari and the Novatians, into mischievous schisms. In our own times, too, the Anabaptists, from a similar conceit, have separated themselves from the sacred assemblies, because they reckoned them not so free from all defilement as could have been wished. Moreover, the Donatists made themselves a laughing-stock in a certain process, by tenaciously clinging to mere words. 16

Like Augustine, Calvin had the concept of the Church as the mixed Church. In the earthly Church, there exist the good and the bad. Only in the eschaton, the members of the earthly Church can be proved as good or not. However, the Anabaptists separated from the Church of the Reformation, because they were afraid that they could be influenced by the evil of the imperfect Christians within the Church. For Calvin, this was just like the Donatists in North Africa of the fourth century, against whom Augustine had so critically fulminated. 2.4.4 Institutes, 4. 1. 13. (CO 2,756–757) (1559) In his Institutes, Calvin again explained the characteristics of the earthly Church, as the mixed body of the good and bad. The members of the Church in this world consist of the good and the bad. Calvin, at first, made a severe criticism of the idleness of Christians who were not living in accordance with the gospel even though they had listened to it. In addition, Calvin frankly recognized that, in one part, the members of the Church of the Reformation provided the source of the criticism. However, Calvin strongly denied the argument of the Anabaptists. Calvin’s refuting point was their radical insistence. According to the Anabaptists, the earthly Church should be perfect, so that the separation from the imperfect Church had a just cause. For there have always been those who, imbued with a false conviction of their own perfect sanctity, as if they had already become a sort of airy spirits, spurned association with all men in whom they discern any remnant of human nature. The Cathari of old were of this sort, as well as the Donatists, who approached them in foolishness.

16

Calvin, CO 31,266–267. (=Comm. Ps. 26,5) (1557).

In-Sub Ahn

279

Such today are some of the Anabaptists who wish to appear advanced beyond other men […]. 17

Calvin here employed several biblical texts. They were Jesus’ parable of the net and the fish (Mt. 13,47–48) and that of the weeds (Mt. 13,24–30). Augustine of Hippo also employed the same parables of Jesus, explaining his ecclesiology. By directly using the Seven Rules of Tyconius, Augustine expressed his opinion about “permixta ecclesia”. 18 The earthly Church can never be perfect, once it exists in this present world (saeculum). Thus, the imperfection of the earthly Church cannot be the reasonable cause of the separation of the Church. On the contrary, the weak points of the earthly Church belong to the task and the mission of the Church members, to make those imperfect elements mature until the end of the earth. In this sense, the ecclesiology, based on the theology of the election, needs more spiritual life which yearns for eschatological perfection. In fact this ecclesiology does not allow for self-indulgence. 2.4.5 Institutes, 4. 8. 12. (CO 2,854–855) (1559) In Chapter four of his Institutes, Calvin also used the Donatists. In this place, on the one hand, Calvin denied the Anabaptists’ perfectionism. On the other hand, Calvin urged the Christians to a greater effort for the pious life on this earth. Calvin acknowledged that the earthly Church was not totally pure. Thus, according to Calvin, the Church in this world should have the following recommendable attitudes before God, namely “humility” and “godly modesty”. In this sense, Calvin used the Donatists controversy. For, unless we accept this, it will be necessary for us to affirm, with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is made perfect in this life; likewise, with the Cathari and Donatists, to brook no weakness in the church. 19

The Church in this world cannot be perfect. Only when Christ comes again at the last day, this Church will fully be purified. In Calvin’s eyes, the Donatists only criticized the weakness of the Church which may exist in the Church on earth. However, Calvin’s emphasis was different. The earthly Church may include the impious elements. According to Calvin, however, the Church in this earth just started on a long journey of sanctification. Thus, even though the Church in the pilgrimage might be imperfect, this Church must not be divided for the purpose of being perfect. In addition, the Church members in this journey should not lead a dissolute life, by 17 Calvin, CO 2,756–757. (=Institutes, 4.1.13) (1559). 18 Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 3.32.45. In the same book, in addition, Augustine also used Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the chaff which is written in Mt. 3,12. Cf. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana, 3.37.55. 19 Calvin, CO 2,854–855. (=Institutes, 4.8.12) (1559).

280

Augustine and the Donatist Church

rationalizing their weakness. Therefore, as Calvin sharply pointed out, the necessary virtues of the earthly Church members are “modesty” and “piety”. As a result, Calvin emphasized that Church members in this respect should have a mature Christian life style. 2.5 Church Discipline: Moderation. Against the Anabaptists. Calvin’s use of the Donatist controversy happened again in the context of Church discipline. 2.5.1 Institutes, 4. 12. 8. (CO 2,910–911) (1559) According to Calvin, excommunication was to be used for the repentance and the correction of the evil habits of sinners. Therefore, if the sinner showed proof of his repentance, and dismissed his old mischief against the Church, Calvin recommended that he should not be pressed because of his previous fault. As a result, Calvin opposed the rigorism of Church discipline, by using the Donatist controversy. We know, moreover, what gentleness Augustine used toward the Donatists. He did not hesitate to take back to their bishoprics those who had returned from schism, and that immediately after repentance! 20

According to Calvin, Augustine showed gentle attitudes towards the exDonatists if only they repented. He accepted them in their own bishoprics. Thus, we note that Calvin, on the one hand, argued the necessity of Church discipline for the purification of the Church. On the other hand, Calvin’s standpoint was moderate. 2.5.2 Institutes, 4. 12. 11. (CO 2,912) (1559) When he wrote about his moderate idea on the Church discipline, Calvin exactly followed Augustine’s line. By focusing on the circumstances of the North African Church, Calvin could comment on the Donatist controversy. This is also a prime requisite for the moderation of discipline, as Augustine argues against the Donatists: that individual lay-men, if they see vices not diligently enough corrected by the council of elders, should not therefore at once depart from the church; and that the pastors themselves, if they cannot cleanse all that needs correction according to their hearts’ desire, should not for that reason resign their ministry or disturb the entire church with unaccustomed rigor. 21

20 21

Calvin, CO 2,910–911. (=Institutes, 4.12.8) (1559). Calvin, CO 2,912. (=Institutes, 4.12.11) (1559).

In-Sub Ahn

281

According to Calvin, the Donatists showed a stricter attitude toward the Church discipline. However, in Calvin’s eyes, Augustine of Hippo preserved a milder and more prudent position. In accordance with Augustine, the lay Christians should not separate from the Church, even though the correction of the sinner by the counsel of the elders was delayed. At the same time, the pastors and the Church leaders also ought to make no trouble in the Church and to keep the union of the Church, although the sinners were not fully corrected. Augustine at first emphasized to be patient and keep the bond of peace, while fairly disapproving the sin. According to Calvin, Augustine had a moderate viewpoint on Church discipline. In order to maintain the Church discipline, it was necessary to have a tolerant attitude to each other. Calvin positively received Augustine’s mild opinion, in comparison to the Donatists. Thus, for Calvin, discipline should be practiced. However, Calvin simultaneously advised not to disturb the friendship. 22 According to Calvin, Augustine asked to be prudent in the case of Church discipline, since the wheat itself may be rooted up while the servants pull the weeds. 23 In Calvin’s view, Augustine’s careful attitude originated from Cyprian, his North African predecessor. 24 The correction should be mercifully carried out, within the possible limit. However, if the correction cannot be fulfilled, the other members of the Church should be patient, while they are groaning and feeling sorrow with love. 2.5.3 Institutes, 4. 12. 12. (CO 2,912–913) (1559) Calvin also used the Donatists controversy, while he dealt with ecclesiastical discipline and excommunication. Calvin described the advisable attitudes towards the discipline. But Augustine says this because of the overscrupulousness of the Donatists, who, when they observed faults in the church which the bishops reproved in words but did not punish with excommunication (because they thought they could gain nothing in this way), inveighed fiercely against the bishops as betrayers of discipline and in an impious schism separated themselves from Christ’s flock. 25

