Font of Pardon and New Life: John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) 9780197553879, 9780197553893, 0197553877

Citation preview

Font of Pardon and New Life

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N H I S T O R IC A L T H E O L O G Y Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary Founding Editor David C. Steinmetz † Editorial Board Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins

THE COVENANT OF WORKS The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine J. V. Fesko RINGLEADERS OF REDEMPTION How Medieval Dance Became Sacred Kathryn Dickason REFUSING TO KISS THE SLIPPER Opposition to Calvinism in the Francophone Reformation Michael W. Bruening FONT OF PARDON AND NEW LIFE John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism Lyle D. Bierma

Font of Pardon and New Life John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism LY L E D.   B I E R M A

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Bierma, Lyle D., author. Title: Font of pardon and new life : John Calvin and the efficacy of baptism / Lyle D. Bierma. Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020036738 (print) | LCCN 2020036739 (ebook) | ISBN 9780197553879 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197553893 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Calvin, Jean, 1509–1564. | Baptism—Reformed Church. | Infant baptism—History—16th century. | Reformed Church—Doctrines—History—16th century. Classification: LCC BX9418 .B54 2021 (print) | LCC BX9418 (ebook) | DDC 234/.161—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036738 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036739 DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197553879.001.0001 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

Contents Acknowledgments  Abbreviations 

vii ix

1. Introduction 

1

Instrumentalist Interpretations  Parallelist Interpretations  Developmental Interpretations  Prospectus 

3 6 9 12

2. The 1536 Institutes 

21

3. Works from Calvin’s First Period in Geneva and the Strasbourg Interlude (1536–​41) 

41

4. Works from Calvin’s Second Period in Geneva to the Consensus Tigurinus (1541–​48) 

62

The Sacraments in General  Baptism  Assessment 

Catechism of 1537/​1538  1539 Institutes  Commentary on Romans (1540)  Assessment 

Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545)  The Form of Prayers (1542)  1543 Institutes  Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546)  Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547)  Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians (1548)  Assessment 

5. The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  Articles 1–​2, 5–​19  Assessment 

21 28 33

42 45 50 53

63 68 69 72 74 76 78

86

87 106

vi Contents

6. Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus to Calvin’s Death (1550–​64) 

114

7. Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism 

138

Commentaries on Titus, 1 Peter, Isaiah, and Acts (1550–​54)  Two Polemical Treatises against Westphal (1555, 1556)  1559 Institutes  Assessment 

The 1536 Institutes  First Period in Geneva and the Strasbourg Interlude (1536–​41)  Second Period in Geneva to the Consensus Tigurinus (1541–​48)  The Consensus Tigurinus to Calvin’s Death (1549–​64)  The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  Commentaries of the Early 1550s  Two Treatises against Westphal (1555, 1556)  1559 Institutes 

Assessment 

8. Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions: Calvin’s Legacy  French (Gallican) Confession of Faith (1559)  Introduction  Text and Analysis 

115 121 126 131 142 145 151 153

153 154 158 161

164

175

177 177 178

Scots Confession (1560) 

182

Belgic Confession (1561) 

186

Heidelberg Catechism (1563) 

195

Second Helvetic Confession (1566) 

204

Thirty-​Nine Articles (1571) 

215

Westminster Standards (1646–​47) 

220

Assessment 

228

Introduction  Text and Analysis  Introduction  Text and Analysis  Introduction  Text and Analysis  Introduction  Text and Analysis  Introduction  Text and Analysis  Introduction  Text and Analysis 

182 184 186 188 195 198 204 206 215 216 220 221

9. Baptismal Efficacy in Calvin’s Theology: Conclusion 

241

Bibliography  Index 

249 261

Acknowledgments There is something not quite right about placing just the name of the author below the title of his or her book when there are often others who assisted the author along the way. In the case of this book, here are some of those “others” whom I would like to thank: the administration and Board of Trustees of Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, who granted me semester-​long sabbaticals in 2013, 2016, and 2019 to work on this project; Dr. Karin Maag and Mr. Paul Fields, director and curator, respectively, of the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin University, who provided workspace and other assistance in the Meeter Center during these sabbaticals; Dr. Herman J. Selderhuis, professor of church history and church polity at the Theological University of Apeldoorn (Netherlands), who graciously invited me to his institution as a visiting scholar during my 2019 sabbatical; Ms. N. van der Mijden-​Groenendijk and Ms. A. M. J. Buitink, librarians at the Theological University of Apeldoorn, who offered both a hospitable library atmosphere in which to work and ready answers to my many questions; the editors at Oxford University Press, all of whom skillfully and helpfully guided me through the publication process; Mr. Neulsaem Ha, PhD student at Calvin Theological Seminary, who prepared the index; and finally my wife, Dawn, who has been my traveling partner not only through life but also on many of the trips to Europe that have added context and texture to my work on Calvin and the Reformed tradition. It is to her that this book is dedicated.

Abbreviations Ioannis Calvini opera uae supersunt omnia. Edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss. 59 vols. Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863–​1900. COR Ioannis Calvini Opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate. Edited by Brian G. Armstrong et al. 22 vols. Geneva: Droz,  1992–​. CT Consensus Tigurinus (Zurich Consensus, 1549) NT New Testament OT Old Testament CO

1 Introduction To paraphrase the book of Ecclesiastes, of the making of many essays on Calvin’s doctrine of baptism there is no end. The Calvinism Resources Database at the Meeter Center for Calvin Studies in Grand Rapids lists no fewer than 239 journal articles, book chapters, and unpublished papers on this subject from just the past one hundred years—​in Afrikaans, Dutch, English, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, and Spanish—​and these do not include subsections on baptism in longer works on Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments or on his theology as a whole.1 Of the making of many books on Calvin’s baptismal teaching, however, there is hardly a beginning. A handful of theses and dissertations have appeared,2 but only a part of one of these was ever prepared for further publication, and then only as a journal article and three chapters of a larger work on baptism in the Reformed tradition.3 A full-​length monograph devoted exclusively to Calvin’s doctrine of baptism has yet to be published. This paucity of longer works is somewhat surprising, given that the many shorter studies of Calvin and baptism have often come to different conclusions, especially with regard to his view of baptismal efficacy. Much of the debate has centered on the interpretation of a few puzzling passages in Calvin’s works that appear to teach a form of baptismal regeneration. I myself first became interested in this topic some years ago when I stumbled across Question and Answer 328 in Calvin’s Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545).4 There the minister asks, “But do you attribute nothing more to the water [of baptism] 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 pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us and received by us in baptism.”5 That is just one of what one scholar has called the “tough quotations” in Calvin’s treatment of baptism.6 Among several others are the following:

Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0001.

2  Font of Pardon and New Life But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life. (Institutes, 1536)7 For as in baptism, God, regenerating us, engrafts us into the society of his church and makes us his own by adoption, so we have said, that [in the Lord’s Supper] he discharges the function of a provident householder in continually supplying to us the food to sustain and preserve us in that life into which he has begotten us by his Word. (Institutes, 1543)8 We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. (Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote, 1547)9 But as baptism is a solid recognition by which God introduces his children into the possession of life, a true and effectual sealing of the promise, a pledge of sacred union with Christ, it is justly said to be the reception and entrance into the Church. And as the instruments of the Holy Spirit are not dead, God truly performs and effects by baptism what he figures. (Second Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith concerning the Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, 1556)10 For (as I  said before) God performs by the secret power of his Spirit, whatsoever he shows and witnesses to the eye. So then we must ever come to this point, that the sacraments are effectual, and that they are no trifling signs which vanish away in the air, but that the truth is always so matched with them, because God who is faithful, shows that he has not ordained anything in vain. And that is the cause why in baptism we receive truly the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit. And how so? Does a little water have such power when it is cast upon the head of a child? No. But because it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the water should be a visible sign of his blood and of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, baptism has that power, and whatsoever is there set forth to the eye, is forthwith accomplished in very deed. (“Sermon on Deuteronomy 34,” 1556)11

Introduction  3 These passages raise a number of questions. Did Calvin intend to teach a kind of baptismal justification and regeneration, that is, did he mean that a baptizand actually receives forgiveness of sins and new life at the time of, and perhaps even by means of, water baptism? Did he understand the external sign of baptism to actually convey the spiritual realities it signifies or only to mirror them? If baptism serves in some way as an instrument of God’s grace, what then are the roles of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, divine election, and faith? How is it that adults who approach the font in faith, and thus presumably already possess the benefits of forgiveness and new life, receive these benefits in baptism? Are such blessings also conferred at the baptism of an infant? Finally, did Calvin’s teaching on baptismal efficacy remain fairly constant throughout his lifetime, or did it undergo significant change over the course of his career? On none of these questions has any scholarly consensus been achieved. Indeed, as the following survey will demonstrate, the scholarship of the past one hundred years has produced at least three basic approaches to Calvin’s understanding of the efficacy of baptism, each with its own variations.

Instrumentalist Interpretations First of all, some Calvin scholars have maintained that the Genevan reformer did teach a doctrine of baptismal forgiveness, regeneration, and union with Christ. Employing labels that Brian Gerrish introduced in the 1960s to distinguish different Eucharistic theologies in the early Reformed confessions, we could call this view “symbolic instrumentalism,” as distinct from “symbolic memorialism” and “symbolic parallelism.”12 “Symbolic memorialism,” which Gerrish traced to the confessional writings of Ulrich Zwingli, understands the Lord’s Supper not as a means by which grace is communicated but as a commemoration of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross, a sign or symbol of grace received in the past, a pledge of God’s goodwill to reassure our faith, and a public testimony by which the participant identifies with the Christian community.13 “Symbolic parallelism,” which Gerrish ascribed to Heinrich Bullinger, holds to a union of sign and signified in the sacrament, but views the sacramental elements as only an outer testimony, analogy, or parallel to an inner working of God’s grace that may occur simultaneously with the signs but is still independent of them. This view “lacks the use of instrumental expressions; the outward event does not convey or cause or give rise

4  Font of Pardon and New Life to the inward event, but merely indicates that it is going on.”14 Finally, “symbolic instrumentalism,” which Gerrish saw reflected in Calvin’s Eucharistic theology, regards the elements of the Lord’s Supper as the very instruments or means through which the grace of the sacrament is communicated. The bread and wine are still symbolic, in that “for Calvin, symbolism is what assures [the believer] that he receives the body of Christ without believing in a localized presence of the body in the elements,”15 but through these signs the very flesh and blood of Christ are offered and received.16 Gerrish applied these distinctions primarily to the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, but in support of his claim that for Calvin “it is the nature of sacraments to cause and communicate (apporter et communiquer) what they signify,”17 he quotes the aforementioned Question and Answer 328 from the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, where Calvin states that forgiveness of sins and new life are both offered and received in baptism.18 As in the Lord’s Supper, so also in baptism Christ’s benefits are not just signified but actually conveyed through the elements.19 Sixteen years before Gerrish, François Wendel had proposed a similar interpretation of baptismal efficacy in Calvin as it related to union with Christ.20 Citing the opening lines of Institutes 4.15.6, “Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings,”21 Wendel concluded that “Calvin seems to be making union with Christ dependent upon reception of baptism.” What puzzled him, however, is that almost everywhere else in Calvin we read that union with Christ begins not at the sacrament of baptism but at the time one comes to faith, independently of the sacrament.22 Not only that, says Wendel, but Calvin suggests elsewhere that sacramental efficacy always presupposes union with Christ because it presupposes faith on the part of the participant. Unfortunately, Wendel brushes off this conundrum with the words “however that may be” and moves on to other things. Nevertheless, he understands Calvin to say, in this passage of the Institutes at least, that one’s union with Christ and the benefits that flow from it begin not when one first believes but when one is baptized, and that this happens not independently of the sacrament but by means of it.23 A scholar in this category who has addressed the kind of questions raised by Wendel is Jack Cottrell. In an essay in 1990, Cottrell points to two sets of what appear to be contradictory passages in Calvin’s writings: first, some “isolated” statements, including some of the puzzling quotations we cited

Introduction  5 earlier, where Calvin seems to view baptism as the point at which a penitent sinner first receives forgiveness and new life; and second, another group of passages where Calvin makes very clear that an adult is saved through faith alone prior to baptism.24 To explain this apparent contradiction, Cottrell suggests that for Calvin an adult believer receives salvation through faith before baptism, but these same salvific benefits are offered again in baptism so as to be appropriated with even greater faith and assurance.25 Hence, Cottrell concludes, “Whatever is received in the sacraments is not received as if for the first time; it was already there and is only enlarged upon.”26 Through baptism the believer enjoys an increase both of faith itself and of the salvific gifts that are appropriated by that faith. In other words, for Calvin baptism is an instrument both of assurance and of the grace of forgiveness and new life. Some who hold to this instrumentalist interpretation have been quick to add that Calvin qualifies such baptismal efficacy in several ways, lest he be misunderstood to imply that baptism is effective in and of itself (ex opere operato) and every time it is administered. A fine example of this more nuanced approach is found in Ronald Wallace’s systematic treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of Word and sacrament in 1953.27 Wallace begins by laying out an array of evidence from Calvin’s works that points to the sacraments as instruments of salvific grace. For Calvin, says Wallace, the sacramental event “is effectual in conveying the very grace depicted in its outward form. What God depicts in the sacraments, therefore, He actually brings to pass through their agency.”28 The sacraments function as “the instruments of a gracious divine action whereby what is represented to us is also presented to us.”29 At the same time, Wallace makes clear that for Calvin the sacraments have no efficacy or validity apart from the Word or promises of God to which they are attached and which must always be proclaimed alongside them.30 Furthermore, they can be effectual only through the concomitant work of God the Holy Spirit, whose grace is not bound to the material elements or human action in the sacraments but who in his sovereign freedom uses such elements and action as means of grace according to his good pleasure.31 Finally, Wallace devotes an entire chapter to baptism and faith, in which he emphasizes that for Calvin baptism has no efficacy if the recipient does not approach the font in faith.32 Baptism can still be a valid offer of grace and retain what Wallace terms a “latent efficacy” even when faith is not present, but the sacrament is actually efficacious only when the baptizand finally believes.33 A couple of recent theologians have followed Wallace’s line of interpretation here but have supplemented or modified it slightly. William Evans and

6  Font of Pardon and New Life Rich Lusk recognize both an instrumental efficacy in Calvin’s doctrine of baptism and some of the qualifications to such efficacy that Wallace had identified many years before.34 They make the additional qualification that, in Calvin’s view, God’s use of baptism as an instrument of salvation is grounded in his sovereign decree of election. Baptism objectively offers Christ and his benefits to all who receive it, but it bears fruit only in those whom God has chosen from eternity to believe.35 Moreover, as a proponent of the so-​called federal vision movement,36 Lusk stresses that baptismal efficacy in Calvin is rooted in God’s covenantal relationship to humanity. The sacraments are effectual for salvation because God is forever faithful to the promises he has made to his partners in the covenant of grace.37

Parallelist Interpretations A second group of scholars interpret Calvin’s approach to baptism in a way that sounds closer to what Gerrish termed the “symbolic parallelism” of Heinrich Bullinger. In a 1926 treatise on Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments, for example, Joachim Beckmann asserted that the essence of a sacrament for Calvin is a divinely established parallelism of heavenly and earthly actions—​ a clear illustration of the influence of Platonic thought on his theology. The earthly action revolves around the external signs, that is, the material elements and human activity of a sacrament; the corresponding heavenly or internal action is the work of God, by which the substance, power, truth, and grace of the sacrament are made effective. “It almost goes without saying,” Beckmann maintains, “that these two actions are strictly separated [streng geschieden], despite the fact that at the same time they must be joined together in the closest possible way by God’s eternal salvific will.”38 The grace of the sacrament exists outside of and independent of the reception of the signs, by which Calvin means not only that such grace remains in effect after the signs are received but also that it can be present already before their reception, through the appropriation of God’s promises by faith. Indeed, any reception of grace at the ceremony of the sacrament itself presupposes that the participant already possesses such grace to some degree by God’s promise and through faith.39 Beckmann grants that drawing such a sharp line against any magical interpretation of the sacraments leaves Calvin open to the charge that a sacrament is only a bare sign, merely a psychological assurance of a promise and grace

Introduction  7 already appropriated by faith. He insists, however, that Calvin steers clear of this danger, too, and that he manages to preserve the grace-​bearing character of the sacraments. What is offered and received by faith at the sacraments for Calvin is no different from what is offered and received by faith in the Word alone, namely, union with Christ and his benefits through the operation of the Holy Spirit. The sacraments simply accommodate that Word to our creaturely weaknesses and the full range of our human senses.40 The outer signs or symbols are testimonies, seals, pledges, attestations, and representations of a corresponding divine grace, but any connection between the signs and the signified is possible only because of the will, good pleasure, and dependability of God. It is only in that limited sense that the sacraments can be considered instruments, organs, or vehicles of grace in Calvin.41 What makes a sacrament not just an earthly symbol but an efficacious means of grace is its connection to the Word, the accompanying work of the Holy Spirit, and faith in a God who always keeps his promises.42 Unfortunately, Beckmann does not spend much time applying this analysis to Calvin’s doctrine of baptism, but he seems to espouse a parallelist interpretation of Calvin’s general sacramental theology without discarding instrumental language altogether. A second example of this parallelist approach is a recent essay on Calvin’s doctrine of baptism by James Cassidy. Cassidy begins by describing baptism in Calvin as what sounds like a means of grace in the strongest of terms: for Calvin baptism is an effectual instrument of grace that communicates and confers the benefits of adoption, regeneration, and washing away of sins that it signifies and seals. Cassidy is quick to point out, however, that this does not happen automatically (ex opere operato), in Calvin’s view, but rather with several qualifications: baptism is a means of grace only for the elect, it confers what it signifies and seals only by the power of the Holy Spirit and only if received in faith, and the grace of baptism is not necessarily tied to the sign. In God’s sovereign freedom, the Holy Spirit may not even confer the grace of baptism at the time the sacrament is administered. Indeed, for Calvin baptism is ordinarily a sign that precedes faith (in infants) or follows faith (in adults), and the Holy Spirit communicates the grace signified by baptism whenever infants come to faith and whenever believers look back at their baptism by faith.43 What then about those passages in Calvin that appear to teach a form of baptismal regeneration? According to Cassidy, Calvin is able to avoid a mechanical view of baptismal efficacy and still hold to a close relationship between the sign and the thing it signifies by speaking at times as if the sign

8  Font of Pardon and New Life were the thing signified. Here Calvin is following the pattern of the apostle Paul, whose reference to baptism as “the washing of rebirth” (Titus 3:5), for example, was only sacramental shorthand for baptism as a sign of the washing of rebirth.44 Cassidy then applies this way of interpreting Calvin to what he calls some of the “tough quotations” from Calvin that we cited earlier. When Calvin asserts in the Antidote, for example, that “the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism,”45 what he means is that the sign of baptism and the grace it signifies are so closely connected that the attributes of the latter can, in a certain use of sacramental language, be predicated of the former. Nevertheless, the two should not be fully identified or confused with each other, as happens in Roman Catholic doctrine, since baptism is still only a sign and seal of the forgiveness of sins.46 Calvin’s claim in Institutes 4.17.1 that God regenerates us in baptism47 is also only a sacramental way of speaking. God actually regenerates us by means of the Word, “and then we receive the sign of that invisible grace.” Baptism only represents regeneration and our engrafting into the church; it “visibly points to that regeneration given by the Spirit by means of the Word of God.”48 Finally, when Calvin states in his sermon on Deuteronomy 34 that “in baptism we truly receive the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, [and] we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit,”49 Cassidy once again understands him to be highlighting the close relationship between sign and signified by predicating of the external sign those characteristics that properly belong to the grace that it signifies. Baptism for Calvin is more than a mere sign. At the same time, however, it is effectual only in its power to signify and only insofar as the sign “accompanies the thing signified when and where the Holy Spirit chooses.”50 Although Cassidy begins his article by claiming that for Calvin baptism is an effectual instrument of grace, his appeal to the language of sacramental predication and representation makes the sacrament sound more like a sign of a parallel grace than a vehicle of that grace itself. A couple of parallelist interpretations in the last sixty years have even bordered on what Gerrish called a “symbolic memorialist” approach to Calvin’s doctrine of baptism. In a 1959 dissertation on Calvin’s doctrine of the church, John Burkhart concluded that for Calvin baptism is only “a symbol and example of our cleansing” that assures us of the full forgiveness of our sins through the blood of Christ.51 It also shows us our dying and rising with Christ, a new birth that begins “in approximate coincidence” with the sealing of that benefit in baptism. It may begin at baptism, but it could also

Introduction  9 happen before baptism, after baptism (as in the case of an infant), or even without baptism at all (as in the case of the thief on the cross).52 Finally, baptism for Calvin “testifies that we are so united with Christ himself that we are participants in all his benefits.”53 Burkhart still finds an efficacy to baptism in Calvin, but such efficacy is related only to the cognitive effect of the sacrament, that is, its role of providing believers with the knowledge of their salvation, not the salvation itself. Even when a baptized person comes to faith many years after being baptized, the sacrament is efficacious at that time only by its being a “confirmatory testimony” to the Word received in faith; it is in the “remembrance” of our baptism that we experience its power.54 Richard Schlüter was even more adamant that for Calvin baptism is not a means but only a sign of the saving activity of God. According to him, the outer sacramental act and the inner divine activity it signifies are independent events for Calvin, connected only by the work of the Holy Spirit in the faith of the person being baptized. Schlüter acknowledges that Calvin finds an effectual as well as a signifying dimension in baptism, but for Calvin that efficacy is related to the power of baptism to assure and strengthen one’s faith. Forgiveness and new life are represented, promised, and confirmed to us there, thus giving the sacrament primarily a cognitive significance.55

Developmental Interpretations A third and final group of scholars have examined Calvin’s writings chronologically and noted modifications and development in his sacramental theology over time, depending on the context in which he was working. John Riggs was the first to point modern scholarship in this direction in his doctoral dissertation on the development of Calvin’s baptismal theology (1985) and in a subsequent article (1995) and section of a book (2002) based on his dissertation.56 Riggs lamented the fact that so little work had been done on the context and growth of Calvin’s understanding of baptism, especially since diachronic studies of the baptismal views of other major reformers like Luther and Zwingli had discovered “theological shifts in emphasis depending on historical context.” Riggs pledged to help fill that lacuna by exploring whether there was change and development in the baptismal theology of the Genevan reformer as well.57 According to Riggs, Calvin from the beginning of his ministry sought to bridge the gap between Luther’s understanding of baptism as God’s promise

10  Font of Pardon and New Life connected to an external sign and Zwingli’s view of the sacrament as primarily a public pledge or confession of faith on the part of the baptizand. The Zwinglian emphasis was secondary to the Lutheran in the first edition of the Institutes (1536), Riggs claimed, but by 1539 Calvin had had several years of ministerial experience on which to reflect and thus devoted more attention in the second edition of the Institutes to the visible church and to baptism as a public pledge. After three more years of ministry to refugees in Strasbourg and further reading in the church fathers, Calvin gave these ecclesiological aspects even greater prominence in the 1542/​1545 Catechism of the Church of Geneva and 1543 Institutes and integrated them more fully with his doctrines of Christ, covenant, election, and sacramental signification. After 1545, however, there was no substantial development in Calvin’s doctrine of baptism, only changes of emphasis and nuance in his treatment of the sacramental sign, faith, and covenant. Throughout the 1550s, for example, Calvin reasserted the importance of the sacraments (baptism in particular) as promises of God that nourish, confirm, and even arouse or create faith.58 Rich Lusk also explored a chronological or developmental approach in an online article in 2002 that included a subsection entitled “Calvin on the Sacraments: Means of Assurance or Means of Salvation?” Lusk defined sacraments in the former sense as “signs of assurance that serve to confirm and strengthen our faith” and through which “God grants certainty to believers.” In the latter sense, they are “genuine instruments of salvation . . . [that] effect what they represent and perform what they picture.”59 Since both strands appear side by side in Calvin’s mature theology in the 1559 Institutes, says Lusk, it is worth asking how they might have been harmonized in Calvin’s own mind. One possibility is that throughout his life Calvin emphasized one or the other, depending on the circumstances, and that the 1559 Institutes bears the marks of some of this earlier history. While in Strasbourg (1538–​ 41), for example, Calvin could not help but be influenced by the “high view of sacramental instrumentality and . . . ambitious ecumenical projects” of his mentor, Martin Bucer. After returning to Geneva, however, his work on the Consensus Tigurinus (Zurich Consensus, 1549) with Heinrich Bullinger and the Reformed church in Zurich led him to put less emphasis on sacramental efficacy. Then in the years following the Zurich Consensus, he stressed once again the salvific action of God in the sacraments in his debates with the Gnesio-​Lutheran Joachim Westphal. In the last analysis, however, Lusk does not find this a fully adequate explanation, especially since in the final edition of the Institutes Calvin combines both emphases in a highly nuanced

Introduction  11 fashion. Perhaps, Lusk concludes, “The most satisfactory answer is simply to leave the two strands side by side. Calvin does not seem to think they need harmonizing, so why should we? The salvific and assuring functions of the sacraments can simply be combined into an organic whole. Calvin himself does this repeatedly and effortlessly in his baptismal theology [in the 1559 Institutes].”60 Six years later, Wim Janse offered a brief developmental sketch of Calvin’s baptismal teaching as well, but he did not portray the last phase of this development in the same way that Lusk had. In an essay on the polemical exchange on infant baptism between Calvin and Westphal,61 Janse argued that prior to the Zurich Consensus with Bullinger in 1549, Calvin’s sacramental theology had been “very lutherfreundlich [favorable toward Luther],” emphasizing the objective, instrumental, and exhibitive character of the sacrament: sacraments offer and actually confer the salvific benefits they signify.62 In the course of the discussions that led to the Zurich Consensus, however, Calvin sacrificed some of his theological principles for the sake of a church-​ political compromise, and in so doing he adopted a “Bullingerianizing” position that he continued to defend in the controversy with Westphal in the 1550s. The result was that in the end “[Calvin’s] baptismal theology suffers from a tension between certainty and liberty, between the objectivity of the offer of salvation and the liberty God possesses in his elective grace. Westphal emphasized especially the first aspect, Calvin at the same time the second.”63 Randall Zachman, too, claimed that Calvin’s doctrine of baptism changed over time, but he saw it shift toward a more Roman Catholic view of the sacraments that could have been the result both of Calvin’s participation in several religious colloquies with the Catholics from 1539 to 1541 and of his close association with Bucer and Melanchthon during the same period.64 According to Zachman, in the first (1536) and second (1539) editions of the Institutes as well as in his Catechism of 1537/​1538, Calvin understood water baptism not as a means of grace but only as a confirmatory testimony, analogy, and cognitive seal of that grace. “At this point in his career, baptism does not offer what it represents, nor does God act through baptism as through an instrument to effect in us what baptism represents and offers to us.”65 In the years following the colloquies with the Catholics, however, Calvin inserted a new emphasis on the ecclesial and corporate aspects of baptism into the third edition of the Institutes (1543) and the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1545). He also insisted for the first time that the salvific

12  Font of Pardon and New Life benefits signified by water baptism are truly attached to, offered in, and conferred through the sacrament to those who place no obstacle in their way (Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Q/​A 328). Calvin continued on this trajectory in his commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546); in the Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), which for the first time uses the language of “instrument” for baptism; in his commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians (1548), Titus (1550), and 1 Peter (1551); and in the final edition of the Institutes (1559).66 Calvin is careful to point out that baptism is only God’s ordinary instrument of grace (God can still save without it), that the conferral of such grace is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit, and that baptism is not efficacious without faith and repentance on the part of the baptizand. But, Zachman concludes, Calvin’s view of the sacrament now as truly presenting and offering the reality it symbolizes represents a significant revision of his earlier understanding of baptism as simply a testimony of grace—​a modification that may have reflected the impact of his recent dialogues with the Roman Catholics.67

Prospectus What we have found in this survey of scholarship is that a century of research on Calvin’s doctrine of baptism has reached little consensus on how he understood the efficacy of this sacrament. There is no agreement on whether he viewed baptism as an instrument/​means of grace, as a parallel testimony or analogy of grace, or as one or another of these at different points in his lifetime. Even those who have made a case for change and development in his doctrine of baptism have not agreed on the phases of this development. Zachman noted a shift in Calvin in the 1540s from baptism as a confirmatory sign of grace to an actual instrument of grace, but he did not address the question of where the 1549 Consensus Tigurinus fit into this picture. Janse, by contrast, detected a significant new direction in Calvin’s baptismal thinking in the Consensus Tigurinus, where, in his view, the Genevan reformer abandoned his earlier salvific understanding of baptism in favor of a more Bullingerian perspective that he later employed in the exchanges with Westphal. But Janse did not deal with Calvin’s earliest treatment of baptism in the first edition of the Institutes. Riggs was the only one who addressed the entire span of Calvin’s career from 1536 through 1560, but he found the early Calvin moving from a more Lutheran to a more balanced Lutheran-​Zwinglian

Introduction  13 view of baptism in the years before 1545, with no substantial change thereafter. And not even he examined all of Calvin’s statements on baptism over this span of time. In light of these disagreements and lacunae in the secondary literature, there is warrant for a monograph on Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy that engages the whole body of his work over the whole of his career. It is my contention that the best way to construct such a study is with a chronological and contextual analysis of all of Calvin’s major statements on baptism throughout his lifetime—​in his commentaries, catechisms, sermons, consensus documents, polemical treatises, and various editions of the Institutes. Riggs, Lusk, Janse, and Zachman have made the first attempts at such an analysis, but their studies were, for the most part, relatively brief, did not cover the full range of Calvin’s writings, and arrived at rather different conclusions.68 The best models of the approach I am proposing are two studies on Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper by Thomas Davis and Wim Janse, respectively.69 Davis, first of all, challenged the sizable body of literature that examined Calvin’s Eucharistic thought only through the lens of the 1559 Institutes and portrayed his doctrine of the Supper as relatively stable throughout his lifetime. He argued that in the context of Calvin’s ongoing pastoral care, biblical scholarship, and polemical discussions, his teaching on the Lord’s Supper actually underwent a process of change and maturation.70 Tracing this development through the full complement of Calvin’s Eucharistic writings, Davis claimed that Calvin moved from a noninstrumental, and in some ways ambiguous, position on the Lord’s Supper in the 1536 Institutes, to an instrumental view in the years before the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549. Calvin then reverted to a more symbolical viewpoint in the Consensus itself before radically reinterpreting the Consensus in the decade following the agreement with Zurich. This journey reached its completion in the 1559 Institutes and two treatises in 1561, in which “Calvin claimed as essential those very elements [e.g., the Eucharist as an instrument of grace, sacramental partaking of the substance of Christ] that he had originally denied.”71 No longer, therefore, should Calvin be considered a man of just a single book (the 1559 Institutes) or a static position on the Eucharist over the course of his life. Janse, too, stated in no uncertain terms that to speak of “the eucharistic theology of Calvin” is simply a “fiction.”72 Like Davis, he took a developmental approach, in which he added texture and nuance to Davis’s earlier work by offering some of his own observations. Surveying much of Calvin’s

14  Font of Pardon and New Life career and theological corpus, Janse saw the Genevan reformer moving in his Eucharistic thought from an early “Zwinglianizing” phase (1536–​37) to a “Lutheranizing” period (1537–​48), then once again to “spiritualizing tendencies” in the Consensus Tigurinus and its aftermath (1549–​50s), and finally back to a more “Luther friendly” tone in the 1560s.73 At every stage, “Calvin not only . . . 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.”74 In this respect, Calvin proved himself a true disciple of his mentor, Martin Bucer.75 In the next five chapters of this book, my analysis of Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy will proceed along a chronological path similar to the one Davis and Janse charted for his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Both of those scholars saw Calvin’s Eucharistic theology as developing through five roughly similar time periods: Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Phase 5

Davis

1536

1537–​41

1541–​4976

1549–​57

1559–​61

Janse

1536–​37

1537–​48

1549

1550s

1560s

To determine how closely, if at all, Calvin’s doctrine of baptism mirrored the changes that Davis and Janse found in his teaching on the Lord’s Supper, we, too, will trace Calvin’s treatment of baptismal efficacy through five time periods that approximate the phases delineated in the preceding grid. In ­chapter 2 (phase 1) we will examine the 1536 Institutes, which laid the foundation and established a baseline for Calvin’s subsequent work on baptism. In c­ hapter 3 (phase 2) we will look at three significant works from the five years comprising Calvin’s first ministry period in Geneva (1536–​38) and his subsequent three-​year stay in Strasbourg (1538–​41): his catechism of 1537/​ 1538, the 1539 Institutes, and his commentary on Romans (1540). Chapter 4 (phase 3) covers Calvin’s major writings from his return to Geneva up to the Consensus Tigurinus (1541–​48):  the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545), the baptismal liturgy in the Form of Prayers (1542), the 1543 Institutes, his commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546), the Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), and his commentary on the epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians (1548). Chapter 5 (phase 4) will focus on the 1549 Consensus Tigurinus itself, and ­chapter 6 (phase 5) on Calvin’s writings after the Consensus to near the end of his life: his

Introduction  15 commentaries on Titus (1550), 1 Peter (1551), Isaiah (1551), and Acts (1552, 1554), his first two treatises on the sacraments from his polemical exchange with Joachim Westphal (1555, 1556), and the 1559 Institutes. Throughout these five chapters I will argue that in a lifelong attempt to chart a middle course between Roman Catholic and Zwinglian/​Anabaptist views of the sacraments, Calvin constructed a doctrine of baptismal efficacy that displayed elements of all three interpretative categories outlined earlier:  instrumentalism, parallelism, and development and change. This interpretation falls somewhere between the static view of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism that has dominated so much of past scholarship and the claims of major alterations that a few scholars have put forth more recently. I will show that although there was indeed change and development in Calvin’s understanding of baptismal efficacy, they were changes in emphasis, nuance, and clarity, and not the more dramatic shifts that Janse and Zachman detected in Calvin’s doctrine of baptism or the kind of significant turnabouts that Davis and Janse found in his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Once we have explored Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy in general, we will turn in ­chapter 7 to his understanding of the efficacy of infant baptism and demonstrate how it was integrated into the rest of his baptismal theology. In c­ hapter 8 we will examine part of Calvin’s historical and theological legacy by situating his teaching on baptismal efficacy in the context of the major Reformed confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Chapter 9 will then conclude this study with a summary of its findings.

Notes 1. E.g., Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Tyler, TX:  Geneva Divinity School Press, 1982), 175–​96; François Wendel, Calvin:  The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. Philip Mairet (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 318–​39. 2. Jules Martin, “Notion du Baptême dans Calvin:  Signification, Efficacité et Conditions” (ThB thesis, Faculté de Théologie Protestante de Montauban, 1894); John Q. Lynch, “The Teaching of John Calvin on Baptism” (MA thesis, St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, 1963); Hugh Reid Montgomery, “Baptism in the Teaching of John Calvin” (STM thesis, Biblical Seminary in New  York, 1965); Humbert Matthew Eussen, “John Calvin: The Effects of Baptism” (STL diss., Aquinas Institute of Philosophy and Theology [Dubuque, Iowa], 1967); John W. Riggs, “The Development of Calvin’s Baptismal Theology 1536-​1560” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1985); Carol Thorley, “ ‘No Part of Our Salvation Should Be Transferred

16  Font of Pardon and New Life to the Sign’: John Calvin’s Understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism in Light of Faith Union with Christ” (ThM thesis, University of Otago [Dunedin, New Zealand], 2005). Riggs (p.  18) states that “the single greatest surprise concerning secondary work on Calvin’s baptismal theology is its paucity.” That is certainly true so far as books, dissertations, and theses are concerned. 3. John W. Riggs, “Emerging Ecclesiology in Calvin’s Baptismal Thought, 1536–​1543,” Church History 64 (March 1995): 29–​43; Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition: An Historical and Practical Theology, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 19–​70. 4. For my first published reflections on this passage, see Lyle D. Bierma, “Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology: A Tentative Proposal,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres:  Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 142–​48. As this book will show, I no longer hold to everything I tentatively proposed then. 5. “Q. Verum, annon aliud aquae tribuis, nisi ut ablutionis tantum sit figura? A. Sic figuram esse sentio, ut simul annexa sit veritas. Neque enim, sua nobis dona pollicendo, nos Deus frustratur. Proinde et peccatorum veniam, et vitae novitatem offerri nobis in baptismo, et recipi a nobis certum est” (CO 6:118). I have followed the English translation in Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. and trans. J. K. S. Reid, vol. 22 of Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954), 133, but I have altered it 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. Part of the title of this book (Font of Pardon and New Life) is based on this question and answer. 6. James J. Cassidy, “Calvin on Baptism: Baptismal Regeneration or the Duplex Loquendi Modus?,” in Resurrection and Eschatology: Theology in Service of the Church. Essays in Honor of Richard B.  Gaffin, Jr., ed. Lane G. Tipton and Jeffrey C. Waddington (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008), 546. 7. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion:  1536 Edition, rev. ed., trans. and annot. Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 95. 8. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols., vols. 20–​ 21 of Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster), 2:1360 (4.17.1). This is Battles’s English translation of the 1559 Institutes, but, using a simple critical apparatus, he identifies which parts of the 1559 text first appeared in the 1536, 1539, 1543, and 1550 editions. 9. John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote, in John Calvin, Calvin’s Tracts, trans. Henry Beveridge, vol. 3 (1844; reprint, Eugene:  Wipf and Stock, 2002),  85–​86. 10. John Calvin, Second Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith concerning the Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, in Calvin’s Tracts, 2:339. 11. John Calvin, The Sermons of M.  John Calvin upon the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomie, trans. Arthur Golding (1583; reprint, Edinburgh:  Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 1244. I  have modernized some of the language and spelling of this translation.

Introduction  17 12. Brian A. Gerrish, “Sign and Reality: The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confessions,” in The Old Protestantism and the New:  Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 118–​30. This is a reprint of an essay first published in Theology Today 23 (1966–​67): 224–​43. See also Jan Rohls, Reformed Confessions: Theology from Zurich to Barmen, trans. John Hoffmeyer, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 181–​85; and Paul Rorem, “The Consensus Tigurinus (1549):  Did Calvin Compromise?,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor:  Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 90. 13. Gerrish, “Sign and Reality,” 118–​21. 14. Ibid.,  124. 15. Ibid.,  122. 16. Ibid.,  123. 17. Ibid., 122. Gerrish’s French phrase is from Calvin’s 1562  “Confession de Foy au Nom des Eglises Reformees de France pour Presenter a L’empereur et aux Estats D’Allemagne,” in CO 9:764. The full quotation reads as follows: “Ainsi nous croyons que les Sacremens, combien qu’ils soient administrez par gens meschans et indignes, retiennent tousiours leur nature, pour apporter et communiquer vrayement à ceux qui les reçoyvent ce qui est là signifié.” 18. See  n. 4. 19. Gerrish, “Sign and Reality,” 122, 128. Some years later, Gerrish did acknowledge that this represented “a somewhat different variety of sacramental theory than we find in the 1536 Institutes,” where Calvin’s emphasis is on sacramental “verification of a gift already given,” not “the actual giving of a present gift.” Brian A. Gerrish, “Children of Grace,” in Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 114. 20. Wendel, Calvin, 321. This work first appeared in French in 1950. 21. Calvin, Institutes (1559), 2:1307. Actually, Calvin had included this line in the Institutes as far back as the first edition in 1536 (Calvin, Institutes [1536], 98). 22. Later in the book, Wendel raises a similar question with respect to Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper: “But this union with Christ, as we have seen, is given us from the very moment when we are incorporated in Christ by faith; it therefore does not originate in the Supper. . . . Prior to the Supper, and surviving it, union with Christ subsists therefore beyond the Supper itself and is always independent of it; since, according to Calvin, we may attain to it by other means, such as preaching, the reading of the Bible, or prayer. But here we are obliged to ask ourselves, what exactly does the Supper give us that we cannot obtain otherwise?” Calvin: Origins and Development, 353. 23. Cf. also Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (1956; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 220: “Calvin mentions three gifts which are imparted to us in baptism: forgiveness of our sins, our dying and rising again with Christ, and our communion with the Lord Himself; but the first two of these gifts depend wholly upon the third.” 24. Jack W. Cottrell, “Baptism according to the Reformed Tradition,” in Baptism and the Remission of Sins, ed. David W. Fletcher (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990), 69–​70.

18  Font of Pardon and New Life 25. Ibid.,  70. 26. Ibid.,  71. 27. See n.  1. For a more recent example of this approach, see Russell Haitch, “John Calvin: Baptism Is Sign and Seal,” in From Exorcism to Ecstasy: Eight Views of Baptism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 93–​111. 28. Wallace, Word and Sacrament, 159. 29. Ibid.,  160. 30. Ibid.,  135. 31. Ibid., 169–​71. 32. Cf. Walter Kreck, “Die Lehre von der Taufe bei Calvin,” Evangelische Theologie 6 (1948): 247: “Die Zueignung des in Christus erworbenen Heils geschieht durch den heiligen Geist, der durch das Wort den Glauben wirkt. Die Taufe gehört in diesen Kreis hinein als bekräftigendes Siegel, d. h. sie ist nicht zu lösen von Wort, Geist, und Glauben.” 33. Wallace, Word and Sacrament, 184–​86. On this distinction between validity and efficacy in Calvin’s sacramental doctrine, see also John Ernest Burkhart, “Kingdom, Church, and Baptism: The Significance of the Doctrine of the Church in the Theology of John Calvin” (PhD diss., University of Southern California, 1959), 180–​82, 201–​4. 34. William B. Evans, “‘Really Exhibited and Conferred  .  .  .  in His Appointed Time’: Baptism and the New Reformed Sacramentalism,” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 31/​2 (Fall 2005): 72–​88, here 78–​80; Rich Lusk, “Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy: Historic Trends and Current Controversies,” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004), 89–​91; Lusk, “Baptismal Efficacy and Baptismal Latency: A Sacramental Dialogue,” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 32/​1 (Spring 2006): 18–​37, here 19–​20. Lusk refers to all six of the “tough quotations” from Calvin’s works that I  cited earlier. 35. Evans, “Really Exhibited and Conferred,” 80, 82–​83; Lusk, “Baptismal Efficacy and Baptismal Latency,” 21–​ 22. According to Evans, however, “Divine sovereignty functions quite differently in the baptismal context for Lusk than for Calvin or [the] Westminster [Standards].” “Calvin, Baptism, and Latent Efficacy Again:  A Reply to Rich Lusk,” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 32/​1 (Spring 2006): 38–​45, here 39. Cf. also J. van Genderen, “De Doop bij Calvijn,” in Rondom de Doopvont, ed. W. van ‘t Spijker et al. (Goudriaan: De Groot, 1983), 274: “Ook in de leer van de sacramenten komt uit, dat Calvijn beleed dat ons heil afhangt van de verkiezende genade van God. Zoals hij zeggen kan, dat alleen de gelovigen het ontvangen, kan hij ook zeggen, dat alleen de utiverkorenen het ontvangen.” 36. This is a cluster of Presbyterian and Reformed pastors and theologians in the United States that has arisen over the past decade with the goal of (re)awakening interest in a covenantal (“federal”) perspective on theology and the church. See Wilkins and Garner, The Federal Vision. 37. Lusk, “Paedobaptism,” 91. 38. “Es braucht kaum gesagt zu werden, daß diese beiden Actiones streng geschieden sind, trotzdem sie zugleich durch Gottes ewigen Heilswillen aufs engste verbunden

Introduction  19 sein müssen.” Joachim Beckmann, Vom Sakrament bei Calvin: Die Sakramentslehre Calvins in ihren Beziehungen zu Augustin (Tübingen: Mohr, 1926), 35. 39. Ibid.,  55. 40. Ibid.,  55–​63. 41. “Auf der einen Seite steht das symbolum mit seinem geheimnisvollen Gehalt als testimonium, sigillum, pignus, als testificatio, repraesentatio—​und weil es Gottes symbolum ist, entspricht ihr eine exhibitio, eine himmlische veritas, denn Gott is der Wahrhaftige, und was er zusagt, das hält er gewiβ. Aber wirklich nur von Gott aus, nach seinem Willen und Wohlgefallen, ist es solches Symbol, nur insofern ist es instrumentum, organum, vehiculum gratiae.” Ibid., 35. 42. “Daß das Sakrament tatsächlich dem Wort gleichgeordnetes Gnadenmittel und nicht nur ein irdisches Symbol ist, sondern daß der irdischen Handlung eine göttliche (nicht psychologische, von den Symbolen ausgehende) Geisteswirkung entspricht, findet bei Calvin letzlich keine andre Begründung als im Glauben an die Veracitas Dei.” Ibid., 61. 43. Cassidy, “Calvin on Baptism,” 539–​43. 44. Ibid., 544–​46. 45. See  n. 6. 46. Cassidy, “Calvin on Baptism,” 546–​49. 47. See  n. 10. 48. Cassidy, “Calvin on Baptism,” 550. 49. See  n. 8. 50. Cassidy, “Calvin on Baptism,” 550–​52 (emphasis added). 51. Burkhart, “Kingdom, Church, and Baptism,” 190–​92. 52. Ibid., 192–​93. 53. Ibid., 193–​94. 54. Ibid., 203–​4. See also pp. 207–​8. 55. Richard Schlüter, “Das sakramentale Taufverständnis bei Calvin,” in Karl Barths Tauflehre: Ein interkonfessionelles Gespräch (Paderborn: Bonifacius-​Druckerei, 1973), 150, 152–​53. 56. See nn. 2 and 3. 57. Riggs, “Emerging Ecclesiology,” 29. 58. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition,  41–​60. 59. Rich Lusk, “Calvin on Baptism, Penance, and Absolution,” Theologia (2002), accessed November 5, 2019, http://​www.hornes.org/​theologia/​rich-​lusk/​ calvin-​on-​baptism-​penance-​absolution. 60. Ibid. 61. Wim Janse, “The Controversy between Westphal and Calvin on Infant Baptism, 1555–​1556,” Perichoresis 6/​1 (2008): 3–​43. 62. Ibid.,  16–​17. 63. Ibid., 3, 15, 31. 64. Randall C. Zachman, “Revising the Reform: What Calvin Learned from Dialogue with the Roman Catholics,” in John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique, Engagement, Then and Now, ed. Randall C. Zachman (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 168.

20  Font of Pardon and New Life 65. Ibid., 169–​70. 66. For Zachman’s interpretation of Calvin’s statements on baptism from his Ephesians commentary through the 1559 Institutes, see Randall C. Zachman, Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), 328–​30. 67. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 169–​72. 68. Elsie McKee, in her monumental The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2016), also provides a brief overview of the development of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism (pp. 395–​407), but because the main purpose of her study “is to examine the relationship between Calvin’s teaching and Geneva’s worship practice” (p. 394), she does not devote much attention to the stages of development in his baptismal thought. She does maintain, however, that by 1539 Calvin had backed away from an explicit denial of baptism as an instrument of grace (pp. 398–​99, 405–​6). 69. Thomas J. Davis, The Clearest Promises of God: The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching, AMS Studies in Religious Tradition 1 (New York: AMS Press, 1995); Wim Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology:  Three Dogma-​Historical Observations,” in Selderhuis, Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres,  37–​69. 70. See especially Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 1–​8, 86. 71. Ibid.,  212. 72. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 37. 73. Ibid.,  39–​40. 74. Ibid.,  40. 75. Ibid.,  51–​67. 76. Davis deals with the 1549 Consensus Tigurinus early in his book and out of chronological sequence so that it can “serve as a hermeneutical device to pose questions of Calvin’s work prior to the Consensus and to set the stage to examine his teaching after the Consensus.” Clearest Promises of God, 7.

2 The 1536 Institutes We begin our analysis of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism as a means of grace at the place where he himself first addressed it, the inaugural edition of the Institutes in 1536. Although this little book was published at the beginning of Calvin’s first period of ministry in Geneva, he had actually finished it already in Basel in the summer of 1535, a full year before he settled in Geneva.1 It thus establishes a baseline for how he understood baptism at the beginning of his ministerial career. We should note that Calvin had composed two other major works before 1536, a commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia (1532) and a treatise against the Anabaptist view of soul sleep (Psychopannychia, 1534; published in 1542), but neither one mentions the sacrament of baptism. In this chapter, therefore, we will examine Calvin’s earliest reflections on baptismal instrumentality in the first two sections of the fourth chapter of the 1536 Institutes, his treatments of the sacraments in general, and then of baptism itself.

The Sacraments in General Calvin’s introduction to the sacraments in the 1536 Institutes is a valuable resource for understanding his early thinking on baptism, since we can assume that everything he says there about the sacraments in general is true also of baptism in particular. These introductory paragraphs turn out to be especially important because they paint a broader picture of sacramental efficacy than we encounter in the section on baptism alone. Calvin begins this introductory section with two brief definitions of a sacrament: (1) “an outward sign by which the Lord represents and attests to us his good will toward us to sustain the weakness of our faith,” and (2) “a testimony of God’s grace, declared to us by an outward sign.”2 The second definition is really just a truncated version of the first: the outer sign, divine grace, and attestation are mentioned again, but not the representative and nurturing functions of the sign. To get a fuller sense, therefore, of how Calvin Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0002.

22  Font of Pardon and New Life understood sacraments as means of grace early in his career, we need to take a closer look at these definitions and his elaboration on them in the rest of the introduction. First of all, Calvin describes a sacrament as an “outward sign.” The question is: a sign of what? His definitions indicate that a sacrament signifies God’s “good will” and “grace” toward us, but Calvin actually starts off the chapter by emphasizing that it is a sign joined to “a preceding promise,” the very Word of God.3 In fact, the term “sacrament” could be understood broadly enough to include any such sign that God had annexed to promises in the course of biblical history. Some of these were natural things, such as the tree of life in the Garden of Eden and the rainbow after the flood. The former served as a guarantee of the promise of immortality, and the latter as a reminder of God’s promise never to destroy the earth again with a flood. Other such sacraments in Scripture were miracles. The wet and dry states of Gideon’s fleece, for instance, were signs of God’s promise of victory, and God’s turning back the time on Hezekiah’s sundial signified a promise of safety. Indeed, God could make a sacrament of any earthly thing—​sun, stars, earth, stones—​simply by inscribing it with a promise: Why are crude and coined silver not of the same value, though they are absolutely the same metal? The one is merely in the natural state; stamped with an official mark, it becomes a coin and receives a new valuation. And cannot God mark with his Word the things he has created, that what were previously bare elements may become sacraments?4

These signs from the past, however, were extraordinary. The “ordinary” signs or ceremonies that God instituted for the church are circumcision, purifications, and sacrifices in the old dispensation, and baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the new. In general terms, they are signs of “things that are of his Spirit,” “the riches of God’s grace,” and “holy and spiritual things.”5 More specifically, they betoken the covenant promise that God will be our God and we will be his people,6 as well as the blessings of righteousness, cleansing, forgiveness, and redemption.7 Ultimately, these ordinary sacraments—​of both dispensations—​point to Christ himself, the one who came to cleanse and redeem us. That is because the signs are connected to God’s salvific promises, and those promises are offered to us only in Christ.8 The critical question for our study, of course, is how exactly in 1536 Calvin understood the sacramental signs in relation to these promised spiritual

The 1536 Institutes  23 realities. What do they actually do with respect to the things they signify? Are they only testimonies to their truth or also means or instruments through which such realities are conveyed? We should note, first of all, that in this section Calvin does regard the sacraments as, in some way, means or instruments in the hands of God. In the first definition, he describes a sacrament as an outward sign “by which” (quo) the Lord represents and attests to his goodness. And according to the second definition, God’s grace is declared “by an outward sign” (externo symbolo).9 Both of these constructions are in the ablative case in Latin and function as ablatives of means, which implies that God is at work in the sacraments by means of the sacramental signs. Indeed, Calvin goes on to say, God uses a variety of “means and instruments” (mediis ac instrumentis) when it is deemed expedient. For example, God feeds our bodies “through” (per) bread and other food, gives light to the world “through” (per) the sun, and provides warmth “through” (per) fire. These are all “instruments” (instrumentis) for the distribution of divine blessings, not the actual causes of these good things but created means “through whose ministry” (quarumque ministerio; ablative of means) God lavishly bestows his gifts upon us. So also with the sacraments:  “In like manner [ita], he nourishes faith spiritually through [per] the sacraments,” although “in the same way” (ita) we also may never put our confidence in the sacraments themselves.10 That still leaves the question of how these sacramental means function for Calvin, that is, how God employs them as instruments, or what God actually does through them. Calvin’s definitions suggest three ways that God uses the outward signs of the sacraments as means or instruments: to “represent” his goodwill to us, to “attest to” or “declare” his goodness and grace to us, and, by virtue of the first two, to “sustain the weakness of our faith.”11 The first two of these purposes focus on the sign itself, and the third upon us as recipients of the sign. First, in representing God’s goodwill toward us, the signs function largely in a pedagogical manner. They are “exercises” designed to “instruct” us at the level of our limited capacity, leading us by the hand like “tutors” guiding the children entrusted to them.12 In the old dispensation, for example, circumcision was a symbol by which God “admonished” the Jews that whatever came forth from human seed was corrupt and in need of pruning. In addition, circumcision was a “lesson” (documentum) and “reminder” (memoriale) of God’s covenantal promises. The baptismal and purification ceremonies of that age, too, “disclosed” (exponebant) human uncleanness and promised spiritual cleansing. And the sacrificial ceremonies of the Old

24  Font of Pardon and New Life Testament “taught” (docebant) God’s people that divine justice must be satisfied and that a mediator was needed to do it.13 Like every good teacher, God uses illustrations to explain what he is trying to impress upon us. Sacraments, then and now, are like paintings that depict the promises of God, or “mirrors in which we may contemplate the riches of God’s grace.” There God sets his promises before our eyes in visible form. They help us to see things that we might otherwise not see.14 Second, according to Calvin’s definitions, the sacraments are means by which God “attests to” and “declares” to us his grace. Here Calvin switches from pedagogical to legal language to convey the confirmatory or authenticating role of these rites. A sacrament is a “testimony” (testimonium) that “attests to” (testificatur) God’s goodness and grace; it provides corroboration for, or makes “more evident” (testatiorem), the promises of God. Like seals that confirm and guarantee the truth of what is written in an official document, sacraments authenticate and confirm the promises of God.15 As in the case of divine covenants, words are “ratified” (sanciuntur) with signs.16 By means of these sacramental signs, then, God clarifies and validates his promises to us, but not because divine truth itself is in need of such confirmation. It is we who are the problem. The further purpose of the sacraments, and the third way in which they serve as God’s instruments for Calvin, is “to sustain the weakness of our faith” (first definition).17 In the sacraments, God’s Word is confirmed (ratified) so that we might be confirmed (fortified) in our faith. Our minds are ignorant, blind, and dull; our hearts are in large part bereft of faith; and what little faith we do have only “trembles, wavers, [and] totters.” To shore up such a “slight and feeble” trust, God accommodates himself to our capacity in the sacraments by using material elements to help us contemplate spiritual things.18 God gave Adam and Eve the tree of life so that they could “assure themselves” (secure sibi promitterent) of the promise of immortality. Circumcision was a seal by which the Israelites “were more certainly assured” (certius confirmarentur) of the righteousness of faith.19 So, too, the sacraments today “nourish, exercise, and increase our faith,” making us more certain that God’s Word can be trusted, more confident that his promises are true. If faith is like a building resting on the foundation of the Word of God, the sacraments are like pillars placed under that foundation to reinforce the structure and give it added stability.20 Sacraments for Calvin, therefore, are instruments that God employs to signify and seal the promises of his Word to us in order to build up our faith. They function as testimonies of grace and means of assurance. But is that

The 1536 Institutes  25 all they do, or are they also instruments of that grace, means by which God also communicates the contents of those promises to us? Not surprisingly, Calvin insists throughout this introductory section that the sacraments are not efficacious in and of themselves. The signs per se are not endowed with that which they signify.21 There is “spiritual power” (virtute spirituali) in the things signified but no “secret powers” (arcanas . . . virtutes) attached to the signs themselves; the material elements possess no “hidden power” (latentem  .  .  .  virtutem) to dispense God’s blessings. Contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, sacraments do not automatically justify or confer grace upon those who are not in a state of mortal sin.22 That would be to ascribe to created things a capability that belongs to the creator alone. Just as food, sun, and fire are really only means and instruments by which God distributes certain blessings to us, so also sacraments are only means and not the actual causes of the good they bring.23 It is God who instituted the sacraments for our benefit, God who represents and attests to his goodwill there, and God who illumines our minds and opens our hearts so that we are receptive to the sacramental blessings. The sacraments themselves do not “bring [or impart]” (afferunt) God’s good gifts to us; it is the Holy Spirit who accompanies the sacraments and “brings [adfert] the graces of God with him” so that they bear fruit in us.24 It is God alone, therefore, in whom our confidence should inhere and to whom all glory should be ascribed.25 Furthermore, if the sacraments are to be efficacious, they must be appropriated in faith. The mercy and grace that God offers in both Word and sacrament can be understood only by those who receive them “with sure faith.”26 That is not to say that our faith must be perfect or complete. The purpose of the sacraments, after all, is to nourish and sustain faith in its weakness. When Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch that he could be baptized if he believed with all his heart (Acts 8:37), that did not mean that he had “to cleave to Christ perfectly, but only to embrace him from the heart and with a sincere mind; not to be sated with him, but to hunger, thirst, and aspire after him with fervent affection.”27 Without such faith, the sacraments, which “offer and set forth Christ to us, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace,” convey nothing and are of no profit to us at all.28 The crucial role assigned to faith does not mean, of course, that the human participant is the primary actor in the sacrament. Calvin recognizes that some people trace the original usage of the word sacrament to an oath of allegiance that Roman soldiers took when they entered military service. They view the sacraments first and foremost as signs by which we profess loyalty

26  Font of Pardon and New Life to Christ our commander.29 For Calvin, however, such an approach greatly weakens the force of a sacrament, which should still be thought of primarily as God’s act of promise toward us and only secondarily as our act of confession before God and others.30 Despite these several caveats about the efficacy of the sacraments, however, there are a few indications in this section of the Institutes that the sacraments for Calvin are not just means of knowledge and assurance but also in some way means of grace itself. We have already noted his claim that just as through the instruments of food, sun, and fire, God lavishes upon us the gifts of nourishment, light, and heat, respectively, so also “through the sacraments” he “nourishes faith spiritually.”31 This spiritual nourishment mediated by the sacraments appears to be something more substantial than simply the testimony of God’s goodwill to us through the work of the Holy Spirit,32 since it is the purpose of sacraments in both testaments “to direct and almost lead men by the hand to Christ” himself.33 Sacraments do not “offer” (offerri) us only God’s mercy and grace; they “offer and set forth [offerre . . . ac proponere] Christ to us, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace.”34 And they do not merely “show forth” (ostendant) Christ but actually “present” or “hold forth” (exhibere) Christ to us “as if he were present” (velut praesentem).35 In the sacraments the benefits of Christ are there waiting to be lavished upon us because Christ himself is present there in some special way, offering himself to the embrace of faith.36 Calvin could mean here, of course, that the sacraments show and offer us Christ only insofar as they show and offer the promises found in Christ. Sacraments, after all, direct us to Christ in much the same way as “images” do, namely, “to represent him and set him forth to be known.”37 Moreover, to “hold forth [Christ] as if present” (velut praesentem exhibere) could simply mean to “show him as if present,” as Battles translates it.38 What is striking, however, is that Calvin uses very similar phrasing in two later passages in ­chapter 4 in the section on the Lord’s Supper:39 All these things are so perfectly promised in this sacrament [of the Lord’s Supper], that we must certainly consider him truly shown to us [vere nobis exhiberi], just as if Christ himself present [non secus ac si Christus ipse praesens] were set before our gaze and touched by our hands.40 This Kingdom is neither bounded by any location in space nor circumscribed by any limits. Thus uncircumscribed, Christ can exert his

The 1536 Institutes  27 power wherever he pleases, in heaven and on earth; he can show his presence in power and strength [se praesentem potentia et virtute exhibeat]; he is always able to be among [adsit] his own people to live in them, sustain them, strengthen, quicken, keep them, as if he were present in the body [non secus ac si corpore adesset]. In this manner, the body and blood of Christ are shown [exhibetur] to us in the Sacrament.41

In these passages, too, Battles translates exhibere as simply “show” and “shown.” The primary meaning of this verb, however, is not the English cognate “exhibit,” or its synonyms “show” and “depict,” but rather “hold forth,” “tender,” “present,” “deliver,” “give up,” or “produce.”42 What Calvin seems to be saying is that in the Lord’s Supper we should consider Christ to be “truly held forth/​presented to us, just as if [he] himself [were bodily] present,” and that he can “hold forth his presence in power and strength . . . as if he were present in the body.” As Richard Muller points out, Calvin’s claim here is that although the ascended Christ cannot be bodily present in the sacrament, his rule at the right hand of the Father knows no local or spatial bounds, and he can present himself to us in the Supper in his power and influence in such a way that he bestows his benefits upon us. This language, Muller concludes, “consistently identifies an active presence, power, and influence that is exercised efficaciously to live in and enliven believers: to render exhibere as merely showing or representing misses Calvin’s sense—​Christ . . . holds himself forth, or presents himself, to believers.”43 Calvin’s statement earlier in the general introduction to the sacraments that the rites of the New Testament “hold forth” or “present” Christ to us “as if he were present” (velut praesentem exhibere)44 should be read, then, in the light of these parallel passages on the Lord’s Supper. So too should his earlier references to the sacraments’ offering (offerre), setting forth (proponere), and perhaps even representing (repraesentare) Christ to us.45 The connection between these two sections of the chapter is significant because if the way Calvin portrays Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper is true of the sacraments in general, then it applies not just to the Lord’s Supper but to baptism as well. Baptism, too, must present or hold forth Christ to us in his uncircumscribed power and influence. Already in 1536, therefore, Calvin seems to understand both of the New Testament sacraments as instruments by which God not only signifies and attests to his grace but actually holds out to us Christ and his benefits. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper assure us that we are cleansed and redeemed, respectively, but they also “offer” or “present”

28  Font of Pardon and New Life (offerunt) to us Christ himself, in whom these benefits of cleansing and redemption are found.46

Baptism Calvin begins the second section of ­chapter 4, on baptism, by stating that this sacrament has a dual purpose, to serve both our faith before God and our confession before others.47 Since it is the first of these two purposes that he considers primary, it is not surprising that it receives most of his attention. We, too, will focus on Calvin’s discussion of that first purpose, since it is there that he offers the clearest picture of his understanding of baptism as a means of grace in the mid-​1530s. There are three ways, Calvin asserts, that baptism fulfills its principal goal of assisting our faith before God: (1) it serves as “a symbol and proof of our cleansing,” (2) it “shows us our mortification in Christ, and new life in him,” and (3) it is a “sure testimony to us that we are . . . united and joined to Christ” and his benefits. Each of these provides the baptized believer with its own “consolation” or “comfort” (consolationem).48 As a sign and seal of our cleansing, first of all, baptism confirms for us the forgiveness of our sins. It assures us that our transgressions are totally abolished in the sight of God, never again to be recalled or imputed to us.49 Even when we relapse into sin, the memory of our baptism can make us “sure and confident” that we are forgiven.50 This cleansing was symbolized already in the Old Testament in the pillar of cloud, whose protection of the Israelites from the sun prefigured our own protection against God’s wrath by the blood of Christ, which is signified in New Testament baptism. Also symbolized in the Old Testament was the second thing signed and sealed in baptism, our mortification and new life in Christ. Just as God delivered the Israelites from bondage by opening a path through the Red Sea, so too God demonstrates and promises in the waters of baptism that we have been delivered from our bondage to sin.51 Third and finally, baptism consoles our faith by testifying that we are united with Christ himself, and in such a way that we share in the whole range of his benefits. The fact that Christ also underwent baptism makes our bond and fellowship with him even closer.52 So far Calvin’s description of baptism follows the general definition of a sacrament that he had introduced at the beginning of c­ hapter 4 of the Institutes.53 Baptism is an outward sign by which the Lord represents and

The 1536 Institutes  29 attests to us the grace of forgiveness, renewal, and union with Christ, so as to console and fortify our faith. But does Calvin hold that God only assures us of these benefits in our baptism or that God actually bestows them there? This is not an easy question to answer. On the one hand, Calvin cites Scripture texts that imply that the sacrament is the actual vehicle for conveying the three benefits of baptism—​forgiveness, renewal, and union with Christ. Both Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38, for example, indicate God’s desire that everyone who believes be baptized “for the remission of sins.”54 Indeed, says Calvin, “we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life.”55 Paul’s references in Romans 6:3–​4 and Colossians 2:11–​12 to our being baptized into Christ’s death and buried with him by baptism also make clear that “through baptism [per baptismum] Christ makes us sharers in his death, that we may be engrafted in it.”56 This mortification begins “with our baptism” (a baptismo),57 and “in it” (in eo) the purity of Christ is “offered” (oblata) to us.58 So far as our union with Christ is concerned, Galatians 3:26–​27 teaches “that we put on Christ in baptism [in baptismo].”59 Moreover, Calvin challenges those who regard baptism as nothing more than a sign by which we profess our religion before others to remember the promises of God that whoever “believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16), that Christ has cleansed the church “with the washing of water in the Word of life” (Ephesians 5:26), that “he saved us . . . through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5), and that “baptism . . . saves us” (1 Peter 3:21).60 All of these verses seem to portray baptism as the very means through which God communicates the benefits of salvation. On the other hand, Calvin never refers to baptism as an “instrument” in this section of the 1536 Institutes. On the contrary, he explicitly rejects instrumental terminology and takes pains to distinguish the sign of baptism from its grace. In the epistolary passages cited earlier, he maintains, Paul does not mean that the water of baptism itself washes and saves us, or that it is the “instrument” (instrumentum) of our cleansing and regeneration and the “cause” of our salvation. What we receive from the sacrament is only “the knowledge and certainty of such gifts.”61 Baptism seals to us the gospel message of washing and sanctification.62 God can speak to us “through the sign” (per signum), but it is God alone who forgives, who makes us participants in Christ’s death, and who clothes us with his Son. Such graces are not “bound or enclosed” in the sacrament, nor is baptism the “organ and instrument” (organum ac instrumentum) by which they are conferred. Water baptism only

30  Font of Pardon and New Life assures us that God does these things for our soul “as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water.” It is a physical “analogy” or “similitude” used by God to represent these spiritual realities in visible form, and a “token” (tessera) by which God attests to us his desire to lavish them upon us.63 Calvin does not specify exactly when or how these realities are bestowed, but he does make clear that baptism is not in and of itself the instrument of such bestowal. That leaves us to wonder, then, how Calvin interprets the several New Testament passages cited earlier that appear to teach that baptism does convey the very benefits it signifies. The key to answering this question might be found in two biblical examples he uses to illustrate the very point that baptism is not itself an organ or instrument of such grace: Let us take as proof of this, Cornelius the centurion, who, having already received forgiveness of sins and the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptized [Acts 10:48]. He did not seek an ampler forgiveness of sins from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith. Perhaps someone will object: why, then, did Ananias tell Paul to wash away his sins through baptism [Acts 22:16; cf. Acts 9:17–​18] if sins are not washed away by baptism? I reply: we are said to receive [accipere], obtain [obtinere], and acquire [impetrare] what we believe [is /​has been] given to us by God, whether we then first recognize it [agnoscimus], or become more certain of it as previously recognized [agnitum]. Ananias meant only this: “To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism; receive it [hanc accipe], and be secure.”64

Calvin might be arguing here that in the case of Cornelius, baptism could not have been an instrument of salvation, since Cornelius had already been granted the benefits of salvation prior to his baptism. He was already forgiven, renewed, and united with Christ. What Cornelius was seeking in baptism was a strengthening of the faith by which he had appropriated those benefits in the past. Similarly, when Ananias told the recently converted Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins, he did not mean that Paul would actually receive forgiveness at his baptism; Paul was already forgiven. Rather he would receive a greater assurance of such forgiveness as he encountered and embraced the promise of God once again. What makes this even more complicated is that the key sentence in this quotation, “We are said to receive, obtain, and acquire what we believe [is /​

The 1536 Institutes  31 has been] given to us by God, whether we then first recognize it, or become more certain of it as previously recognized,” is itself open to more than one interpretation. One could paraphrase it as “We are said in Scripture to receive, obtain, and acquire the forgiveness that we believe has been given to us by God, whether that happens at the time we first recognize that forgiveness, namely, when we first believe, or, as in the examples of Cornelius and Paul, at a later time at our baptism, when we become more certain of the forgiveness that we had recognized earlier.” It could also be paraphrased as, “We are said in Scripture to receive, obtain, and acquire the forgiveness that we believe has been given to us by God, whether our baptism is the first time we recognize such forgiveness or, as in the examples of Cornelius and Paul, baptism is the occasion for becoming more certain of the forgiveness that we had recognized earlier.” In either case, however, the focus is not on the dispensing of forgiveness through baptism but on the believer’s recognition or experience of that forgiveness at baptism. In other words, the biblical concept of forgiveness for Calvin is broad enough to include the assurance of this benefit as well. “Receive it and be secure,” he paraphrases Ananias’s instruction to Paul; that is, “In your baptism embrace once again God’s promise or assurance of forgiveness and be even more secure in the knowledge that that promise has been realized in you.” In this way of understanding this paragraph, Calvin’s conclusion is that when Scripture talks in these contexts about receiving the blessings of salvation in baptism, it has in mind not the objective reception of these benefits through the instrumentality of the sacrament but only the subjective recognition and greater certainty that one possesses them. This whole passage in Calvin, however, could also be read in another way. Calvin could be suggesting here that Cornelius did receive the benefits of salvation through baptism but only in the sense that in his baptism he was offered and embraced once again the graces he had already been granted by faith prior to his baptism. He was indeed already forgiven, renewed, and united with Christ and was seeking a strengthening of the faith by which he had appropriated those benefits in the past. But Calvin’s claim that in Scripture “we are said to receive, obtain, and acquire what we believe [is /​ has been] given to us by God, whether we then [when we first come to faith or at our baptism] first recognize it, or [in baptism] become more certain of it as previously recognized,” could mean that believers really do spiritually embrace Christ and his benefits more securely through the sacrament of baptism, even if they have done so already by faith before their baptism. Such a reception of grace was then the basis for Cornelius’s greater assurance.

32  Font of Pardon and New Life Similarly, when Calvin paraphrases Ananias’s command to Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins as “receive it and be secure,” the only clear antecedent to the feminine pronoun “it” (hanc) in this clause is the feminine noun “forgiveness” (remissionem).65 What Ananias is saying, then, is “In your baptism, Paul, embrace once again by faith Christ and his forgiveness and be even more secure in the knowledge that you possess such a benefit.” In this way of understanding the paragraph, Calvin’s conclusion is that when Scripture talks in these two contexts about the reception of the blessings of salvation in baptism, it has in mind not only the subjective recognition of such benefits and greater certainty that one possesses them but also, in some way, the objective reception of these benefits through the sacrament that provides the ground for such assurance. This reading would be consistent with Calvin’s earlier insistence that the sacraments actually present or hold out to us Christ and his benefits. How we parse Calvin’s interpretation of these two passages in Acts might affect how we then read the other Scripture texts that he cites in the 1536 Institutes on the benefits of baptism. When he says, for example, that our mortification begins “with” our baptism and that it is “through” baptism that we become participants in Christ’s death (Romans 6:3–​4),66 he might mean that at and through baptism we receive a greater assurance of the mortification and participation in Christ’s death that we already enjoy by faith. Moreover, for Paul to say that we are cleansed “with the washing of water in the Word of life” (Ephesians 5:26) or that God “saved us . . . through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5) could mean that in baptism we receive a greater awareness and assurance of the cleansing and renewal that God has effected within us.67 And to be clothed with or “put on” Christ “in” baptism (Galatians 3:26–​27)68 might suggest that the sacrament provides us with a greater certainty of the spiritual bond with Christ and all his benefits that we already have through faith. Like Cornelius and Paul in their appropriation of forgiveness, we do not seek a more ample mortification or union with Christ in our baptisms but only what Calvin calls a “surer exercise of faith.”69 But it is also possible that Calvin is reading these texts through the lens in Acts 22:16 of “receive it, and be secure.” His point then is that in and through baptism we are not only assured of our participation in Christ and our mortification and renewal but actually encounter and embrace those benefits more deeply as by faith we are drawn into closer union with Christ.

The 1536 Institutes  33

Assessment As we saw in c­ hapter 1, most of the scholars who have taken a developmental approach to Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments claim that the 1536 Institutes rejected the instrumental character of baptism. As primary evidence of this, Hartvelt, Davis, Janse, Zachman, and McKee all pointed to the following key pronouncement by Calvin on baptism:70 For the Lord was pleased to represent [spiritual things] by such figures—​not because such graces are bound and enclosed in the sacrament or because the sacrament is an organ and instrument [organum ac instrumentum] to confer them upon us, but only because the Lord by this token attests his will toward us.71

For Hartvelt this indicated that at this stage of his thinking, at least, Calvin “denies the instrumental character of the sacraments.”72 Davis applied this assertion about baptism to Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist and concluded that “Calvin explicitly denied the instrumental function of the Eucharist in 1536.”73 Janse called Calvin’s statement “Zwinglianizing and negative” in the sense that for Calvin in the mid-​1530s “the sacrament is not an instrument by which God’s grace is conferred to us.”74 Zachman maintained that in this quotation “Calvin once again denies that baptism itself is an ‘organ or instrument’ by which the gifts of God are bestowed on us; instead, it is a pledge by which the will of the Lord is attested to us.”75 And McKee simply stated that “in the course of the discussion of baptism in 1536, Calvin denied that baptism is an instrument of grace,” noting that in 1539 the phrase rejecting a sacrament as an “organ and instrument” would disappear from the Institutes.76 What we have seen in c­hapter  4 of the 1536 Institutes, however, only partly supports these conclusions. In one respect, these scholars are correct. As Calvin states in his dedicatory letter to King Francis I, he composed the 1536 Institutes not only as a catechetical manual or instructional tool for his fellow French Protestants but also as an apology for the Protestant faith in the face of Roman Catholic charges of innovation, heresy, and sedition. In responding to these charges, he sought to distinguish his own community of reform from the Anabaptists, with whom the whole of French Protestantism was sometimes being identified. But he was even more keen to point out differences with Catholic teachings and practices, baptismal salvation among them.77 It was within this polemical framework that he employed the term

34  Font of Pardon and New Life “instrument” in a negative sense. His statement that baptism should not be regarded as “an organ and instrument [organum ac instrumentum]”78 of the gifts of salvation must be read as part of a sharp attack on the Catholic view of baptism, in which, according to Calvin, the physical elements and spiritual graces of the sacrament are so identified with each other that the baptismal water itself is seen to contain those graces and to become the “instrument” by which they are conveyed. To be sure, God represents heavenly realities in earthly forms, and we should “see and ponder spiritual things in [the] physical,” but the spiritual and physical aspects of the sacrament are related only by way of “analogy or similitude”: it is the Lord who does these things “for our soul within as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water.”79 Calvin’s criticism of the Catholics here echoes his insistence earlier in the section on baptism that the water of the sacrament does not save us: water is not the “instrument” (instrumentum) of spiritual washing, and the sacrament is not the “cause” of our salvation.80 Indeed, as we have seen, water baptism for Calvin has no efficacy apart from the promises to which it is connected, the faith by which its benefits are appropriated, and the Spirit by whom we are prepared to receive those benefits. To use Ganoczy’s phrase, this “implacable aversion to anything that seemed to bind grace to ‘carnal elements’ ”81 could be evidence of what Janse called a “Zwinglianizing” tendency in Calvin’s early sacramental theology. But Calvin seems less intent here on defending a Zwinglian viewpoint than on attacking the Catholic notion that there is something inherently efficacious in the baptismal water.82 That is the sense in which he denies that baptism is an “instrument” of grace. However, this repudiation of baptism as an instrument in the Roman Catholic sense does not mean that Calvin denied its instrumentality altogether. As we have seen, he also uses the terms “means and instruments” in a positive way in the 1536 Institutes in his treatment of the sacraments in general. In response to the objection that he ascribes too much glory and power to the sacraments themselves and not enough to God, he replies that God is a God who does not hesitate to use such “means and instruments” (mediis ac instrumentis) as he deems expedient in the service of his glory. For example, God disseminates the blessings of physical nourishment, light, and heat to us “by [the] instruments” (sub . . . instrumentis) of food, sun, and fire. Calvin then adds, “In like manner [ita], he nourishes faith spiritually through the sacraments.” Like the other creaturely phenomena that Calvin uses for comparison, sacraments too, he implies, are instruments “through

The 1536 Institutes  35 whose ministry [God] lavishes the gifts of his bounty upon us.”83 In this passage, the connotation of the term “instrument” is different because the context is different. When attacking the Roman Catholic view of baptism, Calvin rejected the idea of baptism as an instrument in the sense of its being a container or cause of salvation, efficacious in itself and disconnected from the action of God. However, when responding to the charge that he himself is too “Catholic” by attributing too much power to the sacraments, he does not hesitate to describe the sacraments as instruments in the sense of their being tools or implements in the hands of God that God employs to distribute his gifts. If, then, as early as 1536 Calvin described the sacraments as instruments not just negatively but also in a positive sense, how exactly did he understand this positive instrumental role? To use a distinction that Sue Rozeboom introduced in relation to Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, are they only “instruments communicating a ‘testimony’ of God’s grace” or also “ ‘instruments’ communicating the grace of Christ” itself?84 Or, in Davis’s terms, is a sacrament only “an instrument by which the Christian . . . knows the goodness of God in a way most fully accommodated to the weakness of the faithful,” or also “an instrument by which the Christian . . . is joined to Christ” himself in deeper union?85 We have seen in this chapter that the 1536 Institutes definitely and predominantly portrays baptism as an instrument of knowledge, testimony, and assurance. For Calvin it is a means by which God represents and attests to the benefits of forgiveness, new life, and union with Christ, and thereby sustains and increases our faith. Even in the key sentence in which he denies that the baptismal water itself is the “instrument” of our cleansing and renewal, he can still say that “in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts.”86 At the same time, however, we detected some hints in this first edition of the Institutes that Calvin viewed baptism not exclusively as an instrument of testimony but also as an instrument of grace or salvation, a means by which Christ and his benefits themselves are communicated to the believer. In the introductory section of c­ hapter 4, he speaks of the sacraments as “holding forth /​presenting” (exhibere), “setting forth” (proponere), and “offering” (offerre) Christ and his benefits to us.87 In light of parallel statements in the section on the Lord’s Supper later in that chapter, these expressions should most likely be understood as referring to the presence of Christ in both sacraments in his unbounded power and influence, something Calvin learned not from Zwingli but from Luther and Melanchthon.88 Furthermore,

36  Font of Pardon and New Life in the following section on baptism, Calvin’s explanation of the baptisms of Cornelius and Paul could be interpreted to suggest that it is the actual participation in Christ and his benefits offered in baptism that enhances the believer’s assurance. In effect, Ananias was saying to Paul, in baptism “receive it [forgiveness], and be secure.”89 Calvin never explicitly states how sign and signified are connected here, but he does imply that somehow Christ is present and communicated to us in baptism and that there we are drawn into closer union with him and his benefits. In sum, the claims that Calvin denied the instrumental character of baptism in his first edition of the Institutes and that this period constituted a “Zwinglianizing” phase in the development of his doctrine of baptism require some refinement. He certainly rejected the Roman Catholic notion of baptism as an instrument of grace ex opere operato, but he still viewed the sacrament positively as an instrument of knowledge, testimony, and assurance. Moreover, by adopting a Melanchthonian concept of the exhibitio of Christ and his benefits in the sacraments, he seems to have regarded baptism, in some sense at least, as an instrument of grace as well. Rather than manifesting “Zwinglianizing” tendencies, Calvin seems here to be directly challenging the Zwinglian views of some of his unnamed opponents. In this first stage of development in his doctrine of baptism, therefore, Calvin steers well clear of the pole of Catholic “sacramental realism” but not as close to the pole of “pure symbolism” as some past scholarship has led us to believe.90

Notes 1. Wulfert de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, Expanded Edition:  An Introductory Guide, trans. Lyle D. Bierma (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 182. 2. Ibid., 87; CO 1:102:  “Est autem signum externum, quo bonam suam erga nos voluntatem Dominus nobis repraesentat ac testificatur, ad sustinendam fidei nostrae imbecillitatem. Definiri quoque aliter potest, ut vocetur:  testimonium gratiae Dei, externo symbolo nobis declaratum.” 3. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87. 4. Ibid., 92. 5. Ibid., 87, 88, 91. 6. Ibid., 90. 7. Ibid.,  93–​94. 8. Ibid., 91, 93–​94. 9. Ibid., 87; CO 1:102.

The 1536 Institutes  37 10. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90; CO 1:105:  “Hoc duntaxat dicimus:  Deum mediis ac instrumentis, quae expedire ipse prospicit, uti, ut eius gloriae omnia obsequantur, quando omnium ipse Dominus est et arbiter. Ergo, ut per panem caeteraque alimenta, corpora nostra pascit; ut per solem mundum illuminat; ut per ignem calefacit, nec tamen aut panis, aut sol, aut ignis aliquid sunt, nisi quatenus sub iis instrumentis benedictiones suas nobis dispensat: ita spiritualiter per sacramenta fidem alit quorum unicum officium est, Dei promissiones oculis nostris spectandas subiicere. Et ut nostrum est, in caeteris creaturis (quae bona Dei voluntate usibus nostris destinatae sunt, quarumque ministerio bonitatis suae munera nobis largitur) nihil fiduciae defigere, nec quasi boni nostri causas, admirari et praedicare; ita neque in sacramentis haerere fiducia nostra debet, nec Dei gloria in ipsa transferri.” 11. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87. 12. Ibid.,  88. 13. Ibid., 93–​94; CO 1:109. Battles translates documentum as “token,” but the term has a more pedagogical or didactic force of “a lesson, example, instance, pattern, warning, evidence, proof, specimen.” Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary, 1890 ed., s.v. “documentum.” 14. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88, 90. 15. Ibid., 87; CO 1:102. 16. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88; CO 1:103. 17. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87. 18. Ibid., 87, 89. 19. Ibid., 92, 93; CO 1:107, 109. 20. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88, 92. 21. Ibid.,  87. 22. Ibid., 91; CO 1:106, 107. 23. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90. 24. Ibid., 87, 89, 91–​92; CO 1:107. 25. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90. 26. Ibid.,  88. 27. Ibid.,  89. 28. Ibid.,  91. 29. Ibid., 90. Calvin is presumably thinking here of Zwingli and his followers. Cf. Battles’s notes on “ensign” and “clearer” in ibid., 275. 30. Ibid.,  90–​91. 31. Ibid.,  90. 32. “In such passages, Calvin intimates that the Holy Spirit is active with respect to the communication, or impartation, of what the sacrament grants, which is, preeminently, a testimony of God’s good will.” Sue A. Rozeboom, “The Provenance of John Calvin’s Emphasis on the Role of the Holy Spirit regarding the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2010), 44. 33. Ibid.,  93. 34. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88, 91; CO 1:103, 107. 35. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 91, 93; CO 1:106, 108.

38  Font of Pardon and New Life 36. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 89. 37. Ibid.,  93. 38. Ibid., 91; CO 1:106. 39. These passages are cited by Richard A. Muller, “From Zurich or from Wittenberg? An Examination of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought,” Calvin Theological Journal 45/​2 (November 2010): 243–​55, here 249. 40. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 103; CO 1:119. 41. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 107; CO 1:123. 42. Lewis, Elementary Latin Dictionary, s.v. exhibeo; Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, 1879 ed., s.v. exhibeo; Muller, “From Zurich,” 248. 43. Muller, “From Zurich,” 249. 44. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 91; CO 1:106. 45. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 91, 93; CO 1:107, 108. While repraesentare can mean simply “represent,” “depict,” or “display,” it also has a primary sense of “make present,” “bring before one,” or “bring back.” Lewis, Elementary Latin Dictionary, s.v. repraesento; Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, s.v. repraesento; Muller, “From Zurich,” 248. 46. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94; CO 1:109. 47. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94. 48. Ibid., 94, 95, 98; CO 1:111, 114. 49. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94. 50. Ibid.,  95. 51. Ibid.,  96. 52. Ibid.,  98. 53. Ibid.,  87. 54. Ibid., 94 (italics added). 55. Ibid.,  95. 56. Ibid., 95; CO 1:111. 57. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 98; CO 1:114. 58. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 95; CO 1:111. 59. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 98; CO 1:114. 60. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94. 61. Ibid., 94–​95; CO 1:110:  “Non enim significare voluit ille, ablutionem et salutem nostram intercedente aqua perfici, aut aquam purgandi, regenerandi, renovandi instrumentum esse; neque hic, salutis causam, sed duntaxat talium donorum cognitionem et certitudinem in hoc sacramento percipi.” 62. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 95. 63. Ibid., 99; CO 1:115:  “Isthaec enim, sive analogia, sive similitudo, certissima est sacramentorum regula: ut in rebus corporeis spirituales conspiciamus ac cogitemus, quando istiusmodi figuris repraesentare Domino visum est. Non quia sacramento tales gratiae illigatae inclusaeque sint, aut quod sacramentum organum ac instrumentum sit, quo nobis conferantur, sed duntaxat, quia hac tessera voluntatem suam nobis Donimus testificatur, nempe: se haec omnia nobis velle largiri.” 64. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99; CO 1:115:  “Huius documentum sit Cornelius (Act. 10) centurio, qui peccatorum remissione, qui gratiis spiritus sancti visibilibus iam

The 1536 Institutes  39 antea donatus, baptisatus est; non largiorem remissionem e baptismo petens, sed certiorem fidei exercitationem. Obiecerit forte aliquis:  cur igitur Paulo dicebat Ananias (Act. 22), ut peccata sua per baptismum ablueret, si baptismo peccata non abluuntur. Respondeo:  Dicimur accipere, obtinere, impetrare, quod nobis a Deo datum credimus, sive id tum primum agnoscimus, sive prius agnitum certius persuasum habemus. Hoc itaque tantum vuluit Ananias: ut certus sis Paule, remissa tibi esse peccata, baptisare. Promittit enim Dominus in baptismo remissionnem peccatorum, hanc accipe et securus esto.” 65. See  n. 65. 66. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 98, 95. 67. Ibid., 94–​95: “For Paul did not mean to signify [in Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5] that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water intervening, or that water is itself the instrument to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; or that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts.” 68. Ibid.,  98. 69. Ibid.,  99. 70. Gerrit Pieter Hartvelt, Verum Corpus: Een Studie over een Centraal Hoofdstuk uit de Avondmaalsleer van Calvijn (Delft: Meinema, 1960), 78; Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 11–​12 n. 15; Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 38; Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 170; McKee, Pastoral Ministry, 398–​99. 71. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99; CO 1:115. 72. Hartvelt, Verum Corpus, 78:  “Calvijn het instrumenteel karakter der sacramenten ontkent.” 73. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 94 n. 59. 74. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 38, 39. Cf. Gerrish, “Children of Grace,” 112:  “But [Calvin] speaks [in the 1536 Institutes] as if even the primary end of Baptism, the ‘confirmation of faith,’ itself remains tied to the past tense: the purpose of the Sacrament is to assure us that we really have received the things promised in the gospel, such as the forgiveness of our sins. To this extent, his interpretation of Baptism coincides with Zwingli’s characteristic teaching that a sacrament is a sign of past grace (factae gratiae signum).” 75. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 170. 76. McKee, Pastoral Ministry, 399. 77. See Battles’s introduction in Calvin, Institutes (1536), xlv–​xlviii. Cf. also David F. Wright, “Development and Coherence in Calvin’s Institutes: The Case of Baptism (Institutes 4:15–​16), in Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe:  Essays in Honour of Brian G.  Armstrong, ed. Mack P. Holt (Aldershot:  Ashgate, 2007), 48: “Yet the brevity of attention paid to infant baptism in the 1536 treatment rules out Anabaptism as his chief concern, while several elements plainly identify the Old Church as the opposition: the misconception, responsible for multiple abuses, that baptism cleansed only from past sins, the extravagant claim that baptism delivered entirely from original sin, the ‘theatrical pomp’ and ‘outlandish defilements’ which cluttered up a simple rite, and above all the pervasive stress on the necessity of faith.” 78. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99; CO 1:115.

40  Font of Pardon and New Life 79. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99. 80. Ibid., 94–​95; CO 1:110. He makes the same point in the 1537/​1538 catechism, using the French word instrument and the Latin efficacia. See n. 75. 81. Alexandre Ganoczy, The Young Calvin, trans. David Foxgrover and Wade Provo (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 237. 82. Cf. Hartvelt, Verum Corpus, 78:  “Hij [Calvin] richt zich daar alleen nog maar polemisch tegen hen die de genade insluiten in de sacramenten, zo, dat deze uit eigen kracht de genade zouden mededelen.” It is interesting to note that Battles translates “Non enim significare voluit ille  .  .  .  aquam purgandi, regenerandi, renovandi instrumentum esse” (CO 1:110) as “For Paul did not mean to signify . . . that water is itself the instrument to cleanse, regenerate, and renew” (Calvin, Institutes [1536], 94; emphasis added). The intensive “itself ” is not in the original text, but in the context it does seem to be implied. 83. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90; CO 1:105. 84. Rozeboom, “Calvin’s Emphasis,” 43 n. 122. 85. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 214. 86. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94–​95 (emphasis added). Cf. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 34 (COR 3/​2:96, 97). 87. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 91, 93; CO 1:106, 108. 88. On Luther’s influence, see Ganoczy, Young Calvin, 140–​ 41; on Melanchthon’s, see Muller, “From Zurich,” 243–​55. On Luther’s influence on the sacramental theology of the 1536 Institutes more generally, see Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition,  41–​44. 89. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99. 90. The terminology of “sacramental realism” and “pure symbolism” is from Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 38. Zwingli’s view of the sacraments, of course, cannot be reduced to “pure symbolism.” For a more nuanced treatment of his sacramental theology, see W. P. Stephens, Zwingli:  An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 76–​110, and Johannes Voightländer, Ein Fest der Befreiung:  Huldrych Zwinglis Abendmahlslehre (Neukirchen-​Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 2013).

3 Works from Calvin’s First Period in Geneva and the Strasbourg Interlude (1536–​41) The three works under study in this chapter, Calvin’s 1537/​1538 catechism, 1539 Institutes, and commentary on Romans (1540), were all published during his first ministry stint in Geneva (1536–​38) and the three-​year interlude in Strasbourg following his expulsion from Geneva in 1538. This was a critical stage in Calvin’s maturation as a theologian, as he delved for the first time into daily pastoral responsibilities in congregations in Geneva and Strasbourg.1 It was also an important period in his methodological development, as he moved from a basic catechetical approach to theology in the 1536 Institutes to a broadening and reordering of theological topics in the catechism of 1537/​1538, and finally to a separating out of the theological loci that emerged from his biblical exegesis, as first evidenced in the 1539 Institutes and commentary on Romans.2 Most of the scholars who have advocated a developmental approach to Calvin’s understanding of the sacraments contend that these years, particularly his time in Strasbourg, represent a new stage in his sacramental thinking. Riggs, for example, argued that Anabaptist charges of laxity in the Strasbourg church led Calvin to a greater emphasis on the Zwinglian concept of sacraments as public declarations of faith.3 Janse saw the impact on Calvin of the efforts of Martin Bucer, the Strasbourg reformer and Calvin’s mentor, to reach a consensus on the sacraments with the Lutherans. In part because of Bucer’s influence, says Janse, Calvin moved into a new “Luther friendly” phase in his sacramental thought, best exemplified, perhaps, by his leaving out of the 1539 Institutes the key reference in the 1536 edition to the noninstrumental character of the sacraments.4 Davis noted new material in 1539 on the role of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, and he, too, found evidence of a more positive approach to sacramental instrumentality in both the 1539 Institutes and Calvin’s commentary on Romans. Indeed, Davis concluded, it was in the Institutes of 1539 that Calvin made clear for the first time that the Spirit is engaged in a twofold sacramental action (at least in the Lord’s Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0003.

42  Font of Pardon and New Life Supper), employing the sacrament as an instrument both of knowledge and of grace.5 The one exception to this perspective was Zachman, who claimed that Calvin’s writings from this period actually show little change in his understanding of baptism compared with the period before: “At this point in his career, baptism does not offer what it represents, nor does God act through baptism as through an instrument to effect in us what baptism represents and offers to us.”6 It is not until the 1545 Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Zachman asserts, that any real change in Calvin’s view of baptismal efficacy can be detected.7 In this chapter I will be taking a different tack from these earlier scholars, arguing that although Calvin does use the term “instrument” and its synonyms more positively during this period than he had before, his overall approach to baptismal efficacy in these three works stands in essential continuity with the Institutes of 1536.

Catechism of 1537/​1538 Calvin’s first catechism of 1537/​15388 was composed in response to a mandate in the 1537 “Articles concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship at Geneva” that a simple summary of the Christian faith be prepared for the religious instruction of children.9 A French edition (Instruction et Confession de Foy) and Latin edition (Catechismus seu christianae religionis institutio) were published in 1537 and 1538, respectively, but which of the two Calvin wrote first has been a matter of some debate.10 The contents of the catechism generally follow the 1536 Institutes,11 although eight of the catechism’s thirty-​three sections did not appear in the Institutes as distinct topics.12 Despite this overlap in content, the three short sections near the end of the catechism, entitled “The Sacraments,” “What a Sacrament Is,” and “Baptism,” portray baptism exclusively as a means of assurance, never a means of salvation. In the first of these sections, Calvin emphasizes once again the precedence, both in time and in importance, of the divine promises to which the sacraments are attached. The material elements are not endowed with the spiritual realities of these promises; they only display such realities in physical form for our contemplation. Their purpose is to shore up weak and ignorant faith by confirming and sealing those promises and making us more aware of God’s provision for us.13 In the second section (“What a Sacrament Is”) Calvin repeats nearly verbatim the two definitions of sacrament in the 1536 Institutes: “A sacrament is

Works from Calvin’s First Period  43 therefore an outward sign by which the Lord represents and attests to us his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith. Or putting it more briefly and sharply: it is a testimony of God’s grace, declared [to us] by an outward sign.”14 Sacraments signify and seal God’s gifts of salvation to us and proclaim his grace, but, once again, there is nothing here that suggests that they serve as instruments for actually conveying those blessings. The third section is a very brief and selective abridgement of Calvin’s treatment of baptism in the 1536 Institutes, so it is hardly surprising that here, too, he focuses on baptism as a means of knowledge and assurance of salvation, not as a means of salvation itself. Baptism only “represents” to us the cleansing (forgiveness) that we obtain through the blood of Christ and the mortification that is ours through his death.15 When the Lord commanded us to be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38), and when Paul taught that the church has been cleansed by the washing of water (Ephesians 5:26) and baptized into Christ’s death so as to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3–​4), “These words do not signify that the cause or effective working of cleansing or regeneration inheres in the water, but only that the knowledge of such gifts is received in this sacrament.” That is what Scripture means “when we are said to receive, obtain, get [in baptism] what we believe to have been given us by the Lord.”16 The last clause is a nearly identical extract from what we earlier highlighted as a crucial sentence in the Institutes in Calvin’s interpretation of Acts 22:16. In the catechism, however, Calvin does not link this clause either to the narrative of Paul’s baptism in Acts 22 or to the baptismal benefit of forgiveness alone. Rather he gives it a broader scope than in the Institutes, using it now to explain all the texts that he paraphrases from Jesus and Paul and tying it to the benefits of mortification and renewal as well. He makes absolutely clear in the catechism that, just as with forgiveness, references in Scripture to receiving the benefits of mortification and new life in baptism mean only that we gain a greater certainty of our hold on blessings that we already enjoy by faith. As in the Institutes, Calvin goes on to complete the sentence just cited by adding the clause “whether at the time we first acknowledge it, or are more surely persuaded of it as previously acknowledged.” In the Institutes it is not clear from the way the sentence is constructed whether “the time we first acknowledge it” refers to a time before baptism or to baptism itself. In the catechism’s rendition of the sentence, however, there is no question that Calvin means that baptism itself can be the occasion for a person’s first

44  Font of Pardon and New Life recognition of God’s benefits of salvation. This would confirm the second of the two paraphrases of the 1536 version of this sentence that we suggested earlier: “We are said in Scripture to receive, obtain, and acquire the forgiveness that we believe has been given to us by God, whether baptism is the first time we recognize such forgiveness or, as in the examples of Cornelius and Paul, it is the occasion for becoming more certain of the forgiveness that we had recognized earlier.” It is evident from the catechism that in both cases, and not just in the latter, baptism functions as a means of assurance. Even though Calvin’s first catechism reflects the emphasis in the 1536 Institutes on the sacraments as means of knowledge and certainty, it is striking that it retains only one of the six depictions of sacraments as instruments, organs, or means, and that that one reference appears only in the French text. To be sure, Calvin still uses the ablative of means when he defines sacraments as signs “by which” (quo) the Lord acts and as testimonies declared “by an outward sign” (externo symbolo).17 But his positive statements in the Institutes that God uses “means and instruments” (mediis ac instrumentis) as he deems expedient, that God distributes natural blessings to us “by . . . instruments” (sub . . . instrumentis), and that “in like manner” (ita) God nourishes our faith “through the sacraments” (per sacramenta) are not found in the catechism.18 Missing, too, however, is the negative use of the instrumental word pair that Calvin had used to deny that baptism is “an organ and instrument” (organum ac instrumentum) of the spiritual graces represented there.19 The only “instrumental” passage from the Institutes that comes over into the catechism retains the term instrument in the French text but renders it as efficacia in the Latin version: 1536 Institutes: For Paul did not mean to signify that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water intervening, or that water is itself the instrument [instrumentum] to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; or that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts.20 1537 (French) catechism: These words do not signify that the water is the cause or even the instrument [instrument] of cleansing and regeneration, but only that the knowledge of such gifts is received in this sacrament.21 1538 (Latin) catechism: These words do not signify that the cause or effective working [efficaciam] of cleansing or regeneration inheres in the water, but only that the knowledge of such gifts is received in this sacrament.22

Works from Calvin’s First Period  45 In this catechetical abridgement of the Institutes, therefore, both the positive and negative uses of “instrument” and its synonyms are omitted, with the single exception of one negative carryover in the French text. Finally, nowhere in the catechism of 1537/​1538 do we find any of the hints from the Institutes that the sacraments are also, in some way, instruments of grace, means by which the blessings of salvation are actually communicated to the believer. In the Institutes Calvin had described the sacraments in general as “holding forth /​presenting” (exhibere), “setting forth” (proponere), and “offering” (offerre) Christ and his benefits to us “as if he were present” (velut praesentem),23 which, in light of parallel statements in the section on the Lord’s Supper later in the work, likely refer to the presence of Christ in both of the sacraments in his uncircumscribed power and influence. None of this language is repeated in the catechism. To be sure, in the catechism’s article on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin states that under the symbols of bread and wine “the Lord exhibits the true communication of his body and blood—​but a spiritual one” (veram corporis ac sanguinis sui communicationem Dominus exhibit sed spiritualem),24 and that “Christ with all his riches is shown [exhiberi] to us, just as if he, present [non secus ac si praesens], were set before our gaze and were touched with his hands.”25 This is language we had encountered before in the Institutes. But unlike the Institutes, there is no parallel language in the catechism’s introductory sections on the sacraments in general that would allow us to infer that baptism, too, is in some way an instrument of salvation. The only catechetical echo of such language is in the section on baptism itself, where Calvin asserts that faith embraces the promise by which God the Father “offers the communication of his Christ” [Christi sui communicationem offert].”26 However, Calvin does not directly connect this offering of Christ and his benefits to baptism, nor does he suggest that we encounter Christ at the baptismal font as if he himself were present. Calvin only makes a general statement that the Father offers the communication of Christ in a promise that is to be appropriated by faith. The role that Calvin ascribes to baptism here is to provide us with a knowledge of the benefits that are ours when we exercise such faith.

1539 Institutes Calvin edited and published his second Latin edition of the Institutes (1539) in Strasbourg during his three-​year stay there, but he had already

46  Font of Pardon and New Life done much of the work on it in 1538 during a three-​month sojourn in Basel after his banishment from Geneva. His French translation appeared in 1541. In this 1539/​1541 version he retained all the material from the 1536 edition but considerably revised and expanded it by dividing two of the original six chapters, including the chapter on the sacraments, into three chapters each, and adding seven entirely new ones. The Institutes now comprised seventeen chapters in all. The 1539/​1541 edition also appeared in a different genre and had a different purpose and audience than either the 1536 Institutes or the first catechism: it was redesigned as a kind of loci communes to be used in the theological training of candidates for ordained ministry.27 If we were to compare Calvin’s view of baptismal efficacy in the 1536 and 1539 Institutes strictly on the basis of the number of times he employs the terms instrumentum, organum, and media, we might conclude that he was less of an “instrumentalist” in 1539 than he had been three years before. Of the six occurrences of these terms in the first edition, only three remain in 1539. What is striking about this difference, however, is that all three positive uses in the 1536 edition are retained, while the three negative uses are gone. Calvin carries over the passage from 1536 where he states with approval that just as God uses “means and instruments” (mediis ac instrumentis) to achieve his ends and distributes natural blessings to us “by . . . instruments” (sub . . . instrumentis),28 he also supplies spiritual nourishment to faith “in like manner” (ita) through the sacraments.29 However, Calvin no longer employs the term “instrument” in a negative way as part of his critique of Roman Catholic baptism. For example, in his interpretation of Paul’s reference in Titus 3:5 to baptism as the “washing of regeneration and renewal,” he replaces “instrument” with “power”: 1536 Institutes: For Paul did not mean to signify that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water intervening, or that water is itself the instrument [instrumentum] to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; nor that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts.30 1539 Institutes: For Paul did not mean to signify that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water, or that water contains in itself the power [virtutem in se continere] to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; nor that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts.31

Works from Calvin’s First Period  47 Furthermore, in revising the passage from the 1536 Institutes most often cited by scholars as evidence of Calvin’s rejection of the sacraments as instruments, he abandons the phrase “organ and instrument” and again replaces it with the single word “power”:32 1536 Institutes: For the Lord was pleased to represent [spiritual things] by such figures—​not because such graces are bound and enclosed in the sacrament or because the sacrament is an organ and instrument [organum ac instrumentum] to confer them upon us [quo nobis conferantur], but only because the Lord by this token attests his will toward us, namely, that he is pleased to lavish all these things upon us.33 1539 Institutes: For the Lord was pleased to represent [spiritual things] by such figures—​not because such graces are bound and enclosed in the sacrament, so as to be conferred upon us by its power [quo eius virtute nobis conferantur], but only because the Lord by this token attests his will toward us, namely, that he is pleased to lavish all these things upon us.34

It should be noted that “power” is also Calvin’s negative term of choice in the passage in the 1536/​1539 Institutes where he speaks of “means and instruments” positively:  “We place no power [virtutem] in creatures.  .  .  . [but] God uses means and instruments which he himself sees to be expedient.”35 Material things have no efficacy in and of themselves, but God can use them as tools to fulfill his purposes. This substitution of “power” for “instrument” in the preceding quotations, therefore, does not necessarily represent a shift to a more positive view of sacramental instrumentality than before, since the two terms are used synonymously in the same contexts, and since already in 1536 Calvin had viewed the sacraments as, in some sense, positive instruments in the hands of God. Instead he might be trying here to eliminate any confusion that the word “instrument” might have created when used in both positive and negative senses in the same general context. In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin had not only used the word “power” synonymously with “instrument” in a negative sense, he had also employed “ministry” as a virtual synonym for “instrument” in a positive sense. Just as “by instruments” (instrumentis) of food, sun, and fire God distributes the physical blessings of nourishment, light, and warmth, in a similar manner (ita) he nourishes our faith “through the sacraments” (per sacramenta). And just as we ought not to put our confidence in the created things “by whose ministry”

48  Font of Pardon and New Life (quarumque ministerio) God lavishes his bounty upon us, so also (ita) our confidence ought not to rest in the sacraments themselves.36 This whole passage, as we have seen, remained intact in the 1539 Institutes, but Calvin also added a new section on the role of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments in which he elaborates on this distinction between sacramental “power” and sacramental “ministry”: 1539 Institutes: As to the confirmation and increase of faith . . . I should therefore like my readers to be reminded that I assign this particular ministry [ministerium] to the sacraments. Not that I suppose there is some secret force [vim] or other perpetually sealed in them by which they are able to promote or confirm faith by themselves. . . . But the sacraments properly fulfill their office only when the Spirit, that inward teacher, comes to them, by whose power [virtute] alone hearts are penetrated and affections moved and our souls opened for the sacraments to enter in. . . . Therefore, I make such a division between Spirit and sacraments that the power to act [agenda virtus] rests with the former, and the ministry alone [ministerium duntaxat] is left to the latter—​a ministry empty and trifling, apart from the action of the Spirit, but charged with great effect [multae energiae] when the Spirit works within and manifests his power [vim].37

We also find this distinction and vocabulary in a couple of sentences that Calvin inserts in another section on the sacraments in 1539: 1539 Institutes: We do not deny that God himself is present in his institution by the very-​present power [virtute] of his Spirit. Nevertheless, that the administration of the sacraments which he has ordained may not be unfruitful and void, we declare that the inner grace of the Spirit, as distinct from the outward ministry [ministerio], ought to be considered and pondered separately.38

The contrast that we noted in the 1536 Institutes between sacraments as instruments that God uses to dispense certain gifts, on the one hand, and those that by themselves can bestow these gifts, on the other, is now recast in terms of “ministry” and “power.” By the “ministry” of the sacraments hearts are penetrated, souls are opened, and faith is confirmed and increased (positive instrumentality of assurance). In one instance, Calvin even replaces the word “ministry” (ministerium), which is found in a new section of the 1539 Latin text, with “instrument” (instrumens) in the French translation of this

Works from Calvin’s First Period  49 sentence two years later.39 But such a “ministry” or “instrument” is effective to confirm and increase faith not because spiritual “power” inheres in the sacraments themselves (negative instrumentality). That power belongs to the Holy Spirit alone, and the sacraments “are charged with great effect” only when Spirit exercises that power. When we look beyond the instrumental terminology to the ways in which the sacraments, particularly baptism, actually function instrumentally, we find that Calvin’s new material in the 1539/​1541 Institutes still portrays the sacraments as means of knowledge or assurance more than of salvation. He adds, for example, that in the Old Covenant era, Abraham’s circumcision (the Old Testament parallel to baptism) did not effect his justification but served only to seal a covenant in which he had already been justified through faith. The role of the sacraments is to represent and confirm God’s promises, support faith, and lead believers to contemplate the mysteries that lie hidden within them.40 Calvin also expands the line in the 1536 Institutes, “We have determined, therefore, that sacraments have been set forth by God in order to serve our faith, namely, to nourish, exercise, and increase it,” to “We have determined, therefore, that sacraments are truly named the testimonies of God’s grace and are like seals of the good will that he feels toward us, which by attesting that good will to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith” (1539 additions in italics).41 Finally, we have already seen how in a new section in 1539 on the role of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, Calvin speaks of the “ministry” of the sacraments as the confirmation and increase of faith. “Through the sacraments” (per sacramenta) the minds of the pious are “strengthened in faith.” It is, of course, fundamentally the work of the Holy Spirit “to conceive, sustain, nourish, and establish faith,” but when sacraments are accompanied by the Spirit’s power, “Nothing prevents them from strengthening and enlarging faith in hearts already taught by that Schoolmaster.”42 All this additional language of testifying, sealing, attesting, sustaining, confirming, strengthening, and enlarging elaborates on the role of sacraments as primarily means of assurance, God’s way of shoring up a weak faith. What, then, about the sacraments as means of salvation? Of course, the several indications in the 1536 Institutes that Calvin viewed the sacraments as means by which Christ and his benefits themselves are communicated to the believer are reiterated in the 1539 edition. The only new material in 1539 that seems to point in that direction is found in an added section on the similarity and dissimilarity of the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments located

50  Font of Pardon and New Life near the end of the chapter on the sacraments in general. There Calvin rejects what he claims is the medieval scholastic dogma that the sacraments of the Old Testament only foreshadowed the grace of God, whereas the sacraments of the New Testament “give it as a present reality” (gratiam . . . praesentam conferant). Paul makes very clear, says Calvin, that the covenant people of old ate the same spiritual food that we do today, namely, Christ (1 Corinthians 10:3). How dare these scholastics, then, “treat as an empty sign that which revealed [offered] the true communion of Christ to the Jews” (veram Christi communionem Iudaeis exhibebat)?43 Once again, Calvin highlights that the essential gift of the sacraments is Christ himself and that the sacraments “exhibit” true communion with Christ in the sense of actually offering or presenting such a benefit to us. Sacraments are not mere signs; they “give/​ confer” the spiritual food of Christ as a present reality. Here, as in the few passages in the 1536 Institutes that we examined earlier, Calvin narrows the gap between the sacramental sign and that which it signifies, a gap he had created earlier when challenging those who ascribe an efficacy to the sign itself, apart from the word, faith, and the power of the Holy Spirit. In a context now where he is challenging those who view the sacraments as mere signs, he resorts again to language that makes them sound, in some sense, like instruments of grace as well.