22 Calvin, CO 2,912. (=Institutes, 4.12.11) (1559). “Augustine says, ‘neither neglects severe discipline in the maintenance of unity, nor by intemperate correction breaks the bond of fellowship.’” 23 Calvin, CO 2,912. (=Institutes, 4.12.11) (1559). “Only, Augustine would have that prudence used which the Lord also requires ‘lest, when the tares are being uprooted, the grain be harmed’” [Matthew 13,29]. 24 Calvin, CO 2,912. (=Institutes, 4.12.11) (1559). “From this point he concludes with Cyprian: ‘Let a man mercifully correct what he can; let him patiently bear what he cannot correct, and groan and sorrow over it with love.’” 25 Calvin, CO 2,912–913. (=Institutes, 4.12.12) (1559).

282

Augustine and the Donatist Church

The Donatists accused the bishops and tried to separate from the Church, because the bishops committed an error. According to Calvin, the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century followed the same way of the separation which the Donatists did in the fourth century in North Africa. 26 By using Augustine, however, Calvin insisted on the point to keep in love, to preserve the union by the Holy Spirit, and to make the others’ sin be corrected by sound methods. In this context, Calvin emphasized the “bond of peace and unity” as the most important matter. 2.6 Church and State: against the Anabaptists 2.6.1 Comm. Mt. 5,12. (CO 45,165–166) (1555) We must advert once more to the phrases, on my account, or, on account of the Son of Man, (Luke 6,22;) and lying, shall speak every evil word against you; that he who suffers persecution for his own fault (1 Peter 2,20) may not forthwith boast that he is a martyr of Christ, as the Donatists, in ancient times, were delighted with themselves on this single ground, that the magistrates were against them. 27

In Calvin’s thought, the Donatists of the fourth century were persecuted by the hands of the Roman empire because of their own fault. Calvin believed that the same affairs happened in the sixteenth century. The Anabaptists’ persecution by the magistrates was just similar to the suffering of Donatists at the hands of Rome. 28 Calvin thought that not all the sufferings afflicted by the state were for the sake of Christ. In this context, the role of the state in Calvin’s idea was very positive. Calvin distinguished the Anabaptists’ sufferings from the State, which Calvin regarded as proper because they were caused by their own sin, from the martyrdom for Christ. For this purpose, Calvin used the Donatist controversy. 2.6.2 Comm. Lk. 14,23. (CO 45,400–401) (1555) Concerning the religious function of the State, Calvin again used the Donatist controversy.

26 Calvin, CO 2,912–913. (=Institutes, 4.12.12) (1559). “The Anabaptists act in the same way today. While they recognize no assembly of Christ to exist except one conspicuous in every respect for its angelic perfection, under the pretense of their zeal they subvert whatever edification there is.” 27 Calvin, CO 45,165–166. (=Comm. Mt. 5,12) (1555). 28 Calvin, CO 45,165–166. (=Comm. Mt. 5,12) (1555). “And in our own day the Anabaptists, while they disturb the Church by their ravings, and slander the Gospel, boast that they are carrying the banners of Christ, when they are justly condemned.”

In-Sub Ahn

283

At the same time, I do not disapprove of the use which Augustine frequently made of this passage against the Donatists, to prove that godly princes may lawfully issue edicts, for compelling obstinate and rebellious persons to worship the true God, and to maintain the unity of the faith; […]. 29

According to Calvin, it was acceptable when pious kings by edicts forced obstinate and rebellious citizens to worship God again. In order to prove his position, Calvin used the case of the Donatists. According to Calvin, Augustine of Hippo also believed that the laws of the State may be employed to turn the stubborn people to God, and to keep the unity of the Church. Calvin, of cause, believed that faith was a voluntary matter. Nevertheless, Calvin also affirmed that compulsion by the magistrates might be used for the reinforcement of the faith 30 , because men were corrupted and, thus, obstinate. 2.6.3 Comm. Dan. 4,3. (CO 40,649–651) (1561) Calvin used the Donatists twice in his Commentary on Daniel when he mentioned the case of Castellio. Hence, without doubt, King Nebuchadnezzar bore witness to his repentance when he celebrated the God of Israel among all people, and when he proclaimed a punishment to all who spoke reproachfully against God. Hence this passage is often cited by Augustine against the Donatists […]. Such is that dog Castalio and his companions, and all like him, such also were the Donatists; and hence, as I have mentioned, Augustine cites this testimony in many places, and shews how ashamed Christian princes ought to be of their slothfulness, if they are indulgent to heretics and blasphemers, and do not vindicate God’s glory by lawful punishments, since King Nebuchadnezzar who was never truly converted: […]. 31

While Calvin used the Donatists and Augustine here, Calvin regarded Augustine as holding the position that the Donatists were punished for disturbing the Church with corrupted doctrine, and even attacking the Church. In this sense, Calvin clearly considered the radical actions of the Donatists of the fourth century’s North Africa as similar to those of the Anabaptists in his time. By using the Donatists, Calvin argued that the kings had a responsibility to defend the worship of God, and force the profane sinners and the breakers of Church unity to correct. 32 In this sense,

29 Calvin, CO 45,400–401. (=Comm. Lk. 14,23) (1555). 30 Calvin, CO 45,400–401. (=Comm. Lk. 14,23) (1555). “… for, though faith is voluntary, yet we see that such methods are useful for subduing the obstinacy of those who will not yield until they are compelled”. 31 Calvin, CO 40,649–651. (=Comm. Dan. 4,3) (1561). 32 Calvin, CO 40,649–651. (=Comm. Dan. 4,3) (1561). “If this be so, it follows that kings are bound to defend the worship of God, and to execute vengeance upon those who profanely

284

Augustine and the Donatist Church

Calvin developed his thoughts on the role of the kings and the State, by using the controversy between the Donatists and Augustine.

3. Conclusion The Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century was strongly organized like a supreme bureaucracy. However, it was hard for the radical reformation movement to be a religious alternative in the European society, because they were regarded as disturbing that society, overlooking the previous theological tradition which had grown since the period of the Church Fathers. In this historical circumstance, Calvin had to shape the reformation Church between two extreme religious trends. Calvin, on one hand, had to criticize the traditional theology of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, Calvin also had an urgent task to distinguish the reformation Church itself from the Anabaptist one. In this delicate situation, Calvin tried to go his own theological way, based on the Bible, by avoiding two radical religious poles. It was under these circumstances that Calvin turned his attention to the Donatist controversy with Augustine, in the Roman North Africa of the fourth century. For the theological support of his logic, Calvin chose an excellent method by appealing to the Augustine of the Donatist controversy, because Augustine was a dominant authority in the sixteenth century. By arguing that the Church of the Reformation preserved the true teachings of the ancient Church, Calvin attacked the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church. However, Calvin aimed severe criticism at the Anabaptists who separated from the universal Church for the purpose of the purifying the Church. According to Calvin, they erred in that they depended on the operating minister, not on the real Giver of the inward grace as the authority of the Baptism. Because Calvin thought that this position echoed that of the Donatist movement, Calvin fully followed Augustine. Calvin believed that the earthly Church cannot be perfect. For him the Church on this earth just started on a long journey of sanctification. Therefore, by using the Donatist controversy, Calvin drew a great principle for the Christian life in this world. The spiritual and moral life which is necessary for Christians, according to Calvin, is to live with modesty and piety, without separation.

despise it, and on those who endeavor to reduce it to nothing, or to adulterate the true doctrine by their errors, and so dissipate the unity of the faith and disturb the Church’s peace”.