Commentary on Romans (1540) Calvin’s commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was published in three Latin editions during his lifetime, the first in 1540 and then revised and improved versions in 1551 and 1556.44 A complete French translation appeared in 1550. It is quite likely that Calvin was lecturing on Romans already during his first ministry stint in Geneva (autumn 1536 to Easter 1538) and that the 1540 commentary was a summary of these lectures that he began putting to paper in Geneva and completed in Strasbourg sometime before October 1539.45 This would mean that the contents of the commentary were roughly contemporaneous with those of the catechism of 1537/​ 1538 and the 1539 Institutes and that they provided part of the exegetical background for his recasting and expansion of the Institutes around the same time.46 One of the differences between the Romans commentary and Calvin’s other writings of this period is that he uses the word instrumentum to

Works from Calvin’s First Period  51 describe the mediational character not only of the sacraments but also of the gospel, the word, preaching, and faith. All of these uses are positive, and most refer to an instrumentality of the preaching of the gospel. For example, in his comments on Romans 1:16 (“For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth”), Calvin interprets the clause “for [the gospel] is the power of God unto salvation” to mean that in the gospel God’s saving power shines forth. To explain what that means, he then restates the point with the term “goodness” as a synonym for “power”:  “If goodness is worthy of being sought and loved by us, the Gospel is the instrument [instrumentum] of that goodness.” “Gospel” here, according to Calvin, is Paul’s shorthand for preaching, or “the ministry of the Word,” through which God works effectually “only when the Spirit shines in our hearts as the inward teacher.”47 What Calvin is implying here is that although gospel preaching does not by itself contain this salvific goodness or power, it does serve as a means by which God manifests such power. Calvin speaks of the instrumental character of the gospel, or preaching of the word, in other parts of the commentary as well. It is by the “instrument of preaching” (instrumento praedicationis) that God ordinarily, though not exclusively, imparts his Word and instills a knowledge of himself in his people.48 By itself preaching profits nothing, But when the Lord is pleased to work, it is the instrument [instrumentum] of his power. Certainly the human voice cannot by its own power penetrate into the soul. Too much honour would be paid to a mere mortal if it were said that he had power to regenerate us. . . . But all these things do not prevent God from acting effectually by the voice of man, so as to create faith in us by his ministry [italics added].49

Or again, preaching can accomplish nothing apart from the inward working of the Holy Spirit, but it does function as “an instrument for effecting the salvation of believers” (instrumentum esse peragendae fidelium salutis).50 And although Paul’s prayer in Romans 15:5 that “the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of the same mind” points to God alone as the author of these virtues of sanctification in us, still God “uses His Word as the instrument [velut instrumento] for accomplishing this object.”51 The instrumental role of the word, or preaching, for Calvin extends even to the faith that it engenders in its hearers. When Paul states in Romans 3:22 that our righteousness is rooted in Christ and appropriated by faith, he

52  Font of Pardon and New Life means that although Christ is the “substance” (materia) of our justification, “the Word, with faith, [is] the instrument [instrumentum]. Faith is therefore said to justify, because it is the instrument [instrumentum] by which we receive Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated to us.”52 And in an application of the Aristotelian fourfold causality to our justification just a few paragraphs later, Calvin identifies the mercy of God as the efficient cause of our righteousness, Christ and his blood as the material cause, the glory of God’s justice and goodness as the final cause, and “faith conceived by the Word” as the formal or instrumental (instrumentalem) cause.53 All of these nonsacramental uses of “instrument” help to provide context in the Romans commentary for the two places where Calvin talks about the role of the sacraments. First, in his exposition of Romans 4:11 (“And [Abraham] received the sign [of circumcision]”), Calvin notes that Paul seems to be anticipating an objection here that because the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision did not by itself justify Abraham or serve as the cause of his righteousness, it was therefore of no real benefit. On the contrary, says Calvin, it had “another very excellent office,” namely, to seal, ratify, and confirm the righteousness that Abraham had already obtained by faith before he was circumcised. And in that incident, he goes on to say, we have an illustration of the benefits of the sacraments in general: they seal God’s promises on our hearts and confirm the certainty of his grace. Even though “they accomplish nothing without the Spirit, nevertheless through them [per ipsa], as if by instruments [ceu instrumenta], God dispenses the power of his Spirit.”54 Calvin seems to understand them only as means of assurance here, but as in the 1536/​1539 Institutes, he actually employs the term “instrument” in a positive sense in reference to the sacraments. Second, in his explanation of what it means to be baptized into Christ Jesus and buried with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:3, 4), Calvin for the first time connects the grace figured in baptism very closely to the outward sign itself. What does Paul mean when “he establishes that we are baptized into participation in Christ”?55 According to Calvin, this means that “by baptism [per baptismum] we are admitted into participation in this grace,” that is, the grace by which the death of Christ works to destroy our depravity and his resurrection is working to renew us.56 To be sure, baptism is not rightly received “unless it is joined [iungatur] with the promises of God and their substance [quoque substantia].” But whenever Paul is addressing believers, “It is his custom to connect the reality and truth with the symbol” (rem et veritatem cum symbolo copulare).57 Where true faith is present, “We never

Works from Calvin’s First Period  53 have naked and empty symbols.” Only through human ingratitude and wickedness can the working (energiam) of the divine beneficence be impeded.58 Even though Calvin does not use instrumental terminology here, these are the most explicit statements so far in his works that baptism is not just an instrument of assurance but also an instrument of grace. Other passages have only hinted or implied that there is some kind of connection between the sign and that which it signifies. Here for the first time Calvin explicitly refers to such a bond: baptism is “joined” (iungatur) with the substance of God’s promises, and Paul “connects” (copulare) the sacramental symbol with its reality and truth.

Assessment One of the lines that Calvin added to the Institutes in 1539 nicely captures the balance he was seeking to achieve in his doctrine of the sacraments: “When [our] doctrine is taught concerning the sacraments, . . . nothing is given to them which should not be given, and conversely nothing taken away which belongs to them.”59 In other words, we should ascribe to the sacraments neither too little nor too much. They are more than empty signs but not self-​ contained vessels of salvation. They “confer” (conferant) the grace of God, but divine graces “are not conferred” (non . . . conferantur) by the sacraments’ own power.60 They are instruments both of assurance and of grace but never apart from the word, the Spirit, and faith. As we saw in the previous chapter, Calvin struck such a balance already in the 1536 Institutes by speaking of sacramental instrumentality in both negative and positive senses. His polemic against the Roman Catholic view of baptism as inherently salvific was counterbalanced by a nuanced doctrine of the sacraments in general and baptism in particular as instruments of knowledge and assurance and, in a sense that he did not precisely define, of salvation itself. The writings of this next period (1536–​41)—​Calvin’s catechism of 1537/​1538, the 1539 Institutes, and the commentary on Romans (1540)—​ maintain this balance by carrying over and reinforcing both the positive and negative material on instrumentality that we encountered in the Institutes of 1536. If we consider just Calvin’s use of instrumental terminology in the works from this second period, there is little evidence that by 1541 he had become more of an “instrumentalist” than he was in 1536. As we have seen, the 1536

54  Font of Pardon and New Life Institutes’ three positive uses of instrumentum (twice) and media (once) and three negative uses of instrumentum (twice) and organum (once) in connection with the sacraments all disappear in the 1538 Latin summary of the Institutes that came to be known as Calvin’s first catechism. We should probably not read too much into these omissions or regard them as evidence of a new direction in his baptismal theology, since almost all of this material from 1536 that is missing from the catechism was carried over into the second edition of the Institutes in 1539. This catechism was a highly condensed précis of the 1536 Institutes, and only a small fraction of the content of the one made its way into the other. Furthermore, the catechism had a different target audience: it was composed for the instruction of children, not adults, and thus would naturally include less technical theological language and explanations than the Institutes. Finally, when it came to the terminology itself, Calvin was quite even-​handed in leaving out of the catechism both the positive and negative uses of the terms “instrument,” “organ,” and “means.” One might wish to argue that the absence of negative uses of “instrument” in the catechism indicates a turn toward a more positive instrumental view of baptism after 1536. Indeed, in the one parallel passage where Calvin could have retained a negative use of “instrument” in his rejection of the Catholic view of baptism, he actually replaced it with the term efficacia (“effective working”). However, one could make just as strong a case for the opposite: the absence of such instrumental language in a positive sense could also suggest a more negative view of baptismal instrumentality in the catechism. Indeed, in the same passage where Calvin changes instrumentum in a negative sense to efficacia in the Latin catechism of 1538, he retains the cognate instrument in the French version of 1537. In the case of the 1539 Institutes, it is worth noting that only the positive uses of instrumentum and media are carried over from 1536. The two paragraphs in which the negative uses appeared in 1536 remain part of the text in 1539, but Calvin now conveys the negative sense of “instrument” with the synonym “power” (virtus). His criticism of the sacrament as an instrument in the Roman Catholic sense remains the same, but the terminology has changed. Furthermore, in those places where Calvin could have used instrumentum in a positive sense in the sections that he added in 1539, he employs the word ministerium instead.61 In the Romans commentary, finally, Calvin seems to be freer with the term instrumentum than in the other two works, employing it eight times—​all in a positive sense—​in reference to the gospel, the word, preaching, and faith.

Works from Calvin’s First Period  55 Surprisingly, he uses it only once in reference to the sacraments, and then somewhat obliquely:  God dispenses the power of the Spirit through the sacraments “as if by instruments” (ceu [per] instrumenta).62 On balance, then, the picture by 1541 is not much different from that in 1536. The catechism and commentary each employ instrumentum just one time in relation to the sacraments (organum and media are not mentioned at all), the catechism in a negative sense and the commentary positively. And although the 1539 Institutes carries over only the positive uses of these terms from 1536, it replaces the negative uses with a synonym that conveys the same idea. It also usually employs a different synonym in the new material of 1539 where it would have been appropriate to employ the older terms in a positive way. Another way of gauging whether Calvin was more of an “instrumentalist” in 1541 is to consider, in the works from this period, the relative weight he assigns to sacraments as means of knowledge/​assurance and as means of grace/​salvation. Is there any shift from the heavy emphasis in 1536 on what might be called a “subjective” view of instrumentality, where the sacraments serve to teach and assure us of the reality of certain spiritual blessings, to a more “objective” instrumentality, where the sacraments function as divine means of conveying those blessings themselves? Once again, the proportions remain largely the same as in 1536. In the catechism, first of all, Calvin is concerned only to challenge the Roman Catholic idea that the water of baptism is itself the cause or efficacious agent of our cleansing and regeneration. The role of the sacraments is to prop up weak faith, and baptism provides us with the knowledge and assurance that we possess such gifts. The same is largely true of the 1539 Institutes. As in the 1536 edition, Calvin places a strong emphasis on the sacraments in general and baptism in particular as means of assurance. In all the sentences or sections that he added in 1539, with one exception, the focus is on the sealing, sustaining, confirming, and strengthening of our faith. The one exception is in a new passage on the similarity and dissimilarity of the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments, where Calvin suggests that the sacraments of both testaments are not bare signs but “give [grace] as a present reality” by offering the true communion of Christ to the believer.63 Calvin does not use instrumental terminology here, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that in this passage he views the sacraments also as means of grace. Still, as in 1536, the proportion of “grace” passages to “assurance” passages in the 1539 Institutes is decidedly in favor of the latter.

56  Font of Pardon and New Life In the Romans commentary, which Calvin was preparing at about the same time as the first catechism and second edition of the Institutes, there is more of a balance between the two approaches to instrumentality. In the first of the two places in the commentary where he discusses the sacraments, he describes God’s dispensing of the Spirit’s power through them “as if by instruments” (ceu instrumenta), linking the term “instrument” to the sacraments in a positive way. But it is clear from the context that here he means instruments of assurance: the Spirit’s power that is dispensed through sacraments is a power to seal God’s promises in our hearts and confirm the certainty of his grace. In the second reference to the sacraments, however, Calvin for the first time explicitly ties the sign of baptism to the grace that it signifies, employing the verbs “join” (iungo) and “connect” (copulo) to describe the relationship between the outer sign and the inner “substance” (substantia), “reality” (rem), and “truth” (veritatem) of God’s promises. That substance or reality is the mortification and renewal that takes place when we are baptized into Christ.64 Even though Calvin does not use the term “instrument” in this passage, it is clearer here than in any of his writings so far that baptism, when attached to God’s promises and approached in faith, serves also a means by which the benefits of those promises are communicated to us. Baptism as an instrument of grace here is certainly consistent with those several passages elsewhere in the Romans commentary where, as we have seen, Calvin not only speaks of the gospel, the word, preaching, and faith as means of salvation but actually uses the term “instrument” to do so.65 Once again, then, the conclusions of previous scholarship on the development of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism as a means of grace require some modification. Zachman, for example, is correct in his conclusion that there was little change in Calvin’s doctrine of baptism from 1536 to 1541 but not in his claim that before 1541 Calvin had rejected a view of baptism as an instrument of grace. It is true that Calvin continued to reject the instrumentality of sacraments as independent vehicles of grace, but he also continued to suggest that they are more than just means of assurance. Janse and Davis, by contrast, were right about Calvin’s positive approach to sacramental instrumentality during this second period but not about this representing a significant shift from a noninstrumental position in the first edition of the Institutes. Already in 1536 Calvin was portraying the sacraments as instruments in both a negative and positive sense and as means of both assurance and grace, and this reappears in only slightly expanded form in his writings during the next period. There is indeed a shift in the 1539 Institutes and the Romans

Works from Calvin’s First Period  57 commentary to a more positive use of the term “instrument,” but Calvin’s denunciation of the idea of sacramental instrumentality in the negative sense remains unchanged from 1536 and is perhaps even stronger. The abandonment of the term in a negative sense might have been to avoid the confusion that both positive and negative uses of the same term might create. The omission of the negative uses in the 1539 Institutes might also reflect the influence of the Romans commentary, where Calvin had used the term “instrument” more often, in a wider variety of contexts, and always positively. It is also true that in the Romans commentary Calvin takes a major step forward in his doctrine of baptism as a means of grace by explicitly identifying a connection between the sign of baptism and that which it signifies. But such a step was limited to two passing references tucked away in his comments on Romans 6. Overall, the paucity of instrumental terminology, the fairly even balance between positive and negative references to the sacraments as instruments, and the much heavier emphasis on baptism as a means of assurance than as a means of salvation are much the same as we find them in the Institutes of 1536. To speak, therefore, of a shift in Calvin in this period from a more Zwinglian to a more Lutheran phase in his understanding of the sacraments, perhaps under the influence of Bucer in Strasbourg, is difficult to substantiate from his writings. As in the 1536 Institutes, he continues to steer a course that avoids primarily the shoals along the Roman Catholic shore, but also, to a lesser extent, those along the Zwinglian bank on the other side.

Notes 1. McKee, Pastoral Ministry, 397. 2. Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin:  Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 113–​89, 186–​87. 3. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 41–​44. McKee notes that “there were two fronts on which Protestants had to define their teaching and practice [of baptism]; in Geneva, the inherited weight of the Roman doctrine and tradition was stronger than Anabaptist challenges, but the reverse was true in Calvin’s Strasbourg congregation.” Pastoral Ministry, 391. Cf. also de Greef ’s observation that “from a chapter [in the 1539 Institutes] on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, a straightforward defense of infant baptism, and what he now writes about the church . . . it appears that in Strasbourg, Calvin had quite a bit of contact with Anabaptists. In order to become a citizen of the city, he had joined the tailors’ guild, to which a good number of Anabaptists belonged.” Writings of John Calvin, 186. Wendel (Calvin, 324), too, argues that “the continual attacks from the Anabaptists, the discussions that Calvin had with

58  Font of Pardon and New Life them in Geneva and then at Strasbourg, and finally a more attentive reading of Bucer’s writings, led Calvin to modify his exposition considerably, in and after the edition of 1539,” but he has in mind here primarily Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism. 4. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 38–​39; Janse, “Westphal and Calvin,” 16–​17. 5. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 107–​8. According to Davis, the former is emphasized in a new chapter on the sacraments in general and the latter in a new chapter on the Lord’s Supper. 6. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 170. 7. Ibid., 171. 8. The term “first catechism” is taken from the title of I. John Hesselink’s Calvin’s First Catechism:  A Commentary. Featuring Ford Lewis Battles’s Translation of the 1538 Catechism, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 1997). It is “first” in the sense that it was composed prior to his better-​known Catechism of the Church of Geneva of 1542/​1545. 9. De Greef, Writings of John Calvin, 116. 10. “Einleitung,” in COR 3/​2:XII–​XIV. 11. De Greef, Writings of John Calvin, 116. 12. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 120. 13. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 33, 34. 14. Ibid., 34; COR 3/​2:94. I have put “to us” (nobis) in brackets because while it is part of the second definition in the 1536 Institutes, it did not come over into the catechism. 15. Whereas in the Institutes Calvin discussed three things that baptism signifies and attests to—​remission of sins, mortification and vivification in Christ, and union with Christ—​here in the catechism he connects baptism directly only to the first two benefits. However, at the beginning of the section on baptism in the catechism, he states that this sacrament was given to us by God to serve our faith, a faith that “looks to the promise by which our merciful Father offers the communication of his Christ, that clothed with him we may share in all his benefits” (Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 34). Here Calvin clarifies the relationship among the three baptismal gifts he had identified in 1536: being clothed or united with Christ through faith, which is strengthened at baptism, is not just one benefit alongside the others but the foundational gift that includes the other two. 16. Ibid. 17. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87; CO 1:102. 18. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90; CO 1:105. 19. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99; CO 1:115. 20. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94–​95; CO 1:110. 21. COR 3/​2:97: “Par lesquelles choses n’est pas signifié que l’eaue soit cause, ne memes instrument de purgation et regeneration, mais seulement que la cognoissance de telz dons est receue en ce sacrament.” 22. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 34; COR 3/​ 2:96:  “Quibus non significatur, purgationis ac regenerationis causam, vel etiam efficaciam aquae subesse:  sed duntaxat talium donorum in hoc sacramento percipi congitionem.” Calvin also speaks in the 1536 Institutes (pp.  94–​95) of our reception of the “knowledge and

Works from Calvin’s First Period  59 certainty of such gifts” (emphasis added) in baptism. In the catechism, both Latin and French, he mentions only knowledge. 23. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 91, 93; CO 1:106, 108. 24. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 34, 35; COR 3/​2:98. 25. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 35; COR 3/​2:98, 100. 26. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 34; COR 3/​2:96. 27. De Greef, Writings of John Calvin, 186; Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 119–​22. 28. In the 1541 French translation of the 1539 Institutes, Calvin renders instrumentis as moyens. CO 4:890. 29. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90 (CO 1:105); Calvin: Institutes, 2:1287 (4.14.12); CO 1:946. The latter work here, of course, is the translation by Battles of the 1559, not 1539, Institutes, but his textual apparatus enables us to identify the various editions before 1559. Even though the 1539 edition was not yet divided into books, chapters, and paragraphs, I will use the familiar citation form of the 1559 edition to locate in the English translation the strand of text from 1539 that we have in view. 30. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94–​95; CO 1:110. 31. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1304 (4.15.2; CO: 1:958). 32. Contra Janse (“Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 39), who claims that “after Calvin had met the Strasburg reformer Martin Bucer, who was striving for a consensus with the Lutherans, this sentence was deleted from the 1539 edition of the Institutes.” 33. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99; CO 1:115. 34. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1314 (4.15.14); CO 1:965. 35. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90 (CO 1:105); Calvin: Institutes, 2:1287 (4.14.12); CO 1:946. 36. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1287 (4.14.12); CO 1:946. 37. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1284 (4.14.9); CO 1:944. 38. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1293 (4.14.17); CO 1:950. 39. CO 4:887: “Pourtant ie mets ceste difference entre l’Esprit et les Sacremens, que ie recognoy la vertu resider en l’Esprit, ne laissant rien dadvantage aux Sacremens, sinon qu’ils soyent instrumens dont le Seigneur use envers nous: et tels instrumens, qui seroyent inutiles et vains sans l’operation de l’Esprit.” Cf. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1284 (4.14.9); CO 1:944. 40. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1280 (4.14.5). 41. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88; Calvin: Institutes, 2:1282 (4.14.7). 42. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1284–​85 (4.14.9); CO 1:944. Lusk (“Calvin on Baptism”) suggests that when Calvin in this passage ascribes to the sacraments the role of conceiving and establishing faith, he is portraying them also as instruments of salvation. However, the Latin verb “establish” (stabilio) means only to make firm/​steadfast/​stable/​secure, to confirm, or to support. Lewis, Elementary Latin Dictionary, s.v. stabilio” Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, s.v. stabilio. Furthermore, the subject of “conceive” in this sentence is the Holy Spirit, not the sacraments. When in the next sentence Calvin describes the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the sacraments, he mentions only “strengthening and enlarging faith,” not the conceiving of it. 43. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1299 (4.14.23); CO 1:954. In commenting on a similar passage in the 1536 Institutes, Battles suggests that the “scholastic” view that Calvin was attacking

60  Font of Pardon and New Life was “that of the Franciscans who held that the sign is merely a symbol, but that God, according to a pactio, or agreement, imparted the grace of the sacrament when the sign was being used.” Here, according to Battles, Calvin was following Luther’s lead in the Babylonian Captivity (1520), but by the time of the 1536 Institutes, he must have had the Zwinglian position in mind as well. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 91, 275–​76 (Battles’s note). 44. COR 2/​13:IX. 45. Ibid.,  XIII. 46. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 122. 47. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans. Ross Mackenzie, vol. 8 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 26–​27; COR 2/​ 13:26–​27. 48. Calvin, Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 231; COR 2/​13:225 (comm. on Rom. 10:14). 49. Calvin, Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 233; COR 2/​13:226 (comm. on Rom. 10:17). 50. Calvin, Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 248; COR 2/​13:240 (comm. on Rom. 11:14). 51. Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 305; COR 2/​13:271. 52. Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 73; COR 2/​13:70–​71. 53. Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 75; COR 2/​13:72. 54. Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 89; COR 2/​13:86. This last quotation is found only in the 1540 edition: “Nihil citra Spiritum proficiunt, per ipsa tamen, ceu instrumenta, Spiritus sui virtutem Deus dispensat.” In the third (1556) edition, Calvin changed this sentence to “Although by themselves they are unprofitable, yet God has designed them to be instruments of his grace, and by the secret grace of his Spirit promotes the benefit of the elect by their means” (“Ac tametsi per se nihil iuvant, Deus tamen qui gratiae suae instrumenta esse voluit, arcana Spiritus sui gratia efficit ne profectu careant in electis”). 55. COR 2/​13:118 (1540 text only). 56. Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 123; COR 2/​13:119. 57. COR 2/​13:119 (1540 text only): “Quia enim rite non suscipitur baptismus nisi cum Dei promissionibus et ipsarum quoque substantia iungatur; ideo, dum apud fideles sermo est, solet rem et veritatem cum symbolo copulare.” In the 1556 edition, Calvin would modify this to read, “For Paul, because he is speaking to believers, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign” (“Nam suo more Paulus, quia ad fideles est sermo, substantiam et effectum externo signo coniungit.” Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 123; COR 2/​13:119. 58. Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 123; COR 2/​13:119. 59. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1293 (4.14.17). 60. Ibid., 2:1299 (4.14.23); CO 1:954; 2:1314 (4.15.14); CO 1:965. 61. He did, however, translate one of these uses of ministerium as instrument in the French translation of 1541. See n. 38.

Works from Calvin’s First Period  61 62. See  n. 53. 63. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1299 (4.14.23); CO 1:954. 64. Calvin, COR 2/​13:119 (comm. on Rom. 6:4; 1540 text only). 65. Calvin’s appeal to the Aristotelian fourfold causality in relation to justification in one of those passages (Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 75) might help to explain why he felt a greater freedom to speak of the gospel, the word, preaching, and the sacraments as instruments as well, since in the Aristotelian scheme there is always a distinction between the efficient cause and the instrumental cause of something.

4 Works from Calvin’s Second Period in Geneva to the Consensus Tigurinus (1541–​48) During the eight years between his return to Geneva from Strasbourg (1541) and the publication of the Consensus Tigurinus (1549), Calvin produced six major works containing some treatment of baptism:  the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545), a baptismal liturgy in The Form of Prayers (1542), a second revision of the Institutes (1543), a commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546), the polemical treatise Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), and a commentary on Paul’s epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians (1548). According to Zachman, it was during this period that Calvin shifted toward a more Roman Catholic view of the sacraments, due perhaps to his participation in several theological colloquies with the Catholics from 1539 to 1541 and the influence of Bucer and Melanchthon during that same period. The turning point in Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy, says Zachman, was the 1545 Latin version of the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, where for the first time Calvin taught that God uses water baptism as a means to convey the benefits represented there to those who place no obstacle in their way (Q/​A 328). Calvin then continued on this trajectory in his commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546) and in the Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), where he actually applied the term “instrument” to baptism for the first time.1 Unlike Zachman, Janse did not identify 1545 as this turning point but viewed the entire period between Calvin’s first catechism of 1537/​1538 and the Consensus Tigurinus as a time when, under Bucer’s influence, he became much more “Luther friendly” in his sacramental doctrine, emphasizing the role of sacraments as divine instruments that offer and confer the very grace they signify.2 In this chapter I will argue that neither one of these developmental timelines is entirely accurate, although it is true that from 1541 to 1549 Calvin displayed a more “Luther friendly” side to his doctrine of Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0004.

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  63 baptismal efficacy, balancing his treatment of baptism as a means of knowledge and assurance with a much stronger emphasis on baptism as also an instrument of grace.

Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545) Upon his return to Geneva in late 1541, Calvin almost immediately set about to replace his first catechism of 1537/​1538 with a completely new one, which he published in French in early 1542 (Le Catéchisme de l’église de Genève, c’est a dire le Formulaire d’instruire les enfants en la chrestienté) and in Latin translation in 1545 (Catechismus ecclesiae Genevensis, hoc est, formula erudiendi pueros in doctrina Christi). This new work may reflect something of the influence of Calvin’s mentor in Strasbourg, Martin Bucer, who himself had produced two catechisms for the Strasbourg church in the 1530s.3 The 1545 Latin version of Calvin’s catechism is the one most often cited in the secondary literature and the only one to date with a published English translation,4 but because the French original appeared three years earlier and the chronological order of Calvin’s works is important for this study, our side-​by-​side citations of the original texts will always place the French version before the Latin.5 Calvin’s first use of instrumental language in the 1542/​1545 catechism is found not in the section on the sacraments but earlier in his exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. In the explanation of the petition “Give us this day our daily bread,” the minister poses the question, “But why do you ask God to give you what he commands us by our labour to provide?” The child’s response is that even though we must work hard for our food, it is only by the blessing of God that such work prospers. Even when we have an abundance to eat, we are not nourished by the food itself but by the “virtue,” or power, of God, who uses the food as an “instrument” (instrumens, organis) of his beneficence.6 This is reminiscent of Calvin’s reference in the 1536 Institutes to food as one of the “means and instruments” (mediis ac instrumentis) that have no power in and of themselves but are used by God to distribute his blessings. In that context in 1536, Calvin was referring to the instrumental role of food to make a similar point about the sacraments, immediately adding, “In like manner, [God] nourishes our faith spiritually through the sacraments.”7 In the catechism, however, Calvin applies instrumental terminology to the sacraments only when he gets to the section on the sacraments itself, over thirty questions later.

64  Font of Pardon and New Life In the introduction to the sacraments in the catechism, Calvin identifies a sacrament as a “medium” (moyen, medium), along with the preaching of the Word, by which God communicates with us.8 He then proceeds to define sacraments in much the same way he had always done, that is, as means of knowledge and assurance: a sacrament is an external “attestation” (tesmoignage, testificatio) of God’s benevolence to us and “represents” (represente, figurat) spiritual things or grace by means of a visible sign. God does this in order to “impress” or “seal” his promises upon our hearts all the more strongly, “to make us more certain of them,” and to better confirm their truth.9 Following the definition, Calvin does his best in the next four questions and answers to ward off any notion that the visible signs have power in themselves to assure us of salvation. Sacraments function as they do only because God has so willed it.10 It is the work of the Holy Spirit alone “to seal the promises in our minds, . . . to move and affect the heart, to illumine the mind and to render the conscience sure and tranquil.”11 The “power and efficacy” (efficace, vim . . . efficaciamque) of the sacraments are never found in the external elements themselves but proceed entirely from the Spirit of God.12 Nevertheless, without detracting from the Spirit’s power, God does employ the sacraments as “secondary instruments” (instrumens inferieurs, secundis organis).13 It is “through these/​his instruments” (par les moyens, per sua organa) that God exercises his power and thus accomplishes the end for which they were instituted, namely, to accommodate to our weakness. Surrounded as we are by our earthly bodies, “We need symbols or mirrors, to exhibit to us the appearance of spiritual and heavenly things in a kind of earthly way” and to better confirm for us the promises of God. In fact, we are best served in this way when all our senses are engaged.14 So far Calvin has sought to ensure, as he put it in the 1539 Institutes, that “nothing is given to [the sacraments] which should not be given,”15 not even the power to assure us of salvation all by themselves. In countering the Roman Catholic tendency to ascribe too much efficacy to the sacraments in and of themselves, he stresses that they are only instruments in the hands of God, and then only instruments of knowledge and assurance. In the next several questions, however, he appears to turn his attention to the other end of the sacramental spectrum, the Zwinglian and radical Reformation positions, wishing to ensure also (again in the words of the 1539 Institutes) that “conversely nothing [is] taken away which belongs to [the sacraments].”16 Calvin begins this series of questions by condemning as arrogant any who regard sacraments as unnecessary and think that they can do without them,

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  65 for to abstain from them voluntarily “holds Christ in contempt, rejects his grace, and quenches the Spirit.”17 The implication here that sacraments are, in some sense, means of grace or salvation is confirmed by the several questions that follow. The sacraments provide “certainty of grace” (French text) only “when we receive them in faith, seeking in them Christ alone and his grace.” Of course, this seeking of Christ and his grace in the sacraments does not mean that our salvation is found in the visible signs themselves, or that the “virtue [power] of conferring grace” (conferendae gratiae virtutem) is affixed to or contained within them. Rather we are to consider the outward sign as an “aid [aide, adminiculi] by which we may be directed straight to Christ, and from him seek salvation and real felicity.”18 Here Calvin distinguishes the “effect” and the “use” of a sacrament, which appears to correspond to their double instrumentality. The “effect” of the sacraments is to assure our consciences, to seal and make us more certain of God’s promises, and to confirm, nourish, and increase our faith (means of assurance). But such an effect occurs only when we rightly “use” the sacraments in faith, weak as that faith may be, as a place where we expect to encounter Christ and his grace (means of grace).19 Unbelievers, by contrast, “annihilate the grace presented to them by the sacraments” or “reduce the gifts of God conferred in the sacraments to nothing,” even though the “power and nature” of the sacraments remain intact.20 After fifteen questions and answers on the sacraments in general (Q/​A 309–​23), Calvin devotes the next sixteen to the doctrine and practice of baptism (Q/​A 324–​39), which he arranges in much the same way as he did the previous section. First, he explains the meaning of baptism, highlighting, as he did for the sacraments in general, its role as a means of knowledge and assurance. Baptism “testifies” that we have been received into the family of God and “symbolizes” remission of sins and spiritual regeneration.21 The use of water in baptism “represents” remission of sins in that just as water washes away dirt from our bodies, so also forgiveness cleanses our souls from the defilements of sin. Furthermore, the pouring of baptismal water over the individual’s head and the re-​emergence of the baptizand from the water are a kind of “metaphor” (signe, figura) of our mortification and regeneration. And the water is not just a sign of this twofold spiritual cleansing but also its “seal.”22 Continuing the pattern established in his introduction to the sacraments, Calvin next turns to Roman Catholic and Zwinglian teachings on baptismal salvation, though in both cases without naming his opponents. This

66  Font of Pardon and New Life time he dismisses the Catholic view in just a single question and answer before devoting five full questions to the Zwinglian view. Against the Catholic position, he emphasizes once again that the water of baptism does not itself cleanse the soul from impurity; that honor belongs solely to the blood of Christ and to the Holy Spirit, who applies the benefits of Christ’s blood to our consciences.23 That could leave one vulnerable to the charge of pure symbolism, however, so Calvin immediately asks whether the water is then nothing more than a bare sign. Since his answer to that question is frequently cited and discussed in the secondary literature, and since it appears in slightly different versions in the French and Latin texts, I quote both in full before analyzing them: French: [Q.] Do you mean that the water is only a symbol for us? [A.] It is a symbol in such a way that reality is connected with it. For God never promises us something in vain. Hence it is certain that remission of sins is offered to us in baptism and that we receive it.24 Latin: M[inister]: But do you attribute nothing more to the water than to be a mere symbol of ablution? C[hild]: 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 both pardon of sin and newness of life are certainly offered to us and received by us in Baptism.25

The first thing to be noted here is that Calvin again employs verbs (conioincte, annexa sit) that explicitly link the outward sign of baptism to its inner “truth” or “reality” (verité, veritas). In the French text he identifies this reality as the forgiveness of sins; in the Latin text he includes new life as well. This is similar to language he had used two years earlier in his commentary on Romans 6:3–​4, when he stated that water baptism is “joined” (iungatur) with the “substance” of God’s promises, and that it is Paul’s custom in addressing believers “to connect the reality and truth with the symbol” (rem et veritatem cum symbolo copulare).26 Moreover, these gifts are both offered to and received by us in baptism. The question is whether Calvin understands this only as a reception of the knowledge and assurance of these gifts, as he did in the 1536 Institutes and first catechism, or as an appropriation of the gifts themselves. The context helps

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  67 to provide the answer. We have already seen that in Q/​A 328 he understands the blessings of forgiveness and new life to be “connected” or “attached” to the outer sign of baptism, which certainly sounds like an attachment of the objective benefits themselves. Furthermore, in the question that immediately follows, Calvin identifies the twofold blessing of remission and renewal as “this grace” (ceste grace, haec gratia), a grace whose “efficacy” (French: efficace) or “fruit” (Latin: fructus) reaches only the faithful and not those who destroy it or deny it entry by their wickedness.27 Such “grace” or “benefits” are “applied to us at baptism” or “conferred upon us through baptism” because—​ and this is the key—​it is there that we are “clothed” (French: vestuz) or “fed” (Latin: vescimur) with Christ and granted his Spirit.28 At the heart of baptism is union and communion with Christ. That Calvin is talking here about baptism as a means of grace is also borne out by the broader context. He had already emphasized in the preceding section on the sacraments in general that coming to the font and table in faith means “seeking in them Christ alone and his grace.”29 And in the subsequent section on the Lord’s Supper, he reiterates that the “efficacy and fruit” of Christ’s death become ours when “we are joined in a union” with Christ by which “we are made partakers of all his benefits.” Christ is “communicated” (French: communiqué) or “presented” (Latin: exhibetur) to us both in baptism and in the gospel, but because such communication happens there only in part (French text) and we “receive him” only in part (Latin text), it is also necessary for us to regularly participate in the Lord’s Supper for that communion with Christ to be confirmed and increase.30 One lacuna in Calvin’s discussion here is what could be called the “Cornelius question,” which Calvin had addressed in both the Institutes and his first catechism:  How could someone like Cornelius, who had already obtained these salvific benefits by faith before baptism, also be offered and receive them at baptism? However, the more Calvin shifts the focus from the subjective to the objective benefits of baptism, that is, from baptism as a means of assurance to a means of grace, the less problematic that question seems to become. His point in the 1542/​1545 catechism is that what the believer is offered and receives at the font is first and foremost Christ and his benefits. We can receive forgiveness and newness of life at the font even though we have already been forgiven and regenerated because at baptism our faith is strengthened and draws us into closer union with Christ, in whom those benefits inhere. Calvin seems to suggest that the embrace of

68  Font of Pardon and New Life Christ and his benefits by faith is not restricted to or completed in a single moment. It is an ongoing process that happens throughout the course of one’s spiritual life—​in preaching, at baptism, and in the Lord’s Supper. For one who is already a believer, therefore, baptism is an assurance not only of a grace that one has already received but also of a grace that one receives in greater measure in the sacrament itself.

The Form of Prayers (1542) The Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Chants with the Manner of Administering the Sacraments and Solemnizing Marriage according to the Custom of the Ancient Church was a vernacular prayer book that Calvin prepared for public worship when he returned to Geneva in 1541 and then published there a year later.31 It could be considered the liturgical counterpart to the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, which also first appeared in 1542. Among the documents in this book of worship is a brief form for baptism that Calvin had composed and employed while still in Strasbourg.32 It is roughly contemporaneous, therefore, with the 1539 Institutes and the 1540 commentary on Romans. In the introductory teaching section of this baptismal liturgy, Calvin follows the pattern of his earlier writings by first discussing baptism in general, that is, the baptism of believing adults as we encounter it in the New Testament, and, second, the application of this doctrine and practice to the children of believers. He begins the instruction by weaving together a number of statements in which baptism sometimes sounds like an instrument of grace and at other times like an instrument of knowledge and assurance. To begin with, he says, “All these graces [of remission of sins, mortification, and new life] are conferred on us, when it pleases [God] to incorporate us in his church by baptism” (instrument of grace). But he immediately adds that in baptism God “testifies” to the remission of our sins by employing the sign of water to “signify” to us his desire to cleanse our souls. Furthermore, God “represents” to us in baptism the mortification of the flesh and the new spiritual life that constitute our renewal (instrument of knowledge and assurance).33 In summary, we “receive [a]‌twofold grace and benefit from our God in baptism, provided that we do not destroy the force [vertu] of this sacrament by our ingratitude.” This seems to point to baptism again as an instrument of grace. When he further explains this twofold grace,

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  69 however, he refers to baptism as a certain “testimony” (tesmoignage) of God’s desire not to hold our sins against us but to help us by the Holy Spirit to do battle against Satan and the sin in our lives. Finally, he returns to the grace itself: because “these two things [remission and renewal] are accomplished in us by the grace of Jesus Christ, it follows that the truth and substance of baptism consists [sic] in him. For we have no other washing but his blood, and we have no other renewal but in his death and resurrection.” These blessings God “distributes” to us “by his sacraments” just as he imparts them to us by his Word.34 This whole passage can be quite confusing if one does not keep in mind Calvin’s understanding of the dual instrumental role of baptism. The constant shifting from one instrumental sense to the other indicates not only a greater balance between them than we have encountered before but also how closely connected he considered the objective and subjective dimensions of baptism to be.

1543 Institutes Calvin’s second revision of the Latin Institutes in 1543 grew from seventeen to twenty-​one chapters and reflected in various places the ongoing impact of his exegetical work on Romans.35 Most of the new material that relates to baptism is found in ­chapter 16 on the sacraments in general; very little was added to ­chapter 17 on the sacrament of baptism itself. We shall look at each of these chapters in order. So far as instrumental terminology is concerned, Calvin employs instrumentum and organum in ­chapter 16 one additional time each. The new use of instrumentum is less significant because it appears in a section where Calvin is describing the ordinary sacraments in Scripture as marks also of our own profession by which we bind ourselves to lives of piety. As such, he says, sacraments are “aids [instrumenta] to true piety.”36 More significant, however, is a new paragraph in 1543 on the proclamation of the Word that is reminiscent of some of Calvin’s remarks on preaching in the Romans commentary.37 Here Calvin underscores Paul’s reminder to the Corinthians that God has rendered his sermons so effective that it is “as if the power of the Holy Spirit were joined by an indissoluble bond to his preaching for the inward illumination and moving of the mind.” Indeed, the preacher is like a farmer who plants and waters the seeds but then must rely on the blessing

70  Font of Pardon and New Life of God for their actual growth. In like manner, “The apostles express the power of the Spirit in their preaching, as far as God uses the instruments [organis] ordained by himself for the unfolding of spiritual grace.”38 Here Calvin employs organum explicitly only in reference to the preaching of the Word, but it is noteworthy that he inserts it just before the section inherited from 1536 where he talks about food, sunlight, fire, and finally (by implication) the sacraments as “means and instruments” by which God distributes his blessings. Calvin also continues in this new material to deprecate what he regards as a magical approach to the sacraments in the Roman Catholic tradition and to emphasize the importance of the preached Word, the recipient’s faith, and the sovereign work of God in the sacramental rites. Clear preaching of the Word is essential to understanding the meaning of the visible signs and to the begetting of faith. As Augustine taught, it is this connection between Word and material element, not the mumbled Latin incantations of a priest, which gives a sacrament its power.39 But Calvin balances this invective against the Catholic view of the sacraments with other new material a short while later in which he stresses the importance of the sacraments as genuine means of grace. When Paul says in Galatians 3:27 that “all of you who have been baptized . . . have put on Christ,” and in 1 Corinthians 12:12–​13 that “all of us who have been baptized in Christ are one body and one spirit,” the apostle includes within the sacraments the actual “communicating of Christ” (Christi communionem). To be sure, the impious by their perversity can prevent this “working of divine grace in the sacraments,” but that does not keep these rites—​when and where it pleases God—​from “bearing witness to the true communication [communicatione] of Christ” or even from “offering [exhibeant] that which they promise.”40 In other words, the sacraments—​in this case, baptism—​serve as instruments both of knowledge/​assurance and of grace. They testify to the communication of Christ, but they also offer or present to the believing baptizand the very substance of what they promise.41 Calvin makes much the same point in the 1543 Institutes just a couple of sections later, where he attempts once again to steer a middle course between those who ascribe too much to the sacraments and those who ascribe too little. Long ago, he states, Augustine had drawn attention to the dangers of both extremes by talking about two sacramental vices. One is to focus exclusively on the visible sign and “to transfer to it the credit for those benefits which are conferred upon us by Christ alone” through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The other vice, however, is to “receive the signs as though they had

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  71 been given in vain, and by destroying or weakening their secret meaning through our antagonism, to cause them to be wholly fruitless to us.”42 After all, the materia and substantia of the sacraments is Christ himself, the one in whom they have all their “firmness” (soliditatem) and apart from whom they cannot promise anything. Hence their dual instrumental role: they are efficacious in us “in proportion as we are helped by their ministry [both] to foster, confirm, and increase the true knowledge of Christ in ourselves [and] to possess him more fully and enjoy his riches. But that happens when we receive in true faith what is offered [offertur] there.”43 In the section immediately preceding, Calvin also addresses the nature of the connection between the sacramental sign and its reality. This is the first time he does so in the Institutes, although his remarks here are similar to his 1540 commentary on Romans 6:3–​4 and to the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, which first appeared in 1542.44 Appealing once again to Augustine, he argues that we must distinguish between a sacrament and the “matter” (rem) of the sacrament, or between the “figure” of a sacrament and its “truth.” There is certainly a “union” (coniunctione) between sign and signified, but the two are never “linked” (cohaerere) in such a way that they cannot be separated. They must always be distinguished so that we do not attribute to the one what is really characteristic of the other. It is only in the elect that the sacraments are efficacious; an unworthy participant separates the external sacrament from its truth, “so that nothing remains but a vain and useless figure.” To receive “the matter with the sign” (rem cum signo) and actually “profit through the sacraments in the partaking [communicatione] of Christ,” one must embrace in faith the Word of God that accompanies them.45 As we noted earlier, Calvin made very few alterations in 1543 to the chapter on baptism itself. There are, however, at least three additions that are worth noting. First, he inserted a new introductory sentence to the chapter, which associates baptism with our engrafting into Christ: “Baptism is the sign of the initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ [Christo insiti], we may be reckoned among God’s children.”46 It is not clear from this sentence when exactly such engrafting takes place in relation to baptism. Calvin could mean that this happens before baptism (“already engrafted into Christ”), but his point could also be that we are spiritually joined to Christ in the same ceremony by which we are initiated into Christ’s body, the church (“being engrafted into Christ in baptism”).47 The latter points toward baptism as an instrument of grace.

72  Font of Pardon and New Life Second, several sections later Calvin highlights the role of baptism as an instrument of assurance when he asserts that all who clothe themselves with the righteousness of Christ are simultaneously regenerated by the Holy Spirit and “have a pledge [arrham] of this regeneration in baptism.”48 God attests to the truth of this regeneration through the pledge or seal of the sacrament of baptism. Finally, Calvin makes some subtle but significant changes in the wording of the section on the baptisms of Cornelius and Paul: 1536/​1539 editions: “[In baptism] we are said to receive, obtain, and acquire what we believe given to us by God, whether we then first recognize it, or become more certain of it as previously recognized.”49 1543 edition: “[In baptism] we are said to receive, obtain, and acquire what, according as our faith is aware, is shown forth [exhibetur] to us by the Lord, whether when he first testifies to it, or when he confirms more fully and more surely what has been attested.”50

By shifting the focus from what we recognize in baptism (1536/​1539) to what God is attesting to there (1543), Calvin underscores the instrumental character of the sacrament, albeit as an instrument of knowledge and assurance: in and by means of baptism God “testifies to” or “confirms” the blessings received there by faith. But by also changing the phrase “given to us by God” to “shown forth to us by the Lord,” or better yet, “offered/​presented [exhibetur] to us by the Lord,” Calvin also gives greater weight to baptism as an instrument of salvation. In the 1536 and 1539 editions, it is not clear whether the giving of the baptismal blessings is happening through or alongside of the ceremony. In the 1543 edition, however, the verb exhibere suggests that the blessings are presented or offered in or through the water rite itself. What we have in this revised section, therefore, is both a stronger emphasis on the instrumental nature of baptism and a balancing of its two instrumental roles.

Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546) According to Zachman, Calvin’s commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1546) differed from his earlier commentary on Romans (1540) in that “Calvin here insists on the willingness of God actually to carry out everything that God represents to us in baptism. God not only represents

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  73 our engrafting into the body of Christ in baptism, but also actually carries this out through baptism.”51 It is my contention, however, that the Corinthians commentary actually reiterates and expands upon a view of baptism as an instrument of grace that is already present in the Romans commentary, the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545), and the 1543 Institutes. As Zachman has noted, Calvin asserts in his exposition of 1 Corinthians 12:13 that the baptism of believers is efficacious (efficax) by spiritually engrafting us into the body of Christ—​not by means of the outward symbol itself, of course, but through the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, says Calvin, God is ready to implement everything that he figures for us in baptism as long as we are in a position to receive it. For unbelievers, baptism is only a “symbol without any effect”; believers, however, “receive the reality simultaneously with the sacrament” (rem simul percipiunt cum sacramento).52 Such simultaneous reception involves more than parallel actions in the same time frame. According to Calvin, already in the Old Testament the spiritual reality was “conveyed” (exhibitam) in the sacraments to the people of God just as it is to us today, although we enjoy it in richer and fuller measure. The grace symbolized by the Old Testament signs was “truly given at the same time [simul]” as the signs because the offering or conveyance of that reality was “united with” (coniunctam) the sacraments. Indeed, Christ, of whom the old sacraments were figures, was “tied to” (annexum) them, not locally or in a natural or substantial union but “sacramentally” (sacramentali modo). Therefore, says Calvin, just as Roman Catholics should not confuse the signs with the reality they signify, so we should not go to the other extreme and separate them in the way that reformers like Caspar Schwenckfeld do.53 For these signs and their deeper reality are things that God “has joined together” (coniunxit).54 In short, Calvin is here once again trying to carve out what he calls a “middle position” between two extremes: when it comes to the relationship between sacramental signs and the spiritual grace they signify, “Let us keep the union (coniunctionem) made by the Lord, but at the same time the distinction between them, so that we do not, in error, transfer what belongs to one to the other.”55 In so doing, Calvin underscores in the most sustained manner so far several key features of the sacraments in general and baptism in particular as instruments of salvation: the “exhibition,” or offering, of grace in the sacrament, Christ himself at the center of such an offer, a sacramental linkage between the outer sign and its inner reality, and the simultaneous reception of this linked sign and grace in faith. It is worth noting that

74  Font of Pardon and New Life nothing is mentioned here about baptism as an instrument of knowledge and assurance.

Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547) A year later the double instrumentality of baptism reappeared in Calvin’s response to the canons and decrees of the first seven sessions of the Council of Trent (1545–​47), but his focus remained on the sacrament as an instrument of salvation or grace. So far as knowledge and assurance are concerned, he does state that it is the “special property” of water baptism “to make us certain of the free forgiveness of sins, and the perpetual gift of adoption.”56 Baptism offers an ongoing confirmation of that forgiveness in our lives when we reflect on it in repentance and faith. Just as God reconciles us to himself on a daily basis with the promises of the gospel, God also seals those promises with baptism’s “perpetual testimony of pardon and free propitiation in Christ.” That happens when we reflect on both the sprinkling of baptismal water and the spiritual reality to which it points, leading to a confidence that comes from a clear conscience, as 1 Peter 3:21 reminds us.57 Apart from that, however, Calvin focuses almost entirely on the salvific role of baptism. Even before he evaluates Trent’s treatment of the sacraments, he asserts in his response to the session on original sin that there is a “twofold grace” associated with baptism, “For therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered [offertur] to us.” Remission is complete in baptism; there the guilt of sin is entirely removed. Regeneration, by contrast, only begins in the sacrament and continues to progress throughout our lives. Nevertheless, the guilt of residual sin can never be imputed to us.58 When he gets to the seventh session of the council, which treated the sacraments in general and baptism, Calvin reiterates all the key features of sacraments as instruments of salvation that he had included in the 1 Corinthians commentary a year earlier. First, against Trent’s claim that the sacraments of the Old Testament were substantially different from those of the New Testament, Calvin retorts that in the sacraments of old God never signified anything that he did not also “exhibit [or present] in reality” (re ipsa exhibuerit). Old Testament saints partook of the same spiritual sustenance as we do today (1 Corinthians 10:3).59 Second, at the heart of this sacramental “exhibition” or offering of grace in both testaments is Christ himself. Only the mode of revelation in the New Testament is more expansive, resulting

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  75 in a more abundant “communication of grace,” that is, a communication of Christ.60 Third, this sacramental grace is attached to the signs that signify and seal it. The signs do not by themselves confer such grace, but they do “contain the grace which they signify” (contineri gratiam quam figurant). Indeed, says Calvin, “We willingly conjoin [coniungimus] with the signs a true exhibition of the reality.”61 Finally, grace is conferred by the sacraments only when they are received in faith. Against what he characterizes as a Roman Catholic view of sacraments as magical in their power and efficacious ex opere operato, Calvin insists that we cannot obtain sacramental grace “unless we are capacitated by faith.” Sacraments are far from “empty and naked signs of a distant grace,” but without faith “they have no effect.”62 The one new thing that we find in Calvin’s baptismal doctrine in the Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote is, as Zachman pointed out, the first explicit reference to baptism as an “instrument.”63 Earlier, in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Calvin had referred to the sacraments in general as instruments, and he does so again in his general comments on the sacraments in this treatise, where twice he uses the term “instrumental cause(s)” (instrumentalis causae, instrumentales . . . causae).64 But now for the first time he also identifies baptism itself as an instrument of God and an instrumental cause of justification. Baptism “is the ordinary instrument [instrumentum] of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating salvation.”65 However, it is not by itself the “instrumental cause” (causa instrumentalis) of justification, any more than a mason’s trowel can be considered the instrumental cause of a house. Like all sacraments, it is only an appendage to the gospel.66 It may seem odd that Calvin focuses on baptism as an instrument of salvation and employs some of his strongest instrumental language in a treatise intended to refute Roman Catholic claims about baptism. Is this not the kind of language one would normally employ in an attack on a Zwinglian or Schwenckfelder view of the sacraments? However, Calvin’s posture here is really little different from that which he had taken for the past decade, all the way back to the 1536 Institutes: he seeks to preserve the instrumental character of the sacraments while simultaneously rejecting the Roman Catholic notion that they function as instruments in and of themselves. His instrumental language in this treatise, therefore, is always carefully qualified. Against the Roman Catholic claim that sacraments are necessary for salvation, Calvin maintains that they are “nothing but [nihil quam] instrumental causes” of grace and “produce their effect only when they are subservient to

76  Font of Pardon and New Life faith.” Their necessity is limited to “that of an instrumental cause,” a cause “to which the power of God is by no means to be tied down.”67 Baptism may be God’s usual instrument for washing and renewing us, but “the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument.” It is God who does the washing and regenerating by the Spirit, and, when the opportunity for baptism is lacking, God may accomplish this on his own.68 Moreover, as we have already seen, baptism for Calvin is not even the sole instrumental cause of justification; it serves only as a seal of the gospel.69 As in the past, Calvin seems always to hedge his instrumental language with references to faith, the Holy Spirit, the gospel, and the sovereign activity of God. The sacraments do function as instruments of grace but only in the hands of God.70

Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians (1548) The greater emphasis in Calvin’s Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote on baptism as an instrument of grace than as an instrument of assurance carried over into his commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians a year later. Calvin does state in his comments on a phrase in Ephesians 5:26 (“cleansing [the church] with the washing of water”) that baptism is an “outward symbol” and “visible confirmation” of our forgiveness and regeneration, the equivalent of a divinely spoken “pledge” of our sanctification. But he immediately adds that God does more in baptism than simply declare that we are washed; God at the same time performs what is symbolized there. “For unless the reality [rei veritas] or, which is the same thing, the presentation [exhibitio] were connected [coniuncta esset] with baptism, it would be improper to say that baptism is the washing of the soul.”71 Another way that Paul describes this is that we are buried with Christ in baptism (Colossians 2:12), which Calvin interprets as a spiritual circumcision that happens “through baptism” (per baptismum) or “by baptism” (baptismo).72 The sacrament is indeed a sign but “a sign of the thing exhibited” there, namely, our mortification. Thus, When [Paul] says that this is done through baptism [per baptismum] (as also in Rom. 6.4), he speaks in his usual manner, ascribing efficacy to the sacrament, that it may not fruitlessly signify what does not exist. By baptism, therefore, we are buried with Christ, because the mortification which

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  77 Christ there figures, He at the same time effectively executes, that the reality may be conjoined with the sign [res signo sit coniuncta].73

Nevertheless, as Zachman rightly notes, while Calvin portrays baptism in this commentary “as truly presenting and offering the reality it represents and figures,” he also makes every effort “to prevent believers from binding the grace of God to the sacrament.”74 In his treatment of Galatians 3:27, for example, Calvin understands the putting on of Christ, which Paul equates in this passage with baptism, as a spiritual union with Christ in which all of his benefits are communicated to us. But Calvin hastens to add that the grace of the Holy Spirit is not bound to the external sign in such a way that baptism is efficacious in everybody. As we observed earlier in his commentary on Romans, Calvin identifies two different ways in which Paul speaks about the sacraments, depending on whom he has in mind. When he is thinking about hypocrites, who place too much confidence in the signs themselves, the apostle highlights the “emptiness and worthlessness” of those outward signs for them. But when he turns to believers, who make proper use of the signs through faith, “He then connects [coniungit] them with the truth which they figure. . . . The truth becomes joined [coniuncta] to the signs.” The external rite always “exhibits” and “offers” God’s grace to both groups equally, never losing its “nature and power,” but by divine arrangement only believers receive the reality offered there. The wicked, by contrast, experience no effect at all. “In this way, what is proper to God is not transferred to the sign and yet the sacraments keep their power, so that they cannot be regarded as empty and cold spectacles.”75 Calvin introduces similar cautions into his exposition of Ephesians 5:26. God may simultaneously perform in baptism what the sacrament symbolizes, but Calvin qualifies this, as he so often does, with references to the sovereignty and freedom of God, the power of Christ’s blood, the work of the Holy Spirit, the requirement of faith, and the connection to the Word. We must be careful, he warns, not to transfer to the minister or to the sign that which is the province of God alone. Our trust ought not to be directed toward a person or an element because it is not they that cleanse the soul, but the blood of Christ. The function of the sacrament is “to lead us by the hand directly to Christ and settle us in Him.”76 Those who are concerned that calling baptism the washing of the soul attributes too much to the sign should note that the apostle does not claim that the sign itself cleanses; that, he asserts, is the work of God alone. But it is not unreasonable, Calvin goes

78  Font of Pardon and New Life on to say, that God uses the sign as an “instrument” (organum). To be sure, it is an “inferior instrument [inferius organum], useless in itself, except so far as it derives its power from elsewhere.” God’s power is not “shut up in” or “confined to” the sign, whose efficacy is always dependent on God’s free will and good pleasure, the Holy Spirit, and the Word of which it is a seal. Nevertheless, God acts “by the sign” (per signum) of baptism, and “by these means” (tali adminiculo) he bestows his cleansing grace upon us.77

Assessment As I indicated at the beginning of this chapter, the developmental timelines for Calvin’s doctrine of baptism proposed by Zachman and Janse are not entirely accurate when it comes to the years 1541–​48. Zachman claimed that during this period Calvin moved to a more Roman Catholic view of the sacraments, that the 1545 Latin version of the Catechism of the Church of Geneva contained his first reference to water baptism as a means of conveying the benefits represented there, and that Calvin’s 1 Corinthians commentary (1546) differed from his earlier commentary on Romans (1540) by insisting, like the catechism, that God actually performs in baptism what is signified and sealed there. Janse did not identify 1545 as the critical turning point, but he did characterize the entire period between Calvin’s first catechism (1537/​1538) and the Consensus Tigurinus (1549) as a time when Calvin turned more “Luther friendly” in his teaching on the sacraments, portraying them now as divine instruments that offer and confer the very grace they symbolize. The evidence adduced in this chapter, however, has shown that from 1541 to 1548 Calvin did not move in a substantially new direction in his baptismal thinking but, as with his 1541 Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, continued to steer a middle course between Roman Catholic and radical Protestant extremes and to further develop the position he had held since the 1536 Institutes: baptism is an instrument of both assurance and grace, but always in connection with the Word, the Spirit, the sovereign freedom of God, and faith. Despite the lack of evidence of a major shift in Calvin’s view of baptismal efficacy from 1541 to 1548, there are some changes in emphasis during this period that one could call, in Zachman’s and Janse’s terms, more Roman Catholic or “Luther friendly.” As I noted at the end of c­ hapter 3, from the 1536 Institutes through the Romans commentary of 1540, Calvin’s doctrine

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  79 of baptism displayed a relative paucity of instrumental terminology, a fairly even balance between positive and negative references to the sacraments as instruments when such terminology is used, and a much heavier emphasis on baptism as a means of assurance than a means of salvation. All of those features would change in the seven years following Calvin’s return to Geneva. Since Calvin composed the material from this period either during or in the aftermath of his interlude in Strasbourg (1538–​41), these changes in emphasis may reflect the impact of his Strasbourg mentor Martin Bucer, his participation with Melanchthon and Bucer in three colloquies with the Catholics from 1539 to 1541, and his direct exposure in Geneva and Strasbourg to the Anabaptist view of the sacraments, all of which led him to a greater appreciation of the visible aspects of the church.78 So far as instrumental terminology is concerned, Calvin was more inclined from 1541 to 1548 than before to describe the sacraments in general and baptism in particular as “means” and “instruments”—​and in all cases positively. In the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545), he identified the sacraments, along with preaching of the Word, as a “medium” (moyen, medium) of divine communication with us and as “secondary instruments” (instrumens inferieurs, secundis organis) by means of which (par les moyens, per sua organa) God exercises his power. In the Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), he even calls sacraments “instrumental causes” of salvation and, more importantly, refers to baptism for the first time as an instrumentum of divine washing and renewal as well as an “instrumental cause” (causa instrumentalis) of our justification.79 Finally, twice in his commentary on Ephesians 5:26 (1548), Calvin speaks of baptism as an organum (“instrument, implement, organ”)—​in one instance an inferius organum (“inferior instrument”)—​of the cleansing of the soul.80 The second noticeable change in Calvin’s writings during this period is a shift in emphasis from the more subjective to the more objective role of baptism in the Christian life, that is, from a means of assurance to a means of grace. Whereas from 1536 to 1540 Calvin had focused on baptism primarily (but not exclusively) as an instrument of knowledge and assurance, the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545), The Form of Prayers (1542), and the 1543 Institutes maintain a fairly even balance between the two instrumental roles, and the 1 Corinthians commentary (1546), Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), and commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians (1548) speak of baptism almost entirely (though not exclusively) as an instrument of grace. This is evidenced

80  Font of Pardon and New Life in part by Calvin’s more frequent mention of the close tie between the visible sign of baptism and the invisible grace we receive through it. After two explicit references to such a bond for the first time in his Romans commentary in 1540, Calvin now employs some form of conjungere (“to connect”), annectere (“to bind”), or conjunctio (“union”) at least once in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, once in the material added to the 1543 Institutes, four times in the 1 Corinthians commentary, once in the antidote to Trent, and four times in the commentary on the four Pauline epistles to describe the relationship between sign and signified. He even goes so far as to aver at one point that the sacramental signs “contain” the grace they signify, though the power of conferring such grace is not contained in or affixed to the visible signs.81 This growing use of instrumental and connective language between 1541 and 1548 does not signal an entirely new direction in Calvin’s baptismal thought, as some earlier scholarship had claimed, but it does represent an important shift in focus.

Notes 1. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 168–​72. 2. Janse, “Controversy between Westphal and Calvin,” 16–​17. Davis, too, notes that “the lutheranizing force of Bucer’s influence [on Calvin in Strasbourg] was substantial.” Clearest Promises of God, 147. 3. Jacques Courvoisier, “Les Catéchismes de Genève et de Strasbourg:  Étude sur développement de la pensée de Calvin,” Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme français 84 (1935): 112–​18; Ernst Saxer, ed., “Der Genfer Katechismus von 1545: Der lateinische Text mit deutscher Ubersetzung,,” in Calvin-​Studienausgabe, ed. Eberhard Busch et  al., vol. 2, Gestalt und Ordnung der Kirche (Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), 1, 5–​6; de Greef, Writings of John Calvin, 116–​ 17. However, I have not been able to detect any clear and direct influence of Bucer’s catechisms on Calvin’s treatment of the sacraments in general or baptism in particular in his catechism of 1542/​1545. 4. The oldest extant copy of the French text is also from 1545, but a number of small differences between the Latin and French versions of 1545 suggest that any amending Calvin did of the 1542 French text was probably in the Latin translation alone. 5. Translations of the Latin text are from “The Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1545),” trans. and ed. J. K.  S. Reid, in Calvin:  Theological Treatises, vol. 22 of the Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954). Translations of the French text are my own. 6. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 126; CO 6:99, 100 (Q/​A 276). 7. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90; CO 1:105.

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  81 8. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 309). 9. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 310). 10. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 311). 11. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 312). 12. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:113, 114 (Q/​A 313). 13. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 312). 14. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:113, 114 (Q/​A 313, 314). 15. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1293 (4.14.17). 16. Ibid. According to Gottfried W. Locher, “Discord among Guests:  Lessons to be Learned from the Reformers’ Debate about the Lord’s Supper for a Contemporary Understanding and Celebration,” in Zwingli’s Thought:  New Perspectives, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, ed. Heiko A. Oberman, vol. 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1981): 321 n. 34, “The whole discussion regarding the sacraments in the Catechism of Geneva presents one single debate with Zwinglianism and its arguments—​which is proof of how strongly this attitude was represented in Geneva.” Unfortunately, Locher provides no documentatary evidence here to substantiate this claim. 17. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132 (Q/​A 315). 18. Ibid.; CO 6:113, 115; 114, 116 (Q/​A 316–​18). 19. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132 (Q/​A 317–​18). 20. Ibid.; CO 6:113 (Q/​A 316): “Combien que les incredules et meschans anneantissent la grace qui leur est presentée par les Sacremens, si ne s’ensuit il pas que la proprieté d’iceux ne soit telle”; CO 6:114: “Quanquam oblata sibi in sacramentis, Dei dona, in nihilum, ut ita dicam, redigunt impii, quantum ad ipsos spectat, non tamen propterea efficiunt, quin sua vis et natura sacramentis maneat.” 21. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133 (Q/​A 323–​24). 22. Ibid. (Q/​A 325–​27). 23. Ibid. (Q/​A 327). 24. CO 6:117 (Q/​A 328): “Entans-​tu que l’eaue nous en soit seulement une figure? C’est tellement figure, que la verité est conioincte avec. Car Dieu ne nous promet rien en vain: parquoy il est certain qu’au Baptesme las remission des pechez nous est offerte, et nous las recevons.” The English translation is my own. 25. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133; CO 6:118 (Q/​A 328): “Verum, annon aliud aquae tribuis, nisi ut ablutionis tantum sit figura? Sic figuram esse sentio, ut simul annexa sit veritas. Neque enim, sua nobis dona pollicendo, nos Deus frustratur. Proinde et peccatorum veniam, et vitae novitatem offerri nobis in baptism, et recipe a nobis certum est.” Inexplicably, Reid does not translate the simul in the Latin text. 26. COR 2/​13:119 (1540 text only). 27. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 134; CO 6:119, 120 (Q/​A 329). 28. CO 6:119 (Q/​A 331): “Comment ceste grace nous est-​elle appliquée au Baptesme? Entant que nous sommes là vestuz de Iesus Christ, et y recevons son Esprit: moyennant que nous ne nous rendions pas indignes des promesses qui nous y sont données.” Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 134; CO 6:120 (Q/​A 331): “Quomodo per baptismum nobis haec bona conferuntur? Quia nisi promissiones illic nobis

82  Font of Pardon and New Life oblatas respuendo infructuosas reddimus, vescimur Christo, eiusque spiritu donamur.” 29. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132 (Q/​A 317). 30. Ibid., 136; CO 6:125, 126 (Q/​A 343–​46). 31. The French text was entitled La Forme des prières et chantz ecclésiastiques, avec la manière d’adminstrer les sacramens, et consacrer le marriage, selon la coustume de l’eglise ancienne (CO 6:161–​210). An English translation can be found in John D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation:  The Reformation Period. Some Early Reformed Rites of Baptism and Confirmation and Other Contemporary Documents (London: S.P.C.K., 1970; reprint, Chicago: HillenbrandBooks, 2007), 112–​17. 32. According to Fisher (Christian Initiation, 112), this form for baptism was strictly Calvin’s own work and not derived from Bucer’s German-​language rite or any other Reformed liturgy. 33. McKee points out that in the 1547 edition of this liturgy, Calvin replaced “represents” with “presents”—​evidence, she claims, of a larger shift in Calvin’s sacramental theology beginning in 1539 “to emphasize the reality of the grace: it is offered, it is not merely pictured.” Pastoral Ministry,  405–​6. 34. Calvin, The Form of Prayers, in Fisher, Christian Initiation, 114–​15; CO 6:187: “Mais comme il nous communique ses richesses et benedictions, par sa parole: ainsi il nous les distribute par ses Sacremens.” 35. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 131, 146. 36. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1295–​96 (4.14.19); CO 1:952. 37. See 50–​51 [p. 51]. 38. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1286 (4.14.11); CO 1:945–​46. 39. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1279–​80 (4.14.4). 40. Ibid., 2:1282 (4.14.7); CO 1:942: “Proinde Paulus dum apud fideles verba facit, sic de sacramentis disserit, ut in illis Christ communionem includat. . . . Quo significat, utcunque impii ac hypocritae sua perversitate, divinae gratiae in sacramentis effectum vel opprimant, vel obscurent, vel impediant, id tamen minime obstare quominus, ubi et quoties Domino placet, et verum de Christi communicatione testimonium afferant, et hoc ipsum quoque exhibeant quod promittunt.” Calvin also adds in 1543 near the end of ­chapter 14 that “whatever is shown [exhibeatur] us today in the sacraments” was already received by the Jews in the sacraments of the Old Testament, namely, “Christ with his spiritual riches.” Calvin: Institutes, 2:1299 (4.14.23); CO 1:954–​55. 41. Lusk (“Calvin on Baptism”) is absolutely correct in pointing to this passage as an example of how Calvin laces together the two senses of instrumentality. However, in support of his conclusion that, according to Calvin, “we receive not just cognitive assurance, but Christ himself!” in the sacraments, Lusk fails to mention that the references to the sacraments as pledges, testimonies, and seals of God’s grace go back to the editions of 1536 and 1539, whereas the references to the communion, communication, and offering of Christ himself appear for the first time in 1543. 42. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1292 (4.14.16). 43. Ibid.; CO 1:949. I have altered the Battles’s translation slightly to reflect what I regard as a more accurate translation of tum  .  .  .  tum (“both  .  .  .  and” rather than

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  83 “sometimes . . . at other times”) in this context. Davis (Clearest Promises of God, 153), too, notes the dual instrumental role of a sacrament in this passage: “Thus, we see that Calvin distinguishes the function of the sacrament as a means of knowledge . . . from its function as an instrument of grace that enriches and strengthens the Christian’s communion with Christ. Both parts are necessary for the proper working of the Sacrament.” 44. See pp. XXX. 45. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1290–​91 (4.14.15); CO 1:948–​49. Cf. also the following addition in 1543: “What wonder, then, if ceremonies, cut off from Christ, are divested of all force [virtute]! For, when the thing signified [res signata] is removed, all that belongs to the signs is reduced to nothing.” Institutes, 2:1301 (4.14.25); CO 1:956. 46. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1303 (4.15.1); CO 1:957. 47. Zachman (“Revising the Reform,” 170–​71) notes that in the 1543 Institutes and 1545 Catechism of the Church of Geneva Calvin’s doctrine of baptism takes on a more ecclesial dimension and that “from this point onward, Calvin will always combine the theme of our engrafting into Christ with the theme of our initiation into the society of the church.” 48. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1312 (4.15.12); CO 1:964. 49. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99. 50. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1315 (4.15.15); CO 1:965. 51. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 172. 52. John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser, vol. 9 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1960), 265; CO 49:501–​2 (comm. on 1 Cor. 12:13). 53. On Schwenckfeld, see The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, s.v. “Schwenckfeld, Kaspar von” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 54. Calvin, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 203; CO 49:454 (comm. on 1 Cor. 10:3); Calvin, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 205; CO 49:455 (comm. on 1 Cor. 10:4). 55. Calvin, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 203; CO 49:454 (comm. on 1 Cor. 10:3). 56. John Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent:  With the Antidote,” in Calvin’s Tracts, trans. Henry Beveridge, vol. 2 (1844; reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 181 (antidote to Session 7, Canon 5, on baptism). 57. Ibid., 182 (antidote to Session 7, Canon 10, on baptism). 58. Ibid., 85–​86; CO 7:425 (antidote to Session 5, Decree 1, on original sin). 59. Ibid., 172 (antidote to Session 7, Canon 2, on the sacraments in general). 60. Ibid., 173; CO 7:493 (antidote to Session 7, Canon 2, on the sacraments in general). Cf. ibid., 109 (antidote to Session 6 on justification): “Towards the end of the fifth head they affirm that no transference to a state of grace takes place without Baptism, or a wish for it. Would it not have been better to say, that by the word and sacraments Christ is communicated [verbo et sacramentis nobis Christum], or, if they prefer so to speak, applied to us, than to make mention of baptism alone?” 61. Ibid., 174–​75; CO 7:494 (antidote to Session 7, Canon 6, on the sacraments in general).

84  Font of Pardon and New Life 62. Ibid., 174–​75 (antidote to Session 7, Canons 4–​6, on the sacraments in general). 63. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 172. 64. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 174; CO 7:494 (antidote to Session 7, Canons 4, 5, on the sacraments in general). 65. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 180; CO 7:499: “sed ordinarium quoque Dei instrumentum asserimus, ad nos lavandos et renovandos, ad salutem denique nobis communicandam” (antidote to Session 7, Canon 5, on baptism). 66. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 116–​17; CO 7:449 (antidote to Session 6 on justification). 67. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 174; CO 7:494 (antidote to Session 7, Canons 4, 5, on the sacraments in general). 68. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 180, 176 (antidotes to Session 7, Canon 5 on baptism and Canon 8 on the sacraments in general). 69. Ibid., 116–​17 (antidote to Session 6 on justification). 70. According to David S. Sytsma (“Calvin, Daneau, and Physica Mosaica:  Neglected Continuities at the Origins of an Early Modern Tradition,” Church History and Religious Culture 95 [2015]: 464), Calvin makes much the same point in his critique of Aristotle and natural philosophy:  “One of Calvin’s recurring polemics against Aristotle and philosophers consisted of the complaint that they attribute everything to secondary causes while neglecting God’s agency and the instrumental status of secondary causes.” 71. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker, vol. 11 of Calvin’s Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 205–​6; COR 2/​16:267 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 72. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 332; COR 2/​ 16:427 (comm. on Col. 2:12). 73. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 332–​33; COR 2/​16:427 (comm. on Col. 2:12). 74. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 172. 75. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 68–​69; COR 2/​16:86–​87 (comm. on Gal. 3:27). 76. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 77. Ibid., 206–​7; COR 2/​16:267–​68 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 78. Zachman, “Revising the Reform,” 168; Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 44–​45, 52–​53; Brian D. Spinks, “Calvin’s Baptismal Theology and the Making of the Strasbourg and Genevan Baptismal Liturgies 1540 and 1542,” Scottish Journal of Theology 48/​1 (1995): 57, 71. Cf. also G. Kater, De Kinderdoop bij Calvijn, Hersteld Hervormde Studies, ed. W. J. op ‘t Hof and P. de Vries (Houten: Den Hertog, 2014), 103–​4: “Het sacrament van de doop verzegelt de ingang in Gods kerk, die het lichaam van Christus is. In 1536 noemt Calvijn dit aspect niet in zign behandeling van de doopleer. Ongetwijfeld heeft dat te maken met zijn visie op de kerk, waarbij de jonge Calvijn—​tegenover de rooms-​katholieke ecclesiologie met haar sterke nadruk op de

Works from Calvin’s Second Period  85 zichtbare kerk—​de nadruk legt op de onzichtbare kerk van uitverkoren gelovigen. Door zijn toenemende contacten met de dopers zien we echter een verschuiving optreden, waarbij Calvijn aan de zichtbare kerk nadrukkelijker een plaats wil geven.” 79. See nn. 64, 65. 80. See  n. 76. 81. See nn. 60, 19.

5 The Consensus Tigurinus (1549) As we have seen in previous chapters, scholars who have advocated a developmental approach to Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments have pointed to the influence of Bucer, Melanchthon, and several Protestant-​Catholic colloquies in the 1530s and 1540s to help explain what they considered major shifts in Calvin’s baptismal views from 1536 to 1549. Not much evidence has been offered in support of these hypotheses, and if our previous analysis is correct that such shifts were not really as sharp as has been claimed, such evidence will be difficult to find. However, our examination of the Consensus Tigurinus (Zurich Consensus; hereafter CT) in this chapter provides a good opportunity to ascertain whether and how Calvin’s baptismal thinking changed in the context of a very specific set of events, namely, his attempts in the late 1540s to find common ground with Heinrich Bullinger on the doctrine of the sacraments.1 Past scholarship has been sharply divided on who “won” and “lost” this theological debate, or at least on who made the most concessions to the other.2 As Davis has noted, nineteenth-​century scholars like John Nevin and J. H. A. Ebrard interpreted the articles of the CT as a total victory for Calvin.3 Nevin saw in the Consensus both “the triumph of Calvinism over what was still defective in the old Swiss view” and an advance by Bullinger beyond the position he had formerly held.4 For Ebrard, too, the CT represented a total victory of Calvinism over Zwinglianism.5 This view, according to Davis, carried over into the twentieth century in the work of such scholars as Hans Grass, Emile Doumergue, and Alexander Barclay.6 Davis and Janse, however, have vigorously challenged this interpretation. Far from signaling a triumph for Calvin, the CT in their view represented a retreat from his earlier position on the sacraments and a victory for Bullinger instead. Davis traced the groundwork for this newer interpretation to scholars like Francois Wendel, Ulrich Gäbler, and especially Paul Rorem, the latter of whom maintained that the CT was really a compromise by omission on Calvin’s part that ended up favoring Bullinger’s sacramental theology by avoiding the language of exhibition, instrumentality, and conferral of grace.7 Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0005.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  87 Davis himself went beyond Rorem, arguing that Calvin’s later claim that everything in the CT was already present in his earlier writings could not be substantiated. Instead, the CT was a “patchwork” document, with a general Bullingerian design and more Bullingerian swatches than Calvinian pieces woven into the fabric. It demonstrated a willingness by Calvin to modify his teaching on the Eucharist for the sake of peace among the Swiss churches, but the final result was so “uncalvinistic” that the Genevan reformer was forced later on to reinterpret the document to harmonize it with his earlier work.8 Janse, too, did not view the CT as at all representative of Calvin’s Eucharistic thought from 1536 to 1549 or even as a compromise with Bullinger. Compared with Calvin’s writings in the previous decade, the agreement with Zurich was far less Calvinian than Bullingerian in its theology, and the correspondence between Calvin and Bullinger leading up to it “testifies to what extent Calvin ceded terrain to the Swiss regarding significant points of doctrine.”9 Almost entirely gone were “the instrumental, exhibitive (offering and actually giving) and pneumatologically effected (by the Spirit as vinculum participationis) character of the sacraments,” which was replaced by a Bullingerian emphasis on the sovereign work of God independent of the elements.10 Janse entitled this new phase of Calvin’s Eucharistic thought Calvinus bullingerizans (“the Bullingerizing Calvin”).11 It is my contention in this chapter that Davis and Janse were correct in challenging the older scholarship that characterized the CT as a complete triumph for Calvin, but they went too far in portraying it as a victory for Bullinger instead. It is true, at least when it comes to the sacraments in general (the real focus of the CT) and baptism in particular, that the CT avoids certain Calvinian terms and phraseology, but there is also nothing significant in the text that cannot be found in Calvin’s earlier writings or could not be interpreted in a Calvinian way. In what follows, we shall analyze, in order, the seventeen of the CT’s twenty-​six articles that deal with the sacraments in general and, in some cases, also refer to baptism.12

Articles 1–​2,  5–​19 Article 1. The Whole Spiritual Government of  the Church Leads us to Christ. Since Christ is the end of the law, and knowledge of him comprehends, in itself, the whole sum of the gospel, there is no doubt that the whole spiritual

88  Font of Pardon and New Life government of the church aims to bring us to Christ: for it is through him alone that a man comes to God, who is the ultimate end of a blessed life. And so whoever draws away from this in the slightest point will never be able to speak rightly or appositely of any of God’s ordinances.

This Christological foundation on which the rest of the CT is constructed is certainly consistent with Calvin’s earlier sacramental thought. Both the title and body of this article make clear that the purpose of the spiritual government of the church, which includes the administration of the sacraments, is to lead us or bring us to Christ (ad Christum nos ducit; ad Christum nos ducat),13 language that Calvin had used and would continue to use in every edition of the Institutes. Already in the first edition of 1536, he introduced the sacraments in general with the claim that the Lord so accommodates himself to our capacity that “he leads us to himself [nos ad se deducit] even by these earthly elements” and that the Old Testament “sacraments looked to the same purpose to which ours now tend: to direct [dirigerent] and almost lead men by the hand to Christ [ad Christum . . . paene manu ducerent].”14 The Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​ 1545), too, describes the sacramental signs as aids “by which we may be directed straight to Christ [recta ad Christum dirigamur].”15 And in his commentary on Ephesians (1548), just a year before the agreement with Zurich, Calvin warned that “we must be aware of giving any portion of our trust to the element or man: for the true and proper use of the sacrament is to lead us by the hand directly to Christ [recta nos ad Christum manu ducere] and settle us in him.”16 Calvin’s placement of Christ at the center of the sacrament, of course, provided the basis for frequent assertions throughout his pre-​Consensus corpus that the sacraments offer, set forth, and actually present Christ to us and that in baptism we are united by faith with Christ and his benefits.17 Article 2. A  True Knowledge of  the Sacraments from  the Knowledge of Christ. Since the sacraments are appendices to the gospel, one can only speak fittingly and usefully of their nature, force, office and fruit when one starts from Christ. And one is not only to touch lightly upon the name of Christ, but one is to hold true to the purpose for which he was given to us by the Father and to those good things which he has brought us.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  89 Janse maintained that one of the evidences of the non-​Calvinian tone of the CT is that “the Word did not function in the Calvinian sense as an actual means of salvation, nor did the sacrament itself, which was added to Word as appendix evangelii (Art. 2).”18 He seemed to be suggesting that the phrase evangelii appendices (“appendices to the gospel”)19 contributes to the non-​Calvinian ring of this article because it diminishes the role of sacraments in the salvation process; sacraments are mere appendices to the Word. We should remember, however, that Calvin was not averse to using this phrase in his earlier writings. As far back as the Institutes of 1536, and in every edition subsequently, he elaborated on his definition of a sacrament by insisting that it “never lacks a preceding promise but is rather joined to it by way of appendix [tanquam appendicem].”20 In the material that he added on infant baptism in the 1539 edition, Calvin asserted that the sign of baptism always “serves the word,” is “under the word,” and should be relegated “to a lower place” than the Word. “Therefore, since the word ‘baptism’ is applied to infants, why shall the sign, which is an appendix of the word [verbi appendix], be denied to them?”21 Seven years later, he employed such terminology again in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 4:1, where Paul makes reference to “the mysteries of God.” Calvin understands these mysteries to be none other than the gospel, and “the sacraments are connected with these mysteries as appendages [tanquam appendices].”22 Finally, in the Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), just two years before the CT, he reiterated the subordinate place of baptism in relation to the Word: “When all has been said, it must still be granted me that [baptism] is nothing else than an appendage of the gospel [appendicem evangelii].”23 What is striking in all of these contexts is that the subservient role that Calvin assigns to the sacraments in general and baptism in particular in no way prevents him from still labeling a sacrament as an instrument, even at times an instrument of salvation. Later in the Acts of the Council of Trent, for example, the same sacrament of baptism that is “nothing else than an appendage of the gospel” is also “the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating salvation.”24 The reference to sacraments as “appendices to the gospel” in CT Article 2, therefore, is not un-​Calvinian in and of itself. For Calvin, placing sacraments in an inferior position to the Word does not preclude their functioning as a means of salvation.

90  Font of Pardon and New Life Article 5. How Christ Communicates Himself to Us. Moreover, in order that Christ may exhibit himself to us in this way and produce these effects in us, we must be made one with him and grow together into his body. For he does not pour out his life into us unless he is our head from which the whole body, compacted and connected through every joint of supply, makes for the increase of each member of the body by proportion according to his working.

This article and Article 23 on the eating of Christ’s body at the Lord’s Supper were added by Calvin to the original twenty-​four propositions of the CT and were accepted by Bullinger as part of the final version.25 The most striking feature of Article 5 is the inclusion of a key term in Calvin’s sacramental theology: exhibeat (“present,” “offer,” “hold forth”).26 This is worthy of note because the two occurrences of exhibere in the Confessio Gebennesis (Genevan Confession), which Calvin had prepared for a Bernese synod in 1549 and on which much of the text of the CT was based, were dropped or replaced in the final version of the CT.27 The one remaining here might have been acceptable to Bullinger only because, as Janse has noted, it occurs in connection with Christ and not the sacramental signs, supporting Janse’s conclusion that “Calvin’s notion of the exhibitive function of the signs was missing from the Consensus Tigurinus.”28 It should be remembered, however, that in Calvin’s mind Christ’s exhibition (presentation) of himself and his exhibition by way of the sacraments were very closely linked, the latter being one way in which the former occurs. As we have already seen, in the Institutes of 1536 and every subsequent edition, Calvin ties the two concepts together in a discussion of the presence of Christ the King in the Lord’s Supper: This Kingdom is neither bounded by any location in space nor circumscribed by any limits. Thus uncircumscribed, Christ can exert his power wherever he pleases, in heaven and on earth; he can show [exhibeat] his presence in power and strength; he is always able to be among his own people to live in them, sustain them, strengthen, quicken, keep them, as if he were present in the body. In this manner, the body and blood of Christ are shown [exhibetur] to us in the Sacrament.29

Christ’s sacramental exhibition is one way in which the general exhibition of himself in kingly power and strength comes to expression. When CT Article 5 states that “in order that Christ may exhibit [exhibeat] himself to us in this

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  91 way and produce these effects in us,” the phrase “in this way” refers, in part, to a description of his royal office found in the immediately preceding article, according to which Christ the King “enriches us with every kind of good thing, . . . rules and protects us by his power, and . . . governs us and guides us by the sceptre of his mouth” (Art. 4). Unlike the Institutes, CT Article 5 does not explicitly mention the sacraments as a locus of this exhibition, but it is safe to assume that in Calvin’s mind, especially in a document about the sacraments, it was there by implication. Article 6. Spiritual Communion. The Sacraments Instituted. This spiritual communion which we have with the Son of God, when he lives in us by his Spirit, makes every believer a partaker of all the blessings which reside in him. To testify to this, the preaching of the gospel was instituted and the use of the sacraments was intrusted to us, namely the sacraments of holy Baptism and the holy Supper.

After five foundational articles on Christology, Article 6 begins a section of fifteen propositions on the sacraments in general. Rorem maintained that this “opening presentation of the sacraments [in Article 6] in terms of testifying was obviously Bullinger’s preference,” not Calvin’s.30 That is a possibility but not “obviously” so, since in almost all of Calvin’s theological writings to that point, he, too, had opened his presentation on the sacraments with an emphasis on their testimonial role. As we have already seen, as early as the 1536 Institutes, he had defined sacraments in two ways:  (1) “an outward sign by which [quo] the Lord represents and attests [testificatur] to us his good will toward us to sustain the weakness of our faith,” and (2) “a testimony [testimonium] of God’s grace, declared to us by an outward sign [externo symbolo].”31 In subsequent editions of the Institutes, the first of these definitions was only slightly changed (in 1543); the second was never altered. Furthermore, one of the three things that baptism in particular provides our faith is a “sure testimony [testificatur] to us that we are . . . united and joined to Christ” and his benefits, and a “token [by which the Lord] attests [testificatur] his will toward us.”32 Calvin does characterize the sacraments here as means or instruments, as the ablatives quo (“by which”) and externo symbolo (“by an outward sign”) indicate, but the focus is on their function as representations and attestations of the divine will and as testimonies of grace, that is, means of knowledge and assurance, not of salvation.

92  Font of Pardon and New Life This approach is found in other parts of Calvin’s corpus prior to the CT as well. The introductory definitions of 1536 reappeared nearly verbatim in his first catechism of 1537/​1538, and in the 1539 Institutes he expanded on his 1536 explanation of the definition (“sacraments have been set forth by God in order to serve our faith, namely, to nourish, exercise, and increase it”) to explicitly include the testimonial basis for such nurture: “Sacraments are truly named the testimonies [testimonia] of God’s grace and are like seals of the good will that he feels toward us, which by attesting [obsignant] that good will to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.”33 Calvin’s second catechism of 1542/​1545 also defined sacraments as means of knowledge and assurance: a sacrament is an external “attestation” (tesmoignage, testificatio) of God’s benevolence to us and “represents” spiritual things or grace by means of a visible sign. God does this in order to “impress” or “seal” his promises upon our hearts all the more strongly, “to make us more certain of them,” and to better confirm their truth.34 Finally, in the opening teaching section on baptism in the Form of Prayers (1542), we find a greater balance than before between baptism as an instrument of assurance and an instrument of grace, but Calvin still refers to baptism as a sure “testimony” (tesmoignage) of God’s desire not to hold our sins against us and a place where God “testifies” (testiffie) to the remission of our sins.35 Even if the focus of CT Article 6 on the sacraments as testimonies of our spiritual communion with Christ and all his blessings was Bullinger’s preference, it would have been fully in line with Calvin’s own earlier sacramental theology, which often introduced the sacraments in the very same way. Article 7. The Ends of the Sacraments. The ends of the sacraments are that they be marks and badges of Christian profession and our community or brotherhood, to incite us to thanksgiving and exercises of faith and godly living and to be contracts binding us to this. But the end which is first among the others is that through them God may testify, represent and seal his grace to us. For although they signify nothing that is not announced by the Word, yet it is a great benefit that there is cast before our eyes, as it were, living pictures which influence our senses in a deeper way, as if leading up to the thing itself; while they recall to our memory the death of Christ and all his benefits so that our faith may better be exercised. It is also a great benefit that what God has pronounced with his mouth, is confirmed and ratified as if by seals.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  93 Rorem and Janse find in this article a general Bullingerian tone and significant compromises and concessions on Calvin’s part. They point particularly to the description of the sacraments as “marks and badges of Christian profession” and “living pictures” that “recall to our memory the death of Christ and all his benefits”—​all Zwinglian emphases.36 Rorem also notes that Article 7 identifies the chief end of the sacraments as testifying to, representing, and sealing God’s grace—​language that, in his view, Calvin had blended with instrumental terminology in the original Bern articles but let stand alone here in the CT in a further effort to compromise with Bullinger.37 The threefold use of quasi in this article (“cast before our eyes, as it were, living pictures”; “as if leading up to the thing itself ”; “as if by seals”)38 also signified for Janse a diminishment of the role of the sacraments in the communication of grace and a Bullingerian emphasis on God’s working independently of the elements.39 Once again, some of these claims have gone too far. First of all, Calvin never shied away from the language of “marks and badges of Christian profession,” as long as this function of the sacraments remained secondary, as it is here in CT 7, to their role as signs and seals of God’s grace. The full sentence in which this phrase appears in Article 7 reads as follows: “The ends of the sacraments are that they be marks and badges of Christian profession [notae . . . ac tesserae christianae professionis] and our community or brotherhood, to incite us to thanksgiving and exercises of faith and godly living [piae vitae] and to be contracts binding [obligantes] us to this.”40 This is very similar to language that Calvin had added to the Institutes in 1539, where he described the sacraments as “marks of profession [professionis notae], . . . ‘covenants,’ by which . . . we bind [obligamus] ourselves to pursue piety [pietatis] and innocence.”41 In both places we find reference to the sacraments not only as emblems of Christian profession but also as means by which we place ourselves under contractual or covenantal obligation to God to maintain such pious behavior. Second, Article 7’s depiction of sacraments as “living pictures [vivas imagines]42 which influence our senses in a deeper way, as if leading up to the thing itself,” is not foreign to Calvin either. To accommodate to our “dull capacity, and to lead us by the hand as tutors lead children,” writes Calvin in the 1536 Institutes, God presents his promises in the sacraments “as painted in a picture [in tabula depictas] and sets them before our sight, portrayed graphically and in the manner of images [eikotws].”43 In the 1539 edition, he then added a line, “The sacraments . . . represent [the promises of the Word]

94  Font of Pardon and New Life for us as painted in a picture from life [in tabula depictas . . . ad vivum].”44 A  few pages later in 1536 he makes a similar connection between sacramental leading and images or pictures: “Yet those ancient sacraments looked to the same purpose to which ours now tend: to direct and almost lead us by the hand to Christ, or rather, as images [imagines], to represent him and set him forth to be known.”45 What is striking is that in two of these quotations Calvin employs variations of the qualifying term quasi in the same two contexts that quasi would later appear in CT 7: “as if [quasi] leading up to the thing itself ” (CT 7) echoes “almost [paene] lead men by the hand to Christ” (1536 Institutes), and “as it were [quasi], living pictures” (CT 7) mirrors both “as/​like [ceu] images” (1536 Institutes) and “as [velut] painted in a picture” (1539 Institutes).46 Finally, Rorem’s contention that the CT abandons all instrumental language in this article for the sake of compromise is not entirely correct. A key sentence in Article 7 reads: “But the end [of the sacraments] which is first among the others is that through them [per ea] God may testify, represent and seal his grace to us.” As Rorem notes later in an analysis of Article 10, in which per sacramenta (“through the sacraments”) was removed from the original wording, Bullinger strongly objected to the use of the preposition per in any context where it referred to the sacraments as instruments of our participation in Christ.47 He might have relented here in Article 7 because what happens “through” the sacraments is not a participation in Christ but only a testifying to, representing, and sealing of God’s grace to us. Nevertheless, the sealing of grace itself (not just the promise of grace) “through” the sacraments certainly implies that the sacraments are instruments, and because the phrase could be interpreted in more than one way, probably even instruments of grace.48 Article 8. The Lord Truly Presents What the Sacraments Truly Figure. Thanksgiving. Since the testimonies and seals, which God has given us of his grace, are true; there can be no doubt that God grants within us by his Spirit that which the sacraments figure to our eyes and other senses. That is: that we may receive Christ, as the fountain of all good, both that we may be reconciled to God by means of his death and renewed by the Spirit to holiness of life, and that we may obtain righteousness and finally salvation. At the same time we give thanks for these benefits once exhibited on the cross, which we now perceive daily by faith.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  95 There is no question that in the first sentence of this article Calvin ceded some theological territory to Bullinger. The opening paragraph of the Confessio Gebennesis, on which much of the CT was based, had stated that the sacraments “hold forth/​present/​offer [exhiberi] to us that which they figure.” This was changed in the text of the CT to read “What the sacraments truly figure, the Lord truly offers [praestat]” (title of Article 8) and “God grants [praestat] within us . . . that which the sacraments figure” (text of Article 8).49 As we have seen and will have occasion to emphasize again later, these latter statements are not inconsistent with Calvin’s sacramental theology, but in this context he would certainly have preferred to retain the verb exhibere and the explicit linkage between the sacramental signs and that which they signify. Article 9. The Signs and the Things Signified Are Distinct. Therefore although we draw a distinction, as we must, between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin the truth from the signs. But we acknowledge that all who embrace in faith the promises there offered, receive Christ spiritually with his spiritual gifts, and even those who for a long time have been partakers of Christ continue and renew that communion. Article 10. It Is Principally the  Promise That Is to  Be Regarded in  the Sacraments. One must not look to the bare signs but rather to the promise attached to them. Inasmuch, therefore, as our faith profits from the promise offered, so that force and efficacy of which we speak displays itself. Thus the element of water, bread or wine by no means offers us Christ, nor makes us possessors of his spiritual gifts. Rather, one must look at the promise, whose office it is to lead us to Christ by the true way of faith, which makes us partakers of Christ.

According to Rorem, Articles 9 and 10 of the CT are modified versions of Articles 5 and 6 of Calvin’s Confessio Gebennesis, respectively, which were altered to reflect a more Bullingerian view of the sacraments.50 CT Article 9 shifts the focus in the Genevan text on the sacraments as the locus of receiving Christ to faith in the promise that is offered and illustrated in the sacraments. And in CT Article 10, a clause from Article 6 of the Confessio Gebennesis that referred to our becoming participants in Christ and his benefits “through the sacraments” (per sacramenta) has been omitted.51

96  Font of Pardon and New Life Davis goes even further, arguing that when it comes to the relation between sign and signified, the general tenor of the CT is “at odds” with Calvin’s position. In the case of the Eucharist, at least, the CT portrays the sacrament not as a channel of grace but as a mere symbol. Missing is the Calvinian idea of the sacrament as a means through which the Holy Spirit works; instead, the CT connects faith and the Spirit only loosely to the sign. “In other words,” Davis concludes, “Calvin’s notion of sacramental efficacy is lacking in the document.”52 What both Rorem and Davis overlooked, however, is a crucial clause in the first sentence of Article 9: “Therefore although we draw a distinction, as we must, between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin [non disiungimus] the truth [veritatem] from the signs.”53 Truth and signs must be distinguished, but they may not be separated. Not to disjoin sign and signified implies, of course, that they are in some way conjoined, and that is precisely how Calvin describes the relationship between the truth, or grace, of the sacraments and their external signs throughout his earlier writings. It was in his commentary on Romans in 1540 that he first stated that the sacrament of baptism is not rightly received “unless it is joined [iungatur] with the promises of God and their substance [substantia].” Indeed, whenever Paul is addressing believers, “It is his custom to connect the reality and truth with the symbol [rem et veritatem cum symbolo copulare].”54 In the French and Latin versions of the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545), Calvin again employed verbs (conioincte, annexa sit) that explicitly linked the outward sign of baptism to its inner “truth” or “reality” (verité, veritas).55 He did the same in the 1543 Institutes with respect to the sacraments in general, anticipating the language of CT 9 by acknowledging a “union” or conjunction (coniunctione) between sign and signified but also the need to distinguish between the “figure” of a sacrament and its “truth” (veritatem).56 Three years later, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546), he asserted again that “we have no right to separate the reality and the figure [veritatem et figuram] which God has joined together [conunxit].”57 Finally, in his commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians just a year before the CT appeared, he reiterated that in the case of baptism, the truth of the reality (rei veritas) is conjoined (coniuncta esset) with the sacrament.58 And when it comes to the sacraments in general, Paul “connects [coniungit] them with the truth [veritate] which they figure. . . . The truth [veritas] becomes joined [coniuncta] to the signs.”59

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  97 Notwithstanding concessions that Calvin might have made in the final wording of CT Articles 9 and 10, therefore, the affirmation in Article 9 of a distinction but no disjunction between sign and signified has a definite Calvinian ring to it, even echoing language that the reformer had used in a variety of his writings in the decade leading up to the agreement with Zurich. To be sure, Bullinger could interpret this sentence in his own way; the ambiguity of this and other formulations in the CT allowed for different meanings and seems to have been part of the design. There is no evidence, however, that on this point the CT reflects a capitulation by Calvin or even a deviation from his earlier sacramental thought.60 Article 11. We Are Not to Gaze in Bewilderment at the Elements. This defeats the error of those who gaze in bewilderment at the elements and attach to them their confidence of salvation. For the sacraments, separated from Christ, are nothing but empty masks: yet in them all a voice clearly resounds, telling us to hold fast to none other than Christ alone and to seek the grace of salvation nowhere else. Article 12. The Sacraments Achieve Nothing of Themselves. Every Saving Act Is to Be Attributed to God Alone. Besides, if any good thing is bestowed upon us through the sacraments, it is not because of any inherent virtue, not even if you understand by that the promise by which they are distinguished. For it is God alone who works by his Spirit. And although he uses the ministry of the sacraments, he neither infuses his own power into them nor does he derogate in any way from the efficacy of his Spirit: but according to our ignorance, he uses them as helps, yet so that all the power remains with him alone.

Janse claimed that these two articles are much more in line with Bullinger’s approach than Calvin’s in their emphasis on God’s independence of the sacramental elements in the work of salvation. This is particularly evident, he argued, in the repeated use of the intensive adverb “alone” to distinguish divine action from sacramental efficacy: “Christ alone” (solo Christo) in Article 11 and “God/​him alone” (soli deo, Deus . . . solus, ipsum solum) three times in Article 12.61 However, Calvin’s works before 1549 are also laced with such language. Especially striking is a passage that he added to the Institutes in 1539, which anticipates many of the terms and phrases in CT Articles 11 and 12:

98  Font of Pardon and New Life As to the confirmation and increase of faith . . . I should therefore like my readers to be reminded that I assign this particular ministry [ministerium] to the sacraments. Not that I suppose there is some secret force or other perpetually sealed in them by which they are able to promote or confirm faith by themselves. . . . But the sacraments properly fulfill their office only when the Spirit, that inward teacher, comes to them, by whose power alone [virtute unius] hearts are penetrated and affections moved and our souls opened for the sacraments to enter in. . . . Therefore, I make such a division between Spirit and sacraments that the power to act [agenda virtus] rests with the former, and the ministry [ministerium] alone is left to the latter—​a ministry empty and trifling, apart from the action of the Spirit, but charged with great effect when the Spirit works within and manifests his power [vim].62

We note here, first of all, that for Calvin it is the Spirit’s power alone (unius) that changes hearts and souls, an assertion that he would repeat in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, in some of the material added to the Institutes in 1543, and in his commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians: “To move and affect the heart, to illumine the mind and to render the conscience sure and tranquil is the business [not of the sacraments but] of the Spirit alone [seul, solius].”63 The “power and efficacy” of the sacraments are never found in the external elements themselves but proceed “wholly” (toute, totam) from the Spirit of God.64 That is why it is a serious error to focus exclusively on the visible sign and “to transfer to it the credit for those benefits which are conferred upon us by Christ alone [uno Christo]” through the Holy Spirit.65 In the case of baptism, to transfer to the sign or administrant “what belongs to God alone [Dei unius] is to ascribe to the water or the minister what only the blood of Christ can do. It is not the sign that washes us; “this is the work of God alone [solius Dei]. . . . To God alone [soli Deo] belongs the office of cleansing.”66 Calvin’s repeated references to the “ministry” of the sacraments in the 1539 passage, as well as his insistence that the sacraments contain no force or power in themselves, were also found in other works of his before they emerged in similar form in CT Articles 11 and 12. As far back as the 1536 Institutes, and in every edition subsequently, Calvin had stressed that even though it is through the “ministry” (ministerio) of the sacraments that God lavishes his gifts upon us, we do not place any “power” (virtutem; CT 12: virtute) or “confidence” (fiduciae; CT 11: fiduciam) in these creaturely things.67 There

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  99 is indeed a “spiritual power” (virtute spirituali) in the things signified but no “secret powers” (arcanas . . . virtutes) attached to the signs themselves; the material elements possess no “hidden power” (latentem . . . virtutem) to dispense God’s blessings.68 Elsewhere in the 1539 Institutes, too, he rejected the notion that baptismal grace is “bound and enclosed in the sacrament so as to be conferred upon us by its power [virtute].”69 To really understand and appreciate the benefit of the sacraments, “the inner grace of the Spirit, as distinct from the outward ministry [ministerio], ought to be considered and pondered separately.”70 There are also a few key clauses, phrases, and terms in CT Articles 11 and 12 that are not found in the quotation from the 1539 Institutes but do appear elsewhere in Calvin’s writings. CT Article 11 states that “the sacraments, separated from Christ, are nothing but empty masks: yet in them all a voice clearly resounds, telling us to hold fast to none other than Christ alone and to seek the grace of salvation nowhere else.” Calvin had made this very same point in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, where, in response to the question, “Why do you say Christ is to be sought in [the sacraments]?” the child answers: “I mean that we are not to cling to the visible signs and there seek our salvation. . . . Rather we are to regard the sign in the light of an aid, by which we may be directed straight to Christ, and from him seek salvation and real felicity.”71 In Article 12 the phrase “through the sacraments” is used in a conditional clause that seems to be stating a fact rather than an uncertainty: “If any good thing is bestowed upon us through the sacraments [per sacramenta], it is not because of any inherent virtue.” This, as we have already seen, was a phrase that Calvin used frequently and Bullinger strongly objected to, especially if it carried any connotation of the sacraments as instruments of our participation in Christ. Perhaps here the clause is general enough in its meaning to have been acceptable to Bullinger as well. However closely CT 11 and 12 were aligned with Bullinger’s approach to the sacraments, therefore, they certainly reflected Calvin’s sacramental thought as well. Nearly every part of every line, including the repeated use of the adverbial intensive “alone,” can be found in some form already in Calvin’s earlier writings. Of all the major points here—​that one’s confidence of salvation should never be placed in the elements alone but in Christ alone, that the sacraments contain no inherent or infused power, that apart from Christ the sacraments are nothing, that it is God alone who works in us by the Spirit, and yet that God employs the sacraments as “helps” in the face of our ignorance, uses the “ministry” of the sacraments, and bestows good things “through the

100  Font of Pardon and New Life sacraments”—​none can be considered more Bullingerian than Calvinian, and some of the terminology and phrasing actually sounds more like Calvin. Calvin might have wished to say more than what is stated in these articles, but it is hard to imagine that he would have wanted to say anything less. Article 13. God Uses the Instrument, but Only in Such a Way That All the Virtue Is His. And so, as Paul warns us, he who sows or waters is nothing, but it is God alone who gives the increase. The same must be said of the sacraments, that they are nothing, because they will profit nothing unless God in all things makes them effective. They are indeed instruments by which God acts efficaciously, when he so pleases; yet in such a way that the whole work of our salvation must be ascribed to him alone.