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

Michael Bush The idea that Reformed churches must continue to be reformed and renewed has had growing currency in European and North American Christianity for several decades. Often writers express this principle in Latin formulas that are built around the future passive participle reformanda. They have become so common that one writer, who believes such phrases themselves need to be reformed, sighs in exasperation that they are used “so extensively” that they appear “nearly everywhere”.1 Let us call such phrases “reformanda sayings” as a term of convenience, even though they sometimes employ other forms of reformo or are composed in a language other than Latin. In Latin, these sayings trade on the interaction of the perfect passive participle reformata, “reformed,” with the future passive reformanda, “needing to be reformed.” In most forms of these sayings, reformata is a foil for reformanda, although, as we shall see, at least one sixteenth century theologian construed them in a strikingly different way. In this paper I propose first to describe what appears to be the first published use of a reformanda saying in something like the modern sense, then to outline briefly what has been suggested before about them, especially in relation to Calvin and the Reformation. Finally, I will describe how the usual modern interpretations of reformanda sayings differ importantly from the ways Calvin and others in the sixteenth century viewed reformation as a process, and Calvin’s limited contribution to these interpretations. Through this examination, I hope to begin to straighten some of what is crooked in what has been published about these sayings. At the same time, I take it that good historical work not only clarifies the past, but it can also evoke its strangeness. Much sentimentality surrounds reformanda sayings today. Yet those who used them first were difficult people, hard to please, never content in their ecclesial life to follow Christ’s teaching that one might let the wheat grow up with the tares (Mt. 13,30). At the same time, they were

1 Jean-Jacques von Allmen, quoted in Dulles, A., True and False Reform, in First Things, 135, Aug./Sept. 2003, 14–19. Hughes Oliphant Old, who was a student of von Allmen’s, has told me in conversation that von Allmen spoke of the uses he had seen made of reformanda sayings as “ecclesiastical Trotskyism”.

286

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

remarkably capable, resilient, and committed Christians, without whose contributions Protestantism today would have a different character. The sentence out of which later reformanda sayings seem to have emerged is a passage from the Dutch pastor-theologian Jodocus van Lodenstein’s Beschouwinge van Zion of 1674. 2 Lodenstein’s book is written as a set of ten dialogues among three men, a minister named Urbanus, who represents Lodenstein’s point of view, and two elders of the church, Stephanus and Ahikam. In the passage that concerns us, Urbanus is speaking, responding to something Ahikam has said. He assures Ahikam that he has heard only a small part of how low things have sunk in the church, and goes on, “if we had the time and opportunity for dialogue and were to descend into the details of our doctrines, then you would be shocked at our deformity”. Here, then, is the problem Lodenstein is confronting with the central word reformanda: the Reformed Church in which things once had seemed so promising has become deformed. He goes on: “For example, we teach against popery that antiquity as such is not to be respected, and it is not an argument when considering falsehood and evil[…]”. All in Lodenstein’s dialogue agree that the Roman church has become degenerate in faith and practice; however, by now the problem that the Reformed had always recognized in the Roman church had come to be the Reformed church’s own problem. As Urbanus continues, still speaking for Lodenstein, “We have noticed that the good does not exist long (because of depravity), but one must always be working towards restoration”. The constant work of the Reformed church is to be restored to purity. When the church makes progress along this line, it “does not exist long”. It is hard even to maintain the gains of the Reformation, let alone to progress beyond the Reformers to an even greater purity. Then comes the crucial sentence: “Such person of understanding [one, that is, who was busy working toward restoration] would not have called the Reformed Church reformata, or reformed, but reformanda, or being reformed. What a pure church would that become that was always thus occupied? How precise in truth? How holy in practice?”. 3 2 Van Lodenstein, J., Beschouwinge van Zion, Utrecht 1674. There were several printings of this work, and the pagination varies widely. I quote in this paper from the copy in the rare book collection of Calvin College and Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, which was printed at Utrecht in 1683 by William Clerck. I have also consulted the copy in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale. 3 In Dutch, the full paragraph in which this passage appears reads as follows: “Soo spreeckt gy nu / mijn Heer / en gy hebt maar een eyndeke der saken gehoort / de Leere der H. Waarheyd in’t generaal; maar leed het onse tijd / en de gelegentheyd onses t’samen-spraacks / en wy daalden tot de bysonderhedden van onse leeeringen / dan woud gy verschrickt staan over onse wanschapenheyd: als by exempel / Wy leerentegen’t Pausdom dat d’Oudheyd in sig niet te agten is / nog

Michael Bush

287

If an instance of these participles, reformata and reformanda, being used in this contrasting way, such that the second is regarded as an ideal and the first is used as a foil for it, had appeared in print before this, no primary evidence for it has yet come to the surface. In this passage from Lodenstein we seem to have the original use in a published source for the Latin terminology that has become familiar. He used it to formulate his vision for restoring the purity and holiness of the church that has been lost to “deformity”. Lodenstein’s friend and colleague Jacobus Koelman published a similar thought at around the same time. Koelman’s version was entirely in Dutch, and he attributed the thought to his teacher Johannes Hoornbeeck. Koelman says Hoornbeeck “followed in the footsteps of Voetius,” in the sense that he shared Gijsbertus Voetius’s commitment to further reformation. Hoornbeeck sounded “very safe and reliable” in downplaying the significance of the designation Reformed, saying “[…] we must come to be called Reforming, and not only Reformed, so that we always must be Reforming if we want to be Reformed and be worthy of that name, because that is what we are attempting”. 4 This passage from Koelman seems especially important because it is similar to Lodenstein’s, but can be read to name a specific source while Lodenstein refers vaguely to an unnamed “person of understanding”. If one supposes that a single source or incident stands behind the two versions, so that Koelman is thought to identify the person of understanding in Lodenstein’s passage, then it becomes possible to attribute the original use of the contrapuntal participles to Hoornbeeck.5 Scholars have made just this attribution, apparently on this basis. However, the available evidence does not warrant such identification. Lodenstein did not write of “a person of understanding” (een geleerd man), but of “such a person of voordeel aan valscheyd of quaad en geest: ende gemerckt ‘t goede (by toeval van de verdorbentheyd ) niet lang bestaat / men altijd in herstel moet besig zijn . Sulx geleerd man de Gereform. kercke genoemt woude hebben / niet Reformata of Gereformeert / maar Reformanda, of te Reformeren. Wat een suyvere kerck woud dat werden / die altijd daar in besig was? hoe bondig in Waarheyd / hoe heylig in practijcke?” I am grateful to Mrs. Agnes Taylor, Prof. Dr. Arie Baars, and Dr. Wulfert de Greef for their help in sorting out the grammatical difficulties in this passage of seventeenth century Dutch. 4 “[…] dat wy Reformeerende moeten genoemt worden, en niet alleen Gereformeerde, zo dat wy altijdt moeten Reformeeren, indien wy Gereformeerde willen zijn, ende die naam waardig, om dat wy’er na poogen.” Koelman, J., De Pointen van Nodige Reformatie, Vlissingen 1678, 619 According to Van ‘t Spijker, a passage identical to this one, or nearly so, appears in a sermon of Koelman’s published several years earlier in Reformatie, Noodig ontrent het gebruyk Der Formulieren, Betoogt in Twee Predicatien, En daar na uytgebreydt, Vlissingen, 1673, 270. See Spijker, W. van ‘t, De Nadere Reformatie, in: Brienen, T. et al. (eds.), Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerd Piëtisme, ‘s-Gravenhage 1989, 5. 5 Graafland, C., Jodocus van Lodenstein, in: Brienen, T. et al. (eds.), De Nadere Reformatie, ‘s-Gravenhage 1986, 93.

288

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

understanding” (sulx geleerd man). By this he means someone who is intentional about spiritual “restoration” (herstel). Lodenstein does not seem to have intended to direct our attention to any one person, then. The geleerd man is a rhetorical device. It could be anyone – Urbanus’s dialogue partners, for example, or Lodenstein’s readers – who learns that the Christian life is a permanent process of spiritual convalescence. Therefore, to identify Lodenstein’s person of understanding as Hoornbeeck is to miss his point. He is speaking hypothetically, not thinking of Hoornbeeck, or indeed of any identifiable learned person. So far, no relevant passage in the works of Hoornbeeck has appeared, though the suggestion that he was the originator of reformanda sayings appears with growing frequency. 6 The Lodenstein passage remains the earliest documentable source, then. Lodenstein’s simple and illustrative juxtaposition of reformanda with reformata, in which reformanda suggests constant care for the church’s purity, has flowered and mutated in the hothouse of historical, theological, and devotional writing into an entire genus of aphorisms that are given entirely different interpretations. This development began as the seventeenth century ended, but most of the growth of reformanda sayings has taken place since World War II. Recent writers have made claims about alternative origins and significances of reformanda sayings, but few of these claims can be substantiated with research.7 No evidence has yet come to light, for example, for a pre-Reformation origin.8 Nor has any Huguenot source been 6 Graafland, C., Jacobus Koelman, in: Brienen, T. et al. (eds.), De Nadere Reformatie, ‘sGravenhage 1986, 93; Bush, M.D., History and Meaning of Semper Reformanda, in: Presbyterian Outlook, bd. 178, nr. 32, Sept. 23 1996, 5; also Benedict, Ph., Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, New Haven 2002, xvi, 295. Because of Koelman’s evidence I do not doubt that Hoornbeeck made a contribution, but unless a text turns up we will have to assume that he said it in conversation. 7 For example, see Nebelsick, H.P., Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda, in: Reformed Liturgy and Music, 18, no. 2, Spring, 1984, 62. Nebelsick interprets the meaning of the sayings very well, but seems to have erroneously derived from a footnote of W. A. Visser’t Hooft’s that the original saying was in the works of G. Voetius. J. Lindeboom told Visser’t Hooft that Koelman spoke of Hoornbeeck as “following in the footsteps of Voetius,” which Koelman did indeed write. However, Koelman appears to have meant that Hoornbeeck learned from Voetius in a general way, not that he was quoting this particular thought from him. In any event, I have searched Voetius’s works, and have found no reformanda saying. See also McKenzie, H. R., Semper Reformanda, in the same number of Reformed Liturgy and Music, 99, who repeats from Bárczay (below) the undocumented proposal of a pre-Reformation origin, and also asserts, without saying on what grounds, that reformanda sayings had a presence among Huguenots. See as well Bárczay, G., Ecclesia semper reformanda: eine untersuchung zum kirchenbegriff des 19. Jahrhunderts, Zürich, 1961,19, n. 36. Barczay’s extensive footnote was invaluable for focusing my early research, but some of the references in it do not work out for one reason or another. 8 Barczay, above, understood Hans Küng to have proposed a pre-Reformation origin in a lecture in 1959, but when the lecture was published Küng’s suggestion was that the phrase appeared, “perhaps quite recently, in Calvinist circles,” which is nearer the mark. (Küng, H., The Council, Reform and Reunion, Cecily Hastings, trans., New York 1962, 21). More recently, Roman Catholic archbishop of Hartford, Connecticut, Henry Mansell, published on the Internet

Michael Bush

289

found. 9 Similarly, there is a problem regarding the exact forms reformanda sayings take. There never was a definitive form, which means that the modern habit of calling one or another form a “motto” is misleading.10 I am not aware of any evidence that a reformanda saying served as a motto or slogan for a person, movement, or institution before 1983, when one appeared on the interim seal of the newly created Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It assuredly was not Calvin’s motto, which is well known to have been Cor meum tibi offero Domine, prompte et sincere. Moreover, as preachers and theologians have begun to use reformanda sayings as mottos or slogans the forms have begun to vary even more widely, sometimes in curious and unpredictable ways. Karl Barth seems to be at the center of the modern development of the sayings in both form and prominence. The form most common in Europe, ecclesia semper reformanda, which Barth used in several contexts throughout his life, first appeared in print, as far as I can tell, in his essay, Die Botschaft von der Freien Gnade Gottes in 1947. 11 That same year he gave a lecture in Bonn in which he used the three-word form that was his workhorse, but also said, “The Church is never simply ecclesia reformata but semper reformanda. 12 One suspects that the adversative (aber, “but”) was dropped in use, at least in English, thus providing a source for the form that first appeared in print in 1962. 13 The same form appeared again about twenty years later in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).14 (www.buffalodiocese.org/Chancery/fhjm20030301.htm, viewed June, 2004) a public letter in which he said that a reformanda saying is engraved on the baptistery of the St. John Lateran church in Rome. This claim has apparently begun to gain some traction in Roman Catholic circles. I am grateful to Fr. Joseph Carola, S.J. of the Pontifical Gregorian University for making a search on my behalf, confirming that no such engraving exists. 9 McKenzie, H.R., Semper Reformanda, in Reformed Liturgy and Music, bd. 18, nr. 2, Spring, 1984, 99. 10 See, for example, Benedict, op. cit., p. xvi; Migliore, D.L., Faith Seeking Understanding, Grand Rapids 2004, 423; Gérard, F.C., The Future of the Church, Pittsburgh 1974, 85; Adeney, F.S./Sharma, A., Christianity and Human Rights, New York 2007, 77. Other examples could be listed at remarkable length. 11 Barth, K., Die Botschaft von der Freien Gnade Gottes, in Theologische Studien, bd. 24, 19: “Aber die Kirche wird nicht auf das vertrauen, was sie mit sich bringt: nicht auf die Originalität, nicht auf die latente Erwecklichkeit ihres kirchlichen Seins un Tuns und auch nicht auf das Aufstehen jener freien Christen – sie wird, wenn es um ihre Freiheit geht, immer nur auf diese Botschaft selber vertrauen. Von ihr her das Recht, von ihr her die Pflicht, von ihr her die Freiheit der Kirche, als Kirche in der Welt zu existieren, als ecclesia semper reformanda: ganz anspruchslos aber auch allen christlichen und unchristlichen Dämonen gegenüber ganz furchtlos”. 12 Barth, K., The Christian Understanding of Revelation, in Against the Stream, London 1954, 233. The original lecture was delivered at Bonn in 1947 and published in the Theologische Studien series by Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Zürich. 13 Armstrong, J.F., The Church Visible, in Theology Today, bd. 19, nr. 2, July 1962, 165. 14 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Part II: Book Of Order 2005–2007, Louisville 2005, G–2.0200.