Discussions of Article 13 in the secondary literature have focused primarily on two features:  the term “instrument(s)” (organo, organa) in the title and the text, and the clause “when he [God] so pleases” (ubi visum est).72 As Rorem saw it, the differences between Calvin and Bullinger prior to the Zurich Consensus were largely about the instrumental character of the sacraments: Calvin viewed them as actual instruments of God’s grace, Bullinger only as testimonies and analogies of that grace. The final wording of Article 13, therefore, represented a compromise by both parties. On the one hand, Calvin agreed to Zurich’s substitution of the word organa (“implements”) for instrumenta, the latter of which Calvin had used both in a key missive to Bullinger on June 26, 1548, and in the paragraph of the Confessio Gebennesis on which CT 13 was based.73 On the other hand, even the substitution of organa for instrumenta involved a compromise for Bullinger, who did not like either term. Bullinger, says Rorem, was either yielding to Calvin’s instrumental view of the sacraments here without, at least, having to live with the term, or he saw shades of meaning in organa that were different enough for him to tolerate it.74 Davis and Janse, however, placed more of an emphasis on concessions by Calvin in Article 13. According to Davis, Calvin much preferred instrumentum to organum because the latter term connoted something less necessary and more occasional than the former. But in contrast to his previous writings, where he always employed instrumentum to describe the function of the sacraments, Calvin did agree to organum in CT 13—​perhaps as a way of pacifying the Swiss clergy.75 Janse, too, found the treatment of

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  101 sacramental instrumentality in the CT far blander than in Calvin’s works before 1549. Not only does Article 13 substitute organum for the stronger term that Calvin had always used in his previous writings, it then goes on to employ the relative pronoun quibus in the ablative case (“by which”) rather than the characteristically Calvinian preposition per (“through”) to describe the mediating role of the sacraments.76 It can be questioned, however, whether the substitution of organum for instrumentum in Article 13 was as significant a change for Calvin as some have thought. First of all, it is not the case that Calvin had exclusively employed instrumentum in his earlier writings. In the treatments of the sacraments in general and baptism in particular that we have analyzed so far, we have actually encountered both terms, each a total of five times. To begin with, Calvin’s discussion of baptism in the 1536 Institutes contained two repudiations of the sacrament as an instrumentum in and of itself, but in one of these references he pairs instrumentum with organum.77 Four years later in his commentary on Romans, he employed the word instrumentum at least six times, but five are in reference to the gospel, preaching, the Word, or faith, and the sixth is applied to the sacraments rather tentatively (ceu instrumenta: “as if by instruments”).78 In the French edition of the Catechism of the Church of Geneva in 1542, Calvin spoke of the sacraments as instrumens but translated it as organis, not instrumentis, in the Latin edition of 1545. Similarly, he rendered the French moyens as organa in Latin in the very next question and answer.79 Organum also appeared an additional time in material that Calvin added to the Institutes in 1543, but only as a description of the preaching of the Word.80 What is worth noting is that it is located in a passage from 1536 where Calvin talks about food, sunlight, fire, and finally (by implication) the sacraments as “means and instruments” (mediis ac instrumentis) by which God distributes his blessings.81 Finally, in the Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (1547), he refers for the first time to baptism itself as an instrumentum,82 but in his commentary on Ephesians 5:26 a year later describes the same sacrament (twice) as an organum.83 No clear usage pattern, therefore, emerges in Calvin’s works in the thirteen years leading up to the CT; he appears to move back and forth between organum and instrumentum with ease and to employ them almost interchangeably. The only indication that he might have considered organum the weaker term is that in two instances where he underscores the “secondary” or “inferior” nature of sacraments as tools in the hands of God, that is the word he chooses.84

102  Font of Pardon and New Life Davis and Janse also understood the clause “when he [God] so pleases” as an expression of Zurich’s emphasis on God’s sovereignty and autonomy in bestowing the benefits of the sacraments.85 However, Calvin too had used this kind of language long before it appeared in Article 9 of the Confessio Gebennensis and in CT 13. In his Romans commentary of 1540, for example, he had insisted that preaching is of no profit by itself but that it becomes an “instrument” (instrumentum) of God’s power “when the Lord is pleased to work.” The context of this sentence makes clear that for Calvin those in whom the Lord is pleased to work are the elect.86 Two years later, he applied this clause to the sacrament of baptism in the Form of Prayers, stating that the blessings of forgiveness, mortification, and new life are conferred on us “when it pleases [God] to incorporate us in his church by baptism.”87 In the 1543 Institutes a year later, he acknowledged that the impious by their perversity can place obstacles in the way of God’s work of grace in the sacraments, but that does not prevent these rites, “wherever and whenever it pleases God,” from testifying to the communication of Christ or from offering that which they promise.88 Calvin even went so far as to suggest in the Ephesians commentary (1548) that the grace of God is not bound to the sacramental sign: God may, “if He pleases, freely bestow it without the aid of the sign.”89 Clearly, the clause in CT Article 13 about the freedom and good pleasure of God in relation to sacramental instrumentality is as Calvinian as it was northern Swiss. Article 14. [no heading] We conclude therefore that it is Christ alone who truly baptizes within and who in the Supper makes us partakers of himself. In brief, it is he who fulfils what the sacraments figure, and he uses these aids in such a way that the whole effect rests in his Spirit. Article 15. How the Sacraments Confirm. In this way the sacraments are sometimes called seals, and are said to nourish, confirm and promote faith: and yet in the proper sense the Spirit alone is the seal, inasmuch as he is the one who begins and perfects faith. For all these attributes of the sacraments take an inferior place, so that not even the smallest portion of our salvation may be transferred from the single author of it, to the creatures or elements.

We already noted in our analysis of CT Articles 11 and 12 that in discussions of God’s role in the sacraments, Calvin readily refers to the

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  103 action of “Christ alone,” “the Spirit alone,” and “God alone.” CT 14’s declaration that Christ alone is the one “who truly baptizes within,” who “fulfills what the sacraments figure,” and who “uses these aids in such a way that the whole effect rests in his Spirit” also resonates with Calvin’s earlier works: “By baptism,” he states in his Colossians commentary, “the mortification which Christ there figures, He at the same time effectively executes, that the reality may be conjoined with the sign”90—​keeping mind, of course, that “the sign . . . has no efficacy without the Spirit.”91 CT 14 does not connect sign and signified as closely as Calvin does (although cf. Article 9), but the assertion in the article that Christ “uses these aids [adminiculis]” is significant because adminiculum, which could also be translated “instrument,” was yet another word that Calvin sometimes employed to convey the instrumental character of the sacraments.92 Despite Bullinger’s dislike of this term also, it survived in the final text of both Articles 12 and 14.93 Article 16. Not All Partakers in the Sacrament Receive the Thing Itself. Besides, we are careful to teach that God does not exert his power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he only illuminates into faith those whom he has foreordained to life; so by the secret virtue of his Spirit, he works that the elect may receive what the sacraments offer. Article 17. The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace. By this doctrine, that fiction of the sophists is refuted which teaches that the sacraments of the new law confer grace on all who do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. For besides the fact that nothing is received in the sacraments except by faith, it is also necessary to hold that the grace of God is certainly not so tied to them that whoever has the sign receives the thing itself. For the signs are administered to the reprobate as well as to the elect, but the reality only reaches the latter. Article 18. The Gifts of God Are Offered to All but it is the Faithful Who Receive Them. It is quite certain that Christ, with his gifts, is offered communally to all, and that the truth of God is not overthrown by the unfaithfulness of men: the sacraments always retain their power, but all are not capable of Christ and his gifts. And so on God’s part, nothing is changed, but as for men; each receives according to the measure of his faith.

104  Font of Pardon and New Life Janse finds in this cluster of articles and in Calvin’s later defense of them against the attacks by Westphal a shift in Calvin’s thought to a more Bullingerian position. This can be seen especially, he argues, in the emphasis in these articles on the separation of God’s work of grace from the sacraments, the linkage of God’s activity to predestination, and the importance of faith on the part of those who participate in the sacraments.94 Once again, however, all these themes are present in the earlier Calvin. In a section that he added to the 1543 Institutes, for example, all three ideas—​ the distinction/​separation between sign and grace, predestination, and faith—​are presented together. There is certainly a union between sign and signified, says Calvin in a discussion of the sacraments in general, but the two are never linked in such a way that they cannot be separated. They must always be distinguished so that we do not attribute to the one what is really characteristic of the other. It is only in the elect that the sacraments are efficacious; an unworthy participant separates the external sacrament from its truth, “so that nothing remains but a vain and useless figure.” To receive “the matter with the sign,” one must embrace in faith the Word of God that accompanies them.95 In the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, too, Calvin stressed that “the impious . . . reduce the gifts of God conferred in the sacraments to nothing”; sacraments are effective only “when we receive them in faith, seeking in them Christ alone and his grace.”96 And he was still insisting in his Ephesians commentary several years later that “many receive the sign [of baptism] who are not made partakers of grace; for the sign is common to all, to the good and to the bad alike; but the Spirit is bestowed only on the elect, and the sign, as we have seen, has no efficacy without the Spirit.”97 As Rorem has pointed out, Calvin did agree to the replacement of his preferred term exhibeant in the base text (“so that the sacraments present to [the elect] alone what they offer”) with percipiant in CT 16 (“that the elect may receive what the sacraments offer”). This shift of focus from what the sacraments present to what the elect receive loosened the tie between sign and signified in a way that was more palatable to Bullinger.98 However, to claim, as Janse does,99 that CT 17 also represented a significant concession to Bullinger because the sacraments are shorn of their gift character (title: “The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace”) is to miss the intent of the article. The title is unfortunate, for the point of Article 17 is not that the sacraments do not confer grace at all but that they do not confer grace on all, that is,

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  105 upon the reprobate as well as the elect (note also Article 18). And, in Rorem’s words, this lesser claim “that the sacraments do not confer grace on all was no defeat for Calvin.”100 Article 19. The Faithful Communicate in Christ Both Before and Outside the Use of the Sacraments. And as the use of the sacraments is no more profitable to the unfaithful than if they abstained, yet is rather destructive to them: so on the other hand even outside the use of the sacraments the reality which is figured remains firm for the faithful. Thus the sins of Paul were washed away by baptism, although they had already been washed before Baptism. Likewise for Cornelius, Baptism was the laver of regeneration, although he had already received the Holy Spirit. Thus in the Supper Christ communicates himself to us, although he has imparted himself to us before and dwells within us for ever. For since all are commanded to examine themselves, it follows that faith is required of all before they approach the sacrament. And faith cannot exist without Christ; but inasmuch as faith is confirmed and increased by the sacraments, the gifts of God are confirmed in us and so, in a manner of speaking, Christ grows in us and we in him.

If a major point of the previous several articles is that not all who receive the sacramental sign also receive the grace associated with it, Article 19 claims that the converse is also true: not all enjoyment of grace by the faithful is directly connected to the sacramental sign.101 This, too, is consistent with Calvin’s earlier thought. As we have already seen, just a year earlier in the Ephesians commentary, he had declared that “the powerful grace of God is not confined to the sign [of baptism], and God may, if He pleases, freely bestow it without the aid of the sign.”102 Furthermore, the biblical illustrations of this phenomenon in Article 19 seem to come straight from the Institutes, where already in 1536 Calvin, too, had pointed to Paul and Cornelius as examples of those who received the benefits of baptism even before they were baptized. Why, then, were they baptized? Cornelius, says Calvin, “did not seek an ampler forgiveness of sins from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith.” And in Paul’s case, Ananias was in effect saying to him, “To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized.”103 He goes on to suggest in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva that there is a sense in which we receive forgiveness and newness of life at the font even though we have already been

106  Font of Pardon and New Life forgiven and regenerated, because at baptism our faith is strengthened and draws us into closer union with Christ, in whom those benefits inhere.104 Or, as Article 19 puts it at the end, “As faith is confirmed and increased by the sacraments, the gifts of God are confirmed in us and so, in a manner of speaking, Christ grows in us and we in him.” Here, near the end of the document, the CT has returned to where it began—​with Bullinger’s, and certainly Calvin’s, contention that the purpose of the sacraments is first and foremost to lead us to Christ.105

Assessment The foregoing analysis has shown that the developmentalists’ interpretation of the CT, at least so far as the sacraments in general and baptism are concerned, was only partly accurate. Davis and Janse rightly rejected the conclusions of earlier scholars that the CT represented an overwhelming theological victory for Calvin, but their own conclusion that it signified a triumph for Bullinger and a full retreat by Calvin cannot be substantiated either. There is little question that Calvin would have wished to phrase things differently at times or to retain some of his typical vocabulary (e.g., instrumentum, exhibere), but all the major themes, and sometimes the very language, of the seventeen articles we have examined can be found in his earlier writings. Conversely, all the major themes in those earlier writings that were related to the sacraments in general and to baptism—​ the centrality of Christ and the Word, the sacraments as both means of assurance and means of grace, the connection between sign and signified, the inability of the sacraments to confer grace by themselves, the critical role of the Holy Spirit and of faith in the conferral and reception of sacramental grace—​appear again in some form in the CT. Rather than a text of largely Bullingerian theology,106 the CT represents more of a union107 or convergence108 between Calvin’s and Bullinger’s views, with enough common ground and built-​in ambiguity for each reformer to recognize his own position.109 To label it “an uncalvinistic document,”110 at least with respect to its treatment of the sacraments in general and baptism, is going too far. What we have in the CT instead is a muted and somewhat truncated version of the same doctrine that Calvin had developed over the previous thirteen years.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  107

Notes 1. For an overview of the process that led up to the agreement, see de Greef, Writings of John Calvin, 172–​77. 2. “Die Forschung . . . ist keineswegs einig, ob das Schriftstück Bullingers Konzessionen an Calvin oder umgekehrt das ‘Zurückweichen’ Calvins vor Bullinger dokumentiert, ob die Formulierungen des Consensus ‘bullingerschen’ oder ‘calvinischen’ Geist atmen.” Emidio Campi, “Consensus Tigurinus: Werden, Wertung und Wirkung,” in Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl:  Werden-​Wertung-​Bedeutung, ed. Emido Campi and Ruedi Reich, 9–​41 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 30. 3. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 21, 23. 4. John W. Nevin, “Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord’s Supper,” in The Mystical Presence and Other Writings on the Eucharist, Lancaster Series on the Mercersburg Theology, ed. Bard Thompson and George H. Bricker, vol. 4 (1846; reprint, Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1966), 325. 5. Johann Heinrich August Ebrard, Das Dogma vom heiligen Abendmahl und seine Geschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Heinrich Zimmer, 1845–​46), 2:487, 520. 6. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 32, 33–​35; Hans Grass, Die Abendmahlslehre bei Luther und Calvin: Eine kritische Untersuchung, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 2nd ser., Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Monographien 47 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1954), 208–​11; Emile Doumergue, Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temps, vol. 5, La pensée ecclésiastique et la pensée politique de Calvin (Lausanne:  Georges Bridel et Cie, 1917); vol. 6, La lutte (1926), chap. 4; Alexander Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: A Study in the Eucharistic Teaching of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin (Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie, and Company, 1927), 179. Cf. also Ernst Saxer, “‘Siegel’ und ‘Versiegeln’ in der calvinisch-​reformierten Sakramentstheologie des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Zwingliana 14/​8 (1977): 425: “Wenn man das ganze Gespräch verfolgt, so bekommt man den Eindruck, daß im Grunde genommen, Bullinger seinen Standpunkt durchgehalten und Calvin um des Zustandekommens des Consensus willen nachgegeben hat”; and Joseph C. McLelland, “Meta-​Zwingli or Anti-​Zwingli? Bullinger and Calvin in Eucharistic Concord,” in Huldrych Zwingli, 1484–​1531:  A Legacy of Radical Reform. Papers from the 1984 International Zwingli Symposium McGill University, ed. E. J. Furcha (Montreal: McGill University, 1985), 192–​93: “The Consensus . . . represents, in my opinion, a victory for Calvin rather than Bullinger.” 7. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 36–​ 41; Wendel, Calvin, 330; Ulrich Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus im Jahre 1549,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979):  331–​32; Paul Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, Alcuin/​GROW Joint Liturgical Studies 12 (Bramcote:  Grove Books Limited, 1989), 46; Rorem, “The Consensus Tigurinus (1549):  Did Calvin Compromise?,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). For a more recent version of this argument, see Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 179–​80.

108  Font of Pardon and New Life 8. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 30–​31, 33–​35, 41, 56. Cf. also Wilhelm H. Neuser, “Der zweite Abendmahlsstreit,” in Handbuch der Dogmen und Theologiegeschichte, ed. Carl Andresen, vol. 2, Die Lehrentwicklung im Rahmen der Konfessionalit, ed. Bernhard Lohse et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 272: “Denn die Consensusformel ist in ihren Grundzügen und in vielen Einzelheiten ein Dokument Bullingerscher Theologie.” 9. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 41. 10. Ibid.,  43. 11. Ibid.,  41. 12. I will be using the critical editions of the Latin text and 1551 German translation of the CT in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus (1549), 125–​39, 143–​53. The English translation is by Ian Bunting, “The Consensus Tigurinus,” Journal of Presbyterian History 44 (1966): 45–​61. 13. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 127. 14. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87, 93; CO 1:102, 108. 15. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132; CO 6:116 (Q/​A 318). 16. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206; COR 2/​ 16:267 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 17. See ­chapters 2, 3, and 4. 18. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 49. 19. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 127. 20. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87; CO 1:102. In his translation of the 1559 Institutes, Battles renders tanquam appendicam as “as a sort of appendix.” Calvin:  Institutes, 2:1278 (4.14.3); CO 1:942. 21. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1328 (4.16.5); CO 1:979. 22. Calvin, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 85; CO 49:362 (comm. on 1 Cor. 1:4). 23. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 3:117; CO 7:449 (antidote to Session 6 on justification). 24. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 3:117, 3:180; CO 7:499: “ordinarium quoque Dei instrumentum asserimus, ad nos lavandos et renovandos, ad salutem denique nobis communicandam” (antidote to Session 7, Canon 5, on baptism). 25. Campi, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 25. 26. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 128. Janse (“Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 49) claims that this is the only occurrence of exhibere in the CT, but it also appears in Art. 8:  “beneficiis his olim in cruce exhibitis.” Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 130. 27. See the discussion of Articles 8 and 16 later in this chapter. 28. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 49. It is not clear, then, why Janse cites Calvin’s insertion of Art. 5 as an example of how he “saw himself forced to resort to reinterpretation” of the rest of the CT. Ibid., 42. 29. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 107; CO 1:123. 30. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 41. 31. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87; CO 1:102. 32. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 98, 99; CO 1:114, 115.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  109 33. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88; Calvin: Institutes, 2:1282 (4.14.7); CO 1:942, 943. The 1539 additions are in italics. 34. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 310). 35. “Form of Prayers,” in Fisher, Christian Initiation, 114–​15; CO 6:187. 36. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 42; Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 49–​51. 37. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 42. 38. Emphasis added. For the Latin text of these phrases, see Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 129. 39. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 43–​44. 40. Latin text: Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 129. 41. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1296 (4.14.19); CO 1:952. 42. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 129. 43. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88; CO 1:103. In the 1550 edition Calvin changed the Greek term eikotws (“similarly”) to eikonikws (“representing a figure, belonging to or employing images”). 44. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1280 (4.14.5); CO 1:941. 45. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 93; CO 1:108. 46. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 93; CO 1:108; Calvin: Institutes, 2:1280 (4.14.5); CO 1:941; Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 129. An earlier parallel to the third quasi in CT 7, “as if by seals” (quasi sigillis) can also be found in Calvin as early as the 1539 Institutes: “Sacraments . . . are like seals [veluti . . . sigilla].” Calvin: Institutes, 2:1282 (4.14.7); CO 1:942. 47. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 43. 48. Saxer, “ ‘Siegel’ und ‘Versiegeln,’ ” 424: “Der Streit geht im Grunde um die Frage, wieviel Gewicht dem Sakrament als solchem zuzugestehen sei. Calvin möchte ein letztes Stück Sakramentsobjecktivität festhalten und geht vom sakramentalen Geschehen im Ganzen aus, Bullinger dagegen vom Sakrament als Glabubensgeschehen. Dieser Punkt wurde nicht ausdiskutiert, sondern dann erst wieder im Artikel 7 des Consensus aufgenommen und durch eine generalisierende Formel eher überspielt als geklärt.” 49. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 119, 129 (emphasis added). See also Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger,  42–​43. 50. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 43. 51. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 120, 130. 52. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 51. 53. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 130 (emphasis added). 54. COR 2/​13:119 (1540 text only). 55. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133; CO 6:117, 118 (Q/​A 328). 56. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1290 (4.14.15); CO 1:948. 57. Calvin, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 203; CO 49:454 (comm. on 1 Cor. 10:3). 58. Calvin, COR 2/​16:267 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 59. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 68; COR 2/​ 16:87 (comm. on Gal. 3:27). 60. Campi sees in this section of the CT a true convergence between Calvin and Bullinger:  “Eine gegenseitige Annährerung der Hauptpartner im Hinblick auf

110  Font of Pardon and New Life den Zweck und Gabecharakter der Sakramente lässt sich auch in den Artikeln 7–​ 10 beobachten.  .  .  . So bestand für die beiden Reformatoren der Hauptzweck der Sakramente darin, dass Gott durch sie seine Gnade ‘bezeugt, vergegenwärtigt und besiegelt.’ Die Formulierung mag vermittelnd-​blass klingen. Aber sie hat ihren Kern in der Vortstellung einer göttlichen Bezeugung dessen, was im Sakrament ‘tatsächlich ohne Zweifel durch Gottes Geist’ stattfindet.  .  .  . Selbstverständlich is kritisch anzumerken, dass die vorliegenden Formulierungen in sich zweideutig waren und verschieden—​spätzwinglianisch, bullingerisch, und calvinisch—​ interpretiert werden konnten, aber trotzdem darf festgehalten werden, dass ohne Zweifel ein theologischer Fortschritt erszielt worden war. Diese ersichtlich zum Krompromiss neigenden Artikel konnten Bullinger und Calvin mit gutem Gewissen verantworten.” “Consensus Tigurinus,” 32. 61. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 43–​ 44; Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 131. 62. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1284 (4.14.9); CO 1:944. 63. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 312). 64. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:113, 114 (Q/​A 313). 65. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1292 (4.14.16); CO 1:950. 66. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206; COR 2/​ 16:267–​68 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 67. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90; CO 1:105. 68. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 91; CO 1:105. 69. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1314 (4.15.14); CO 1:965. 70. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1293 (4.14.17); CO 1:950. 71. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132 (Q/​A 318). 72. For the Latin text, see Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 132. 73. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 83, 121 (Art. 9). 74. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 28, 43–​44. Campi, too, finds compromise here on both sides: “Beispielsweise verzichtete Calvin im Verlauf der Verhandlungen auf die für ihn typische Bezeichnung der Sakramente als ‘Werkzeuge der Gnade Gottes,’ da es ihm für eine Konkordie mit den Zürchern sinnvoll erschien. Aber indem Bullinger das sakramentstheologisch weniger aussagekräftige Wort ‘Organ’ aufnahm, gab er seinem Kontrahenten zu verstehen, dass auch er, auf Grund seiner spezifischen Theologie, das Abendmahl nicht als reines Symbol begreifen konnte. Gewiss beharrten Calvin und Bullinger darauf, dass das Zeichen nicht mit der bezeichneten Sache verwechselt werden dürfe. Aber das Zeichen ist nun für die Verhandlungspartner ohne Frage nicht bloss äusseres Zeichen, sondern bringt mit sich die Heilsgabe, auf die es verweist, wirkt, was es figürlich abbildet. “Consensus Tigurinus,” 31. 75. Davis, Clearest Promises of God,  55–​56. 76. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 44–​45. 77. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 94–​95, 99; CO 1:110, 115. 78. Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 89; COR 2/​13:86. 79. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112, 113, 114 (Q/​A 312, 313).

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  111 80. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1286 (4.14.11); CO 1:946. 81. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 90; CO 1:105. 82. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 3:180; CO 7:499 (antidote to Session 7, Canon 5, on baptism). 83. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206; COR 2/​ 16:268 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 84. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131; CO 6:111, 112 (Q/​A 312); Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206; COR 2/​16:268 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 85. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 52; Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 43–​44. 86. Calvin, Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 232–​33; COR 2/​13:226 (comm. on Rom. 10:16, 17). 87. Calvin, “Form of Prayers,” in Fisher, Christian Initiation, 114. 88. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1282 (4.14.7). 89. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 90. Ibid., 333 (comm. on Col. 2:12). 91. Ibid., 206 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 92. See, e.g., Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132; CO 6: 114, 116 (Q/​A 318), and Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206; COR 2/​16:268–​69 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). Torrance Kirby’s English translation of the CT renders adminicula as “supporting instruments” in Art. 12 and “instruments” in Art. 14. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 262. 93. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 44:  “Here too Bullinger finally accepted what had been objectionable terminology, namely, the designation of the sacraments as ‘aids’ (adminicula, here and in article 12), but only when it was also said that ‘the entire faculty for acting remains with [God] alone’ (article 12).” 94. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 47–​48, 49. 95. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1290–​91 (4.14.15). 96. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132 (Q/​A 316, 317). 97. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 98. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 43. For the primary texts, see Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 121 (Confessio Gebennensis, art. 12), 134 (CT 16). 99. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 49. 100. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 45. 101. “In many cases the thing signified might be conferred prior to the sign. Of what value, then, is the sign? Cleansing and regeneration, however, are not accomplished at a single moment. They have a beginning, but they are also an ongoing reality. As we read in the Consensus Zigurinus [sic] (CZ 19), ‘the sins of Paul were washed away in baptism, though they had been previously washed away . . . baptism was the laver of regeneration for Cornelius though he had already received the Holy Spirit.’ ” Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Baptism in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms,” in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church:  Historical and Contemporary

112  Font of Pardon and New Life Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, 402–​18, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, vol. 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 411. 102. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 103. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99. 104. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 132, 133, 134 (Q/​A 315, 317–​19, 328, 331). 105. Janse went so far as to aver that only this sentence was stated “in truly Calvinian fashion.” “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 51. 106. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, 46; Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 30–​31, 33–​35, 41, 56; Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 41–​43. Cf. also Frank Ewerszumrode, Mysterium Christi spiritualis praesentiae:  Die Abendmahlslehre des Genfer Reformators Johannes Calvin aus römisch-​ katholischer Perspektive, Reformed Historical Theology, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, vol. 19 (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 135:  “Aufgrund der festgestellten Differenzen zwischen der Consensio mutua und der Confessio Gebennensis wird man den Konsenstext als einen Text bullingerischer Theologie mit einingen calvinischen Einschlägen ansehen müssen.” 107. Rohls, Reformed Confessions, 184. Cf. also ibid., 185:  “At the time of the Zurich Consensus, Bullinger’s thesis of a sacramental parallelism was indeed dominant. But the consensus does not rest content with that thesis, but moves on to embrace the view that the sacraments are real means of grace. To be sure, Zwingli’s proposition that ‘sacraments do not confer grace’ [CT 17] . . . finds a reception in the claim that the sacraments do not by their own power work grace. But they are instruments through which God effectively acts where and when God wills [CT 13]. . . . Here the distinction between an external symbolic action and the internal communication of grace does not mean a mere parallelism or a mere simultaneity of the two processes. Rather the external symbolic action definitely has an instrumental character insofar as through this action God works grace internally, where and when God wills.” 108. Campi, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 33–​ 34:  “Es wäre verfehlt, aus dem bisher Ausgeführten Bullinger und Calvin gegeneinander ausspielen und feststellen to wollen, wer in welchem Ausmass der anderen Seite Zugeständnisse gemacht habe. Wenn man nicht nur den Endtext des Consensus Tigurinus, sondern auch den ganzen Verlauf der Verhandlungen verfolgt, gelangt man zunächst einmal zur Erkenntnis, dass die Übereinkunft durch ein beiderseitiges theologisches Entgegenkommen ermöglicht wurde, indem eine Reihe zentraler Einsichten Zwinglis und Bullingers aufgenommen wurden ebenso wie Calvins Betonung der Gegenwart Christi und mit ihr der Heilsgabe, dies jedoch entschieden verstanden als ein Werk des Heilegen Geistes. Zweitens entdeckt man bald, dass die Verhandlungspartner sich dessen bewusst waren, einen vorläufigen, den eigenen Vorstellungen nur bedingt entsprechenden Konsensus erreicht zu haben, der überdies Schwächen und Zweideutigkeiten enthielt und von daher in mehrfacher Hinsicht auch als ergänzungs-​bzw. Korrekturbedürftig anzusehen war.” See also n. 60.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549)  113 109. Even Ewerszumrode, who described the Eucharistic theology of the CT as Bullingerian with several Calvinian elements, acknowledged that the CT contained nothing contrary to Calvin’s sacramental theology: “Es bestätigt sich die eingangs aufgestellte These, dass der Consensus Tigurinus völlig im Sinne Calvins interpretiert werden kann, da der Text nichts Anderes, sondern ‘nur’ weniger—​und damit vielleicht doch auch Anderes—​sagt.” Mysterium Christi spiritualis praesentiae, 136. 110. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 41.

6 Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus to Calvin’s Death (1550–​64) Past scholarship on the development of Calvin’s sacramental theology has described its trajectory in the years after the CT in different ways. According to Lusk, in what he conceded was not a fully satisfactory interpretation, Calvin had de-​emphasized sacramental efficacy in the negotiations and agreement with Bullinger in 1548–​49 but then returned to a higher view of instrumentality in his debates with the Lutheran Westphal in the 1550s.1 Davis, in his analysis of Calvin’s Eucharistic doctrine, also saw Calvin reverting to a more instrumental view in the years after the CT but in a way that radically reinterpreted the CT so as to bring it more into line with his earlier work. In the course of this reinterpretation, especially in his polemical exchanges with Westphal, Calvin’s Eucharistic thought underwent a further clarification and refinement that continued until it reached its mature form in the 1559 Institutes.2 Janse, however, took quite a different tack, arguing that the “Bullingerianizing” positions that Calvin had adopted in the CT had a lasting effect on both his baptismal and Eucharistic doctrine, particularly as it came to expression in the controversy with Westphal in the 1550s. In the post-​CT period, Calvin’s “baptismal theology suffer[ed] from a tension between certainty and liberty, between the objectivity of the offer of salvation and the liberty God possesses in his elective grace. Westphal emphasized especially the first aspect, Calvin at the same time the second.”3 Moreover, the Zwinglian phraseology and “spiritualizing tendencies” that could be detected in Calvin’s Eucharistic thought in the Consensus Tigurinus carried over into the exchange with Westphal in the mid-​1550s. It was not until the early 1560s that Calvin returned to the more “Luther friendly” tone of his work in the decade prior to the Zurich Consensus.4 With so little agreement on the course of Calvin’s sacramental thought after the CT, a chronological examination of his statements on the sacraments in general and baptism in particular during this period is in order. We will look at three clusters of documents between 1550 and Calvin’s death in 1564: his Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0006.

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  115 commentaries on Titus (1550), 1 Peter (1551), Isaiah (1551), and Acts (1552, 1554); two treatises from his polemical exchange with Westphal, Defence of the Sane and Orthodox Doctrine of the Sacraments (1555), and Second Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith concerning the Sacraments (1556); and the 1559 Institutes, supplemented with a few citations from some of Calvin’s final writings (1561–​65). What we shall see is that all of the themes of Calvin’s earlier treatments of baptism can be found again during this period but in a form that is more explicit than in the CT and that balances and interconnects the two instrumental roles of baptism.

Commentaries on Titus, 1 Peter, Isaiah, and Acts (1550–​54) The balance between the subjective role of baptism in the life of a believer (instrument of knowledge, testimony, and assurance) and its objective role (instrument of grace) is evident already in four of the commentaries that Calvin published in the years between the CT and the debate with Westphal. To begin with, in his exposition of Titus 3:5 in 1550, Calvin interprets the clause “according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” and particularly the phrase “through the washing of regeneration,” as allusions to baptism. Baptism has, first of all, an instructional and testimonial function, revealing God’s grace to us, symbolizing our engrafting into Christ, sealing to us the salvation that Christ has acquired, and confirming our faith. As Calvin paraphrases the verse, “God saves us by His mercy and He has given us a symbol and pledge of this salvation in baptism.”5 But baptism is more than a symbol and pledge; it is aptly called the “washing of regeneration” also because with it God performs within the baptizand the very thing demonstrated by the outer sign. For believers the sign is not “vain [inane] and inefficacious” but always effective because it is connected (connectet) to the thing signified, joined with (coniungitur) “its reality and effect” (veritate et effectu). Even the baptism of unbelievers retains a certain power (vim) from God’s perspective, even though the ungodly reject the grace offered at the font and are neither cleansed nor renewed there.6 As in the past, however, Calvin is careful not to attribute such power and efficacy to the sacrament itself. Salvation is not contained (non . . . inclusa sit) in the outer symbol of water; inner transformation happens only by God’s own power (virtute sua). To exalt the sign is to

116  Font of Pardon and New Life detract from what properly belongs to the province of the Holy Spirit. That is why Paul immediately adds the phrase “and renewing of the Holy Ghost” to “washing of regeneration,” namely, so “that we know that we are not washed by water but by His power [virtute]. . . . It is God’s Spirit who regenerates us and makes us new creatures.”7 A year later, in his commentary on the canonical epistles, Calvin dealt with another well-​known baptism passage, 1 Peter 3:21: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This time Calvin mentions the subjective side of baptism only briefly (“the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation”,8 devoting most of his attention to the objective character of baptism as a means of grace. In so doing, however, he maintains a delicate balance again between baptismal efficacy and divine sovereignty, in part because he uses the occasion to challenge sacramental traditions on both ends of the spectrum. He begins by interpreting Christian baptism, which “doth also now save us” (v. 21)  as an antitype of the “baptism” that Noah and his family underwent when they were “saved by water” at the time of the flood (v. 20). The similarity or correspondence here, Calvin understands Peter to say, is that both Noah, who was entrapped in the “grave” of the ark, and baptized believers today, who are entrapped by the world and their flesh, experience a kind of deliverance from death to life as they pass through the water. Where the typology might break down, Calvin admits, is in the scope of these two baptisms, since only a few were saved in Noah’s “baptism” and almost everyone is baptized in the church today. Anticipating such an objection, however, Peter immediately added the phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” by which he meant that the outward act of baptism is not enough to cleanse one spiritually. Baptism must also be received “really and effectually” (vere et efficaciter), and, as in the time of Noah so also today, such “reality” (veritas) is found in relatively few.9 This leads Calvin to launch a two-​pronged attack against both “fanatics” like Caspar Schwenckfeld, who strips the sacraments of all “power and effect” (vim et effectum), and “the Papists,” who do not properly distinguish between the sign and thing signified but place their hope of salvation in the elements. Against Schwenckfeld Calvin argues that Peter’s point in verse 21 is not that baptism is “vain and inefficacious,” the same phrase he had used a year earlier in the Titus commentary, but that hypocrites render it so by their own fault.

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  117 Roman Catholics, however, fall into the opposite error. Rather than “tear away the thing signified from the sign,” as Schwenckfeld does, they “tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign” by ascribing the glory of Christ’s death to the water of baptism. Both extremes must be avoided. On the one hand, we ought never “to separate what has been joined together [coniuncta sunt] by the Lord.” On the other hand, to preserve the honor of Christ and the Holy Spirit, “No part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign”; what is symbolized in the baptismal water comes from Christ alone.10 In his commentary on Isaiah the same year (1551), Calvin interprets the angel’s application of a burning coal to the lips of the prophet in c­ hapter 6:7 (“And he laid [the live coal] upon my mouth, and said, Lo this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged”) as a kind of Old Testament sacramental sign. This sign, too, functioned, in Calvin’s view, as both a means of knowledge and assurance and a means of grace. First of all, God was accommodating himself to human weakness with the “aid” (adminiculo) of an external sign that not only assisted Isaiah in his understanding but also served as “confirmation and proof ” (confirmationem et testimonium) of the cleansing represented by the sign. That is the purpose of sacraments today as well: they are means or aids (adminiculis) that God uses “to strengthen us in proportion to our ignorance.” But the sign does more than confirm; just as in Isaiah’s case the thing signified was “bestowed” (praestitam) simultaneously with the sign, so also in the sacraments today the “reality is given along with the sign; for when the Lord holds out a sacrament, he does not feed our eyes with an empty and unmeaning figure, but joins the truth with it, so as to testify that by means of them he acts upon us efficaciously.” Here in a single sentence Calvin has woven together several of his favorite sacramental terms and phrases: the sign is “not an empty and unmeaning figure” (nec . . . nuda et inani figura); the signified reality is “given” (exhiberi) along with the sign; God “joins the truth with [the figure]” (veritatem ipsam coniungit); and God carries out the sacramental action “by means of ” (per) the signs.11 Once again, however, Calvin is careful not to tie the grace too closely to the sign. In a line reminiscent of CT Article 9 (“Although we draw a distinction . . . between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin the truth from the signs”), he reminds the reader that “the truth must never be separated from the signs, though it ought to be distinguished from them” (emphasis added). In the Isaiah vision, neither the burning coal nor the angel who handled it had power in and of themselves to cleanse the prophet of his

118  Font of Pardon and New Life pollution. Such power belonged to God alone, and God could have purified the prophet even without the coal. So, too, with the sacraments. Only the Spirit of God can make them effective and only when they are bound to the Word and received in faith. Human unbelief does not change the fact that God always “presents” (offertur) the spiritual reality of the sacrament along with the sign, but unbelievers do not experience that reality when they receive the sign because of their lack of faith.12 Calvin’s most detailed exegetical treatment of baptism in the years after the CT is found in his commentary on The Acts of the Apostles, which appeared in two parts in 1552 (Acts 1–​13) and 1554 (Acts 14–​28). The book of Acts provided him with several baptismal narratives on which to reflect, including the baptisms of the three thousand Pentecost converts (Acts 2), Simon Magus (Acts 8), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), Cornelius (Acts 10), and Saul/​Paul (Acts 22). Once again, all the familiar themes from his previous writings are there: baptism as both a means of assurance and a means of grace, the focus of the sacrament on Christ and the promises of the Word, the connection between sign and signified, the inability of baptism to confer grace by itself, and the indispensable roles played by the Holy Spirit and faith. However, the Acts commentary moves a step beyond these earlier works by clarifying how some of these themes are interrelated, particularly when it comes to what we have called the “Cornelius question.” How could someone like the Roman centurion Cornelius, who had obtained the benefits of forgiveness and new life by faith before baptism, also be said to receive them at baptism? Calvin had touched on this question briefly in the Institutes, in the catechism of 1537/​1538, and implicitly in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​ 1545), but here in the Acts commentary he offers a more complete answer. In the first place, Calvin stresses that all the baptizands in these passages, with the exception of Simon Magus, were already believers prior to baptism and thus already possessed the benefits of salvation. In Acts 2:38, for example, Peter commanded his audience first to repent and then to be baptized for the remission of their sins. This appears to interpose baptism between repentance and remission, but what Peter meant here was that baptism strengthens the assurance of the forgiveness that one has already received by faith and repentance.13 The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, too, was baptized after he had professed his faith, a rule that Calvin thinks should apply to all “outsiders” before they are received into the church. Baptism served as both a seal of the faith that the Ethiopian already possessed and a “sign of new life in him”—​a kind of “appendix” to his faith.14 The same phenomenon can be found in the

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  119 account of the conversion of Cornelius’s household, Calvin maintains, when Peter asked, “Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Peter’s argument here moves “from the reality to the sign” (a re ad signum), that is, from the reception of the Holy Spirit to the reception of water baptism. The sequence begins with instruction, faith, and God’s bestowal of the Holy Spirit and then proceeds to the administration of the sign. Once again, Calvin characterizes baptism as an “appendage” (appendix), this time not to faith but to the grace of the Holy Spirit. The progression from reality to sign in this story exposes the error of Catholic baptism, which too closely links the grace of the Spirit to the sacramental sign:  “When Luke narrates that men who had not yet been initiated in baptism, were already endowed with the Holy Spirit, he is showing that the Spirit is not shut up in baptism.”15 Finally, when Ananias says to Paul in Paul’s retelling of his own baptism in Acts 22, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name,” Calvin surmises that Ananias would not be urging Paul to receive baptism unless he had first been instructed in the basics of Christianity and was already a true believer.16 What happens, then, to such persons at baptism itself ? As we saw earlier in the exposition of Acts 2:38, Calvin regards the baptism of the Pentecost converts “unto the remission of sins” first of all as an instrument of assurance. In contrast to Roman Catholic teaching and practice, which closely identify repentance with participation in various external rites, Peter called upon his audience first to repent and then to seek assurance of remission through baptism. Baptism, therefore, is a way in which the promise of God’s grace of forgiveness is strengthened (confirmatur) in us; it is “a sealing of the blessings, which we have through Christ, that they may be established within our consciences.” The Catholics remove such certainty from our consciences, and their penitential satisfactions detract from the benefit of full forgiveness in Christ. But when we receive the gifts of Christ by faith, baptism becomes “the earnest and pledge [arrha et pignus] of our adoption” and “a help for confirming and increasing our faith” (fidei  .  .  .  confirmandae et augendae . . . adminiculum).17 The same was true for Paul, whose baptism also functioned as an instrument of knowledge and assurance. When Ananias instructed Paul after his conversion to “be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” he was not suggesting that baptism would be the cause of Paul’s spiritual cleansing but that by receiving the sacrament Paul would

120  Font of Pardon and New Life better grasp (cognovit) or gain a better “understanding” (sensum) of the fact that his sins were forgiven.18 But baptism is more than just an assurance of benefits received in the past. The faith with which one comes to baptism and which is bolstered in baptism also appropriates these benefits in the sacrament itself. Remission of sins, Calvin states in his comments on Acts 2:38, is “a result of faith” not only before baptism but also at baptism.19 The repentance, faith, crucifying of the old self, and rising to new life that begins when one first turns to God must continue throughout one’s whole life. And just as repentance is a part of the daily life the Christian, so also is the fruit of repentance and faith, the remission of sins: Surely [remission] is no less necessary to us through the whole course of our life than at our first entrance into the Church. So it would profit us nothing to be once received into favour by God, unless this embassy of His, as it were, should be continually maintained, “Be reconciled unto God, because he was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (II Cor. 5.20).20

When a believer is baptized, therefore, remission of sins “is joined to it [baptism] as to the lesser means” (tanquam inferiori medio . . . annecitur) and is appropriated anew by the faith that is strengthened at the font. Indeed, “The grace of the Spirit will always be conjoined [annexa erit] to baptism, unless a hindrance arises on our part.”21 The baptism of Paul followed a similar pattern. When Ananias said to the recently converted Paul that he should not wait any longer to be baptized, he was pointing toward baptism as a further amplification of divine grace. For although spiritual washing is the work of God alone, God does not hesitate, by his own choice (suo arbitrio), to use “instruments and means” (instrumenta et media) to help carry out that work. The sign of baptism functions as a “prop [adminiculum] for our weakness,” an “inferior instrument [organum]” by which our faith is assisted in receiving ongoing forgiveness of sins from the blood of Christ alone. It is not “a bare form [that] is . . . set before us in baptism, but the giving of the reality [rei exhibitonem] is also connected to it at the same time [simul annexam esse], because God does not deceive us in His promises, but truly fulfills what He signifies under figures.” That is why baptism is called the laver of the soul. However, Paul received not only grace at baptism but also a “fresh confirmation of the grace which he had received.”22

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  121 Therefore, the reality of ongoing forgiveness and new life, which is attached to the sign of the water, was offered to, (re)appropriated by, and confirmed for the believing Paul all in the same ritual act. In other words, Calvin seems to be saying, baptism was and still is simultaneously and mutually a means of assurance and of grace. It is, of course, God alone who washes us by the blood of Christ and acts by the inward power of the Holy Spirit, and we have to guard against tying the grace of God too closely to the sacraments. “For the external administration of baptism is of no value, except when it pleases God that it should be so [nisi ubi ita Deo visum est].”23 The biblical descriptions of baptism as “the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a washing from sin, participation in the death and burial of Christ, and ingrafting into his body (Titus 3:5, Rom. 6:4)” do not refer in any way to the action of the human administrant, only to the role of Christ, “who alone makes the sign effectual.”24 Faith appropriates the internal grace of the sign but only insofar as it recognizes Christ alone as the author of that grace and does not attribute to either the sign or the minister any more than is warranted.25 The critical role of such faith is illustrated in the narrative of Simon Magus, whose baptism was useless to him in his unconverted state but who could still have received the benefit of the sacrament later on if he became a believer. “For it often happens that, after a time, the Spirit of God is at last active, so that the sacraments may begin to realize their efficacy.” Contrary to the Roman Catholic view, baptism does not possess magical power to convey the “truth and effect” (veritatem et effectum) of the sign as long as one is not in a state of mortal sin. It is only by faith in Christ that we receive from Christ what the sacraments offer.26 What is required, then, according to Calvin, is “a proper balance” in one’s view of baptism, neither ascribing to the symbol of water the cleansing power that belongs to Christ and the Holy Spirit alone, nor weakening the “force and effect” (vim fructumque) of baptism as an instrument by which we are aided in receiving its benefits. To preserve such a balance, we must avoid both obscuring Christ’s glory, on the one hand, and denying the sacraments “their own efficacy and value [efficacia et usu],” on the other.27

Two Polemical Treatises against Westphal (1555, 1556) Calvin’s Defence of the Sane and Orthodox Doctrine of the Sacraments (Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de sacramentis, 1555)  and Second

122  Font of Pardon and New Life Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Belief concerning the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal (Secunda defensio piae et orthodoxae de sacramentis fidei contra Ioachimi Westphali calumnias, 1556)  were part of a larger exchange of treatises on the sacraments between Lutheran and Reformed theologians during the 1550s and early 1560s. Schaff labeled it the “second sacramental war” among Protestants in the sixteenth century, following the initial clash over the Lord’s Supper between Luther and Zwingli in the 1520s.28 This second controversy was sparked by the formal agreement on the sacraments between Calvin and Bullinger in 1549, published as the Consensus Tigurinus in 1551. A  year later, Joachim Westphal (ca. 1510–​ 74), a Gnesio-​Lutheran minister and theologian in Hamburg, published the tract A Hodgepodge of Confused and Divergent Opinions on the Lord's Supper Taken from the Books of the Sacramentarians (Farrago confusanearum et inter se dissidentium opinionum de coena ex sacramentariorum libris congesta), in which he counted both Bullinger and Calvin among these “sacramentarians” and warned about the doctrinal dangers of the CT. Westphal followed with another attack on the CT in 1553, The Right Belief concerning the Lord's Supper Demonstrated and Supported from the Words of the Apostle Paul and the Evangelists (Recta fides de coena Domini ex verbis apostoli Pauli et evangelistarum demonstrata ac communita). Bullinger urged Calvin to respond to these broadsides, but it was not until 1555 that the Genevan reformer finally published his first Defence, with Zurich’s full blessing. A year later, Calvin issued a Second Defence, his response to a reply that Westphal had composed to the first Defence. This literary battle would drag out for a couple more rounds over the next several years, but Calvin’s most significant statements about the sacraments in general and baptism in particular are found in these first two treatises.29 As we saw earlier, for Davis Calvin’s first Defence marked the beginning of a radical reinterpretation of the CT that showed a return to much of his pre-​CT thinking on the sacraments as well as some refinement and growth in his Eucharistic teaching.30 It is my contention, however, that with respect to baptism, at least, the first Defence was not so much a reinterpretation of the CT or a return to a pre-​CT way of thinking as a reiteration of the major themes found in all of Calvin’s writings to that point, including the CT. If we can speak of refinement or growth here, it should be seen in the same balance and interconnection of the two instrumental roles of baptism that we first encountered in his exegetical work during the previous five years. In what follows, I shall summarize the argument of the first Defence as it relates to the

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  123 sacraments in general and baptism and then examine the Second Defence for any additional material it might provide. Near the beginning of the first Defence Calvin issues the same appeal to avoid extremes in speaking of the sacraments that he had been making since the Institutes of 1543. Extolling the sacraments too highly leads to superstition; not elevating them highly enough breeds contempt. The best option is “a middle course” between these “two faults.”31 To maintain such a course, Calvin first highlights the dignity of the sacraments. Echoing the first article of the CT (“The whole spiritual government of the church aims to bring us to Christ”), he postulates that the end or goal of the sacraments is “to bring us to communion with Christ,” who is the fountain of all spiritual life and the one from whom “the whole virtue [vim] of the sacraments flows.” Sacraments play a significant role as “helps and means” (adminicula et media) by which our salvation in Christ is “assisted” (adiutam), that is, by which we are either initially engrafted into Christ’s body or drawn into deeper union with him.32 Luther is to be commended, therefore, for rejecting the view that the sacraments are merely symbols of grace or outer marks by which we profess our faith and for insisting instead that “God truly testifies in them what he figures, and at the same time, by his secret agency, performs and fulfills what he testifies.”33 In this commendation of Luther, Calvin alludes to the double instrumentality of the sacraments: God employs them to testify to the blessings they symbolize and to grant those blessings to the believer. As he puts it a few sentences later, sacraments are, on the one hand, seals of God’s promises and testimonies of grace that ratify the promises of the Word and build up faith, and, on the other hand, “instruments [organa] by which [quibus] God acts effectually in his elect.”34 They are, first of all, means of knowledge and assurance, “helps [adminiculis] to foster and increase faith” and to impress the promises of God upon our consciences.35 But sacramental signs and acts are not “mere shows presented to our eyes,” devoid of the things they signify. Within a short span in the early part of this Defence of the CT, Calvin twice insists, in language reminiscent of CT Article 9 (“Although we draw a distinction . . . between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin [disiungimus] the truth from the signs”),36 that “although they are signs distinct from the things signified, they are neither disjoined [disiungi] nor separated from them” and that “by distinguishing between the signs and the things signified, we disjoin [disiungere] not the reality from the signs.”37 He goes on to make explicit what had been implied in the CT, that not to be

124  Font of Pardon and New Life “disjoined” is to be “conjoined”: the “true effect” of the sacraments is “conjoined” (coniunctum) with the external signs, and “God conjoins [coniungat] the effectual working of his Spirit with them.”38 Even in the face of unbelief and wickedness on the part of some participants in the sacraments, the conjunction between sign and grace remains intact. Grace is still offered to the unworthy by means of the sign, even though such individuals do not receive what is offered.39 Therefore, the sacraments are not only means of knowledge and assurance for Calvin but simultaneously means of grace, since all who embrace by faith the promises signed and sealed there receive the grace joined to the signs, namely, Christ and all his gifts.40 So far in his explanation of the CT Calvin has been steering away from too low a view of the sacraments, which regards them as little more than empty signs or badges of piety. But one can also err in the other direction, he asserts, by claiming for them more than is their due. Sacraments are indeed “means” (media) and “instruments” (organa) of grace, but to elevate them above the Word, to which they are “joined” (coniungi) as “appendages [appendices] and seals,” is nothing short of absurd.41 Apart from the Word of promise, they are “jejune and lifeless.” The one who administers baptism, for example, accomplishes nothing by pouring water on the head of a baptizand unless Christ adds the promise that it is his blood that cleanses and his Spirit that renews. Furthermore, the water of baptism will never unite us with Christ and his benefits unless what promised and offered by that sign is embraced in faith.42 God makes use of the “instrumentality” (ministerio) of the sacraments, therefore, but never in such a way that they are infused with his power or that the efficacious work of the Spirit is compromised. The Spirit’s efficacy is indeed “joined with” (coniunctam esse) the external signs, but it is still God alone who carries out the work of grace.43 Throughout the course of his argument, Calvin works with this distinction between the sacramental sign and its grace in several ways. First, as we have already seen, although grace is offered to unbelievers at the administration of the sacraments, they receive only the signs, not the benefits conjoined with them, and “are sent empty away.”44 Second, when a believer is baptized by an unworthy minister, the washing of regeneration can still take place “through [per] his hand” without losing its efficacy, because it is ultimately the Lord, not the administrator of the sign, who fulfills what is signified in baptism.45 Finally, believers sometimes receive the blessings signified in the sacraments even without participating in the signs. Can one really conclude, for example, that Christian martyrs locked up in prison “are without Christ” just because

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  125 they have no access to the sacramental signs? And the centurion Cornelius was certainly in possession of the “reality [veritas] of baptism” prior to his being washed with water, for he had already been “sprinkled with the Holy Spirit.” These cases should never lead us to neglect the sacraments, but they do remind us that “occasionally, to prove that his virtue is not tied to any means [adminiculis], [the Lord] performs without sign what he represents by sign.”46 In his Second Defence a year later, Calvin elaborated on some of the arguments from the first Defence that Westphal had criticized in his reply. Once again Calvin parries Westphal’s charge that he treats the sacraments simply as empty signs by emphasizing that “our [Zurich] Agreement distinctly declares, that the Lord, who is true, performs inwardly by his Spirit that which the sacraments figure to the eye [CT 8], and that when we distinguish between the signs and the thing signified, we do not disjoin the reality from the signs [CT 9].” Far from their being empty figures, it is “through the sacraments” (per sacramenta) that Christ is offered to us and we are drawn into union with him and all his blessings.47 Near the end of the treatise, Calvin engages in an extended discussion of baptism in which he sheds further light on what we have called the “Cornelius question.” He is actually replying to a query from Westphal about infant baptism, namely, how he (Calvin) could consider children of believers to be members of the church prior to their baptism. We will examine the response to Westphal in greater detail in the next chapter when we take up Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism, but germane to our study here is the fact that Calvin lays the foundation for that response by appealing to some of the adult baptisms of the New Testament. He begins with the premise from his first Defence, based on the opening articles of the CT, that “the sacraments were instituted to lead us to the communion of Christ, and be helps by which we may be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, being ingrafted, be united more and more.”48 This growing union with Christ on the part of those already engrafted into his body can take place not only at the Lord’s Supper but also at baptism. But if the body of Christ is not just Christ himself but also all those united with him, namely, the church, are we then engrafted into this body or church of Christ before baptism or at baptism? In addressing that question, Calvin appears to operate with a distinction between the invisible and visible church and to suggest a discrete engrafting into each. People like Cornelius, the apostle Paul, and the thousands of Pentecost Day converts were engrafted into or became members of the (invisible) church

126  Font of Pardon and New Life before their baptisms when they were regenerated by God’s Word, given the gift of faith, and graced with the Holy Spirit. Such divine engrafting into the church marks the “first entrance into the hope of eternal life.”49 For example, “Cornelius, before he was baptized with his household, having received the Holy Spirit, being adorned with the badges of saints, justly held some place among the children of God.”50 But the sacrament of baptism, in what Calvin characterizes as its “proper office,” also involves an engrafting into the body of Christ, this time into the “society” of the (visible) church. At the baptismal font, God formally acknowledges and receives into this body those who are already “in his [invisible] Church” as “members” in a spiritual sense.51 This engrafting into the body of Christ at baptism, of course, is much more than a formal reception into the visible church. As Calvin stated earlier, the sacraments were instituted by God to lead us to communion with Christ, and those who have already been engrafted into him spiritually before baptism are also “united more and more” with him at baptism.52 There God testifies to his love and pledges his fidelity to us in order to assure us of our salvation. But the sacraments also function as “instruments” (organa) of the Holy Spirit in the sense that God “inwardly ratifies by his divine agency [sua virtute sancit] that which he figures by the hand of his minister.” “Through baptism” (per baptismum) God “truly performs and effects [vere . . . efficit ac praestat] . . . what he figures” there.53 For Calvin to conclude, therefore, that “the sins of Paul were washed away in baptism, though he had previously obtained pardon of them by faith,”54 must mean that one who has already repented and believed before baptism embraces the benefits of salvation anew and more deeply at the font as he or she is brought into a deeper union with Christ.55