290

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

Edward A. Dowey believed this version of the formula should be completed with the phrase, secundum verbum Dei. Indeed, he suggested at least once in writing, and routinely when speaking about it, that these words were “often printed” together, thus in the form ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, secundum verbum Dei. 15 Dowey was never able to find an historical instance in print, though he knew and insisted the thought was faithful to the theological ethos and intentions of the continental Reformed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He was assuredly correct in this last point, but it is equally certain that this enlarged version of the Armstrong/P.C.(U.S.A.) reformanda saying was never printed anywhere except by Professor Dowey or under his influence.

Some writers sense something is missing between the two terms of the Armstrong/P.C.(U.S.A.) form, or something similar (Barth’s aber!), and supply the want with a conjunction or preposition. Thus Jürgen Moltmann, among others, uses the form ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda. 16 M. Eugene Osterhaven and Philip Benedict supply quia (“because”) as the hinge, perhaps depending on Visser’t Hooft. 17 In 1959, it was Barth again who introduced the theme to Hans Küng, who lectured on the theme ecclesia semper reformanda at Basel in that year at Barth’s request. 18 Küng went on soon thereafter to advocate for the saying and his understanding of it at the Second Vatican Council, so that a variant, semper purificanda (always being purified) found its way into the council’s Constitution on the Church. 19 In contrast to Calvin, as I shall argue, the standard modern interpretation of the reformanda sayings suggests that the Reformation is, in principle, impossible to complete, and that it would be an instance of sinful pride for the church to claim to be properly reformata, Reformed. No such misgiving about the reformation of the church appeared in the sixteenth century, as far as I can see. To sixteenth century Protestant figu15 Dowey, E., Always to Be Reformed, in: Purdy, J.C. (ed.), Always Being Reformed: The Future of Church Education, Philadelphia 1985, 9–10. It is a partial vindication of Dowey’s statement that the term secundus Verbum Dei appears as the criterion of reformation within a couple of paragraphs of the two central participles (used in a different way) in a passage of Jerome Zanchius examined below. 16 Moltmann, J., The Church in the Power of the Spirit, New York 1977, 401, n.23. 17 Benedict, P., Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, New Haven 2002, xvi; Osterhaven, M. E., The Spirit of the Reformed Tradition, Grand Rapids 1977, 33; Visser ‘t Hooft, W.A., The Renewal of the Church, London 1956, 82. 18 Küng gives an account of this invitation and lecture in his recent memoir, My Struggle for Freedom, Grand Rapids 2002, 167–8. 19 Tanner, N., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown 1990, bd. 2, 855: Ecclesia in proprio sinu peccatores complectens, sancta simul et semper purificanda, poenitentiam et renovationem continuo prosequitur. (“The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.”)

Michael Bush

291

res, including Calvin, a satisfactory reformation of the church was achievable in principle and should be achieved. The difficulties arose from sin and politics, not from any inner impossibility. The only sixteenth century theologian I have identified who used the two key participles, reformata and reformanda, in a single context to speak of the problem of reformation in the church is Jerome Zanchius. In a short treatise on the reformation of the church based on verses from the first chapter of Isaiah, Zanchius asks a series of analytical questions in which we see clearly how he understood reformation as a task and concept. 20 Zanchius first concludes from his reading of Isaiah 1 that it is “God himself” (Deus ipsa) who reforms the church. Second, God does so at a time of his own choosing, when it is opportune according to divine wisdom. This, in Zanchius’s judgment, is the reason several verbs in the passage are in the future tense. What, then, is the quality of the reformation God brings about? It is “most pure and most sincere” (purissima et sincerissima). What will be the mode of God’s reformation? It will be one in which dross and alloy are burned away, as the prophet intimates in v. 25. This means “everything that is not according to the word of God [secundus Verbum Dei] is alloy (tin)”. 21 Next, from Isa. 1,26 Zanchius concludes that leaders, such as the Pope, who, as he “has first place in the church of Rome, is first in needing to be reformed,” and, in addition, “everything else,” by which he means the sacraments and ceremonies among other things, must be restored sicut ab initio, “as they were at first”. Like many reformers, Zanchius idealized the primitive church as the model of the purely reformed church he was hoping could be restored. 22 In discussing the seventh question, “In what elements does the reformation of the church consist,” Zanchius uses the crucial participles in relation to each other. Reformation consists in the reformation of both worship (religio, cultus) and morals. Both are necessary. He derives this necessity of twofold reformation from Isaiah’s promise that God will call his restored people a city of both righteousness and faith (Isa. 1,26c). The church’s 20 Zanchius, J., De Reformatione Ecclesiarum, in Omnia Opera Theologicorum, Geneva 1649, bd. 3, col. 714. 21 Zanchius, op. cit., col. 714: Omnia aurem illa, quae non sunt secundum Verbum Dei, sunt stanna. 22 The entire passage is as follows in Latin: “VII. Quibus in rebus consistit reformatio Ecclesiae? Primum in religione, in cultu: deinde in moribus. In ambobus opus est reformatione. Ideò ait, Tunc dicetur ciuitas iustitiæ, quoad mores, quibus versamur cum proximo: & urbs fidelis, quoad fidem & religionem cum Deo. Atque ita est reformanda in utroque, ut omnibus perspicuum esse possit quod sit reformata, id est, ita debet religio perspicue in pristinum statum esse restituta & mores ita perspicue reformari, ut ab omnibus a noseatur hæc reformatio. Ideò aic, Tunc dicetur, non solum erit. Ideò mentiuntur illæ Ecclesiae, quæ se dicunt esse reformatas, cum adhunc retineant aliquid Papismi, ita vu non possint vere dici Ciuitas fidelis.”

292

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

worship and morals need to be reformed (reformanda) until everything is “perspicuum”: religio should be “restored” to a “pristine state” and mores are to be “perspicuously reformed.” Only when this dream has become reality will the church be worthy of being called “reformed” (reformata.). Zanchius concludes that, “A church that claims it is reformed (reformata), while retaining anything of papism,” is not in truth “a city of faith.” The standard is absolute: if anything of the old way remains, the church is not yet reformata. It is merely reformanda: needing to be reformed. The Church of Rome was, for Zanchius, the ecclesia reformanda without peer. It would be only a little exaggeration to say that, in this sixteenth century text, reformanda was a near-synonym for non reformata. For Zanchius, then, an ecclesia reformata was the ideal church. Such a church was difficult to find, but Zanchius knew how to tell when a church was genuinely reformed: it was reformed when it’s worship and morals were pristine, according to the Word of God. However, Zanchius did not suggest that this ideal church, the ecclesia reformata, was impossible in principle, still less that it is undesirable; for him, it was merely difficult. As we have seen, Jodocus van Lodenstein and others would later, in the context of the Nadere Reformatie, reverse the dynamic, so that reformanda became the ideal, while reformata came to represent a passive, self-satisfied complacency in the face of lax faith and morals within their allegedly Reformed church. For them, reformanda became an apt way to speak of the need for nadere reformatie, further reformation, in the face of the original Reformation’s imperfection. Nothing is more common than to read in books and articles published in the last fifty years than that one or another reformanda saying was a motto, a slogan, or a principle for the Reformers in general or for Calvin in particular. 23 I want to make two large claims about this pattern, the second of which has two dimensions. These amount to a case that it would be surprising to find Calvin using a phrase like ecclesia semper reformanda. First, I propose that no reformanda saying appears in Calvin as a matter of fact. Second, I argue that it would be unlike Calvin to speak in this way, for two reasons. One is that, while Calvin’s normal way of speaking of the reformation of the church, including his use of these participles, shows that he thought of reformation as a process, nevertheless he saw this process as one that could and should be brought to a sustainable conclusion. The other is that these sayings, as they first appeared, reflect a perfectionism about the church that Calvin did not share with Zanchius, the English radicals of the 23 Schroeder, C.J., In Quest of Pentecost, Lanham 2001, 120, calls it “[…] a principle espoused by Calvin”. Ironically, this book is a biography of Lodenstein. See also Achtemeier, P.M., Art. Ethics, Social, in: McKim (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, Louisville 1992, 124.

Michael Bush

293

1540s, or the later theologians and preachers of Puritanism and the Nadere Reformatie who spoke so vigorously of the need for “further reformation”. My first thesis about Calvin, that no reformanda saying appears in his works, I can only assert. Any claim for what is not present in the Calvin corpus must be made with humility, because of the massive volume of material. However, I have sought assiduously, in both paper and digital documents, and have not found anything that suggests a reformanda saying or the thought behind one. I do not believe there are any reformanda sayings in the Calvin corpus. Nevertheless, this is a falsifiable thesis: all one must do to show it is mistaken is to find one. To come to my second claim, then, not only does it appear that there are no reformanda sayings in Calvin’s writings, but, in light of the way Calvin speaks of the nature and process of reformation in the church, it would have been surprising if there had been any. While, as we have seen, a good many scholars have attributed such sayings to Calvin or described them as consistent with his theology, Calvin speaks of reformation, with and without these participles, in ways that suggest that it is unlikely Calvin would have composed one. This begins to become clear, first of all, upon an examination of Calvin’s uses of reformanda. His most common use of the term is in gerundive constructions that are translated with -ing in English. 24 In other words, he uses it to speak of “reforming” the church. Thus, for example, in May of 1539 Calvin wrote to Farel at Neufchâtel that their successors in Geneva were already in difficulty, and he was prepared to judge from the early going of their ministry, “what kind of future success there is to be in reforming (reformanda) that church, unless the Lord unexpectedly appears”. 25 He used reformanda similarly in the Necessity of Reforming the Church. The running title of the treatise itself makes use of the word in this way: De Necessitate Reformandae Ecclessiae. 26 Near the end, Calvin asks the emperor, to whom the treatise was addressed, referring to the hierarchy of the Roman church, “Why then is the charge of reforming [reformanda] the church handed over to them, if it is not to expose the sheep to the wolves?” 27 This, it seems, is the way Calvin thinks of the word reformanda: it is primarily a participle for him, rather than an adjective. 28 24 This is a common use of the future passive participle in the oblique cases. 25 “Nunc ex principiis iudico quails futurus sit in reformanda illa ecclesia successus, nisi Dominus ex insperato affulserit.” 26 Corpus Reformatorum: CO. 6, 262. 27 “Quorsum igitur illis mandetur reformandae ecclesiae cura, nisi ut oves lupis exponantur?” Corpus Reformatorum: CO 6, col. 530. 28 There is, in addition, a substantive use, so that in the records of the Church of England in the Elizabethan period there is a “Reformanda for Norwich Cathedral,” signed by Bishop Park-

294

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

On the other hand, when Calvin needs an adjectival form of reformo to describe a church of the kind he approves, he uses reformata. Thus he speaks as straightforwardly as possible of a “reformed church”. For example in the circular letter Ad Diversos Articulos, Calvin scolds his readers for impeding the preaching of unauthorized, self-appointed preachers, “even in a place where there is a Reformed church”. 29 He did not raise a question about how well-reformed such a church was, in order to decide whether it deserved the name. His usage is the same in a letter of 31 July, 1563.30 These participles, reformata and reformanda, were not constantly on Calvin’s tongue. However, it is clear enough that his pattern was to use reformata as an adjective to describe a church that is more or less free of liturgical and theological abuses, and to use reformanda participially describe a task that must be done in situations where that freedom did not yet prevail. It would be a mistake to conclude from this exegesis that Calvin did not view reformation as a process. On the other hand, it is equally a mistake to suppose that he thought this process was open ended, never coming to a point where he might say, as Beza remembered him saying with regard to the reformation of Geneva, “Things, as you see, are not badly constituted,” and going on to charge the pastors not to make a mess of it. 31 For Calvin, reformation of the church was a process that could be completed to the point where it could be maintained, a task that he knew was difficult enough in itself. Calvin’s letters into England during the late Tudor period show him holding up both aspects of this pattern: on the one hand, the English were wise to take a step at a time; but on the other hand, he urged them to move with more dispatch toward a well reformed church settlement. In these letters, Calvin picked up the theme of the need for further reformation that Precisians in England were beginning to sound in their own ways under the influence of continental radicals with whom some of them had been in contact at the end of Henry VIII’s reign. The English needed to continue the process of reforming their national church, and bring that process to a satisfactory conclusion. hurst among others. It is a list of things that need to be corrected in the life of that cathedral. Frere, W., Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, New York 1910, bd. 3, 217. 29 “[…] nempe an liceat cuiquam ingerere sese ad praedicationem eo loci ubi ecclesia reformata exstet, etiamsi ab ecclesia hoc ratum habitum non sit.” CO.10, 260. 30 Illud praeterea vel unum abunde esse oportuerat, ut nihil aliud obstaret nobis ne difflueremus ad malum : unum, inquam, ecclesiae reformatae nomen quod gerimus. CO 20, 115. 31 As Calvin did say in his last meeting with the pastors of Geneva, according to Beza: “Res, ut videtis, non male sunt constitutae: quo magis coram Deo nocentes eritis si vestra ignavia labefactentur.” CO 21, col. 167.

Michael Bush

295

The first legal act toward a genuinely Reformed reformation in England, passed by Parliament in December 1547, authorized communion in both kinds, eliminating the Roman practice of withholding the cup from the laity, but did so in the context of a conservative-sounding act against ridiculing the sacrament. A second piece of legislation at the same time renewed the expropriation of chantry funds for the King’s use. It was a modest beginning by any standard, and far too modest from the earnest Reformed point of view. Between the parliament of 1547 and the gathering the next year, calls for further reformation became urgent. As Parliament prepared to meet in 1548, Robert Crowley found fault with the parliament of the previous year on several points, but especially regarding liturgical and clerical abuses and the failure to redress financial injustices against the poor. The Parliament of 1547 had been gathered “nolesse to refourm the abuses of our religion than thys”. However, because they did not relieve the circumstances of the poor, and in some ways made them worse, their acts were not blessed: “Because Christe was not deliuered frome oppression: he woulde not be amonge them”. The coming parliament would have to do better. There were, to be sure, specifically religious issues in play: “The use of sacraments and ceremonies, the usurping of tenthes to priuat commoditie, the superfluouse, unlerned, undiscret and vicious ministers of the church, and theyr Supersticious and Idolatrous administracions; of these thynges I saye that ther ought to be a spedy reformacion”. Such religious abuses mattered to Crowley, but “the oppression of the pore” was “no lesse nedful to be communed of and reformed then the other”. 32 Like Sebastian Lotzer and the south German peasants twenty-five years earlier, Crowley saw the need for further reformation of religion, but placed this need in the context of a larger demand for change in the social order as a whole. Calvin agreed that the English made slow progress toward a wellReformed church, but was anxious to separate the religious issues from calls like Crowley’s for radical social change. In dedicating his commentary on the Catholic Epistles to the Earl of Somerset, Calvin encouraged him, having begun in the way of reform, “to persevere happily in your noble course”. 33 A few months later, Calvin wrote to Somerset directly, outlining the need for reform of the church’s preaching, sacramental practice, and discipline. He had heard that there were “rebels who have risen up against the King,” and these fell into two groups. One of these, “under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion,” and “would have the whole world 32 Crowley, R., An Informacion and Peticion against the oppressours of the poore Commons of thys Realme, London 1548. 33 Letter of Calvin to Somerset, CO13, col.16. ET quoted from the Pringle translation.