1559 Institutes The fourth Latin edition of the Institutes appeared in 1550, but it contained no additional material in the chapters on the sacraments in general (4.14) or baptism (4.15) that is worthy of note. Even the fifth and final edition of 1559, which represented a summary of Calvin’s mature theology after a quarter century of biblical exegesis, preaching, pastoral experience, and polemics, included little that was new on these two topics, and what he did insert in 1559 largely reinforced what was already there. For example, the section that he had added in 1543 on the importance of the preached Word as an

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  127 explanation of the sacramental signs (4.14.4) remained intact except for the addition of the following sentence on the Old Testament (in italics) to further buttress his point: You see how the sacrament requires preaching to beget faith. And we need not labor to prove this when it is perfectly clear what Christ did, what he commanded us to do, what the apostles followed, and what the purer church observed. Indeed it was known even from the beginning of the world that whenever God gave a sign to the holy patriarchs it was inseparably linked to doctrine, without which our senses would have been stunned in looking at the bare sign.56

The same is true when it comes to the emphasis that Calvin had always placed on the role of faith in the sacraments. First of all, he concludes a passage on the purpose of sacraments that went back to the 1536 Institutes by adding this exhortation in 1559: “Let that first point [that the sacraments should serve our faith before God] be retained; otherwise, the mysteries (as we have seen) would become lifeless, if they were not aids [adminicula] to our faith and supplements [appendices] to our doctrine.”57 As Riggs points out, Calvin also inserts in 1559 that baptism is an aid not simply for the “confirming of our faith” (1536), but also for actually “arousing” it.58 Moreover, to bolster his claim from 1536 that the sacraments “avail and profit nothing unless received in faith,” Calvin adds a lively illustration of such faith in 1559: “As with wine or oil or some other liquid, no matter how much you pour out, it will flow away and disappear unless the mouth of the vessel to receive it is open; moreover, the vessel will be splashed over on the outside, but will still remain void and empty.”59 A final illustration of how Calvin’s minor additions to the 1559 Institutes on sacraments and baptism served largely to support material from earlier editions is found in the counterbalance he provides in 4.14.17 to overvaluing the sacraments. Against those who think that the sacraments themselves bestow the grace of the Holy Spirit by a hidden, magical power attached to them, Calvin underscores with a few additional sentences in 1559 that it is ultimately God who “executes whatever he promises and represents in signs.” God indeed uses signs as “instruments” (organa) to accomplish this, but such instruments “detract nothing from his original activity.”60 In applying this point to baptism specifically, Calvin argues that the best way to refute the view that the water itself has the power to cleanse is to remember the

128  Font of Pardon and New Life meaning of baptism, which, he adds in 1559, “draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes, but from all other means [mediis], that it may fasten our minds upon Christ alone.”61 This applies not just to the sacramental signs but also to the human agents by which they are administered: “God accomplishes within what the minister represents and attests by outward action, lest what God claims for himself alone should be turned over to a mortal man.”62 According to Davis, Calvin added at least one new feature to his treatment of the sacraments in the 1559 Institutes by folding in some of the material he had developed in more detail in the biblical commentaries of the early 1550s and in his recent polemical treatises against Westphal. Davis had in mind particularly additions to the chapters on the sacraments in general (4.14) and the Eucharist (4.17, 18) that were clustered around the themes of knowledge, partaking, and instrumentality.63 In Calvin’s teaching on the Eucharist, for example, Davis saw for the first time in the long history of the Institutes the two instrumentalities of the sacrament working closely together: “The Eucharist serves as an instrument by which the Christian not only is joined to Christ but also knows the goodness of God in a way most fully accommodated to the weakness of the faithful. Though the two concepts may be distinguished, they work together in Calvin’s Eucharistic theology and may not be separated.”64 The way they work together, he continued, is that as an instrument of knowledge, the Lord’s Supper fosters a greater understanding of God’s promises of salvation, which leads to an increase of faith. As our faith grows, so does our mystical bond with Christ, whom the sacrament, as an instrument of grace, presents to us with all his attendant gifts. This in turn enriches our knowledge and assurance even more. The two instrumentalities, therefore, are closely and reciprocally related. In Davis’s words, “As faith grows, union with Christ grows; as union with Christ grows, the Christian can better grasp the significance of the eucharistic instrument.”65 The question is whether this mutual relationship between instruments of knowledge/​assurance and instruments of grace is found in the 1559 Institutes only in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or also in the chapters on the sacraments in general and baptism. Lusk suggested that it could indeed be found in Calvin’s sacramental theology as a whole. As we saw in ­chapter 1, he identified in Calvin’s thought a dual role for sacraments as both “signs of assurance” and “instruments of salvation” or “means of grace.” He went on to argue that these two strands are not contradictory or antithetical in Calvin’s sacramental theology but are “woven together in a beautiful sacramental

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  129 tapestry.”66 As an illustration of how Calvin “does this repeatedly and effortlessly in his baptismal theology,” Lusk pointed to Institutes 4.15.15, where Calvin begins his reflection on Acts 22:16 (“And now what are you waiting for[, Paul]? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away”) by focusing on baptism as a means of assurance: “Ananias meant only this: ‘To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism: receive it and be secure.’ ” Lest one think that this is the only role played by the sacraments, however, Calvin immediately adds, “Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means.”67 In Lusk’s view, these saving and assuring functions of the sacraments are not in tension with each other or in need of harmonization in Calvin’s mature theology but are “combined into an organic whole.”68 In my judgment, Davis may be right that when it comes to the interrelationship of the instrumental functions of the Eucharist, Calvin incorporated into the 1559 Institutes material that he had borrowed from his exegetical and polemical work earlier in the decade. We certainly saw a similar interweaving of the two instrumental roles of baptism in the second volume of Calvin’s commentary on Acts (1554). But this advance in his sacramental thought in the 1550s seems not to have made it into the 1559 chapters on the sacraments in general or baptism. In the following passage in the chapter on the sacraments in general, for example, Calvin added a concluding sentence in 1559 (in italics) that might have in view both instrumental functions: Therefore Word and sacraments confirm our faith when they set before our eyes the good will of our Heavenly Father toward us by the knowledge of whom the whole firmness of our faith stands fast and increases in strength. The Spirit confirms it when, by engraving this confirmation in our minds, he makes it effective. Meanwhile, the Father of Lights [cf. James 1:17]cannot be hindered from illumining our minds with a sort of intermediate brilliance through the sacraments, just as he illumines our bodily eyes by the rays of the sun.69

The first part of the paragraph focuses on the sacraments as instruments of knowledge and assurance. Both word and sacrament build up our faith by placing in front of us and confirming for us God’s goodwill toward us. Davis suggests, however, that the sentence added in 1559 points to both instrumental functions of a sacrament. Calvin’s extended illumination metaphor

130  Font of Pardon and New Life for the sacraments (“Father of Lights . . . illumining our minds . . . with a sort of intermediate brilliance through the sacraments”; emphasis added) could be understood as an explicit reference to the clarification and assurance that we receive through the sacraments but also as an implicit reference to God’s (the Light’s) sharing with us or bringing us into closer union with the divine essence (“brilliance”). In both of these forms of illumination, the sacraments play an “intermediate” or instrumental role.70 As compelling as this interpretation is, however, what the metaphor does not do is shed light on the relationship between the two intermediary functions of a sacrament. The most that can be said, in Davis’s own words, is that “this way of speaking of the sacrament can be taken in two ways, which relates to the two functions of the sacrament.”71 Calvin also added a final sentence (in italics) to a paragraph in the chapter on baptism that had the effect of bringing the dual instrumentality of baptism into sharper relief: These things, I say, he performs for our soul within as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude is the surest rule of the sacraments: that we should see spiritual things in physical, as if set before our very eyes. For the Lord was pleased to represent them by such figures. . . . And he does not feed our eyes with a mere appearance only, but leads us to the present reality and effectively performs what it symbolizes.72

The focus of this paragraph is on the role of baptism as an instrument of knowledge and assurance. Water baptism enables us to see more clearly and become more certain of the spiritual realities represented there. What the italicized sentence from 1559 makes clearer is the connection between the outer sign and those spiritual realities. In and through the act of baptism, God leads us to those realities and brings them to fruition. In other words, baptism functions also as a means of grace. Once again, however, the most Calvin has done here with this addition is to balance the two instrumental roles of baptism and suggest that they operate simultaneously. He does not explain how they relate to each other. What are we to say, then, about Lusk’s claim that in the 1559 Institutes the two instrumentalities are “woven together into a beautiful sacramental tapestry” and “combined into an organic whole” throughout Calvin’s treatment of the sacraments?73 When one looks more closely at Lusk’s examples and

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  131 analysis, it is apparent that the weaving and combining that he had in mind was more textual than theological. The example he provided from Calvin’s baptismal theology in Institutes 4.15.15 is a good case in point. There Calvin does indeed balance a paragraph on the assuring role of baptism (mostly material from 1536) with a sentence (in 1559) that highlights its salvific role as well: “Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means [per externa media].”74 But that is all that Calvin does here with the twofold instrumentality of baptism, and all that Lusk likely meant to say that he does. As in the other passages we cited from the 1559 chapters on sacraments in general and baptism, Calvin locates the two instrumentalities alongside each other in the same context but does not elaborate on the connection between them.

Assessment As I stated in the introduction to this chapter, developmental interpretations of Calvin’s sacramental theology during the last fifteen years of his life have varied widely. Lusk saw Calvin returning to a high view of instrumentality that had been downplayed in the CT. Davis’s analysis of Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper determined, too, that Calvin revived his pre-​CT understanding of instrumentality but in the form of a reinterpretation of the CT and a further clarification and development of his position. For Janse, by contrast, the “Bullingerianizing” of Calvin’s view of the sacraments represented in the CT carried over into his writings on both baptism and the Eucharist for an entire decade afterward. It was not until the early 1560s that Calvin, in his doctrine of the Eucharist at least, reverted to a more “Luther friendly” approach.75 The evidence adduced in this chapter with respect to Calvin’s doctrines of the sacraments in general and baptism in particular supports some of these conclusions and challenges others. During the 1550s Calvin did re-​ emphasize the high instrumental view of the sacraments that he had developed prior to 1549, although his writings in the aftermath of the CT seem less a reinterpretation of that document than a detailed explanation of how he had understood it all along. In any case, the biblical commentaries of the 1550s, the polemical exchanges with Westphal, and the 1559 Institutes do not exhibit any “Bullingerianizing” tendencies on Calvin’s part, at least

132  Font of Pardon and New Life in his general statements about the sacraments or in his treatment of baptism. All the language and themes from his pre-​CT corpus are present again in full display. First of all, we have seen scattered throughout his writings of the 1550s the earlier Calvinian vocabulary of sacramental and baptismal instrumentality: instrumentum (once: Acts commentary), organum (seven times: John commentary, Acts commentary, first Defence, Second Defence, 1559 Institutes), adminiculum (eight times: Isaiah commentary, Acts commentary, first Defence, 1559 Institutes), ministerium (once:  first Defence), and media (six times: Acts commentary, first Defence, 1559 Institutes), not to mention the frequent occurrence of the instrumental preposition per (“through”) and use of the ablative of means (e.g., quibus [“by which”]). In addition, we have found no evidence to support Janse’s claim that in the tension in Calvin’s sacramental theology between “the objectivity of the offer of salvation and the liberty God possesses in his elective grace,” Calvin emphasized the latter.76 On the contrary, Calvin takes great pains to give divine liberty and sacramental objectivity equal weight. On the one hand, he makes absolutely clear, as he always had, that it is God alone who renders the sacraments efficacious. The external administration of baptism, for example, is effective only “when it pleases God that it should be so” (ubi ita Deo visum est), only through the blood of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit, and only in those who receive it by true faith. We must always “be on our guard that the grace of God is not tied to the sacraments.”77 But on the other hand, Calvin is quick to emphasize, as for instance in a sentence he added to the Institutes in 1559, that “it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining [accedat] reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means [per externa media].”78 As we have seen, when it comes to the objective offer of salvation in the sacraments, Calvin returns in the 1550s to one of his favorite sacramental code words, exhibere, in at least three passages on baptism or the sacraments in general (Isaiah commentary, Acts commentary, Exodus commentary), and he employs terminology linking the sacramental sign to that which it signifies no fewer than fourteen times: coniungere (nine times), annectere (three times), connectere (once), and accedere (once). It is God alone who works in and through the sacraments, but it is still in and through the sacraments that God ordinarily chooses to do that work. In all his major writings in this last phase of his life—​particularly in his explanation and defense of the Consensus Tigurinus against the attacks of the Lutheran Westphal—​Calvin is very intentional about maintaining this “proper balance” in the doctrine of baptism79 and

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  133 steering “a middle course” between what he saw as Zurich’s undervaluation and Wittenberg’s overvaluation of the sacraments.80 What new developments there are in Calvin’s doctrine of baptism in this last phase of his life are few, relatively minor, and rather subtle. First, there seems to be more balance than before in the attention he devotes to baptism as both an instrument of knowledge/​assurance and an instrument of grace. As we saw in previous chapters, from 1536 to 1541 Calvin’s primary focus was on the instructive and testimonial functions of baptism before shifting more to the salvific instrumentality of baptism from 1541 to 1549. In the decade of the 1550s, these two are brought into greater equilibrium. Second, this balance of the two instrumentalities is often evident in the same contexts. Beginning with his Titus commentary in 1550, and then later in his expositions on Isaiah and Acts, his first Defence against Westphal, and the 1559 Institutes, Calvin often introduces discussions of the sacraments in general or the doctrine of baptism by highlighting their signifying and assuring roles. He then counterbalances that with some version of his assertion in the Acts commentary that “a bare form is not set before us in baptism, but the giving of the reality [rei exhibitonem] is also connected to it at the same time [simul annexam esse], because God does not deceive us in His promises, but truly fulfills what He signifies under figures.”81 Finally, for the first and only time in all his reflections on baptism Calvin points to a connection between the two instrumental roles. In his interpretation of Paul’s baptism in the second volume of the Acts commentary, he suggests that the assuring and salvific functions of baptism are related in a kind of circular way. The strengthening of faith at baptism (instrument of knowledge/​assurance) assists that faith in embracing the remission of sins attached to the baptismal sign (instrument of grace). Conversely, as faith embraces the remission of sins attached to the baptismal sign (instrument of grace), it receives a “fresh confirmation” of the grace received (instrument of assurance).82 To paraphrase Davis’s conclusions about Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist, as faith grows, union with Christ grows; as union with Christ grows, faith grows.83 The two instrumentalities, therefore, are interlinked. They operate not only alongside each other but also in support of each other.

Notes 1. Lusk, “Calvin on Baptism.” 2. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 30–​31, 45–​46, 56.

134  Font of Pardon and New Life 3. Janse, “Controversy between Westphal and Calvin,” 3, 15, 31. 4. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 39–​41. 5. John Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. T. A. Smail, vol. 10 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 382 (comm. on Titus 3:5). 6. Calvin, Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 382–​83; CO 5 2:431 (comm. on Titus 3:5). 7. Calvin, Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 382–​83; CO 52:430–​31 (comm. on Titus 3:5). 8. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 118 (comm. on 1 Peter 3:21). 9. Calvin, Catholic Epistles, 117–​19; COR 2/​20:104 (comm. on 1 Peter 3:21). 10. Calvin, Catholic Epistles, 118–​19; COR 2/​20:105 (comm. on 1 Peter 3:21). 11. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, trans. William Pringle, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1948), 197, 210–​11; CO 36:132–​33 (comm. on Is. 6:7). 12. Calvin, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 210–​12; CO 36:133 (comm. on Is. 6:7). 13. John Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, trans. John W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald, vol. 6 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 78–​79 (comm. on Acts 2:38). 14. Ibid., 252–​53 (comm. on Acts 8:36). 15. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 318–​19; COR 2/​12.1:329 (comm. on Acts 10:47). 16. John Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, trans. John W. Fraser, vol. 7 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 217 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 17. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 78–​80; COR 2/​12.1:80, 82 (comm. on Acts 2:38). 18. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218; COR 2/​12.2:222 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 19. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 80 (comm. on Acts 2:38). 20. Ibid.,  81–​82. 21. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 80, 82; COR 2/​12.1:82, 84 (comm. on Acts 2:38). 22. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 217–​19; COR 2/​12.2:222 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 23. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 24. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 27–​28 (comm. on Acts 1:5). Calvin made a similar point a year later in his commentary on John 1:26, where this time he included the term “instrument”: “Such modes of expression [laver of regeneration, etc.] show, not what the man can accomplish of himself, but what Christ effects by the man and the sign as his instruments [tanquam sua organa].” John Calvin, The Gospel according to St John 1–​10, trans. T. H. L. Parker, vol. 4 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 30; COR 2/​11.1:44 (comm. on John 1:26). 25. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 28 (comm. on Acts 1:5). 26. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 233; COR 2/​12.1:239 (comm. on Acts 8:13). 27. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218; COR 2/​12.2:222 (comm. on Acts 22:16).

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  135 28. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 8, Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation (1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 659. 29. For an overview of the entire polemical exchange, see de Greef, Writings of John Calvin, 178–​81. 30. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 45. 31. John Calvin, “Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments [Defence of the Sane and Orthodox Doctrine of the Sacraments],” in Calvin’s Tracts, 2:223. 32. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 222–​23; CO 9:17. 33. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 224. Calvin lauds Luther as “a man whose memory I revere, and whose honour I am desirous to consult.” Ibid. 34. Ibid., 224; CO 9:18. 35. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 224; CO 9:18. 36. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 130. 37. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 224, 225, 226; CO 9:18, 20. 38. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 225; CO 9:18–​19. 39. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 232–​33. 40. Ibid.,  226. 41. Ibid., 225, 227; CO 9:19, 20. 42. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 228. 43. Ibid., 227, 229; CO 9:20, 22–​23. Cf. also “Mutual Consent,” 231; CO 9:24: “Though God uses inferior means [mediis inferioribus], it does not at all imply that he does not begin and perfect our faith solely by the agency his Spirit,” and “Mutual Consent,” 230; CO 9:23: “The power and efficacy of baptism [baptismum efficaciae et potestatis] are competent to none but Christ.” 44. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 232–​33. 45. Ibid., 233; CO 9:26. 46. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 236; CO 9:29. 47. Calvin, Second Defence, 274; CO 9:68. 48. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 222–​23; Calvin, Second Defence, 336. 49. Calvin, Second Defence, 336–​37. 50. Ibid.,  339. 51. Ibid.,  337. 52. Ibid., 336. On this implied distinction between visible and invisible church, see also Lewis B. Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Sigificance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America, Yale Studies in Religious Education 12 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940), 12. 53. Calvin, Second Defence, 339; CO 9:116. Calvin goes on to say the following: “Again, he [Westphal] asks, if the sacraments are instruments [organa] by which God acts efficaciously, and testifies and seals his grace to us, why do we deny, that by the washing of baptism men are born again? . . . Having distinctly asserted, that men are regenerated by baptism, just as they are by the word, I early obviated the impudence of the man.” Calvin’s only concern is that we not transfer to the sacraments the confidence of salvation that rests in God alone. Calvin, Second Defence, 340; CO 9:116. 54. Calvin, Second Defence, 336.

136  Font of Pardon and New Life 55. Calvin saw an Old Testament counterpart to Paul’s baptismal experience in the prophet Isaiah’s purification by the burning coal:  “The Lord had already cleansed him, but according to his degree. The cleansing which is now added is greater; for it has its enlargements and additions, which no man can obtain all at once.” Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 209–​10 (comm. on Is. 6:6). 56. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1279 (4.14.4). 57. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1289 (4.14.13); CO 2:951. 58. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1314 (4.15.14); Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 55. 59. Calvin:  Institutes, 2:1292 (4.14.17). Riggs suggests that this illustration involving liquids and pouring was an implicit reference to baptism. Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 58. Calvin continued to emphasize the importance of faith for the sacraments in two of his final works in the early 1560s: The Best Method of Obtaining Concord, Provided the Truth Be Sought without Contention, in Calvin’s Tracts, 2:574; and Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. Thomas Myers, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 312 (comm. on Ezekiel 20:20): “When papists speak of the sacraments they say that they are efficacious, if we only remove the obstacle of mortal sin: they make no mention of faith. . . . We must hold, therefore, that there is a mutual relationship between faith and the sacraments, and hence, that the sacraments are effective through faith. . . . And although spiritual things always remain the same, yet we do not obtain their effect, nor perceive their value, unless we are cautious that our want of faith should not profane what God has consecrated to our salvation.” 60. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1293 (4.14.13); CO 2:954. 61. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1305 (4.15.2); CO 2:963. 62. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1293 (4.14.13). 63. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 202. 64. Ibid.,  214. 65. Ibid.,  211. 66. Lusk, “Calvin on Baptism.” 67. Ibid. For other examples, see ibid., n. 2. 68. Lusk, “Calvin on Baptism.” 69. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1286 (4.14.10). 70. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 209–​10. 71. Ibid.,  209. 72. Calvin:  Institutes, 2:1314 (4.15.14). In his translation of the additional sentence from 1559 (CO 2:970:  “Neque tantum nudo spectaculo pascit oculos, sed in rem praesentem nos adducit, et quod figurat, efficaciter simul implet”), Battles curiously ignores the word simul. Calvin employed language very similar to this last sentence in two of his final works in the early 1560s: Best Method, 573; CO 9:518: “God, moreover, as he is true and faithful, performs by the secret virtue of his Spirit that which he figures by external signs, and, accordingly, that on the part of God himself, not empty signs are set before us, but the reality and efficacy at the same time conjoined with them” (sed veritatem et efficaciam simul coniunctam esse); and Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles W.

Works from after the Consensus Tigurinus  137 Bingham, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 236; CO 24:145 (comm. on Exodus 13:21): “[God] does not deceitfully expose the signs of His presence to men’s eyes, but that the exhibition of the thing signified is at the same time truly conjoined with them” (simul vere coniuncta sit rei signatae exhibitio). 73. Lusk, “Calvin on Baptism.” 74. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1315 (4.15.15); CO 2:970. 75. Lusk, “Calvin on Baptism”; Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 30–​31, 45–​46, 56; Janse, “Controversy between Westphal and Calvin,” 3, 15, 31; Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,”  39–​41. 76. Janse, “Controversy between Westphal and Calvin,” 3, 15, 31. 77. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 78. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1315 (4.15.15); CO 2:970. 79. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 80. Calvin, “Mutual Consent,” 223. 81. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218; COR 2/​12.2:222 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 82. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218–​19 (comm. on Acts 22:16). 83. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 211.

7 Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism It may seem strange in a study of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism to have waited this long to examine his view of the efficacy of the baptism of infants. However, we are simply following Calvin’s own pattern here. In his more systematic works—​his catechisms and various editions of the Institutes—​Calvin always treated infant baptism at the very end of his discussion of the nature and purpose of baptism in general. In the 1536 Institutes, for example, his explanation of infant baptism was confined to a few paragraphs at the end of his general treatment of baptism in ­chapter 4.1 Beginning with the 1539 Institutes, he revised and expanded these closing paragraphs to include much of what in the final Latin edition of 1559 would constitute a separate chapter (Calvin calls it an “appendix”) on infant baptism (4.16),2 after a chapter each on the sacraments in general (4.14) and baptism in general (4.15). So far as his catechisms were concerned, he devoted just a single sentence to pedobaptism in the Catechism of 1537/​1538, again at the very end of the article on baptism.3 Five years later, in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545), nearly half of the sixteen questions on baptism were related to infants, but these, too, appeared only at the end after Calvin had first addressed the meaning and use of baptism in general.4 As David Wright has noted, this way of organizing the material “is puzzling in the light of the fact that in the life of the churches known to Calvin in France, Geneva, and elsewhere almost all of the recipients of baptism were very young children.”5 With infants as the focal point of Calvin’s actual practice of baptism, why in his theological writings would he explore the nature, efficacy, and use of the sacrament with virtually no reference to infants until the very end? Wright himself offered a very plausible answer when he suggested that perhaps “the scrupulously biblical Calvin knew that faith-​baptism was the norm [in the New Testament] and that infant baptism, if he was to adhere to a proper biblical perspective, had to be approached only from that angle and not in its own independent terms.”6 Since there is no explicit example or doctrine of infant baptism in the New Testament, it was only at the end of his explanation of the sacrament as he actually found it in Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0007.

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  139 Scripture that Calvin felt he could deal with its application to the children of believers. If Wright is right that for Calvin infant baptism should be viewed against the background of believer’s baptism in the New Testament, our concern in this study is how he does that when it comes to the efficacy of the sacrament. Does the act of baptizing an infant do anything special to the child or for the child?7 In particular, does baptism function in some way as a means of knowledge and assurance or even a means of grace, as it does for adult converts? These are questions that only a few in the past have addressed, especially from a diachronic perspective. Indeed, only a handful of scholars have paid attention to the question of the development of Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism at all. Beckmann observed in 1926 that in the first edition of the Institutes, Calvin assumed that a child, like an adult, must have faith to receive the blessings of baptism. In polemicizing against the Anabaptists in subsequent editions, however, Calvin dropped the idea of infant faith and replaced it with the more Augustinian notion of infant regeneration by the Holy Spirit.8 A quarter century later, Wendel noted still other modifications to Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism in and after the 1539 Institutes, but in his view these were due not just to Calvin’s engagement with Anabaptists but also to his closer reading of the works of Martin Bucer.9 Alting von Geusau provided a more detailed sketch of the development of Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism in 1962,10 but it was not until an article by Egil Grislis that same year that the concept of instrumentality entered the discussion.11 Grislis, too, noticed in the 1539 Institutes that Calvin had replaced the notion of infant faith at baptism with an emphasis on illumination by the Spirit.12 He went on to argue, however, that in Calvin’s treatment of baptism from 1539 onward, the broader tension in his theology between sacramental instrumentality and election was growing. In Calvin’s introduction to the essence of baptism, he still regarded the sacrament as an instrument by which God nourishes and confirms faith and efficaciously carries out what is symbolized there. However, his “doctrine of infant baptism is not actually developed upon the basis of such affirmations. The real point of departure is the insight that infants are among the elect by virtue of being the children of believers.”13 Indeed, for Calvin the regeneration that is signified and sealed at the baptism of an infant is already bestowed before the administration of the sacrament and continues throughout the person’s life—​all by virtue of their election. Calvin does not even say that the planting of what he calls the seed of future repentance and faith occurs through the instrumentality of baptism.14

140  Font of Pardon and New Life He does recognize that some baptized children end up not believing or persevering, thus proving themselves not to have been among the elect to begin with. But this, according to Grislis, only adds to the tension between election and infant baptism as a means of assurance: If the baptism of infants depends upon their election and perseverance, then baptism is a sure and certain seal of election only as long as the election of these infants can be unconditionally affirmed also in regard to their later life; since in the final analysis Calvin is unwilling to affirm the election of all the infants of believers, baptism itself appears to be in real danger of ceasing to be a sure seal! He may indeed assert that God does not mock men through the sacramental promise, but he does not demonstrate that this is actually the case.15

Two decades later, John Riggs, the first to devote an entire monograph to Calvin’s theology of baptism from a developmental perspective,16 also focused on changes in the role of faith in Calvin’s understanding of infant baptism. According to Riggs, in the 1539, 1543, and 1550 Institutes, Calvin backed away from the Lutheran notion of a fides infantium (infant faith) that he had defended in the 1536 edition and took a more circumspect approach to the possibility of such faith.17 However, with a renewed emphasis in the 1559 Institutes on the importance of human faith for sacramental efficacy, Calvin added the concept of a seed of future repentance and faith to his teaching on infant baptism. Grislis was correct, says Riggs, that Calvin never stated that this seed is bestowed via the instrumentality of baptism, but Calvin did imply that it occurs at the baptism of a child, perhaps in a kind of sacramental parallelism.18 This seed, then, functioned for infants in much the same way as the sacrament of baptism itself did for adult believers at the time they were baptized: “For those baptized as infants, the once and prior baptism would later awaken and nourish the faith of that person because of the trustworthy nature of the divine promise that the sign signified.”19 In 1993, eight years after Riggs’s groundbreaking work, Brian Gerrish suggested that over a lifetime of debate with Roman Catholics, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists, Calvin fashioned a doctrine of infant baptism with benefits in three tenses: “Christian children are baptized in recognition that they were already adopted by God before they were even born, in the assurance that the reality is present with the sign, and in the expectation that the promise sealed in the Sacrament will eventually lead to their faith.”20 This threefold

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  141 approach, according to Gerrish, was not without its difficulties, especially the apparent contradiction between Calvin’s claim that the administration of baptism is of no use to infants until they later embrace its promises by faith and his refusal to rule out the possibility of regeneration at the font.21 Gerrish also considered Calvin less than successful at staying within the “cognitive framework” of the sacrament, that is, at defending pedobaptism as a means of knowledge and assurance for tiny infants with as yet undeveloped minds.22 More recently (2007), David Wright has claimed that there are significant differences, even an incoherence, in the 1559 Institutes between Calvin’s introduction to baptism in 4.15 and his apology for infant baptism in 4.16.23 These differences, Wright maintained, were rooted in the textual history of the Institutes and the historical context in which Calvin was writing. The framework and much of the content of c­ hapter  15 were grounded in the 1536 text, where Calvin’s primary target was the ex opere operato sacramental theology of the Roman Catholic Church, which minimized the importance of human faith. In 1539, however, he added what eventually became most of c­ hapter 16 of book 4, a polemic against the Anabaptists’ rejection of pedobaptism and their insistence that true baptism requires prior repentance and faith.24 In 4.15, therefore, which scarcely mentions infant baptism, Calvin appeals largely to the New Testament and stresses the role of faith in the reception of the benefits of baptism; in 4.16 he appeals largely to the Old Testament and stresses covenant membership and the parallels between circumcision and baptism as the basis for infant baptism.25 Perhaps the most charitable interpretation of this incoherence, Wright concludes, is that Calvin begins his treatment of baptism (4.15) where Scripture begins, with the New Testament’s examples of and reflection on adult convert baptism. It is only then (4.16) that he struggles—​not always successfully—​to situate the theology and practice of infant baptism within that framework.26 Past scholarship, then, has detected little movement in Calvin’s position on pedobaptism after 1539 and provided relatively little analysis of the efficacy of infant baptism. What analysis there has been has often reached different conclusions, agreeing only that logical gaps and theological tensions remain in Calvin’s treatments of the efficacy of baptism in general and that of infant baptism. Furthermore, none of these earlier studies examined all of Calvin’s major statements on infant baptism in the order that he wrote them. In the rest of this chapter, therefore, we shall look at the efficacy of infant baptism across the whole of Calvin’s corpus, moving through the same stages of his writing career that we laid out in the preceding chapters. What we shall find

142  Font of Pardon and New Life is that his view of infant baptism as a means or instrument of blessing is not as incompatible with his general doctrine of baptismal efficacy, as some in the past have suggested.

The 1536 Institutes As we noted earlier, Calvin’s treatment of infant baptism in the first edition of the Institutes comprised no more than a few paragraphs at the end of the section on baptism in general. However, the integration of his teaching on infant baptism into his broader baptismal theology was more than just structural. Materially, too, his segue from baptism in general to the baptism of children begins with a summary of the uses of a sacrament that he had discussed earlier in the same chapter: “It has been said that there are two parts to the use of the sacrament: first, to instruct us in the Lord’s promises; secondly, for us to confess our faith among men.”27 This harks back to his opening definition of a sacrament as “an outward sign by which the Lord represents and attests to us his good will toward us to sustain the weakness of our faith”28 and a sacrament’s twofold purpose: first, to “serve our faith before God” and secondarily to “attest our confession before men.”29 However, if the proper use of a sacrament is both to instruct us in God’s promises and to confess our faith before others, it could be objected, Calvin goes on to say, that infants are not capable of either one: they do not appear able to be taught by the sacraments or to possess a faith to which they can give testimony through them.30 He then responds to these objections with three reasons for infant baptism: (1) children can possess some knowledge of God; (2) children can have faith; and (3) since baptism has replaced circumcision, God’s command to circumcise Jewish children in the Old Testament applies to the baptism of Christian children today. Strikingly, Calvin begins his explanation of the first ground by pointing to children who die in infancy. This rather unusual starting point may indicate how much on people’s minds infant death was in Calvin’s day. Geneva’s high infant mortality rate31 and the medieval Catholic teaching that children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven must have led to numerous theological questions and pastoral situations for the city’s team of Protestant ministers.32 Calvin states here that some infants at death (elect infants, it becomes clear a little later) are immediately translated into God’s heavenly kingdom. Since that is the moment at which these children attain an “eternal blessedness

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  143 [that] consists in the knowledge [cognitione] of God,” why, then, could not God “here and now give some taste and first fruits of that good to those who are going one day to enjoy it fully? Why could he not be seen in a mirror and obscurely by those, by whom he will one day be seen face to face?”33 How this stands as a defense of infant baptism is not immediately obvious, but it appears to be Calvin’s way of meeting the objection “that infants are incapable of being taught anything by such numerous proofs [the sacraments].” One way of reading his response is that such children are indeed capable of being “taught” by the sacraments, because God can give them a “taste” or “first fruits” of a knowledge of himself that elect infants who die in infancy enjoy in full upon their death. What they will then know fully in the presence of God, he suggests in an allusion to 1 Corinthians 13:12, they can now be given in part. This impartation of the knowledge of God at an infant level is something God does “here and now,” apparently in this case in the documentum (“proof/​lesson/​instruction”) of the sacrament of baptism.34 Infant baptism, then, may serve for Calvin here as a kind of instrument of knowledge, which then stands as one of the grounds for administering it. To the further concern that infants have no faith to which to give sacramental testimony, Calvin responds that even though one is elect, the only way to salvation is still through faith, irrespective of one’s age. Mark 16:16 is very clear: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” This, like other passages in the New Testament about faith, is an inclusive statement and not limited just to those able to respond to the preaching of the gospel. Since, therefore, infants “possess faith in common with adults,” baptism can also legitimately be applied to them.35 This does not seem a very cogent reason for infant baptism, especially since Calvin makes no attempt here to demonstrate that infants have faith in common with adults; he simply asserts it. Perhaps he considered such faith the same as the “taste” or “first fruits” of the knowledge of God that he earlier suggested might be imparted at baptism. But that would make faith a benefit of infant baptism rather than a basis for administering it. Furthermore, at this stage of his thinking Calvin still regarded faith more as fiducia (trust, confidence, assurance) than cognitio (knowledge).36 Finally, he implies that if an infant does have faith at an early age, it is not bestowed at baptism but is present already from the time of gestation. This should not be taken to mean, however, that “faith always begins from the mother’s womb, when the Lord calls even adults themselves sometimes later, sometimes sooner.”37 Earlier he cites himself as an example of a “sometimes later” adult.

144  Font of Pardon and New Life He had received a valid promise of forgiveness of sins in his own baptism as a child, a promise that “ever remained fixed and firm and trustworthy.” But his baptism benefited him not one whit so long as he remained blind, unbelieving, unfaithful, and ungrateful. The promise offered in baptism “lay neglected . . . [and] long buried from us.” It is only when unconverted people like him “begin to repent” and “embrace it by faith” that God brings that baptismal promise to fulfillment.38 In these instances, infant baptism seems to function for Calvin as a kind of instrument of grace with a delayed efficacy. If these are not sufficient reasons to baptize infants, Calvin concludes, we can still fall back on a third ground, Jesus’s command that little children come to him, for “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:14). This is confirmation that the status of the children of Christian believers is the same as that of covenant children in the Old Testament. It is only proper, then, that baptism, which has replaced circumcision, should be administered to these children just as circumcision was to Jewish children of old.39 Calvin never directly addresses the question of baptismal efficacy here, but he does refer to the baptism of infants as a “sign [signum] of the forgiveness of sins” by which “we . . . are sealing [obsignamus]” the truth of their inclusion in the kingdom.40 These signifying and sealing functions of the sacrament suggest that it is at least a means or instrument of knowledge and assurance. It both explains the meaning of the promises of God and confirms their authenticity. But can and does it do so to tiny infants? And can and does it sustain a weak faith, as Calvin’s original definition of a sacrament would suggest? Calvin does aver that this sign is something communicated or imparted to infants (illis . . . communicamus), that the same thing God promised to the Jews in circumcision he promises to Christians in baptism, and that this applies “not only to adults but also to infants.”41 All of this suggests that God is directly addressing these baptizands, even at a very young age.42 Since, as we have seen, Calvin also maintains that some infants, in a way that defies comprehension, possess “some taste and first fruits” of the knowledge of God and a “faith in common with adults,” it would seem a legitimate inference that for Calvin the baptismal communication of God’s promises to infants with faith could, again by special divine operation, enhance their knowledge of God and increase their faith (assurance).43 By such faith, then, these infants would gain a firmer hold on Christ, who, according to comments Calvin makes elsewhere in the 1536 Institutes, is offered or held out to all participants in the sacraments. In other words, here we might have another indication that for Calvin infant baptism can sometimes also be an instrument of grace.

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  145 In just a few paragraphs in the 1536 Institutes, therefore, Calvin has laid much of the groundwork for the doctrine of pedobaptism that he would develop in greater detail later on. First, he attempts to integrate his teaching on infant baptism with the broader sacramental and baptismal theology that precedes it—​connecting it to his definition of sacraments at the beginning of the chapter and stressing again the importance of faith for all who participate. Second, he seems to operate with three categories of children: nonelect infants, elect infants who possess faith from the time of conception (often those who die in infancy), and elect infants who come to faith at some point after conception. With respect to the second category, he provides several hints that the baptism of these infants, like that of adults, is efficacious as a means of knowledge and perhaps even a means of assurance and grace. In the third category, he seems to work with a distinction between the valid administration of baptism to an infant and the realization at a later stage of life of the promises guaranteed at baptism. Finally, Calvin briefly introduces a covenantal defense for infant baptism that is also connected to a theme he had discussed earlier in his introduction to the sacraments—​the common purpose and meaning of the sacraments in both testaments.

First Period in Geneva and the Strasbourg Interlude (1536–​41) Calvin’s most significant work on infant baptism during this period was the “appendix” he added to the chapter on baptism in the 1539 Institutes after engaging with Anabaptists in Geneva and Strasbourg over the previous several years.44 He touches on pedobaptism in his 1537/​1538 catechism and first edition of the Romans commentary (1540) as well,45 but his most comprehensive treatment of the subject is this new supplement in the Institutes, which now comprised almost two-​thirds of his entire exposition on baptism (compared with only a fourth in 1536) and would eventually become most of book 4, c­ hapter 16, in the final Latin edition of 1559. A major change in Calvin’s defense of pedobaptism in the 1539 Institutes is that he no longer links it to the definition and purposes of a sacrament at the beginning of the chapter. Nevertheless, in the first few paragraphs, he does allude to this general definition and twofold purpose by reaffirming baptism as both a divine sign and seal to us (what we have been calling a means of knowledge and assurance) and a symbol of our profession before others.46

146  Font of Pardon and New Life As a sign, it both represents certain spiritual realities—​cleansing from sin through the blood of Christ, mortification of the flesh, rebirth to new life, and fellowship with Christ—​and offers God’s promises of these realities to us.47 In this respect, it is like Old Testament circumcision, of which Christ was also the foundation and which also represented forgiveness and mortification through him. The external signs of circumcision and baptism are different, but the things that they signify and the promises they offer—​divine favor, forgiveness, and eternal life—​are the same.48 Circumcision and baptism are also seals. When Christ was promised to Abraham, and through Abraham to the nations, the sign of circumcision was added “to seal [obsignando] this grace.”49 God commanded that his covenant with Abraham “be confirmed” and “sealed [consignari] with an outward sacrament.”50 Because circumcision was the point at which Jews formally entered the Old Testament church, it served as a “token” (tessera) to assure them of their status as adoptees among the people of God.51 All of this is true also of baptism, which has now replaced circumcision and is as lawfully administered to infants of New Testament believers as it was to the descendants of Abraham. Far from being meaningless symbols, the circumcision and baptism of infants are “in lieu of a seal [sigilli] to certify [obsignandam] the promise of the covenant.”52 This raises the question, however, whom the instruction and confirmation are intended for when these signs and seals are applied to infants—​the adults in the community or the infants themselves? Certainly, says Calvin, the parents of these children receive certain benefits from the ceremonies. Infant circumcision functioned as a testimony “by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their posterity,” consoling their faith and leading them “thereby to arouse themselves to a surer confidence, because they see with their very eyes the covenant of the Lord engraved upon the bodies of their children.”53 Christians, therefore, have no excuse “for not testifying and sealing [the covenant] in their children today.” The sign of infant baptism, embossed upon a child like a seal, “confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendants.” Parents should be overwhelmed with happiness and love as they witness such a demonstration and pledge of God’s concern for their children.54 Whether and how for Calvin infant sacraments benefit the children, too, is less clear. Baptism is a means by which children are received into God’s

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  147 covenant, engrafted into the church, and drawn further into the sphere of influence of other members of the community.55 But because Calvin here no longer connects infant knowledge or faith so closely to baptism, he no longer implies that baptism could be an immediate means of knowledge or assurance for these children. With respect to knowledge, in 1536 he had countered the objection that infants could not be taught anything by the sacraments by arguing that God can give elect infants who die in infancy a small taste of the knowledge of himself, presumably through their baptism. Indeed, this constituted the first of his “reasons” for infant baptism.56 Now in 1539 he addresses the issue of infant knowledge again but this time in response to the Anabaptist objection that infants are not capable of knowing God or of the hearing the preaching of the gospel that leads to faith (Romans 10:17). He still maintains that God can and does directly impart knowledge of himself to little ones, adding that this kind of “calling” takes place through an inner illumination by the Holy Spirit apart from the preaching of the Word. Here again he is thinking primarily of infants who die in infancy, intimating that such children are given “a tiny spark” and “some part of that grace” that they will soon experience in full measure in the very presence of God.57 But he no longer suggests that this knowledge is communicated or enhanced through a child’s baptism and that this provides one of the grounds for infant baptism. Much the same is true of faith. In 1536 Calvin had argued that faith is the only path to salvation regardless of a person’s age, that infants can “possess faith in common with adults” from the time they are in the womb, and that therefore they can be considered legitimate candidates for baptism (Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”). This was probably less of a ground for infant baptism than an attempt to refute an argument against it. In any case, in the 1539 Institutes Calvin loosens the ties between infant faith, infant salvation, and infant baptism. First, he no longer regards faith as the sine qua non for salvation. Instead it is “spiritual regeneration,” an engrafting into Christ and becoming a partaker of him, that frees us from death and opens God’s Kingdom to us. Those who are to be saved are plagued with an innate corruption from which they must be cleansed and born anew in order to enter the Kingdom of God. In a way that defies human understanding, God can accomplish this work of regeneration by his power in even the tiniest of infants.58 After all, John the Baptist was sanctified already in utero, as was Jesus himself in his conception by the Holy Spirit.59 For Calvin this is true once again only of infants “whom the Lord has deigned to elect,”60 and again, except for those who die in infancy, it is not God’s usual pattern

148  Font of Pardon and New Life to regenerate elect children at the moment of conception.61 But regardless of when children are regenerated, Calvin gives no indication here that this occurs at or through their baptism. Second, Calvin is no longer certain that infants “possess faith in common with adults.” What Paul meant in Romans 10:17 (“faith comes by hearing”) is that faith produced by listening to the gospel is just the ordinary way that God calls people (adults) to himself. As we have seen, for Calvin God can also work in an extraordinary way, endowing infants with the rudiments of faith or knowledge by the illumination of the Holy Spirit apart from the preaching of the Word.62 He claims that he prefers to leave the question open whether this faith, or “knowledge of faith,” as he describes it in the 1550 edition,63 is the same as what adults experience.64 Elsewhere in the new appendix, however, it becomes clear that he regards adult faith and infant faith/​knowledge as very different from each other. For example, one reason why infants may not partake in the Lord’s Supper is that Christ commanded that we celebrate the supper in remembrance of him. How could we possibly require such remembrance of infants “when they have never grasped it” or never comprehended the meaning of the cross of Christ?65 Furthermore, when it comes to the proper sequence of faith and baptism, the book of Acts makes clear that those who “were of fit age to think [meditandam] of repentance and to understand [concipiendam] faith” had to provide evidence of this faith and repentance before being baptized. The children of believers, however, “ought to be put in another category.”66 This general pattern is rooted in the Old Testament, where outsiders joining the covenant community first had to learn the conditions of the covenant, be instructed in the law, and respond in faith before they could be circumcised. But their children were circumcised immediately. Abraham and Isaac are good illustrations of this pattern: in the case of Abraham, who came to know God as an adult, the sacrament came after his faith; with his son Isaac, however, it “precede[d]‌all understanding [intelligentiam].”67 “In sum, “strangers to the covenant” are granted access to the community only through faith and repentance, but their children are “born directly into the inheritance of the covenant” and thus are legitimate recipients of the sign of the covenant prior to faith.68 The gap, therefore, that Calvin sees between infant and adult faith/​knowledge appears to be so wide that any possibility for infant faith to be nurtured by baptism now seems to be foreclosed. If infant circumcision and baptism do not function as direct means of knowledge or assurance for these children, does Calvin regard them in any

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  149 way as instruments of grace? In several places in the 1539 appendix he comes tantalizingly close to saying so. Already in the Old Testament, God did not have infants circumcised “without making them participants in all those things which were then signified by circumcision.” The same should hold true for children in the Christian era: “If they are participants in the thing signified, why shall they be debarred from the sign? If they grasp the truth, why shall they be driven away from the figure?”69 Christ bade little ones to come to him because “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:14); on what grounds, then, could they be denied the sign of baptism, which leads to their being “enrolled among the heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven”? Since Christ’s invitation to little children was a declaration that “they are his and are sanctified by him,” baptism, as “the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ,” is of even greater value.70 Calvin even goes so far as to say that God will pour out his vengeance on any parent who chooses not “to mark his child with the symbol of the covenant; for by such contempt the proffered grace [oblata gratia] is refused, and, as it were, foresworn.”71 Unfortunately, Calvin never states explicitly how such grace is proffered in the sacrament, or when exactly an infant was made a participant in the things that circumcision represented, or what precisely the connection is in child baptism between the sign/​figure of the sacrament and the truth it signifies. Even in his extended discussion of regeneration, a benefit that both infant circumcision and infant baptism represent, all that he offers with respect to those elect children who are baptized but die in infancy is that God “renews them by the power, incomprehensible to us, of his Spirit, in whatever way he alone foresees will be expedient.”72 This could presumably be through the sacrament, along with the sacrament, or wholly independent of the sacrament. He simply does not say. The clearest indication in the 1539 Institutes that circumcision and baptism function as some kind of means or instruments for infants is found in Calvin’s comments about the delayed benefits of these sacraments. In reminiscing in 1536 about his own baptism, he had implied a distinction between the promise that God offers a child at baptism, which “ever remains fixed and firm and trustworthy,” and the later realization of that promise when the individual comes to faith.73 This passage reappears in the 1539 Institutes fully intact, but Calvin adds a new paragraph to it in which he buttresses this distinction with an illustration from the Old Covenant. When God periodically called his chosen people to repentance in the Old Testament, he did not require that those who responded should undergo a second circumcision.

150  Font of Pardon and New Life Even though they may have been circumcised by an impious priest and lived in impiety themselves, the outer “symbol of the covenant remained ever firm and inviolable by virtue of the Lord’s institution” until their hearts were finally converted.74 Circumcision was a sacrament of repentance and faith, and although Israelite infants could not understand the meaning of the sacrament at the time of its administration, they were still circumcised proleptically into a mortification of their corrupt natures that they would pursue as they grew older.75 Their circumcision, in other words, was “conferred . . . for the time to come.”76 The same holds true for baptism. As baptized children get older, “They are greatly spurred to a zeal for worshipping God, who adopted them as children before they were old enough to recognize him as Father.”77 Or again, if regenerate children “happen to grow to an age at which they can be taught the truth of baptism, they shall be fired with greater zeal for renewal, from learning that they were given the token [tessera] of it in their first infancy in order that they might meditate upon it throughout life.”78 Calvin makes this connection between sacramental promise and its later fulfillment even more explicit when he asserts that infant baptism has both a “present effectiveness [efficaciae],” by virtue of its ratifying and confirming the covenant, and a “remaining significance” that will follow in God’s own time.79 Given this efficacia of infant baptism that is fully realized later in the life of the (elect) baptizand, the sacrament does indeed seem to function for Calvin as an instrument of divine grace. And because learning the meaning of their baptism and meditating on it throughout their lives generate in these children an ongoing zeal for piety and worship, the sacrament also seems to function as a means of instruction and confirmation. In both cases, however, these are efficacious means with a delayed fulfillment. When we compare the 1536 and 1539 Institutes on infant baptism, therefore, we notice a certain continuity between them but an even greater discontinuity. In 1539 Calvin still integrates the discussion of pedobaptism into his treatment of baptism in general, but he no longer explicitly connects it to the definition and twofold purpose of a sacrament that he had introduced in the previous chapter. He still defends the existence of infant knowledge and faith but now treats them as almost equivalent terms and no longer employs them as grounds for pedobaptism. He still operates with three classes of children, but the categories now are nonelect infants, elect infants who are regenerate (rather than have faith) from the time of their conception, and elect infants who are regenerated (rather than come to faith) at some point after

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  151 conception. To support infant baptism, he still appeals to a trans-​testamental covenant in Scripture, but now—​with the addition of an extensive polemic against the Anabaptists—​he treats it in much greater detail and as the primary, if not sole, basis for the administration of the sacrament. Finally, he still suggests that pedobaptism is a means of knowledge, assurance, and grace but now only in those contexts—​greatly expanded in 1539—​where the efficacy of the sacrament is apportioned between the administration of baptism to an elect child and the fulfillment of its promises at a later time.

Second Period in Geneva to the Consensus Tigurinus (1541–​48) From the time of his return to Geneva from Strasbourg in 1541 to the Zurich Consensus with Bullinger eight years later, Calvin’s view of the efficacy of infant baptism underwent little change. His most detailed reflections on pedobaptism during this period are found in the 1542/​1545 Catechism of the Church of Geneva, where he devotes seven of the sixteen questions and answers on baptism to its application to infants. Once again, there are hints that the baptism of infants serves as a means of assurance. It is first of all a “sign which tends powerfully to witness to God’s mercy and to confirm his promises.” Indeed, to deny baptism to infants today when its ancient counterpart, circumcision, was administered to children in the Old Testament would deprive the people of God of “a splendid consolation.”80 Presumably, Calvin has in mind here the consolation of adults in the church community, but he also makes the point that in the Old Testament God showed himself to be the Father of covenant infants by having the promise of salvation “graven on their bodies in a visible sign.”81 If God’s intent in engraving the sign of circumcision on the body of a child was that it remain a lifelong sign and seal of the covenant promises, then it could serve as a consolation or instrument of assurance to maturing children as well. And if, as Calvin goes on to say, baptism holds out (exhibuit) to us a clearer example of God’s goodness to us in Christ than circumcision did,82 then the confirmation or consolation should be all the stronger for both the adult community gathered around infants at the font and for the infants themselves as they grow to understand the meaning of their baptism. Calvin also suggests here that infant baptism is a means of grace. One reason that infants should now be baptized just as babies in the Old

152  Font of Pardon and New Life Testament were circumcised is because God pours out his grace in greater clarity and abundance upon the church than he did upon Israel. If infants in the church community were now to be denied the sign of the covenant, “Something is subtracted from the grace of God, so that it can be said to have been diminished by the advent of Christ.”83 To be sure, Calvin seems to identify the grace here as the above-​mentioned “splendid consolation” that is derived from the confirmation of God’s promises.84 But such grace may also refer to the pardon and newness of life that he had discussed a few questions earlier in relation to baptism in general. That grace or “efficacy/​ fruit” (French: efficace; Latin: fructus) of baptism is not bestowed upon all but only upon the faithful.85 The fact that the reception of such grace in baptism involves faith and repentance might at first glance present an obstacle to the baptizing of infants, says Calvin, but faith and repentance do not necessarily have to precede baptism; they are required only of those old enough to believe and repent. In the case of infants, it is sufficient that they manifest the “fruit/​ power” (French: fruict; Latin: vim) of their baptism when they grow up.86 That is the time that, as heirs of the blessings promised in their baptism, “they may acknowledge the fact [French: verité; Latin: veritatem] of their baptism, and receive and produce its fruit [Latin: fructum].”87 Once again, Calvin is suggesting here an efficacy to baptism that begins with the administration of the sacrament and extends to the realization of its promises later on. Of course, Calvin views infant baptism as a means of grace in this way only with respect to those individuals who live beyond infancy. When elsewhere he discusses children who die in their infancy, he proceeds in a different direction by challenging the necessary connection between baptism and saving grace that one finds in the Roman Catholic tradition. In the 1543 Institutes and in his published responses to the Council of Trent and Augsburg Interim in the late 1540s, he criticizes the Catholic position on the necessity of baptism for salvation and the concomitant practice of emergency baptism by laypeople. A baby who dies without baptism is not bereft of the grace of regeneration, because God’s promise to be the God of the offspring of covenant parents ensures that such children have been adopted by God even before they are born.88 This “gift of adoption . . . bestows salvation entire.”89 If mortally ill babies are baptized, the sacrament is intended only to seal the truth of God’s promise, not to render the promise efficacious, since the “promise of itself suffices for its effect.”90 In other words, “Their salvation . . . has not its commencement in baptism, but being already founded on the word, is sealed by baptism.”91 This entails

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  153 that children of believers do not, as the Catholics teach, absolutely need to be baptized in order to become children of God and engrafted into the church. They are already part of the body of Christ by virtue of the covenant promise, already “set apart from others by a certain special privilege, so that they are regarded as holy in the Church.”92 The sacrament marks their formal reception into the church.93 The 1540s, then, saw some change and development in the position on the efficacy of pedobaptism that Calvin had outlined in the 1539 Institutes, but not on a large scale. Still present are a covenantal grounding of the practice of infant baptism, certain indications that baptism is a means of both assurance and grace for infants, an efficacy of infant baptism that encompasses both the initial administration of the sacrament and the later manifestation of its fruit, and a presumption of the prebaptismal regeneration of infants who die in infancy. However, in a broader attack on the Roman Catholic doctrine of the necessity of baptism for salvation, he states for the first time that although children of believers are formally admitted into the church at their baptism, they are already members of the body of Christ from conception on by virtue of God’s covenant promise.