296

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

turned back into a chaos of licentiousness”. 34 The other group comprised those who were “endeavouring to maintain the corruptions and abominations of their Romish idol”. A true profession of the gospel, in Calvin’s view, does not lead to such rebellion: Herein lies the chief remedy for the silencing of such calumnies, that those who make profession of the Gospel be indeed renewed after the image of God, so as to make manifest that our Christianity does not occasion any interruption of the humanities of social life, and to give good evidence, by their temperance and moderation, that being governed by the Word of God, we are not unruly people subject to no restraint, and so by an upright holy life shut the mouth of all the evil speakers.35

Calvin intended that Reformed Christians should be quietly obedient citizens, and the king’s regents should not be deterred from further religious reformation by calls such as Crowley’s for social change. They must “never grow weary, whatever may happen, in following out fully an open and complete reformation of the Church”. 36 Here again, as with Lodenstein, it is important to notice the problem Calvin was addressing. He knew well that a reformation was begun in England, but was not yet at all satisfactory. For example, “there is very little preaching of a lively kind in the kingdom.” Likewise with the sacraments, Calvin urged that “to lop off such abuses by halves will by no means restore things to a state of purity.” (Later, this idea of a half-reformation would appear on the tongues of Puritans 37 ). Again, Calvin felt the need to say such things because he knew that “there are some who, under pretence of moderation, are in favor of sparing many abuses, without meddling with them at all, and to whom it appears enough to have rooted out the principle one.” Since God had brought the English thus far toward reformation, the regent must continue, so that God “may approve you as a repairer of His temple.” As to discipline, Calvin was satisfied with a general exhortation to the Protector to “hold a tight reign, and so to take order, that those who hear the doctrine of the Gospel, approve their Christianity by a life of holiness”. 38

34 Letter of Calvin to Somerset, October 22, 1548. CO 13, col.68. ET quoted from Pringle. 35 Ibid, col. 69. ET quoted from Pringle. 36 Ibid, col. 69. ET quoted from Pringle. 37 William Fuller, a minister who had known the Elizabeth I during her house imprisonment at Hatfield during Mary’s reign, wrote to her at length about the failings of her religious policy. Among other complaints, he let her know that, “[…] but halflie by Y.M. hath God bene honoured, his Church reformed and established, his people taught and comforted, his enemies rejected and subdued, and his lawbreakers punished.” Again, on her watch the reformation of the church in England had gone, “[…]but halflie forwarde and more than halflie backwarde.” Peel, A. (ed.), The Seconde Parte of a Register, Cambridge 1915, vol. 2, 51f, 60f. 38 Ibid., col. 69–77.

Michael Bush

297

Then, in 1550, in the first dedicatory epistle to the important commentary on Isaiah, he urged the young King Edward VI himself to attend to the continuing progress of reformation, saying that “God himself addresses you by the mouth of his servant Isaiah, charging you to proceed to the utmost of your ability and power, in carrying forward the restoration of the Church, which has been so successfully begun in your kingdom”. 39 The English Reformation did continue, to a point. The Parliament of 1548 authorized an act of uniformity, requiring use of a Book of Common Prayer throughout the realm and promulgating the Forty-two Articles of Religion. The book, according to the act, embodied “the more sincere and pure Christian religion taught by the Scripture, as to the usages of the primitive Church”. The same Parliament legalized marriage for priests. Then in 1552 the second Book of Common Prayer, reflecting Bucer’s influence, was promulgated in a second Act of Uniformity. King Edward died within a few months, though, and Protestants who could and would escape Queen Mary’s Roman restoration had to wait until 1559 to work again for further reformation in England. Over a century later, when John Milton was able to write that, “God is decreeing to begin some new and great period in His Church, ev’n to the reforming of Reformation itself,” the thought had moved away from Calvin onto a path parallel to the one the preachers of the Nadere Reformatie were treading. 40 Ultimately, the Westminster divines declared that their Directory for the Public Worship of God answered, among other things, God’s call to them for “further reformation”. 41 In 1554, Calvin addressed King Sigisimund of Poland in much the same vein. The church in Poland needed to be rebuilt, because was “in deformity among the ruins of Papism”. 42 While the king might well respond to this situation with an attempt to correct everything at once by his authority, it would be better if he would instead, “introduce teachers, to spread after them the seeds of the gospel”. 43 Here again, Calvin exhibited no real doubt about the possibility of reformation, but he urged that a process of reformation be allowed to unfold, without demanding that everything that was to be desired be done at once. He seemed to expect that Sigisimund would be able to bring it off, but at the same time hoped he would not imprudently 39 CO 13, col. 672. ET: Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, bd.1. ET: Pringle, W., Edinburgh, n.d., xxiv. 40 Milton, J., Areopagita, London 1644, 152. 41 Thompson, B., Liturgies of the Western Church, Philadelphia 1980, 356. 42 “Remedium ver afer Deus ipse, dum idoneos et probos doctores excitat, qui ecclesiam in deformibus paptus ruinis iacentem aedificent.” CO 15, 335. 43 “[…] ut Maiestas Vestra tantum doctores instituerit, qui passim evangelii seme spargerent.” CO 15, 335.

298

Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings

subvert his prospects for genuine reformation by attempting to bring it about by decree. Calvin’s farewell address to the pastors of Geneva is another striking text for this pattern in his thought, in which reformation is a process and a struggle, but one that can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. On the one hand, Geneva was “a perverse and unhappy nation, […] perverse and wicked,” yet on the other hand Calvin was confident for the future following his death that, “God will make use of this church and maintain it, and assures you that he will protect it.” Moreover, the pastors should support Beza, “for the charge is great, and so weighty that he might well sink under the load.” Finally, what is most striking of all, Calvin, as Pinaut told the story, urged the Company of Pastors that they should change nothing about the ecclesial arrangements in Geneva’s 44 This is not a new datum, but it has not been accounted for in discussions of the sense in which Calvin understood reformation as a process. First, according to Pinaut’s account, Calvin said as much in cold prose: “I pray you make no change, no innovation. People often ask for novelties. Not that I desire for my own sake out of ambition that what I have established should remain, and that people should retain it without wishing for something better, but because all changes are dangerous and sometimes hurtful”. 45 Then, he went on to apply this solicitousness toward the Genevan church’s practice in the particular case of the Catechism: Calvin had written it “in haste” during his sojourn in Strasbourg, and it was not just as he might desire, but it would be best for the pastors to leave it untouched. 46

Conclusion When Lodenstein and Koelman spoke of the need for the church to be reformanda, they were not holding up the reformanda ideal as the hopeful possibility that when Christians were tired of something in the church’s faith and practice they could change it to suit themselves. They did not dream of an ecclesia semper varianda. The problem for which reformanda was a solution to these theologians was not at all that time marches on, the 44 CO 21, 167. ET: Beveridge, trans., Tracts and Treatises on the Reformation of the Church by John Calvin, with a short life of Calvin by Theodore Beza, Grand Rapids 1958, cxxxii. 45 “Ie vous prie aussi ne changer rien, ne innover – on demande souvent nouveauté – non pas que ie desire pour moy par ambition que le mien demeure, et qu’on le retìenne sans vouloir mieux, mais parce que tous changemens son dangereux, et quelquefois nuisent.” CO 21, 893–94. ET: Bonnet, Letters of John Calvin, bd.4. 46 CO 21, 894.