The Consensus Tigurinus to Calvin’s Death (1549–​64) In the final fifteen years of Calvin’s life and ministry, his view of the efficacy of infant baptism once again did not significantly change, but it did undergo some elaboration and refinement. The major themes that we have identified in the earlier phases of his writing are still present, but they are given greater depth and nuance and, in the case of his dispute with Westphal, a different context, which led to some minor alterations and greater clarity.

The Consensus Tigurinus (1549) The only article in the Consensus Tigurinus that mentions the baptism of infants contains a clear statement of a distinction that Calvin had been employing since his earliest theological writings: the distinction between the divine promises made to a child at the administration of baptism and the fulfillment, or effectuation, of those promises at a later time. The article reads as follows:

154  Font of Pardon and New Life Article 20. The Grace Is Not so Tied to the Action of the Sacraments That the Fruit of Them May Not Be Received Some Time After the Action. Moreover the benefit which we receive from the sacraments ought not to be restricted to the time at which they are administered to us, as though the visible sign, when it is offered, brought with it at that very moment the grace of God. For those who were baptized in first infancy God regenerates in childhood or at the start of adolescence or even sometimes in old age. So the benefit of Baptism stretches through the whole course of life, because the promise contained within it lives for ever. And sometimes it can happen that the use of the holy Supper, which in the action itself profits very little because of our thoughtlessness or slowness of heart, yet afterward bears its fruit.94

Already in the heading to the article, the authors distinguish between the “action” of the sacraments and their “grace” or “fruit” (fructus). Such grace is “tied” (alligatur) to the sacramental action but in such a way that its effect may come to fruition at a time after the action.95 The article itself then elaborates on this distinction in several ways by differentiating between the administration of a sacrament and its later “benefit” (utilitas), between the “visible sign” and the “grace of God,” between baptism in infancy and regeneration at a later stage of life, between the promise contained in baptism and its “benefit” (utilitas), and between the use or action of the Lord’s Supper and its eventual “fruit” (fructum).96 However much the CT may have represented a compromise between Calvin and Bullinger on their sacramental teaching, Article 20 echoes a distinction that Calvin had already applied to infant baptism in the 1536 Institutes, the 1539 revision, and the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​1545). If anything, the CT goes further than Calvin had before by implying that the grace of infant baptism is “tied” to the sacrament and by explicitly stating that the efficacy of that baptism can be realized in any of three ages of life after infancy—​childhood, adolescence, or adulthood. Here we have Calvin’s clearest declaration so far that the baptism of infants can be an instrument of grace with a delayed efficacy.

Commentaries of the Early 1550s In several of the commentaries that he wrote shortly after the CT, Calvin’s reflections on pedobaptism are almost always directed against the Anabaptist

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  155 counterposition that he had been attacking for more than a decade. Given the Anabaptist contention that children must grow up to repent and believe before they can be baptized and join the Christian community, Calvin’s focus in these expositions is on the authentication at baptism of the special status of covenant children rather than on the grace bestowed at baptism with a delayed effect. In his commentary on the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 (1552), for example, Calvin chastises the Anabaptist “fanatics” who infer from this account that faith in Christ must always precede baptism. Such a rule applies, Calvin says, in the case of those who, like the eunuch, previously were “outsiders” to the church, since for them baptism is “the appendix of faith, and therefore subsequent in order.” But whereas adult converts are engrafted into the church by faith, which is then sealed by their baptism, the children of believers follow a different pattern. They “are born sons of the Church, and are numbered among the members of Christ from birth” by virtue of God’s promise to be the father of the children of covenant parents as well. For them, Calvin implies, faith follows baptism rather than precedes it.97 Calvin draws a similar conclusion from the story in Acts 10 of the conversion and baptism of Cornelius, which “ignorant men” (i.e., Anabaptists) also appeal to as a ground for barring infants from baptism. What this narrative teaches us, Calvin argues, is once again that those “outside the Church” require the Holy Spirit, faith, and basic instruction before baptism is administered to them as the symbol of their adoption. The children of believers, by contrast, “are born within the Church [and] are members of the family of the Kingdom of God from the womb.” Since they are adopted by God even before they are born, they, too, ought not to be deprived of the outward sign of baptism.98 Here Calvin adds the qualification that “as far as the manifest grace of the Spirit is concerned, there is nothing absurd about it, if it follows baptism in time, in their case.” This is similar to the notion of delayed efficacy that he had promoted in the past, although here he does not explicitly state that grace is tied to the action of baptism. That may be in part because he also has in mind here “the superstition of the Papists, who bind [alligant] the grace of the Spirit to the signs” in such a way that they preclude any endowments by the Spirit prior to baptism and practically enclose the Spirit within the sacrament.99 In his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels three years later (1555), Calvin continues his attack against the Anabaptists, who rejected infant baptism because tiny children cannot comprehend the significance of the sacrament.

156  Font of Pardon and New Life Reflecting on the spiritual status of the little children who were brought to Jesus for a blessing in Matthew 19, Calvin reiterates that Christ received into his embrace not only adults who come to him in faith but also those too young to be aware of their need of grace. Here Calvin finds evidence that children are not only members of Christ’s community before their baptism but also “partakers of the spiritual gifts which baptism figures.” The parents who brought their children to Christ fully expected that “if He laid His hands on them they would not go away without receiving some of the gifts of the Spirit.” And they were not disappointed. His laying on of hands and prayer for these children were not empty gestures but indications that “the grace of redemption” extends to them also and that “they were regenerate by the Spirit in the hope of salvation.” To be sure, their renewal by the Spirit of God is “according to the measure of their age until by degrees and in its own time this power [virtus] hidden within them increases and shines forth openly.” But to assert, as the Anabaptists do, that children cannot be reconciled to God, forgiven, adopted, and renewed until they have faith is proven false by this passage. Christ received, blessed, and purified unbaptized children in Matthew 19, and as “partakers of the spiritual gifts which baptism figures, it is absurd that they should be deprived of the outward sign.”100 This might, of course, look like a move by Calvin to disjoin the gifts of infant baptism from the sign and to broaden the scope of prebaptismal grace beyond covenant children who die in infancy. But that is not his intent here. For him what we learn from this story of Jesus and the little children is not something about the temporal relationship between the sign and reality of infant baptism but simply the truth that little children can receive the grace figured in their baptism long before they comprehend it. Calvin also underscores once again that the gift of infant regeneration is tailored to the age of the child and only gradually emerges from its hiddenness into open display. Lest we be left with the further impression that for Calvin all covenant children are saved at some point in their lives, he also makes clear in these commentaries of the 1550s that only some have been elected to salvation. For example, in his commentary on Peter’s sermon in Acts 3:25 (“Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers”), Calvin seeks to refute “the foolish subtleties of the Anabaptists,” who relegate Peter’s statement to “the shadows of the Law” (the Old Testament) and interpret “sons” here allegorically. Calvin retorts that divine adoption into the covenant community includes children as well as fathers (Genesis 17:7), “and

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  157 thus the grace of salvation may be extended to those who are not yet born.” At the same time, however, he recognizes that many of these children grow up to turn their backs on the covenant community and prove themselves by their unbelief to be “bastards and not legitimate (Rom. 9:7).” They are still part of God’s “common election,” by which God calls and receives the children of believers “into the fellowship of his grace.” But that election does not lead to the salvation of everyone who is born into the covenant community; it only provides the context in which God’s narrower “special election” comes to realization in the truly saved.101 In his Genesis commentary two years later (1554), Calvin alluded to the same distinction without using the specific terms.102 He does not label his opponents this time, but his passing reference to those who interpret Romans 11:16 (“If the root is holy, so are the branches”) by resorting to allegory and the “shadows of the law” leaves little doubt that he is addressing the same people who came in for this criticism in the Acts commentary and whom he there identified as Anabaptists. Over against the Anabaptist position, Genesis 17:7 (“I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”) makes clear that “the race of Abraham, by lineal descent, had been peculiarly accepted by God.”103 Once again, however, Calvin qualifies covenant membership by appealing to “distinct degrees of adoption.” In some respects, God bestowed favor upon both the elect and the reprobate in the Old Testament community. A “common” word of promise was extended to all the children of Abraham, by which they were adopted into the community and were offered eternal life. But not all of Abraham’s descendants were “legitimate children” or truly beneficiaries of the promise. They all may have been offered grace externally, but only the elect were efficaciously called and actually partook of that grace.104 And what was true of covenant membership in Abraham’s day is mirrored in the church today: there, too, we find a “twofold class” of people, distinguished from each other by their faith and unbelief: For since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception are, in this respect, accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none others are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith. . . . This difference flows from the fountain of gratuitous election, whence also faith itself springs.105

158  Font of Pardon and New Life It is true, of course, that Calvin does not mention baptism in these contexts, but his references to the two kinds of election and two categories of membership in the covenant should dispel any notion that for him infant baptism is an automatic instrument of grace or a confirmation of salvation for all covenant children.

Two Treatises against Westphal (1555, 1556) In Calvin’s polemical exchanges with the Lutheran Westphal in the mid-​ 1550s, many of the themes from the CT and the commentaries of the early 1550s emerge again. His first Defence (1555) of the Zurich Consensus contains an echo of Article 20 by distinguishing, once again, between the administration of baptism and its later efficacy. Since the grace of a sacrament ought not to be seen as tied too closely to the moment at which it takes place, it should not surprise us that the effect of baptism can “for a time [be] null” but then “appear at last.” To illustrate this point, Calvin cites those many infants who are baptized shortly after birth but then show no signs of inner washing and, in fact, give every indication that they have rendered their baptisms void by quenching the Holy Spirit. A number of these children (by implication the elect) “God calls back to himself,” but to hold that somehow regeneration is encapsulated within every single baptism dishonors not the sign but God himself.106 In the Second Defence a year later (1556), Calvin continues his denunciation of this kind of baptismal regeneration but in a context where he returns to discussing the Anabaptists and infants who die in infancy. The Anabaptists maintain that children should be denied baptism, the sign of regeneration, because God has not yet called them to join the church (“the fellowship of his grace”). In Calvin’s view, however, God does indeed “rank them among the members of his Son.” Thus covenant infants who die before they are able to repent and believe can be saved without baptism. However, if the opportunity is there, they still should be baptized—​not because the sacrament regenerates them but because it “seals the salvation of which they were previously partakers.”107 In a lengthy reflection on pedobaptism near the end of the Second Defence, Calvin provides the clearest statement in his entire corpus that infant baptism can also serve as an instrument of grace. Westphal had questioned why baptism is necessary for covenant infants if, as Calvin claims, such children

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  159 are already holy and members of the church before their baptism. Calvin responds that baptism functions for such infants in the way that God intended sacraments always to function, namely, to lead people to communion with Christ, to serve as “helps” (adminicula) by which they are engrafted into the body of Christ, and, if they are already engrafted, to unite them to that body more deeply: “For if I am right as to the effect of the sacraments, viz., that it makes those who are already ingrafted into the body of Christ to be united to [it] more and more, what forbids the application of this to baptism?”108 Calvin does not insist upon this answer, and he grants that what he calls the “proper office” of baptism is to receive into membership in the (visible) body of Christ those who are already members of the (invisible) church by virtue of their prior faith or their prior status as covenant children. But he also sees this sacramental engrafting into the visible body as an occasion of grace for both New Testament converts and covenant infants. He begins by recounting the experiences of Cornelius the centurion, Paul the apostle, and the thousands of converts who responded to Peter’s sermon on Pentecost Day. All of them repented and believed, were endowed with the gifts of the Spirit, and were regenerated before they were baptized. Therefore, Westphal must concede that “there were members of the Church who were afterwards initiated into its society by baptism.” But this initiation into the (visible) church also involved a renewed and deeper embrace of the benefits of salvation attached to the baptismal sign. That is why it can be said, for example, that “the sins of Paul were washed away in baptism, though he had previously obtained pardon of them by faith.”109 There are some parallels here, Calvin goes on argue, with (elect) covenant infants, “whose case is not unlike” these examples of adults from the New Testament. Because God adopts these infants into his covenant, calls them his children and heirs to the salvation promised to their parents, and at some point “transmit[s]‌his grace from parents to children,” they too are not “wholly strangers” but belong to the church even before they are baptized. At the same time, there is a sense in which they too are engrafted into the church at their baptism, where God testifies to their adoption as his children,110 introduces them into “the possession of life,” truly and effectually seals his promises of grace, and makes “a pledge of sacred union with Christ.” Indeed, “As the instruments [organa] of the Holy Spirit are not dead, God truly performs and effects [efficit] by baptism what he figures.” In baptism, therefore, God not only testifies to his love and pledges his faithfulness to us so that we might be “persuaded” (simus persuasi) of our salvation, but he also

160  Font of Pardon and New Life “inwardly ratifies by his divine agency that which he figures by the hand of his minister.”111 In other words, infant baptism, too, is efficacious as both a means of assurance and a means of grace. Throughout this interchange with Westphal, Calvin is always conscious of the needle he has to thread between, on the one hand, identifying the sign and reality of baptism too closely and, on the other hand, not identifying them closely enough. In response to Westphal’s charge that he (Calvin) denies that people are born again by baptism, Calvin insists that he has “distinctly asserted, that men are regenerated by baptism, just as they are by the word.” What he finds problematic with Westphal’s position is not the idea of baptismal efficacy as such, but the confidence that Westphal seems to place in the sacraments themselves for salvation, regarding them, as the Roman Catholics do, as “magical enchantments” and assigning them a power that belongs to God alone. While sacraments are certainly “instruments [organa] by which God acts efficaciously [efficaciter],” they are not “the cause of grace.”112 But Calvin is also careful not to undermine the efficacy of infant baptism by disjoining the sign and signified: God always dispenses his grace in such a way as “not to separate the virtue of his Spirit from the sacred symbol.”113 Both he and Westphal are agreed that it often takes years for baptized infants to manifest the benefits of their baptism. But Westphal is mistaken, says Calvin, when he attributes this to the poor training and backsliding of those who are truly regenerated at baptism. Westphal is also wrong to accuse him of partly destroying and partly calling into doubt the connection between sign and reality when he (Calvin) offers a different explanation, namely, that the benefits of baptism are not always conferred at the moment the sacrament is administered.114 Calvin, of course, is appealing once again to that distinction between the valid administration of a baptism and its later effect that he had been using since the Institutes of 1536. This time, however, he supports the distinction by citing the example of Simon Magus in Acts 8, drawing heavily from his interpretation of this passage in his Acts commentary four years earlier. According to Calvin, Magus is a good example of how the grace symbolized in baptism is not always bestowed on those who are baptized, since Magus remained unconverted and no effect of his baptism could be perceived.115 But if he had heeded Peter’s admonition and repented, “Would not the grace of baptism have resumed its place?”116 And if he did indeed convert later on, as some have speculated, he would have received the benefit of the sacrament at that time. “For it often happens that, after a time,

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  161 the Spirit of God is at last active, so that the sacraments may begin to realize their efficacy.”117 Something of this same pattern can be seen in baptized infants. The “good” or “use” of their baptism is analogous to the good or use of sowing a seed in the ground. The fact that the seed does not immediately grow roots or germinate does not obviate the importance of sowing it, for without implantation the seed would never eventually sprout. Sowing and sprouting are parts of a single process that unfolds over a period of time. In a similar way, “Baptism becomes at last effectual, though it does not work effectually at the moment at which it is performed.”118 To be sure, when it comes to the sacraments, God is not bound to just one pattern. Since God is free to bring to realization the grace of baptism whenever he sees fit, “It is erroneous to infer that the free course of Divine grace is tied down to instants of time.”119 Indeed, “No necessity must be imagined so as to prevent his grace from sometimes preceding, sometimes following, the use of the sign.”120 But these are only exceptions to the rule: “The ordinary method in which God accomplishes our salvation,” he insists with Augustine, “is by beginning it in baptism and carrying it gradually forward during the whole course of life.” This is particularly true of regeneration, which, unlike the forgiveness of sins, is not conferred in full at the moment it is offered; rather, “Renovation begun by the sacred laver is perfected by progress.”121 Since this is “the ordinary method of dispensing grace,” therefore, pedobaptism can be said to possess a “perpetual virtue and utility.”122 In this his clearest statement yet of the efficacy of infant baptism, Calvin has identified pedobaptism as one of the sacramental “instruments [organa] by which God acts efficaciously [efficaciter].”123

1559 Institutes Calvin’s treatment of infant baptism in the final, definitive edition of the Institutes may strike the reader as something of an anticlimax—​for two reasons. First, he made relatively few changes to the 1539  “appendix” on pedobaptism, which he now incorporated into the 1559 edition as a separate chapter (16) in book 4. Second, almost all of the material that he did add in 1559 can already be found in some form in his earlier writings. Most of the new material in 1559 is concentrated in an attack on Servetus (section 31), who, though he is best known for his anti-​Trinitarian views, also rejected the doctrine and practice of infant baptism. Since Servetus had

162  Font of Pardon and New Life employed some of the same arguments as the Anabaptists, it is not surprising that Calvin appeals to some of the same counterarguments that he had employed previously. Servetus had argued, for example, that the pattern of the New Testament is that a person must have faith and receive the Holy Spirit to be adopted into the church and baptized, as we see in the case of Cornelius. Calvin responds, however, with the same line of reasoning he had used earlier against the Anabaptists. When it comes to becoming members of the church through faith, we should not apply to infants what the New Testament is saying only about adults. Although this may be “God’s ordinary manner of calling—​to draw his elect to faith while he raises up for them faithful teachers, . . . who would dare, on the basis of this, to impose a law upon [God], that he should not engraft infants into Christ by another secret means?”124 Calvin grants that the preaching of the word of God is the incorruptible seed of our regeneration (1 Peter 1:23), but only “if we are fit [idonei] to receive it”; if one has not yet reached an educable age, “God keeps his own timetable [or maintains his own steps/​degrees/​gradations] of regeneration” (Deum tenere suos regenerandi gradus).125 Regarding baptism, finally, we should not infer a general principle from just one example. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, but in another place in Acts we find the opposite sequence: the Ethiopian eunuch and the Samaritans in Acts 8 were baptized before receiving the gifts of the Spirit.126 None of this speaks directly to the efficacy of infant baptism, of course, although there is also nothing in this polemic against Servetus that suggests any change in the position that Calvin had laid out in the Second Defence four years earlier. The one new element in 1559 that relates specifically to baptismal efficacy is a sentence he added to 4.16.20 as part of his rebuttal to the Anabaptist objection that baptism requires repentance and faith: “To sum up, this objection can be solved without difficulty: infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.”127 This is yet another reference in Calvin’s teaching on baptism to delayed or latent efficacy, which he had been regularly espousing ever since the Institutes of 1536. Here, however, Calvin introduces the language of a “seed” (semen) of repentance and faith that “lies hidden” (latet) in the baptized child and comes to fruition at some point in the future.128 He does not say explicitly that this seed is planted at or through baptism, but the fact that in the same sentence he asserts both that infants are “baptized into” faith and repentance and that they possess

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  163 “the seed” of faith and repentance strongly suggests that baptism is the occasion for this secret work of the Spirit. Some scholars have interpreted this seed not as actual saving faith and repentance but only as a future potentiality into which one is initiated through baptism.129 We should remember, however, that in the first edition of the Institutes two decades earlier, Calvin had not hesitated to speak of a faith that infants could have in common with adults.130 Even when he backed away from that position in 1539 and preferred “to leave undetermined” whether infants “are endowed with the same faith as we experience in ourselves,”131 he did not reject the possibility of such faith altogether. Furthermore, when he added in the 1543 edition that he would refrain also from the claim that infants “have entirely the same knowledge of faith [or knowledge similar to faith, or a similar knowledge of faith]” as adults do,132 he again left the door open for an infant knowledge of faith that is somewhat the same. Both of these latter two statements carried over into the 1559 edition. Finally, Calvin’s notion of a seed of future faith and repentance should also be read against the background of his earlier use of the seed metaphor in the Second Defence against Westphal (1556). There he identifies the seed not as faith and repentance but as “salvation,” which ordinarily is begun in infant baptism and then develops over a lifetime. This can be seen especially with respect to regeneration: the “renovation begun by the sacred laver is perfected by progress.”133 Even if this seed for Calvin does not sprout at the very moment it is planted and thus in that sense could be considered only a potentiality, it is a potentiality not of regeneration per se but of its visible manifestation later in life. In baptism an actual seed is “sown”; a renovation is actually “begun.”134 Planting and germination are not the same thing, of course, but they involve the same seed. In other words, the baptism of an elect child is ordinarily the time and the place when the process of salvation is initiated, however embryonic or latent this salvation may be at the time and however long it takes until it “becomes at last effectual.”135 Because of this connection between sowing and sprouting, therefore, pedobaptism possesses a lasting efficacy, a “perpetual virtue and utility.”136 And if this is true of the seed of regeneration in Calvin’s thinking in 1556, there is good reason to believe that it is true also of the seed of faith and repentance in the Institutes of 1559.137 Indeed, maybe the two are connected: perhaps in Calvin’s mind the seed of faith and repentance and the seed of regeneration are simply different dimensions of the divine work of salvation that is ordinarily begun in infant baptism.

164  Font of Pardon and New Life

Assessment Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism definitely underwent some change and development throughout his lifetime. The biggest changes appeared in his first revised edition of the Institutes in 1539, where he no longer explicitly connected pedobaptism to the definition and purpose of sacraments in general, no longer employed infant knowledge and faith as grounds for pedobaptism, altered somewhat his earlier threefold classification of elect and nonelect children, significantly expanded his appeal to a trans-​ testamental covenant in Scripture as support for infant baptism, and more clearly apportioned the efficacy of the sacrament between the administration of baptism to an elect child and the fulfillment of its promises at a later time. However, to acknowledge that Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism underwent some modification between 1536 and 1539 is not to say that it was no longer consistent with his teaching on adult baptism or that his overall view of baptism now suffered from a fundamental incoherence. First of all, Calvin did not now base credobaptism on the faith baptisms of the New Testament and pedobaptism on infant circumcision in the Old Testament nearly to the extent that David Wright implied. In all the editions of the Institutes from 1536 through 1559, Calvin maintained that circumcision was a sign of the righteousness of faith for Abraham as an adult convert fully as much as baptism is for believers in the New Testament era.138 It was also a seal by which Abraham and the Jews of the Old Testament “were more certainly assured that their faith . . . is accounted to them as righteousness.”139 As Calvin put it in the 1539 edition, “Paul expressly argues [in Romans 4:11] that Abraham’s circumcision was not for his justification but for the seal of that covenant by faith, in which he had already been justified.”140 Abraham thus becomes the father of all believers in both testaments, “not of those who boast of circumcision alone, but of those who follow the faith which, in uncircumcision, our father Abraham had.” Gentiles, too, have Abraham as their father and have gained access to the Kingdom of God but “apart from the sign of circumcision, for they have baptism in place of it.”141 Conversely, when it comes to infant baptism, Calvin makes his case with much more argumentation from the New Testament than Wright acknowledged. In his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, for example, Calvin reflects on the spiritual status of the little children in Matthew 19 who were brought to Jesus for a blessing. Here Calvin finds evidence that children are not only members of Christ’s community before their baptism but also

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  165 “partakers of the spiritual gifts which baptism figures.” Hence “It is absurd that they should be deprived of the outward sign.”142 In his second treatise against Westphal, he also draws parallels between baptized covenant infants and New Testament adult figures like Cornelius the centurion, Paul the apostle, and the thousands of converts who responded to Peter’s sermon on Pentecost Day—​all of whom were, in a sense, members of Christ’s church even before they were baptized. Likewise, covenant infants are not “wholly strangers” but belong to the church even before they are baptized into its visible community.143 Finally, throughout the so-​called appendix on infant baptism in the Institutes of 1539 and beyond (4.16), Calvin frequently appeals to evidence from the New Testament: the “holiness” of Christian children in 1 Corinthians 14:7,144 Jesus’s blessing of the little children in Matthew 19,145 the household baptisms in Acts,146 the covenant allusions in Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2,147 and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the infants John the Baptist and Jesus,148 to cite just a few examples. Whatever theological tensions might exist between Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism and his teaching on baptism in general, they cannot be explained by ascribing a more Old Testament covenant orientation to the former and a more New Testament faith orientation to the latter. Grislis’s claim of incoherence, too, is problematic when he asserts that for Calvin baptism in general functions as an instrument of grace and assurance, but the baptism of infants is a sign and seal of regeneration received prior to baptism by virtue of their status as elect covenant children. As we have seen, already in the 1539 Institutes Calvin suggests that circumcision and baptism function as a kind of means or instrument for infants as well, particularly when it comes to the delayed benefits of these sacraments. One of the advantages of infant baptism, he argues, is that as children mature, “they are greatly spurred [by their baptism] to a zeal for worshipping God, who adopted them as children before they were old enough to recognize him as Father.”149 Or again, if regenerate children “happen to grow to an age at which they can be taught the truth of baptism, they shall be fired with greater zeal for renewal, from learning that they were given the token of it in their first infancy in order that they might meditate upon it throughout life.”150 This connection between sacramental promise and its later fruition becomes even clearer when he distinguishes between the “present effectiveness [efficaciae]” of pedobaptism, in its ratification and confirmation of the covenant, and the “remaining significance” that follows in God’s own time.151 Such efficacia suggests that pedobaptism does function for Calvin as an instrument of

166  Font of Pardon and New Life divine grace. And because reflection on their baptism can stimulate in these children a response of piety later in their lives, the sacrament also seems to function as a means of knowledge and assurance. In both cases, however, infant baptism is an instrument with a delayed efficacy. Grislis is correct that Calvin sometimes speaks of infants at the baptismal font as already regenerate, but that is true largely in contexts where Calvin is reflecting on the salvation of those who die in infancy.152 Indeed, by the 1550s, Calvin was emphasizing that there is nothing “to prevent [God’s] grace from sometimes preceding, sometimes following, the use of the sign” of infant baptism.153 This has parallels even in New Testament adult baptisms, where someone like Cornelius had received grace before the sign,154 and Simon Magus, if he ever was converted, received the sign before the benefits that it signified.155 Still, “The ordinary method in which God accomplishes our salvation is by beginning it in baptism and carrying it gradually forward during the whole course of life.” This is certainly true of regeneration, where the “renovation begun by the sacred laver is perfected by progress.”156 But Calvin appears to regard this as true also of faith and repentance, the seeds of which lie latent in the baptized infant by the secret operation of the Holy Spirit.157 Pedobaptism, therefore, like credobaptism is one of the “instruments [organa] by which God acts efficaciously.”158 Grislis is also right that, for Calvin, some baptized children end up not believing or persevering, thus proving themselves not to have been among the elect to begin with. This raises the legitimate question of how infant baptism can really serve then as a means of assurance. But that is a question not just for Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism but for his position on baptism as a whole, since for Calvin adults and children alike can be adopted by “common election” into the covenant community but not always be beneficiaries of God’s “special election” to salvation.159 There is no fundamental incoherence, therefore, between Calvin’s doctrines of baptism in general, where he focuses largely on adult believer baptism, and the baptism of infants. Even though the latter is not as well integrated with the former after 1539, in both doctrinal contexts he grounds baptism in the Old and New Testaments alike; he regards the sacrament of baptism, in some sense, as an instrument of knowledge, assurance, and grace; he distinguishes between the elect and nonelect in the same covenant community; and he ascribes an important role to faith. If we want to speak of a tension here, it is between Calvin’s effort, on the one hand, to maintain a unified baptismal theology and, on the other, to allow room for different

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  167 biblical patterns in which the sacrament can be administered and its benefits realized in both adult converts and covenant children. For Calvin, adult convert baptism and pedobaptism are not efficacious in exactly the same way, but the similarities between them are such that the latter can really be viewed as an age-​adjusted version of the former.

Notes 1. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101–​2. 2. Calvin:  Institutes, 2:1324–​ 59 (4.16.1–​ 32); for “appendix,” see 2:1324 (4.16.1). Paragraph 31 of this chapter was added in 1559 as a response to the arguments against infant baptism by Michael Servetus. 3. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 34. 4. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133–​34 (Q/​A 324–​39). 5. David F. Wright, “Development and Coherence in Calvin’s Institutes:  The Case of Baptism (Institutes 4:15  –​4:16), in Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe: Essays in Honour of Brian G. Armstrong, ed. Mack P. Holt (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 45. 6. Ibid., 53. 7. For this way of formulating the question, see Barbara Pitkin, “Children and the Church in Calvin’s Geneva,” in Calvin and the Church: Papers Presented at the 13th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society May 24–​26, 2001, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 2002), 150–​51. 8. Beckmann, Vom Sakrament bei Calvin, 97. 9. François Wendel, Calvin: Sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950), 246–​47, 249 (English translation: Calvin: Origins and Development, 324, 327). 10. Leo G.  M. Alting von Geusau, Die Lehre von der Kindertaufe bei Calvin, gesehen im Rahmen seiner Sakraments-​und Tauftheologie:  Synthese oder Ordnungfehler? (Bilthoven: H. Nelissen; Mainz: Matthias-​Grünewald, 1962), 61–​79. 11. Egil Grislis, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Baptism,” Church History 31 (1962): 46–​65. 12. Ibid.,  53–​54. 13. Ibid.,  55. 14. Ibid.,  55–​56. 15. Ibid., 56–​57. Grislis does acknowledge (57) that because Calvin sought to base his theology on biblical exegesis and not philosophical speculation, he did not feel compelled to resolve all such tensions in his thought. 16. This monograph was his 1985 doctoral dissertation, “The Development of Calvin’s Baptismal Theology 1536–​1560.” Our references will be to Riggs’s 2002 book based in part on that dissertation, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition. 17. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 65 n. 66; 67 n. 82. 18. Ibid., 66–​67. See esp. n. 86.

168  Font of Pardon and New Life 19. Ibid.,  68. 20. Gerrish, “Children of Grace,” 115. 21. Ibid.,  117. 22. Ibid.,  118. 23. Wright, “Development and Coherence,” 43–​54. Forty-​five years earlier, Alting von Geusau had also found a “zweierlei Theologie der Taufe” in Calvin, one for adult baptism and the other for infant baptism. Lehre von der Kindertaufe, 261–​63. 24. Wright, “Development and Coherence,” 44–​45, 48–​49. 25. Ibid., 46, 47, 49–​51. 26. Ibid., 53. Cf. Wright’s earlier comment (47) that 4.15 “repeatedly so emphasizes faith that it might almost have been written solely with believers’ baptism in view.” 27. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101. 28. Ibid.,  87. 29. Ibid., 91. Cf. also 94, where Calvin applies this twofold purpose to baptism in general. 30. Ibid.,  101. 31. I was not able to track down statistics for Geneva in the sixteenth century, but the high infant death rate there in the seventeenth century may give us some idea of the situation a hundred years before: one in three Genevan children died in their first year of life, and of those who survived, 20% did not reach age five. Anne-​Marie Piuz and Liliane Mottu-​Weber, L’Economie genevoise, de la Réforme à la fin de l’ancien régime XVIe–​XVII siècles (Geneva: Georg, 1990), 118. 32. For how the Genevan ministers handled the question of emergency baptism, for example, see Karen E. Spierling, Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva: The Shaping of a Community, 1536–​1564 (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2005; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 67–​83. 33. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101; CO 1:117. 34. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101; CO 1:117. 35. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101. 36. Barbara Pitkin, “Faith and Justification,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 290. For a more extensive treatment of this topic, see Pitkin’s chapter “From Fiducia to Cognitio” in her What Pure Eyes Could See:  Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1999), 9–​40. Note, e.g., Calvin’s statement in the first chapter of the 1536 Institutes that “to have faith is to strengthen the mind with constant assurance and perfect confidence, to have a place to rest and plant your foot.” Calvin, Institutes (1536), 34. 37. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 102. 38. Ibid.,  100. 39. Ibid., 102. This argument should be read in the context of Calvin’s extended discussion in his introduction to the sacraments of how “those ancient sacraments looked to the same purpose to which ours now tend: to direct and almost lead men by the hand to Christ, or rather, as images, to represent him and set him forth to be known.” Ibid.,  93–​94. 40. Ibid., 102; CO 1:118.

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  169 41. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 102; CO 1:118. 42. However, we should also remember, as Spierling’s research has shown, that “while Calvin continued to argue that baptism was an important moment for the child himself, it held arguably equal, if not identical, significance for the other participants and the witnessing community.  .  .  . Ultimately, Genevans engaged in discussions and arguments regarding the significance and practice of baptism because the sacrament was both a sign of the child’s relationship to God and a mark of the child’s entrance into the Genevan community—​religious, political, and familial.” Spierling, Infant Baptism, 47, 224. 43. This could be an application, then, of Calvin’s general statement at the beginning of ­chapter 4 that in the sacraments God always “tempers himself to our capacity.” Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87. 44. See  n. 2. 45. See n. 3 and n. 67. 46. This latter purpose is mentioned in just one sentence at the end of 4.16.2 (Calvin: Institutes, 2:1325). 47. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1325 (4.16.2). Cf. also 2:1330 (4.16.7): “baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ.” 48. Ibid., 2:1326–​27 (4.16.3–​4). 49. Ibid., 2:1327 (4.16.3); CO 1:970. 50. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1329 (4.16.6); CO 1:971. 51. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1327 (4.16.4); CO 1:970. 52. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1328 (4.16.5); CO 1:971. 53. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1329 (4.16.6), 2:1332 (4.16.9). 54. Ibid., 2:1329 (4.16.6), 2:1332 (4.16.9). 55. Ibid., 2:1328 (4.16.5), 2:1332 (4.16.9); see also 2:1345 (4.16.22):  “From his statement elsewhere that we have been engrafted into the body of Christ through baptism [1 Cor. 12:13], we in the same way conclude that infants, whom he counts as his members, must be baptized, that they may not be sundered from his body.” 56. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101. 57. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1342 (4.16.19). 58. Ibid., 2:1341, 1344 (4.16.18, 21). 59. Ibid., 2:1340–​41 (4.16.17–​18). 60. Ibid., 2:1344 (4.16.21). Calvin also alludes to this distinction between elect and nonelect covenant children in his 1540 commentary on Romans 9:6 (“For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”), where he distinguishes between the larger Israelite community with whom God enters into covenant and the smaller group among them (“children of the promise”) in whom the covenant promises come to fruition. Those who grew up to reject the covenant faith and its benefits through their ingratitude “were not included in the true election of God.” Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 197. In the 1556 edition, Calvin sharpened this distinction by contrasting God’s “general election” of the whole nation of Israel and a “second election” of part of the nation to receive his hidden grace. Ibid., 197–​98; COR 2/​13:193. 61. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1340, 1344 (4.16.17, 21).

170  Font of Pardon and New Life 62. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1342 (4.16.19). This is an about-​face from his position in 1536, when he claimed, e.g., that Mark 16:16 (“He who believes and is baptized will be saved”) is a “general statement” about faith that allows for “no distinction of ages.” Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101. Now in 1539 he insists that Mark 16:16 is not talking about infants but “only of those who are capable of receiving instruction.” Calvin: Institutes, 2:1351 (4.16.28). Cf. also Calvin: Institutes, 2:1341 (4.16.18): “[The Anabaptists] counter with the objection that the Spirit in Scripture recognizes no regeneration except from incorruptible seed, that is, from God’s Word [1 Peter 1:23]. In this they wrongly interpret Peter’s statement, which has reference only to believers who had been taught by the preaching of the gospel.” 63. Calvin:  Institutes, 2:1342 (4.16.19). Wright (“Development and Coherence,” 50) translates notiam fidei similem (CO 1:982) as “a knowledge similar to faith” rather than “the same knowledge of faith,” as Battles does. However, Pitkin’s conclusion (What Pure Eyes Could See, 30–​31) that by 1539 Calvin was defining faith as knowledge would support Battles’s translation. Perhaps an even better translation would be “a similar knowledge of faith.” 64. Elsie McKee notes that in Calvin’s 1541 French translation of the 1539 Latin Institutes (CO 4:954), he does not leave the question undetermined but states instead that “nous ne savons comment Dieu besoigne en eux” (“we do not know how God works in them [infants]),” thus implying that God does work in infants in some way. The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2016), 399. 65. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1353 (4.16.30). 66. Ibid., 2:1346 (4.16.23); CO 1:985. 67. Calvin:  Institutes, 2:1346–​47 (4.16.23–​24); CO 1:985. Cf. also Calvin’s 1540 commentary on Romans 4:11: “Although in the case of Abraham righteousness preceded circumcision, this is not always so in the sacraments, as we see from Isaac and his posterity.” Epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 89–​90. Cf. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1344 (4.16.21); CO 1:983: “And although in older persons the receiving of the sign ought to follow the understanding [intelligentiam] of the mystery, we shall soon explain that infants must be regarded as following another order.” 68. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1347 (4.16.24). 69. Ibid., 2:1328 (4.16.5). Cf. 2:1345 (4.16.22): “Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they must not be deprived of the sign.” 70. Ibid., 2:1330 (4.16.7). 71. Ibid., 2:1332 (4.16.9); CO 1:974. 72. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1327, 1344 (4.16.4, 21). Cf. 2:1341 (4.16.18): “We deny the inference . . . that infants cannot be regenerated by God’s power, which is as easy and ready to him as it is incomprehensible and wonderful to us.” 73. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 100. 74. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1317 (4.15.17). 75. Ibid., 2:1343 (4.16.20). 76. Ibid., 2:1345 (4.16.21). 77. Ibid., 2:1332 (4.16.9). 78. Ibid., 2:1344 (4.16.21); CO 1:983.

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  171 79. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1345 (4.16.21); CO 1:983–​84. 80. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 135 (Q/​A 337). 81. Ibid. (Q/​A 338). 82. Ibid., 135; CO 6:122 (Q/​A 338). 83. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 135 (Q/​A 337). 84. Ibid. (Q/​A 336, 337). 85. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 134; CO 6:119, 120 (Q/​A 329). Cf. also Q/​A 328. 86. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 134; CO 6:119, 120 (Q/​A 333). 87. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 135; CO 6:123, 124 (Q/​A 339). Instead of “receive and produce its fruit” the Latin phrase fructum ex eo percipiant, ac proferant could also be translated “perceive/​experience and produce its fruit” (italics added). The French text has “in order to profit from it” (pour en faire leur profit). It is noteworthy that Calvin’s liturgy for infant baptism the very next year contained a prayer with language very similar to the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Q/​A 339. In the liturgy the minister prays that the baptism “may bring forth its fruit and virtue” (produise son fruict et sa vertu). Fisher, Christian Initiation, 116; CO 6:189. See Barbara Pitkin, “Children and the Church in Calvin’s Geneva,” in Calvin and the Church: Papers Presented at the 13th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society May 24–​26, 2001, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 2002), 151. 88. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1321 (4.15.20). 89. John Calvin, “The Adultero-​ German Interim:  To Which is Added The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and of Reforming the Church,” in Calvin’s Tracts, 3:275. 90. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1321 (4.15.20). Cf. also 2:1323 (4.15.22) and Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent, 110 (antidote to Session 6 on justification). 91. Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 110 (antidote to Session 6 on justification). 92. Calvin, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 149 (comm. on 1 Cor. 7:14); 93. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1323 (4.15.22). Cf. also Calvin, “Adultero-​German Interim,” 275. 94. Bunting, “The Consensus Tigurinus,” 56. 95. For the Latin text, see Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 136. Kirby translates fructus in as “benefit.” Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 263. 96. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 136. Here Kirby translates fructum as “fruition.” Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 263. 97. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 252–​53 (comm. on Acts 8:37). 98. Cf. a similar perspective by Calvin in a letter to John Clauberger on June 24, 1556: “This principle should ever be kept in mind, that baptism is not conferred on children in order that they may become sons and heirs of God, but, because they are already considered by God as occupying that place and rank, the grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh by the rite of baptism. Otherwise the Anabaptists are in the right in excluding them from baptism. For unless the thing signified by the external sign can be predicated of them, it will be a mere profanation to call them to a participation of the sign itself. But if any one were inclined to refuse them baptism, we have a ready answer; they are already of the flock of Christ, of the family of God, since the

172  Font of Pardon and New Life covenant of salvation which God enters into with believers is common also to their children.” Calvin, Letters, Part 3: 1554–​1558, ed. Jules Bonnet, trans. Marcus Robert Gilchrist, vol. 6 of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters (1858; reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2009), 282–​83 (letter 438). 99. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 318–​19; COR 2/​12.1:329 (comm. on Acts 10:47). 100. John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, vol. 2 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1972), 251–​52; CO 45:535 (comm. on Matt. 19:13–​14). 101. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 107 (comm. on Acts 3:25). 102. He did use similar terminology in his revision of the Romans commentary in 1556. See n. 60. 103. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 447. 104. Ibid., 448–​49. 105. Ibid., 449. 106. Calvin, “Mutual Consent [First Defence],” 236–​37. 107. Calvin, Second Defence, 319–​20. 108. “Nam si recte docui ad hoc valere sacramenta, ut qui iam insiti erant in Christi corpus, magis coalescent:  quid hoc ad baptismum referri vetat?” Ibid., 336; CO 9:114. I have altered Beveridge’s translation “united to him” to “united to it [the body of Christ],” since the preceding context twice refers to being engrafted into the body of Christ, the church, not into Christ himself. 109. Calvin, Second Defence, 336–​37. 110. Calvin notes here that “we are not now speaking of secret election, but of an adoption manifested by the word, which sanctifies [i.e., sets apart] infants not yet born.” Ibid., 339. 111. Ibid., 337–​39; CO 9:116. 112. Calvin, Second Defence, 340–​41; CO 9:116. 113. Calvin, Second Defence, 342. 114. Ibid., 341. 115. Ibid.; Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 233 (comm. on Acts 8:13). 116. Calvin, Second Defence, 341–​42. 117. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 233 (comm. on Acts 8:13). 118. Calvin, Second Defence, 342. 119. Ibid., 343. 120. Ibid., 342. 121. Ibid. 122. Ibid., 343. 123. Ibid., 340; CO 9:116. Cf. a similar statement by Calvin that same year in a sermon on Deuteronomy 34:9: “For (as I said before) God performs by the secret power of his Spirit, whatsoever he shows and witnesses to the eye. So then we must ever come to this point, that the sacraments are effectual, and that they are no trifling signs which vanish away in the air, but that the truth is always so matched with them, because

Calvin and the Efficacy of Infant Baptism  173 God who is faithful, shows that he has not ordained anything in vain. And that is the cause why in baptism we receive truly the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit. And how so? Does a little water have such power when it is cast upon the head of a child? No. But because it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the water should be a visible sign of his blood and of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, baptism has that power, and whatsoever is there set forth to the eye, is forthwith accomplished in very deed.” The Sermons of M. John Calvin upon the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomie, trans. Arthur Golding (1583; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 1244 (modernization of language and spelling mine). 124. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1356–​57 (4.16.31). 125. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1357 (4.16.31); CO 2:1000. 126. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1357 (4.16.31). 127. Ibid., 2:1343 (4.16.20). 128. Ibid., 2:1343 (4.16.20); CO 2:990. 129. See, e.g., Wallace, Word and Sacrament, 190: “It must be carefully noted that in this illustration of Calvin’s there is no thought of Baptism as implanting a small seed of eternal life in the heart of a child which might later burst forth and increase. It is Baptism that is the seed. . . . It is obvious that here Calvin is thinking of the seed of future repentance and faith . . . not as a present possession of the child but as held over the child transcendentally and eschatologically through the potentiality of Baptism and the Spirit.” Cf. also William B. Evans, “Calvin, Baptism, and Latent Efficacy Again: A Reply to Rich Lusk,” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 32/​1 (Spring 2006): 43–​44. 130. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 101. 131. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1342 (4.16.19). 132. Ibid. (italics added). See also n. 63. 133. Calvin, Second Defence, 342. 134. Ibid. 135. Ibid. 136. Ibid., 343. 137. Cf. Lusk, “Baptismal Efficacy and Baptismal Latency,” 24 n. 6: “Seed faith is not mere potentiality, but a nascent, trusting relationship with the Lord. ‘Seed faith’ differs from mature faith in that it is not engendered by a preaching ministry and does not include intellectual knowledge (IV.16.19, 31), but it is a form of faith nonetheless.” 138. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 93. 139. Ibid. 140. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1280 (4.14.5). 141. Ibid., 2:1335–​36 (4.16.13). 142. John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, vol. 2 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1972), 251–​52; CO 45:535 (comm. on Matt. 19:13–​14). 143. Calvin, Second Defence, 336–​39.

174  Font of Pardon and New Life 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159.

Calvin, Institutes, 2:1329 (4.16.6); 2:1337 (4.16.15). Ibid., 2:1329–​31 (4.16.7). Ibid., 2:1331 (4.16.8). Ibid., 2:1337 (4.16.15). Ibid., 2:1340–​41 (4.16.17–​18). Ibid., 2:1332 (4.16.9). Ibid., 2:1344 (4.16.21). Ibid., 2:1345 (4.16.21); CO 1:983–​84. See, e.g., Calvin, Institutes, 2:1340, 1344 (4.16.17, 21); “Acts of the Council of Trent,” 110 (antidote to Session 6 on justification); Second Defence, 319–​20. Calvin, Second Defence, 342. Ibid., 336–​37. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 233 (comm. on Acts 8:13); Second Defence, 341–​42. Calvin, Second Defence, 342. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1343 (4.16.20). Calvin, Second Defence, 340; CO 9:116. Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 107 (comm. on Acts 3:25); Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 448–​49.

8 Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions Calvin’s Legacy

In the foregoing chapters we have traced Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy through the various stages of his life and career. To place this narrative in a fuller historical context, however, we conclude with a look at the impact of Calvin’s position on the codification of Reformed theology in the major Reformed confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a process already begun during his lifetime. Past scholarship has paid relatively little attention to this question. Rohls did claim that, with respect to the sacraments in general, Calvin’s view that “the external symbolic action definitely has an instrumental character insofar as through this action God works grace internally” became the dominant position in the Reformed confessions, but his only evidence was a few quotations from the Thirty-​Nine Articles (1571) and the Irish Articles (1615).1 When it came to baptism, Rohls cited just one lesser-​ known confession, the Bremen Consensus (1595), as a later expression of Calvin’s teaching in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva that “the external washing can also be understood as a means of grace in the strict sense:  that is, neither merely as a confessional sign of a grace that has already been imparted, nor as a mere pledge of the communication of grace, but as the instrument of that communication.”2 In his study of baptism in the Reformed tradition, Riggs suggested several connections between Calvin and the French (Gallican) Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Scots Confession, the Thirty-​Nine Articles, and the Westminster Standards, but his observations were rather brief and not always specifically about baptismal efficacy.3 Finally, Rorem maintained in his work on the Consensus Tigurinus that the differences between Calvin and Bullinger on the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper endured beyond their

Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0008.