Michael Bush

299

world changes, and so the church must try to keep up. Nor was it a way for the church to remind itself of the need to be humble in theological selfexamination. Rather, the problem for them was that it was impossible to maintain the church’s purity of faith and holiness in practice without constant vigilance. It was an answer for the ecclesial implications of the problem Calvin described by calling human nature “a perpetual factory of idols”.47 Lodenstein’s word for this vigilance against idolatry and for the church’s purity is reformanda. For Calvin himself, though, the solution to this problem seems usually to have been to get used to it, and then to work patiently as opportunity arose to correct problems that remain once “things […] are not badly constituted”. Calvin knew that even a reformed church was imperfect, and he was not normally anxious about this fact. It was this willingness to bear with the inevitable defects even of an ecclesia reformata, even as he was bound to disapprove of them, that distinguished Calvin from later, more demanding Reformed thinkers like Lodenstein, and Koelman. To these, and even to some degree to certain of Calvin’s contemporaries, such as Zanchius (who was unwilling even to call a church reformata unless it was pure in faith and morals), the church’s purity, as well as its corrective influence in society, was a constant task and burden. Thus it was to them, and not to Calvin, that the thought occurred that the ecclesia reformata would have to be an ecclesia reformanda.

47 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Ford Lewis Battles), Philadelphia 1960, I.11.8.

List of authors In-Sub Ahn, Assistant professor, Chong Shin University and Theological Seminary, Seoul. [email protected] Arie Baars, Professor of practical theology, Theological University Apeldoorn. [email protected] Irena Backus, Professor of the history of the reformation, Institut d’histoire de la Réformation, University of Geneva. [email protected] Lyle D. Bierma, Professor of systematic theology, Calvin Seminary. [email protected] Michael Bush, Associate professor of worship and homiletics, Erskine Theological Seminary. [email protected] Akira Demura, Vice president in academic affairs, Tohoku Gakuin University in Sendai, Japan. Peter Opitz, Oberassistent Universität Zürich, Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte. [email protected] Gary Neal Hansen, Assistant professor University of Dubuque Seminary. [email protected] Wim Janse, Professor of reformation history, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. [email protected] I. John Hesselink, Professor emeritus, Western Theological Seminary. [email protected] Arnold Huijgen, Assistant professor Theological University Apeldoorn. [email protected] Thomas Kaufmann, Professor of church history, University of Göttingen. [email protected]

302

List of authors

Joy Kleinstuber, Assistant lecturer in French, Limerick University, Ireland. [email protected] Raymond Mentzer, Daniel J. Krumm Family Chair in Reformation Studies, University of Iowa. [email protected] Byung-Ho Moon, Lecturer Chongshin Theological Seminary, South Korea. [email protected] Annie Noblesse-Rocher, Professor of medieval and modern history, University of Strasburg. [email protected] Frank van der Pol, Professor of church history, Theological University Kampen. [email protected] Jason Van Vliet, Pastor Maranatha Canadian Reformed Church Surrey, BC. [email protected]

Reformierte Historische Theologie / Reformed Historical Theology Das erneute Interesse an der Geschichte und Theologie des reformierten Protestantismus zeigt sich in einer großen Zahl von aktuellen Forschungsprojekten in diesem Bereich. Die neue Reihe bietet Wissenschaftlern die Möglichkeit, ihre Forschungsergebnisse der internationalen Welt bekannt zu machen und den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs darüber voranzutreiben. Der Schwerpunkt liegt auf Werken, die sich mit dem breiten Spektrum der reformierten Tradition der Frühen Neuzeit (bis ins 19. Jahrhundert) beschäftigen. Die reformierte Tradition wird in ihrem breitesten, d.h. nicht konfessionell eingeschränkten Sinne verstanden und bezieht sich auf Personen und Bewegungen, die sich selbst als reformiert verstanden haben. Der Herausgeber der Reihe Herman Selderhuis (Apeldoorn) und die Mitherausgeber Irene Dingel (Mainz), Elsie McKee (Princeton), Emidio Campi (Zürich) und Wim Janse (Leiden/ Amsterdam) garantieren die Qualität der Reihe, die sowohl für deutsch- als auch für englischsprachige Monographien offen ist. The renewed and growing interest in reformed historical theology finds in this series a means to have its research findings made known to the international scholarly world, but also a means to give a further stimulus to this research.

1: J. Mark Beach

Christ and the Covenant Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace 2007. 372 Seiten, gebunden ISBN 978-3-525-56911-5 J. Mark Beach untersucht die Bundestheologie Francis Turretins und entdeckt dabei einen Strang in der reformatorischen Theologie des 16. Jahrhunderts, der sich grundlegend von seiner Ausprägung im 17. Jahrhundert unterscheidet. Die jeweilige Interpretation lässt bedeutende Rückschlüsse auf die Bundestheologie zu.

The subject of this volume is Francis Turretin’s federal theology as a defence of the doctrine of grace. Specifically, it deals with Turretin’s exposition of the twofold covenant of God, that is the covenant of nature and the covenant of grace. In treating this subject, Beach has a twofold objective: first, to contribute to an understanding of Turretin’s theology, and second, to offer an evaluation regarding the validity of certain trajectories of scholarship pertaining to federal theology in general.

Reformierte Historische Theologie / Reformed Historical Theology 2: Cornelis P. Venema

Accepted and Renewed in Christ The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology 2007. 296 Seiten, gebunden ISBN 978-3-525-56910-8 Calvin betrachtet Rechtfertigung und Heiligung als Güter des dreieinigen Gottes, die dem Menschen durch das Heilswerk Christi über den Heiligen Geist zuteil werden, so die These dieser Studie. Die Lehre von der doppelten Gnade steht dabei in dem größeren Zusammenhang der Rede von Gott als dem Schöpfer und Erlöser. Diesen beleuchtet Cornelis P. Venema und verortet die Lehre von Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in Calvins Theologie. Darüber hinaus werden strittige Fragen der Calvinforschung erörtert, z.B. Calvins Verständnis von Gesetz und Evangelium und die Rolle guter Werke.

The subject of this book is the understanding of the gospel in the theology of the Protestant Reformer John Calvin. Specifically, it deals with what Calvin terms the »twofold grace of God«, the justification and sanctification of believers on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ. In treating this subject, the study has a twofold objective: first, to contribute to an understanding of the nature and relation of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s theology; and

second, to contribute to the interpretation of Calvin’s theology in general. The thesis of the book is that Calvin views justification and sanctification as the two benefits of the Triune God’s work of redemption in Jesus Christ. These benefits are simultaneously communicated to believers through the office or ministry of the Holy Spirit, who joins them to Christ by faith. The »twofold grace of God« represents a particular doctrinal theme within the broader framework of the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. Redemption, which remedies the consequences of human sinfulness, includes not only the restoration of sinners to a state of acceptance and favour with God on the basis of Christ’s work as Redeemer (justification), but also the renewal or sanctification of sinners in conformity to Christ (sanctification). The »twofold grace of God« reveals distinct features of the knowledge of the Triune God as Redeemer, who is merciful and kind in condescending to his creatures’ needy condition and raising them up to newness of life. The »twofold grace of God« in Calvin’s theology provides a comprehensive perspective upon the knowledge of God and ourselves that peculiarly concerns the redemption of sinful humanity. This study also addresses several controversial questions in Calvin studies. These include Calvin’s view of the relation between the law and gospel, and his understanding of the role of good works in confirming the genuineness of faith.