176  Font of Pardon and New Life compromise of 1549 not only in the two men themselves but in the confessional traditions they inspired: The two views of the Lord’s Supper have managed to live side by side within the Reformed tradition for centuries. Does a given Reformed statement of faith consider the Lord’s Supper as a testimony, an analogy, a parallel, even a simultaneous parallel to the internal workings of God’s grace in granting communion with Christ? If so, the actual ancestor may be Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor in Zurich. Or does it explicitly identify the Supper as the very instrument or means through which God offers and confers the grace of full communion with Christ’s body? The lineage would then go back to John Calvin (and to Martin Bucer).4

Once again, however, Rorem provided no confessional material in support of this conclusion, and his analysis made no reference to the sacrament of baptism. In short, no one to date has undertaken a detailed investigation of whether and to what extent the legacy of Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy can be found in the major Reformed confessions of the post-​Reformation period. In this chapter, I will address these questions by examining, in chronological order, eight of the most influential Reformed statements of faith from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Six of these documents are from the so-​called Era of the Great National Confessions5 (c. 1555–​ 70), which straddled the death of Calvin in 1564: the French [Gallican] Confession (1559), the Scots Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), and the Thirty-​Nine Articles (1571). The other two are the well-​known pair of English doctrinal statements from the mid-​ seventeenth century:  the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Westminster Larger Catechism (1647).6 All of these confessions and catechisms continue to function as doctrinal standards in parts of global Reformed Protestantism today, and many have served as authoritative resources in ecumenical discussions of baptism.7 For each of these documents I will first provide a brief introduction that explores possible historical connections between Calvin and the confessional text and then quote and analyze those parts of the text that relate to sacramental, and particularly baptismal, efficacy. As we shall see, something of Calvin’s legacy can be found in most but not all of these historic confessions and catechisms.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  177

French (Gallican) Confession of Faith (1559) Introduction Calvin’s precise connection to the French Confession of Faith has been a topic of scholarly discussion since the late nineteenth century. The traditional view of the origins of the confession is that it was based largely on a draft of thirty-​five articles prepared either by John Calvin himself or by Calvin and two of his colleagues in Geneva, Theodore Beza and Pierre Viret.8 Parts of this draft had been drawn verbatim from an earlier eighteen-​article confession (Confession de foi de l’eglise de Paris, also called Au Roy) composed by French Reformed Protestants in Paris in 1557 during a time of intense Catholic persecution.9 In May 1559 Calvin allegedly sent the Genevan document to the first national French Reformed synod in Paris to serve as a model for a new confession for the Reformed churches in France. The synod ended up adopting the Genevan draft confession but only after the text had been slightly revised, perhaps by Calvin’s former pupil Antoine de Chandieu, and expanded from thirty-​five to forty articles. Twelve years later, at the seventh national synod in La Rochelle, the 1559 Confession de foi was endorsed and signed by representatives of the Reformed churches in France, Geneva, and Navarre and left its mark on Reformed Protestantism in the Lowlands, England, and Scotland as well. After 1571 it came to be known also as the Confessio Gallicana or Confession de La Rochelle. This long-​standing narrative has been challenged recently by Gianmarco Braghi, who argues (1) that Calvin neither prepared nor sent a thirty-​five-​ article draft confession to the synod in Paris in 1559 and (2) that this supposedly Genevan document did not serve as the base text for the forty-​article Gallican Confession. No copy of such a draft confession by Calvin has ever been found, and none of the sources or individuals contemporaneous with the Paris synod, including Calvin himself, makes any explicit reference to such a document having been sent. The thirty-​five-​article “Genevan” draft and forty-​article final edition of 1559 were simply two different versions of the Confession de foi, whose textual divergences and printing history still require further investigation.10 According to Braghi, there was really no need for Calvin to prepare or send a Genevan blueprint to Paris, for one already existed—​the 1557 Au Roy (Confession de foi de l’eglise de Paris).11 This earlier confession served as more than just a forerunner or inspiration for the Gallican

178  Font of Pardon and New Life Confession:  “Au Roy ultimately is the Confession itself.  .  .  . While the Confession is considerably more elaborate than Au Roy, every single item of the latter is scattered across the forty articles of the former, virtually verbatim.”12 Calvin did have a role in this story but only as one of the contributors to Au Roy, whose sole surviving manuscript copy contains “sporadic, very brief, and ultimately negligible annotations in Calvin’s handwriting.”13 Hence the Gallican Confession, by going through several hands at different stages in the “unofficial” form of Au Roy, was the product of a dynamic and collaborative process—​in France and with Genevan assistance, from 1557 onwards—​between the senior pastors serving in Paris in those years—​especially Antoine de Chandieu and Nicolas des Gallars—​and their brothers in the Venerable Company of Pastors of Geneva, including of course its moderator, John Calvin.14

Text and Analysis Whatever the precise nature of its provenance, therefore, the French Confession of Faith likely had at least some historical and literary connections to Calvin. Further evidence for this claim might be found in the sacramental theology of the confession.15 We will examine five articles in particular: [Article] XXVIII.16 In this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in these acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism17 does not depend upon the person who administers it, we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we can not present children to be baptized in it without incurring pollution.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  179 This article, which is part of the confession’s explanation of the doctrine of the church, is not about the sacraments per se but about Word and sacrament as marks by which the true church can be discerned. One of the things that stands out here is the assertion that someone who was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church need not be baptized again upon joining a purer expression of the body of Christ. Implied in that statement is a distinction that Calvin, too, had worked with as early as the 1536 Institutes as he reflected on his own spiritual and ecclesiastical pilgrimage: the distinction between a valid administration of baptism, which he himself had undergone in the Roman Catholic Church as an infant, and the full efficacy or fruit of that baptism at a later stage in life.18 It is also worth noting in this article that there is a “virtue and substance” (vertu et substance) that is forever connected to baptism and an “efficacy and virtue” (efficace et vertu) that does not depend on the administrator, even if one is baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. The confession does not make clear at this point what that virtue, substance, and efficacy are (see Article 34 below), but the language reminds us of terminology that Calvin also had used to describe the power and reality joined to the outward sacramental sign. We will look more closely at the term “substance” in our analysis of the next article, but for Calvin the “virtue” (virtus), “power and efficacy” (vim . . . efficaciamque), or “force and effect” (vim fructumque) of the sacraments is that potency by which the Holy Spirit brings us into communion with Christ and his benefits through the sacraments,19 a potency that can be distinguished but never separated from the external sign.20 XXXIV. We believe that the sacraments are added to the Word for more ample confirmation, that they may be to us pledges and seals of the grace of God, and by this means aid and comfort our faith, because of the infirmity which is in us, and that they are outward signs through which God operates by his Spirit, so that he may not signify anything to us in vain. Yet we hold that their substance and truth is in Jesus Christ, and that of themselves they are only smoke and shadow. XXXV. We confess only two sacraments common to the whole Church, of which the first, baptism, is given as a pledge of our adoption; for by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood, and then renewed in purity of life by his Holy Spirit. We hold, also, that although we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to our death, so that we have a lasting

180  Font of Pardon and New Life witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification. Nevertheless, although it is a sacrament of faith and penitence, yet as God receives little children into the Church with their fathers, we say, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that the children of believing parents should be baptized.21

The most striking thing about Articles 34 and 35, which treat the sacraments in general and baptism, respectively, is how closely they align with Calvin’s lifelong definition of sacraments in the Institutes. Already in the 1536 edition, Calvin had briefly defined a sacrament in two ways: (1) “an outward sign by which the Lord represents and attests to us his good will toward us to sustain the weakness of our faith” and (2) “a testimony of God’s grace, declared to us by an outward sign.”22 The basic elements of those definitions are carried over into the later editions of the Institutes, but they are also present here in the French Confession. In the Institutes a sacrament is “an outward sign” that is “joined to [a preceding promise] by way of appendix”;23 in Article 34 sacraments are “outward signs” that are “added to the Word.” In the Institutes they “represent” God’s goodwill to us; in the French Confession they “signify” and “symbolize” it. According to the Institutes, sacraments provide an attestation and testimony of God’s grace; in the language of the confession, they function as “confirmation,” “witness,” and “pledges and seals” of that grace. Finally, in the Institutes, their ultimate purpose is to “sustain the weakness of our faith” and in the confession to “aid and comfort our faith.” The definitional language is not identical but very similar. Neither Calvin nor the French Confession uses the word “instrument” in their definitions, but Calvin does ascribe an instrumental role to the sacraments by twice employing the ablative of means (“an outward sign by which,” “by an outward sign”), and this, too, is echoed in the French Confession a quarter century later (“by this means” [par ce moyen], “by it [là]”). Like the pair of definitions in the Institutes, the confession understands the sacraments in general and baptism in particular as means, first of all, of knowledge and assurance, instruments by which God shores up and soothes an infirm faith. But as in the 1536 Institutes and many of Calvin’s subsequent writings, there are indications also here in the French Confession that baptism is an instrument or means of grace itself. In and of themselves, according to Article 34, sacraments are “only smoke and shadow,” but God does not use them to signify something “in vain.” Rather, those outer signs possess a “substance and truth” that is nothing less than Jesus Christ himself, and by

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  181 means of these signs “God operates by his Spirit” in such a way that what he signifies in the sacraments actually comes to pass. For example, in the sacrament of baptism, Article 35 tells us, “We are grafted into the body of Christ,” not just ecclesiastically but spiritually, “so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood, and then renewed in purity of life by his Holy Spirit.” From that point on, Jesus Christ, the substance and truth of the sacrament, “will always be our justification and sanctification.”24 The term “instrument” may not be used here, but the concept is certainly there.25 XXXVII. We believe, as has been said, that in the Lord’s Supper, as well as in baptism, God gives us really and in fact that which he there sets forth to us; and that consequently with these signs is given the true possession and enjoyment of that which they present to us. And thus all who bring a pure faith, like a vessel, to the sacred table of Christ, receive truly that of which it is a sign; for the body and the blood of Jesus Christ give food and drink to the soul, no less than bread and wine nourish the body. XXXVIII. Thus we hold that water, being a feeble element, still testifies to us in truth the inward cleansing of our souls in the blood of Jesus Christ by the efficacy of his Spirit, and that the bread and wine given to us in the sacrament serve to our spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as they show, as to our sight, that the body of Christ is our meat, and his blood our drink. And we reject the Enthusiasts and Sacramentarians who will not receive such signs and marks, although our Saviour said: “This is my body, and this cup is my blood.”26

Articles 37 and 38 are largely about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but they also contain brief references to baptism that make even clearer the dual instrumental role of baptism that we encountered in both Calvin and previous articles of the French Confession. Article 38 underscores the function of baptism as a means of knowledge and assurance. By stating that the water of baptism “testifies to us in truth the inward cleansing of our souls in the blood of Jesus Christ” (italics added), the article implies that the inner washing with Christ’s blood is symbolized or demonstrated for us by the outer washing with “feeble” water (means of knowledge). It also suggests that this outer washing confirms or seals for us (“testifies to us in truth”)27 the reality of an inner cleansing (means of assurance). Article 37 goes even further by averring that in both sacraments “God gives us really and in fact that which he there sets forth to us” (means of grace). One might think that the

182  Font of Pardon and New Life article takes on a more Bullingerian than Calvinian cast when it goes on to say that “with these signs is given the true possession and enjoyment of that which [the sacraments] present to us.” Are the spiritual realities signified and sealed in the Lord’s Supper and baptism only given “with” and not through the signs? However, the original French text literally reads, “We join with the signs the true possession and enjoyment of that which is presented to us there” (Nous joignons28 avec les signes la vraie possession et jouissance de ce qui nous est là présenté). The meaning here is not entirely clear, but we should keep in mind that nearly every article in the French Confession begins with the words “we believe” (nous croyons), “we hold” (nous tenons), or “we confess” (nous confessons). Perhaps “we join [or conjoin] with the signs” is another way of stating, “We believe/​hold/​confess that joined/​conjoined with the signs is the true possession and enjoyment of that which is presented to us there.” If so, then once again we may be hearing the echoes of Calvin, who frequently used the language of joining (iungo) or conjoining (coniungo) to describe the relationship between sign and signified in the sacraments.29

Scots Confession (1560) Introduction Calvin’s influence on the Scots Confession has also long been the subject of debate. The dominant view has been “that the Confessio Scoticana of 1560 represents ‘pure Calvinism’ in a Caledonian [Scottish] accent,” largely because the principal author of the confession was the Scottish reformer John Knox and Knox was an ardent disciple of John Calvin.30 During the 1550s, Knox had spent nearly five years with Calvin in Geneva, where he served as pastor of an English refugee congregation before returning to Scotland in early 1559 to help reform the church there along Presbyterian lines. While still in Geneva, he once famously described the city as “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the apostles. In other places I confess Christ to be truly preached; but manners and religion so sincerely reformed, I have not yet seen in any other place.”31 It is hardly surprising, then, that many have identified Calvin’s footprints throughout the text of the Scots Confession.32 This position has been challenged and modified over the years, especially in more recent scholarship, but never to the point where Calvin’s impact on

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  183 the confession has been rejected altogether. Hazlett, for example, pointed out that although Knox was the primary author of the confession, the project was actually a collective effort by six men, all with diverse backgrounds and different sets of experiences in the various centers of Reformed Protestantism on the continent.33 The “closest relations and progenitors of the Scots Confession,” therefore, were not only several confessional documents from Geneva, Calvin’s Institutes, and the French Confession of Faith, but also the northern Swiss Articles of the Synod of Bern (1532), First Confession of Basel (1534), and First Helvetic Confession (1536), as well as the Forty-​ Two Articles from England (1553), John à Lasco’s Epitome of the Doctrine of the Churches of East Friesland (1544), and Beza’s Confession de Foi Chrétien (1559).34 Nevertheless, even though “the theology of the Confession is perhaps not so completely monochrome as is generally held,” it was still the case that “the main pool of ideas which determined the basic thought of the Scots Confession as a whole was the theology of Calvin as expressed in his Institutes.”35 Other recent scholars have taken a similar tack. Alax Cheyne detected much in the way of “originality of expression and approach” in the Scots Confession, its doctrine of election in particular offering “something very different from what it was even in the hands of Calvin.”36 However, in the confession’s statements on the attributes of God, the relationship between church and state, the visible and invisible church, and the middle way between the Catholic and Zwinglian extremes on the sacraments, the impress of Calvin’s thought is unmistakable. Indeed, “In certain central chapters [the Scots Confession’s] actual expressions can be clearly traced to one or other of Calvin’s confessions, or to the earliest edition of the Institutes.”37 Milne made the same point about the doctrine of election but did find clear evidence of Calvin’s influence in the confession’s doctrine of faith.38 Owen also identified several theological divergences from Calvin in the Scots Confession but still claimed a significant dependence on Calvin in the fourfold credal framework that parallels the structure of the Institutes.39 Even the Scottish church historian Alexander R. MacEwen, who a century ago concluded that “the Scots Confession contains no doctrine which can with any accuracy be styled Calvinist or Lutheran,” still qualified this assertion by adding, “except regarding the sacraments.”40 Notwithstanding its originality, therefore, and the unique time, place, and circumstances in which it was written, there is a broad consensus that Calvin’s voice echoes in at least some parts of the Scots Confession, including its doctrine of the sacraments in c­ hapter 21.

184  Font of Pardon and New Life

Text and Analysis Chapter XXI41 The Sacraments As the fathers under the Law, besides the reality of the sacrifices, had two chief sacraments, that is, circumcision and the passover, and those who rejected these were not reckoned among God’s people; so do we acknowledge and confess that now in the time of the Gospel we have two chief sacraments, which alone were instituted by the Lord Jesus and commanded to be used by all who will be counted embers of His body, that is, Baptism and the Supper of Table of the Lord Jesus, also called the Communion of His Body and Blood. These sacraments, both of the Old Testament and of the New, were instituted by God not only to make a visible distinction between His people and those who were without the Covenant, but also to exercise the faith of His children and, by participation of these sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of His promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, unity, and society, which the chosen have with their Head, Christ Jesus. And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of His righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that He becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ’s body, and of wine into His natural blood, as the Romanists have perniciously taught and wrongly believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by means of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once broken and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of His Father. Notwithstanding the distance between His glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we must assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body and the cup which we bless the communion of His blood. Thus we confess and believe without doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that He remains in them and they in Him; they are so made flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone that as the eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Christ

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  185 Jesus, which by nature was corruptible and mortal, life and immortality, so the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus does the like for us. We grant that this is neither given to us at the time nor by the power and virtue of the sacrament alone, but we affirm that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, have such union with Christ Jesus as the natural man cannot apprehend. Further we affirm that although the faithful, hindered by negligence and human weakness, do not profit as much as they ought in the actual moment of the Supper, yet afterwards it shall bring forth fruit, being living seed sown in good ground; for the Holy Spirit, who can never be separated from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not deprive the faithful of the fruit of that mystical action. Yet all this, we say again, comes of that true faith which apprehends Christ Jesus, who alone makes the sacrament effective in us. Therefore, if anyone slanders us by saying that we affirm or believe the sacraments to be symbols and nothing more, they are libellous and speak against the plain facts. On the other hand we readily admit that we make a distinction between Christ Jesus in His eternal substance and the elements of the sacramental signs. So we neither worship the elements, in place of that which they signify, nor yet do we despise them or undervalue them, but we use them with great reverence, examining ourselves diligently before we participate, since we are assured by the mouth of the apostle that “whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

This chapter on the sacraments is largely devoted to the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper, yet the few references to the sacraments in general and to baptism in particular are worthy of note. Early on in the chapter the confession states that God instituted the so-​called chief sacraments of both the Old and New Testaments not only to distinguish his covenant people from those outside the covenant and to build up their faith but also “to seal in their hearts the assurance of His promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, unity, and society, which the chosen have with their Head, Christ Jesus.” The sacraments function first of all, therefore, as means of assurance, confirming for the elect both the reality of God’s promise, presumably the covenant promise that he will be their God and they his people, and the reality of their union with Christ. The question we might ask is whether the sacraments, in this view, only assure someone of their union with Christ or in some way also bring it about. It is striking that in the sentence that immediately follows, the confession sounds very much like Calvin in rejecting any notion of the

186  Font of Pardon and New Life sacraments as “nothing else than naked and bare signs” and in identifying both of the New Testament sacraments as actual means of grace: “We assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of His righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that He becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls.” By or through the sacrament of baptism itself we are brought into union with Christ and his saving benefits.42 To be sure, in the Lord’s Supper (and implicitly in baptism as well), this does not happen “by the power and virtue of the sacrament alone.” Echoing what Calvin himself would often say, the confession insists that “it is true faith which apprehends Christ Jesus, who alone makes the sacrament effective in us” through the operation of the Holy Spirit.43 But to aver “that we affirm or believe the sacraments to be symbols and nothing more” is a slander that simply does not square with “the plain facts.” Much like Calvin already in the 1543 Institutes,44 the confession seeks to steer a middle course between overvaluing and undervaluing the sacraments, between confusing the sign with that which it signifies and separating them altogether.

Belgic Confession (1561) Introduction Of all the major confessions under examination in this chapter, the Belgic Confession has probably the clearest historical ties to Calvin. The most careful and complete study of the relationship between Calvin and the Belgic Confession in recent times has been done by Nicolaas Gootjes,45 who addressed the question from three separate angles: personal contacts between Calvin and Guido de Brès, who wrote the Belgic Confession; literary connections between the Belgic Confession and the French (Gallican) Confession of 1559; and Calvin’s encounter with the Belgic Confession itself. Guido de Brès (c. 1522–​ 1567), who was born and served several congregations in the southern, French-​ speaking part of the Lowlands (Netherlands),46 was in all likelihood the author of the Belgic Confession, even though his name did not appear on the title page of the sixteenth-​ century editions.47 His personal encounters with Calvin would have occurred after he fled the Netherlands on more than one occasion due to intense persecution by King Philip II, the Spanish Catholic ruler of the country at the

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  187 time. A first encounter might have taken place in September 1556 when both de Brès and Calvin found themselves in Frankfurt for different reasons, but no evidence has been discovered that they actually did meet. It is more likely that the two would have crossed paths between late 1556 and 1559, when de Brès spent some time in Lausanne and Geneva and could have sat under Calvin’s preaching and teaching. Once again, however, none of the sources indicate that he actually did so. A more promising piece of evidence, perhaps, is the fact that when de Brès’ personal library was confiscated upon his arrest in the Lowlands in 1567, he had one or more of Calvin’s books in his possession, as well as a letter from Calvin from 1556 (now lost) responding to some questions de Brès had put to him a decade earlier. But not too much can be made of this, because de Brès owned books by and had contacts with other Protestant theologians as well.48 A second connection between the Belgic Confession and Calvin may be seen in de Brès’s heavy reliance in his confession on the text of the French Confession of Faith, in whose composition history Calvin had played at least some part. Although de Brès did not follow the French Confession slavishly, sometimes adding to the text and sometimes condensing it, the similarities between the two confessions in organization and wording are so striking as to leave no doubt that the one served as the base text for the other. Gootjes adheres to the older view that Calvin provided a thirty-​five-​article draft to the French synod that produced the French Confession, but even if one maintains with Braghi that Calvin’s only role was some involvement in the formulation of Au Roy, one can still conclude with Gootjes that Calvin exerted at least some indirect literary influence on the Belgic Confession.49 Finally, there is strong evidence that Calvin was sent a copy of the Belgic Confession and endorsed it. In an undated letter to some unidentified ministers, presumably in the Netherlands, Calvin wrote the following: In your confessional statement we have not noticed anything which does not agree with the holy oracles of God and the orthodox faith. Therefore, we willingly approve the summary of the doctrine contained in it. However, we would wish the letter to the Hebrews was not attributed to Paul, for we are convinced by strong arguments that the author is someone else.50

The Belgic Confession is not identified by name here, but when one places this quotation in the context of the entire letter, there are good reasons to conclude that this is the only confession Calvin could have had in mind.51

188  Font of Pardon and New Life And since “Calvin wrote his advice on behalf of the ministers of Geneva, his letter means an official stamp of approval from the entire minsters’ council of Geneva on the Belgic Confession.”52

Text and Analysis As with the French Confession and Scots Confession, the evidence showing at least some historical and literary linkage between the Belgic Confession and Calvin is supported by the Calvinian language and theology of baptism in the text, in this case in the three articles on original sin, the sacraments in general, and baptism: Article 15: The Doctrine of Original Sin53 We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race (Romans 5:12–​13). It is a corruption of the whole human nature—​an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother’s womb, and the root which produces in humanity every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God’s sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring. Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God’s children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy—​not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the body of this death (Romans 7:24). Therefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who say that this sin is nothing else than a matter of imitation.

The two paragraphs in the French Confession of Faith on which this article was largely based read as follows: X. We believe that all the posterity of Adam is in bondage to original sin, which is an hereditary evil, and not an imitation merely, as was declared by the Pelagians, whom we detest in their errors. And we consider that it is not necessary to inquire how sin was conveyed from one man to another, for what God had given Adam was not for him alone, but for all his posterity; and thus in his person we have been deprived of all good things, and have fallen with him into a state of sin and misery.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  189 XI. We believe, also, that this evil is truly sin, sufficient for the condemnation of the whole human race, even of little children in the mother’s womb, and that God considers it as such; even after baptism it is still of the nature of sin, but the condemnation of it is abolished for the children of God, out of his mere free grace and love. And further, that it is a perversity always producing fruits of malice and of rebellion, so that the most holy men, although they resist it, are still stained with many weaknesses and imperfections while they are in this life.54

The most intriguing part of Belgic Confession Article 15 is the statement that original sin “is so vile and enormous in God’s sight that it is . . . not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism.” It seems likely that the phrase “even by baptism” is simultaneously conveying something negative about the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptism and something positive about the Reformed view.55 To more fully understand what this phrase is implying about the efficacy of baptism, we need to place it in the context of the article as a whole. Article 15 defines original sin as a universal “corruption” and “depravity” (vice) of human nature that serves as the “root” (racine) of all actual sin. The fact that “it is enough to condemn the human race” (italics added) implies that it consists not only of human corruption but of human guilt as well. This depravity is of such a magnitude and so deeply rooted in human nature that it is not “abolished” (aboli) or entirely “de-​rooted” (déraciné) even by something as spiritually powerful as the sacrament of baptism. That statement is almost certainly intended to rebut the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which at the fifth session of the Council of Trent in 1546 anathematized not only anyone who denied “that the guilt of original sin is remitted by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism” but also anyone who asserted “that everything that has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away.”56 However, the phrase “even by baptism” may also be implying that, from a Reformed Protestant point of view, baptism is still in some way efficacious. To declare that original sin is not “wholly” uprooted by baptism does suggest that it is at least partially uprooted. Whether or how much that uprooting applies to original corruption is not clear in this passage; the fact that after baptism sin still “constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring” leaves the impression that little has really changed. The most that is stated here is the hope that the “awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the body of this death (Romans 7:24).” However, Article 15 should

190  Font of Pardon and New Life not be read in isolation from either its base text, the French Confession of Faith, or from other parts of the Belgic Confession. Article 11 of the French Confession sheds a little more light on the effect of baptism on human depravity when it describes postbaptismal believers as “still stained with many weaknesses and imperfections” but also now as “holy” and engaged in efforts to resist the residual corruption in their lives. And as we shall see, de Brès provides an even clearer explanation of the impact of baptism on original corruption in his detailed treatment of baptism itself in Article 34. When it comes to the abolishment of original guilt, the picture is rather different. Here de Brès actually agrees with the Catholics when he asserts that original sin, which was “enough to condemn the human race,” is now “not imputed to God’s children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy.” When and how does such forgiveness come about? The implication is that it occurs at and by means of baptism. Just as “by” (par) the disobedience of Adam original sin infected the whole human race, so also “by” (par) baptism this original sin is not wholly but partially eradicated, at the very least by the removal of the condemnation associated with it. The earlier French Confession is even clearer on this connection between baptism and forgiveness of sin:  “Even after baptism it [original sin] is still of the nature of sin,57 but the condemnation of it is abolished [abolie] for the children of God, out of his mere free grace and love.” Both confessions, then, employ the verb “abolish” to make the same point in slightly different ways. Original corruption is not completely abolished (Belgic Confession), but, to put it another way, part of what is abolished is divine condemnation of the guilt it produces (French Confession). What is of primary interest for our study of baptismal efficacy, of course, is that such forgiveness appears to be applied, as Calvin would also say, through the agency of baptism. Article 33: The Sacraments We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith. God has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what God enables us to understand by the Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us. For they are visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. So

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  191 they are not empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing. Moreover, we are satisfied with the number of sacraments that Christ our Master has ordained for us. There are only two: the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ.58

Like Belgic Confession Article 15, some of Article 33 is based on the earlier text of the French Confession: XXXIV. We believe that the sacraments are added to the Word for more ample confirmation, that they may be to us pledges and seals of the grace of God, and by this means aid and comfort our faith, because of the infirmity which is in us, and that they are outward signs through which God operates by his Spirit, so that he may not signify any thing to us in vain. Yet we hold that their substance and truth is in Jesus Christ, and that of themselves they are only smoke and shadow.59

The similarities in the way sacraments are defined in the Belgic Confession, the French Confession, and Calvin’s Institutes all the way back to the 1536 edition60 are striking, as we see in Table 8.1. The second sentence of Article 33, however, is drawn nearly verbatim from yet another confessional work—​this one by Calvin’s chief disciple, Theodore Beza, whose Confession of the Christian Faith (1559) Guido de Brès utilized, to one degree or another, in some seventeen of the Belgic Confession’s thirty-​ seven articles.61 Indeed, as Table 8.2 indicates, the linguistic parallels are even clearer in the original French than in the English translations.62 Given the Genevan roots of the text of Article 33, the Calvinian shape of its teaching on efficacy is hardly surprising. Both of the instrumental functions we encountered in Calvin are included here. Sacraments are, first of all, means of knowledge and assurance that help us better understand God’s Word and validate the truth of his promises and grace. But they are also means of that grace, signs and seals “by means of which [moyennant lesquels]63 God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit.” They are not “empty and hollow signs” since “their truth [vérité] is Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing.”64 De Brès does not specify here exactly how sign and signified are related, but he makes that clearer in a further comment on the sacraments in general in Article 35 on the Lord’s Supper. There he states that “the sacraments and what they signify are joined together [conjoints],”65 although

192  Font of Pardon and New Life Table 8.1  Similarities in the definitions of sacraments in the Belgic Confession, French Confession, and Calvin’s 1536 Institutes Belgic Confession Article 33

French Confession Article 34

Calvin 1536 Institutes

mindful of our crudeness and weakness

because of the infirmity which is in us

seal his promises in us pledge good will and grace toward us

seals of the grace of God pledges . . . of the grace of God

nourish and sustain our faith added these to the Word

aid and comfort our faith

visible signs and seals to represent better to our external senses by means of which God works in us

outward signs for more ample confirmation through which God operates

for the ignorance of our mind and for the weakness of our flesh seal the promise itself attests to us his good will to us . . . a testimony of God’s grace sustain the weakness of our faith joined to [the promise] by way of appendix an outward sign to make it . . . more evident to us through whose ministry he lavishes the gifts of his bounty upon us unless the Holy Spirit accompanies them

added to the Word

through the power of the by his Spirit Holy Spirit not empty and hollow signs not signify any thing to us in vain their truth is Jesus Christ their substance and truth is to offer and set forth Christ in Jesus Christ to us

wicked participants receive only the external sign and not the “truth” (vérité) of the sacrament at the time it is administered. That truth, he reiterates, is Jesus Christ, who “is communicated only to believers.” Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, in whom the law is fulfilled, has by his shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood, which anyone might do or wish to do in order to atone or satisfy for sins. Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, Christ established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God’s church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may wholly belong to him whose mark and sign we bear. Baptism also witnesses to us that God,

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  193 Table 8.2  Linguistic parallels between Belgic Confession, Article 33, and Beza’s Confession of the Christian Faith, Article 31 Belgic Confession Article 33

Confession of the Christian Faith Article 31

lesquels il a ajoutés à la parole de l’Évangile, pour mieux représenter à nos sens extérieurs, tant ce qu’il nous donne à entendre par sa Parole, que ce qu’il fait intérieurement en nous coeurs, en ratifiant en nous le salut qu’il nous communique

adioustez par luymesme a la parole de son Evangile . . . pour mieux representer a nos sens exterieurs, tant ce qu’il nous donne a entendre par sa Parole, que ce qu’il fait intérieurement en nous coeurs, comme pour . . . ratifier en nous le salut qu’il nous ne possedons encores que par foy & esperance God has added these [sacraments] to the . . . added and joined by Himself to Word of the gospel to represent better to the Word of His gospel . . . (the better our external senses both what God enables to represent to our outward senses us to understand by the Word and what he those things which He permits us does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in to understand by His Word) these us the salvation he imparts to us. also which He works inwardly in our hearts . . . to seal and ratify in us the salvation which we do not possess as yet except by faith and hope.

being our gracious Father, will be our God forever. Therefore Christ has commanded that all those who belong to him be baptized with pure water “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). In this way God signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the bodies of those who are baptized when it is sprinkled on them, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God. This does not happen by the physical water but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God, who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, who is the devil, and to enter the spiritual land of Canaan. So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies—​namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the “new self ” and stripping off the “old self with its practices” (Colossians 3:9–​10).

194  Font of Pardon and New Life For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it—​for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives. For that reason we reject the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11).66

To more fully understand De Brès’s view of baptismal efficacy, we must read his detailed treatment of baptism in this article in the context of the articles that immediately precede and follow it. As Table 8.3 shows, in Article 34 itself

Table 8.3  Parallels in Belgic Confession, Article 34, between physical baptism and spiritual baptism Sign: Physical baptism

Signified: Spiritual baptism

administered “on the bodies of those who are baptized” performed with “physical water” “it [water] is sprinkled on them”

administered “internally, in the soul”

“just as” the external act occurs “washes away the dirt of the body” the work of “ministers” minsters “give us the sacrament” ministers give “what is visible”

performed with “the blood of Christ” “the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God” “so too” the internal event occurs “washes and cleanses [the soul] from sins” the work of “our Lord”; “by the Holy Spirit” the Lord “gives what the sacrament signifies” the Lord gives “the invisible gifts and graces”

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  195 he speaks both of the sign of baptism and of the spiritual reality that it signifies, but he goes no further than placing them in a series of parallels. These “invisible gifts and graces” signified in baptism are elaborated on in terms of a significant change of status (children of wrath to children of God), a liberation from the clutches of the devil, an incipient reversal of our corruption (renewal of heart, stripping off the old self, and putting on the new),67 a cleansing “from all filth and unrighteousness” (a reference to forgiveness?),68 a filling of the heart with comfort, and an assurance of divine beneficence. However, how these internal blessings are connected to the external administration of baptism only becomes clear within the framework of Articles 33 and 35. To be sure, the spiritual transformation that takes place in baptism “does not happen by the physical water” itself (Art. 34). Nevertheless, as we saw earlier, sacraments are still “visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us” (Art. 33; italics added), and those divine operations are works of grace because the sign and the grace it signifies “are joined together” (soient conjoints)” (Art. 35). This reference to the conjoining of visible elements with invisible grace appears in the article on the Lord’s Supper to make the general point that not all who participate externally in a sacrament receive the internal benefits offered there. Interestingly, de Brès goes on to illustrate this point with two biblical examples: Judas at the Last Supper and the baptism of Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8). In both cases, the individual at the center of the story “received the sacrament, but not Christ, who was signified by it.” The implication, of course, is very Calvinian with respect to the efficacy of baptism: wicked baptizands like Simon “do not receive the truth of the sacrament,” but those who have hearts that are “right before God” (Acts 8:21) do receive that which is signified (Christ) simultaneously with the sign to which it/​he is joined. In that way we can say that “baptism is profitable . . . when the water is on us and when we receive it” (Art. 34).

Heidelberg Catechism (1563) Introduction Any influence Calvin might have exerted on the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism would have been, once again, not direct but through the authors of the catechism or the sources they employed. In April 1563 Caspar

196  Font of Pardon and New Life Olevianus, one of the contributors to the Heidelberg Catechism, sent Calvin a copy of the Latin translation of the German text along with a request for a one-​word response, but that was after the catechism was already published, and we do not know whether Calvin ever replied.69 Three months later (July 1563) Calvin dedicated his commentary on Jeremiah to the Palatine elector Frederick III, who had commissioned the Heidelberg Catechism, but Calvin never explicitly referred to the catechism in the dedication, and a positive attitude toward it on his part can only be inferred.70 Among the members of the committee that drafted the catechism, however, Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus had both studied with Calvin in Geneva, and Immanuel Tremellius, Michael Diller, and Wenceslaus Zuleger were known to have Calvinist theological leanings.71 Olevianus in particular has been considered one of Calvin’s most important disciples on German soil,72 and one of Olevianus’s many theological works was a compendium of Calvin’s Institutes intended for classroom use.73 Ursinus, who was very likely the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, had been raised and educated in the Lutheran tradition and was initially a student and disciple of Melanchthon, but he later found his way to Calvin’s Geneva and into the orbit of the Reformed theological tradition.74 The clearest echo of Calvin’s voice in the Heidelberg Catechism may be in places where the wording appears dependent on the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, which Calvin had composed in French in 1542 and translated into Latin in 1545. Ursinus himself was preparing a German translation of Calvin’s catechism around the time that he and the rest of the committee were also working on the Heidelberg Catechism (both documents were published in 1563),75 and the Genevan catechism has long been regarded as one of the major sources of the Heidelberger.76 Many examples of such dependence could be cited, but a sampling in Table 8.4 of questions and answers from the two catechisms’ expositions of the Apostles’ Creed,77 Ten Commandments,78 and Lord’s Prayer79 is enough to illustrate the point.80 In the analysis that follows, we will need to examine whether such textual affinities can also be found in the Heidelberg Catechism’s treatment of the sacraments in general and baptism and, if so, whether the final text encapsulated a Calvinian view of baptismal efficacy. What complicates this picture of possible Calvinian influence is the fact that the committee charged with drafting the Heidelberg Catechism consisted of more than just Calvinist members and employed more than just Calvinian sources. When elector Frederick III came to the throne

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  197 Table 8.4  Sampling of similar questions and answers in the Heidelberg Catechism and Calvin’s Catechism of the Church of Geneva Heidelberg Catechism

Catechism of the Church of Geneva

Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed Q. 43 What further benefit do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross? A. By Christ’s power our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us. Exposition of the Ten Commandments Q. 99 What is the aim of the third commandment? A. That we neither blaspheme nor misuse the name of God by cursing, perjury, or unnecessary oaths. . . . We should use the name of God only with reverence and awe, so that we may . . . glorify God in all our words and works.

Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed Q. 72 Does [the death of Christ] not offer us any other advantage besides? A. Yes indeed. For by his benefit . . . our old nature is crucified, and the body of sin is destroyed, so that the lusts of the flesh no longer rule in us.

Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer Q. 123 What does the second petition mean? A.  . . . Preserve your church and make it grow. . . . Do this until your kingdom fully comes, and when you will be all in all.

Exposition of the Ten Commandments Q. 160 What is the meaning [of the third commandment]? A. He forbids us to abuse the name of God, either by perjury or by swearing unnecessarily. Q. But does it go no further than to restrict oaths by which the name of God is profaned and his honour threatened? The mention of one kind warns us in general, never to bring forward the name of God except with fear and reverence and for the purpose of making his glory apparent. Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer Q. 269 In what sense do you pray that this kingdom come? A. That may daily increase the number of the faithful. . . . Q. 270 Are these things not done daily? A.  . . . Therefore we pray that he assiduously increase and advance [the Kingdom], until it reach the summit of its power . . . when God . . . will be all in all.

in 1559, most of the major Protestant parties of the mid-​sixteenth century were represented in the Palatinate—​Gnesio-​Lutherans, Philippist Lutherans (Melanchthonians), Zwinglians (sometimes referred to by scholars as late-​Zwinglians or Bullingerians), and Calvinists. Frederick III had long followed a Philippist path, but when Melanchthon died in 1560, the elector began to look more to Zurich and Geneva for leaders of the Palatine reformation, which gradually moved then “from a Philippist/​

198  Font of Pardon and New Life Gnesio-​Lutheran theological axis to a Philippist-​Reformed theological axis.”81 As part of this reform of the Palatinate into a Melanchthonian-​ Reformed territory, Frederick commissioned the preparation of the Heidelberg Catechism, which was intended in part to serve as a form of confessional unity for the Philippists, Calvinists, and Zwinglians in his realm. The drafting committee was composed of representatives of all three theological traditions, and they made use of earlier catechisms, confessions, and other theological works not just by Calvin but also by Ursinus, Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, à Lasco, Micronius, and Beza, and perhaps also by Bucer, Bullinger, Erastus, and Jud.82 It is little wonder, then, that since the mid-​nineteenth century, historians have variously characterized the theological orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism as Melanchthonian, Calvinist, Melanchthonian-​Calvinist, Bullingerian, or some blend of the Calvinist and Zwinglian traditions.83 Could it even be, as one scholar concluded, that the catechism shifts from a Calvinist perspective in its introduction to the sacraments and its doctrine of baptism to a neo-​Zwinglian (Bullingerian) approach in its teaching on the Lord’s Supper?84 To address these questions of theological alignment, we turn now to the text itself.

Text and Analysis The Holy Sacraments85

Q 65. It is through faith alone that we share in Christ and all his benefits: where then does that faith come from? A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments. Q 66. What are sacraments? A. Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals. They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and seal that promise. And this is God’s gospel promise: to grant us forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace because of Christ’s one sacrifice accomplished on the cross. Q 67. Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  199 A. Yes! In the gospel the Holy Spirit teaches us and by the holy sacraments confirms that our entire salvation rests on Christ’s one sacrifice for us on the cross. Q 68. How many sacraments did Christ institute in the New Testament? A. Two: holy baptism and the holy supper. The catechism’s definition of the sacraments in Q/​A 66 clearly depicts them as means of knowledge and assurance: they help us understand the promise of the gospel more clearly, and they place a seal on that promise. As signs, baptism and the Lord’s Supper “remind” us, and as seals they “assure” us (Q/​ A 69, 75) that God promises to grant us forgiveness and new life because of Christ’s once-​for-​all sacrifice on the cross. As we see in Table 8.5, the language here bears some similarity to Calvin’s definition of a sacrament in his Catechism of the Church of Geneva (Q/​A 310).86 However, it is more likely that Ursinus’s formulation in the Heidelberger can be traced back through his Larger and Smaller Catechisms to Melanchthon’s Examen ordinandorum (1552), and some of the elements and phrasing can also be found in Luther’s Small Catechism, Melanchthon’s Loci, works by Bullinger and Jud, and the north German catechisms of Micronius and Lasco.87 What this suggests is that regardless of the sources on which it was based, the Heidelberg Catechism’s portrayal of the sacraments as means of knowledge and assurance was generic enough to include all perspectives in the Palatinate—​Philippist, Calvinist, and Bullingerian. But does the catechism understand the relationship between sign and signified in such a way that the sacraments function also as instruments of grace? Neuser contended that we encounter such instrumentalism right away in Question and Answer 65, which introduces the section on the sacraments Table 8.5  Similarities in the definitions of sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism and Calvin’s Catechism of the Church of Geneva Heidelberg Catechism

Catechism of the Church of Geneva

visible, holy signs and seals (Q/​A 66) make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel (Q/​A 66) to seal that promise (Q/​A 66) by the holy sacraments [the Holy Spirit] confirms (Q/​A 67)

outward attestation; visible sign (Q/​A 311) represents spiritual grace symbolically (Q/​ A 310) to seal the promises of God (Q/​A 310) by which the truth of them is better confirmed (Q/​A 310)

200  Font of Pardon and New Life in general. According to him, the reference there to the Spirit’s confirmation of one’s faith through the use of the sacraments reflects Calvin’s view that the sacraments contribute to an increase in faith (cf. Q/​A 66: “make us understand more clearly”) rather than Zwingli’s position that they merely corroborate benefits that faith already possesses. The sacraments possess what Neuser calls a Gabecharakter (“gift character”): the Holy Spirit actually gives something through them. What we find in the Heidelberg Catechism, therefore, is a portrayal of the sacraments in the Calvinian sense of Heilsmittel (“means of salvation”), instruments through which divine grace is communicated to the believer.88 However, there are at least two features of the catechism’s introduction to the sacraments that make it less than markedly Calvinian. First, although Neuser is correct that the catechism talks here about an increase in faith in those who use the sacraments aright, that is not what Calvin usually had in mind when he spoke of the sacraments as means or instruments of salvation. For him the grace that is connected to the sacraments is not an expansion of faith but the benefits that are appropriated by that faith, namely, remission of sins and regeneration. To be sure, Question and Answer 66 identifies these two benefits as the essence of the gospel promise, but it says no more about the role of the sacraments than that they help us understand that promise more clearly and assure us of its truth. There is nothing here of Calvin’s notion that the spiritual reality signified and sealed by the sacramental signs is annexed to those signs and conveyed through them. Second, we have seen that throughout his career Calvin often used instrumental terminology (e.g., instrumentum, organum, media) to describe the sacraments both as means of knowledge and assurance and as means of grace. The fact that no such language appears here in the Heidelberg Catechism is noteworthy because Ursinus had seen fit to employ such terminology in parallel questions and answers in his two earlier catechisms on which much of the Heidelberger was based. In the Smaller Catechism (1561 or 1562), the first question on the sacraments (Q/​A 53) is “By what means and instruments [mediis et instrumentis] does the Holy Spirit work, nurture, and confirm faith in us?”89 And in the Larger Catechism (1562) he describes the threefold ministry of the church (preaching, sacraments, discipline) as an instrumentum (Q/​A 266, 267) and the sacraments themselves as organis (“instruments,” Q/​A 278)  by which the Holy Spirit builds up faith in the hearts of the elect.90 The omission of any such terminology in the Heidelberg Catechism, therefore, appears deliberate—​perhaps, given

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  201 the religious and political circumstances, an attempt to avoid any language that might sound too Calvinian. Holy Baptism91

Q 69. How does holy baptism remind and assure you that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross benefits you personally? A. In this way: Christ instituted this outward washing and with it promised that, as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly his blood and his Spirit wash away my soul’s impurity, that is, all my sins. Q 70. What does it mean to be washed with Christ’s blood and Spirit? A. To be washed with Christ’s blood means that God, by grace, has forgiven our sins because of Christ’s blood poured out for us in his sacrifice on the cross. To be washed with Christ’s Spirit means that the Holy Spirit has renewed and sanctified us to be members of Christ, so that more and more we become dead to sin and live holy and blameless lives. Q 71. Where does Christ promise that we are washed with his blood and Spirit as surely as we are washed with the water of baptism? A. In the institution of baptism, where he says:  “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” [Matthew 28:19]. “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” [Mark 16:16]. This promise is repeated when Scripture calls baptism “the water of rebirth” [Titus 3:5] and the washing away of sins [Acts 22:16]. Q 72. Does this outward washing with water itself wash away sins? A. No, only Jesus Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins. Q 73. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the water of rebirth and the washing away of sins? A. God has good reason for these words. To begin with, God wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ take away our sins just as water removes dirt from the body. But more important, God wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign, that we are as truly washed of our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water physically. Q 74. Should infants also be baptized? A. Yes. Infants as well as adults are included in God’s covenant and people, and they, no less than adults, are promised deliverance from sin through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith. Therefore, by

202  Font of Pardon and New Life baptism, the sign of the covenant, they too should be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism. One of the striking aspects of the Heidelberg Catechism’s description of baptism is its insistence that we are reminded and assured in the sacrament of a double spiritual washing. Five times in the first four questions and answers (69–​72) the catechism mentions a washing both by Christ’s blood (forgiveness of sins) and by the Holy Spirit (rebirth and sanctification). This interpretation of baptism may reflect the influence of the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, where Calvin introduces the same distinction in four questions and answers: Q 324. First, what is the meaning of baptism? A. It has two parts. For there is remission of sins; and then spiritual regeneration is symbolized by it (Eph. 5:26; Rom. 6:4). Q 325. What similarity has washing to these things, that it represents them? A. Forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from all their stains, just as bodily defilements are washed away by water. Q 326. What about regeneration? A. Since the mortification of our nature is the beginning, and the end that we be new creatures, the metaphor of death is set before us in the pouring of water upon the head; but of new life in that we do not remain immersed under the water, but only for a moment descend into it as into a sepulchre, in order immediately to emerge. Q 327. Do you regard water as the washing of the soul? A. Not at all. For it is wrong to snatch this honor from the blood of Christ, which was poured out in order that, all our stains being wiped away, he might render us pure and unpolluted before God. . . . And we perceive the fruit of this cleansing when the Holy Spirit sprinkles our conscience with that sacred blood.”92 The critical question again, however, is how the Heidelberg Catechism understands the relationship between this twofold inner washing and the outer washing instituted by Christ. It might be argued that Q/​A 69 and 73 align themselves with Bullinger and the Zurich tradition by alleging no more than a parallelism between inner and outer baptism:

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  203 A 69. Christ . . . promised that as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly his blood and his Spirit wash away my soul’s impurity. A 73. God wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ take away our sins just as water removes dirt from the body. But more important, God wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign, that we are as truly washed of our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water physically. (italics added) Outer baptism is thus a reminder and assurance of the grace of inner baptism, but that grace is not, as Calvin had put it in his Genevan catechism, attached to the water in such a way that “both pardon for sins and newness of life are certainly offered to us and received by us in baptism” (Q/​A 328). Indeed, part of Q/​A 73 could be paraphrased as follows: “God wants to assure us . . . that we are as truly already washed of our sins spiritually as our bodies are being washed with water physically.” If this is a legitimate reading, then the catechism views inner and outer baptism not only in parallel with each other but in a temporal sequence. This has a definite Zwinglian ring to it: water baptism points to a grace already given.93 However, if the Heidelberg Catechism is not distinctively Calvinian in its introduction to the sacraments, it is not strictly Zwinglian or Bullingerian in its approach to baptism either. For one thing, the parallels in Q/​A 69 and 73 between inner and outer baptism (e.g., “We are as truly washed of our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water physically,” Q/​A 73) can be found not only in sixteenth-​century Zurich sources but in the Genevan as tradition as well.94 One notable example is Calvin’s own Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Q/​A 325:  “Our souls are cleansed from all their stains, just as bodily defilements are washed away by water.”95 And similar phrasing appears in Article 34 of the Belgic Confession: “Just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us . . . so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit.”96 Similarly, the suggestion in Q/​A 73 of a time gap between one’s physical baptism and an earlier spiritual baptism is not a strictly Zwinglian phenomenon. As we have already seen, as far back as the 1536 Institutes, Calvin had pointed to two figures from the book of Acts, the apostle Paul and Cornelius the centurion, as examples of those who had received the benefits of baptism before they were physically baptized. In 1548, in his Ephesians commentary, Calvin asserted again that “the powerful grace of God is not confined to the

204  Font of Pardon and New Life sign [of baptism], and God may, if He pleases, freely bestow it without the aid of the sign.”97 Finally, he and Bullinger would agree a year later in the Consensus Tigurinus (Art. 19) that “the faithful communicate in Christ both before and outside the use of the sacraments.”98 The illustrations they select are once again Paul and Cornelius, both of whom experienced the salvific benefits of baptism even before they were baptized with water. Water baptism was still a washing away of sins for Paul and a laver of regeneration for Cornelius but only insofar as it built up the faith by which these benefits were appropriated in greater measure through their union with Christ. Therefore, the parallelism between inner and outer baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism and the temporal gap between them are as fully Calvinian as Zwinglian or Bullingerian. Where Calvin parted ways with the Zurich tradition was not on whether the sign and signified are parallel but on whether they are merely parallel, and not on whether baptismal grace can be given before baptism but on whether it can also be given through baptism. Is outward baptism simply a visual analogy to the grace that the Holy Spirit grants independently of the sacrament, or is it also more than analogy, namely, the very means or instrument through which that grace is communicated? That is a question that the Heidelberg Catechism does not address, probably intentionally so. The catechism does not affirm a Calvinian view of baptismal efficacy, but it does not deny it either. On this point, it is much like the Consensus Tigurinus seventeen years before: it goes as far as Calvin and Bullinger might agree, but beyond that it is silent.99

Second Helvetic Confession (1566) Introduction The Second Helvetic Confession (Confessio Helvetica posterior) ranks among the most significant documents of its kind to emerge from sixteenth-​century Reformed Protestantism. Published in northern Switzerland in 1566, it soon became a form of unity for Reformed churches in all of what is today German and French Switzerland. In addition, it was enthusiastically received, and sometimes even formally adopted, by Reformed communities in the Palatinate, Scotland, France, Poland, and Hungary.100 Given the fact that this confession was from first to last the work of the Zurich reformer Heinrich Bullinger and that his name is usually associated

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  205 with a parallelist, not an instrumentalist, approach to the sacraments, it might seem odd to be raising the question of Calvin’s possible impact on its approach to baptismal efficacy. There are, however, a couple of reasons why such an examination is warranted. First, the secondary literature is not unanimous on whether the Second Helvetic is parallelist or instrumentalist in its view of the relationship between sign and signified in the sacraments. The majority position was summarized by Rohls in his 1987 overview of the theology of the Reformed confessions: The same sacramental parallelism [that we find in the First Helvetic Confession of  1536] is still being taught in the Second Helvetic Confession. . . . The external reception of the sign and the internal reception of the signified substance are processes that are clearly distinguished from each other. When they both take place, they still run parallel. This means that the internal reception of the signified substance, when it takes place with the external reception of the sign, takes place with it in the sense that the two processes are simultaneous.101

This interpretation had already been offered by, among others, Ernst Koch in his magisterial study of the theology of the Confessio Helvetica posterior in 1968, and Koch also cites Paul Jacobs as a proponent of this view a decade before.102 More recently, however, Venema concluded in his analysis of many of the same confessional documents that we have been examining that all the Reformed confessions, the Second Helvetic included, “affirm the power of the sacraments as genuine instruments or means of grace.” The differences among them are only differences of emphasis that address different concerns.103 And Bromiley took yet a different tack, arguing that “Bullinger avoided the distinction between a parallel and instrumental use by pointing out that baptism in the full sense is present only when both sign and thing signified take place together. This happens when sign and thing signified are united by the Spirit in a way that we cannot comprehend and that Bullinger describes as ‘mystical.’ ”104 Such a variety of interpretations, therefore, would seem justification enough for another look at Bullinger’s text. Second, one way in which Calvin might have left a mark on the Second Helvetic is via the agreement on the sacraments that he and Bullinger negotiated in the Consensus Tigurinus seventeen years before. As we saw in ­chapter 5, the CT contains a muted and somewhat abridged version of the doctrine of the sacraments that Calvin had developed over the previous

206  Font of Pardon and New Life thirteen years. But since at least some of the distinctive features of Calvin’s sacramental theology could still be found there and had been accepted by Bullinger at the time, it is worth investigating whether Bullinger included any of those features in his new confession nearly two decades later.

Text and Analysis Chapter XIX105 Of the Sacraments of the Church of Christ the sacraments [are] added to the word and what they are. From the beginning, God added to the preaching of his Word in his Church sacraments or sacramental signs. For thus does all Holy Scripture clearly testify. Sacraments are mystical symbols, or holy rites, or sacred actions, instituted by God himself, consisting of his Word, of signs and of things signified, whereby in the Church he keeps in mind and from time to time recalls the great benefits he has shown to men; whereby also he seals his promises, and outwardly represents, and, as it were, offers unto our sight those things which inwardly he performs for us, and so strengthens and increases our faith through the working of God’s Spirit in our hearts. Lastly, he thereby distinguishes us from all other people and religions, and consecrates and binds us wholly to himself, and signifies what he requires of us. . . . the author of the sacraments. The author of all sacraments is not any man, but God alone. Men cannot institute sacraments. For they pertain to the worship of God, and it is not for man to appoint and prescribe a worship of God, but to accept and preserve the one he has received from God. Besides, the symbols have God’s promises annexed to them, which require faith. Now faith rests only upon the Word of God; and the Word of God is like papers or letters, and the sacraments are like seals which only God appends to the letters. christ still works in sacraments. And as God is the author of the sacraments, so he continually works in the Church in which they are rightly carried out; so that the faithful, when they receive them from the ministers, know that God works in his own ordinance, and therefore they receive them as from the hand of God; and the minister’s faults (even if they be very great) cannot affect them, since they acknowledge the integrity of the sacraments to depend upon the institution of the Lord.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  207 the author and the ministers of the sacraments to be distinguished. Hence in the administration of the sacraments they also clearly distinguish between the Lord himself and the ministers of the Lord, confessing that the substance of the sacraments is given them by the Lord, and the outward signs by the ministers of the Lord. the substance or chief thing in the sacraments. But the principal thing which God promises in all sacraments and to which all the godly in all ages direct their attention (some call it the substance and matter of sacraments) is Christ the Savior—​that only sacrifice, and that Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world; that rock, also, from which all our fathers drank, by whom all the elect are circumcised without hands through the Holy Spirit, and are washed from all their sins, and are nourished with the very body and blood of Christ unto eternal life. the similarity and difference in the sacraments of old and new peoples. Now, in respect of that which is the principal thing and the matter itself in the sacraments, the sacraments of both peoples are equal. For Christ, the only Mediator and Savior of the faithful, is the chief thing and very substance of the sacraments in both; for the one God is the author of them both. They were given to both peoples as signs and seals of the grace and promises of God, which should call to mind and renew the memory of God’s great benefits, and should distinguish the faithful from all the religions in the world; lastly, which should be received spiritually by faith, and should bind the receivers to the Church, and admonish them of their duty. In these and similar respects, I say, the sacraments of both peoples are not dissimilar, although in the outward signs they are different. And, indeed, with respect to the signs we make a great difference. For ours are more firm and lasting, inasmuch as they will never be changed to the end of the world. Moreover, ours testify that both the substance and the promise have been fulfilled or perfected in Christ; the former signified what was to be fulfilled. Ours are also more simple and less laborious, less sumptuous and involved with ceremonies. Moreover, they belong to a more numerous people, one that is dispersed throughout the whole earth. And since they are more excellent, and by the Holy Spirit kindle greater faith, a greater abundance of the Spirit also ensues. our sacraments succeed the old which are abrogated. But now since Christ the true Messiah is exhibited unto us, and the abundance of grace is poured forth upon the people of the New Testament, the sacraments of the old people are surely abrogated and have ceased; and in their stead

208  Font of Pardon and New Life the symbols of the New Testament are placed—​Baptism in the place of circumcision, the Lord’s Supper in place of the Paschal Lamb and sacrifices. in what the sacraments consist. And as formerly the sacraments consisted of the word, the sign, and the thing signified; so even now they are composed, as it were, of the same parts. For the Word of God makes them sacraments, which before they were not. the consecration of the sacraments. For they are consecrated by the Word, and shown to be sanctified by him who instituted them. To sanctify or consecrate anything to God is to dedicate it to holy uses; that is, to take it from the common and ordinary use, and to appoint it to a holy use. For the signs in the sacraments are drawn from common use, things external and visible. For in baptism the sign is the element of water, and that visible washing which is done by the minister; but the thing signified is regeneration and the cleansing from sins. Likewise, in the Lord’s Supper, the outward sign is bread and wine, taken from things commonly used for meat and drink; but the thing signified is the body of Christ which was given, and his blood which was shed for us, or the communion of the body and blood of the Lord. Wherefore, the water, bread, and wine, according to their nature and apart from the divine institution and sacred use, are only that which they are called and we experience. But when the Word of God is added to them, together with invocation of the divine name, and the renewing of their first institution and sanctification, then these signs are consecrated, and shown to be sanctified by Christ. For Christ’s first institution and consecration of the sacraments remains always effectual in the Church of God, so that these who do not celebrate the sacraments in any other way than the Lord himself instituted from the beginning still today enjoy that first and all-​surpassing consecration. And hence in the celebration of the sacraments the very words of Christ are repeated. signs take name of things signified. And as we learn out of the Word of God that these signs were instituted for another purpose than the usual use, therefore we teach that they now, in their holy use, take upon them the names of things signified, and are no longer called mere water, bread or wine, but also regeneration or the washing of water, and the body and blood of the Lord or symbols and sacraments of the Lord’s body and blood. Not that the symbols are changed into the things signified, or cease to be what they are in their own nature. For otherwise they would not be sacraments. If they were only the thing signified, they would not be signs.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  209 the sacramental union. Therefore the signs acquire the names of things because they are mystical signs of sacred things, and because the signs and the things signified are sacramentally joined together; joined together, I say, or united by a mystical signification, and by the purpose or will of him who instituted the sacraments. For the water, bread, and wine are not common, but holy signs. And he that instituted water in baptism did not institute it with the will and intention that the faithful should only be sprinkled by the water of baptism; and he who commanded the bread to be eaten and the wine to be drunk in the supper did not want the faithful to receive only bread and wine without any mystery as they eat bread in their homes; but that they should spiritually partake of the things signified, and by faith be truly cleansed from their sins, and partake of Christ. the sects. And, therefore, we do not at all approve of those who attribute the sanctification of the sacraments to I know not what properties and formula or to the power of words pronounced by one who is consecrated and who has the intention of consecrating, and to other accidental things which neither Christ or the apostles delivered to us by word or example. Neither do we approve of the doctrine of those who speak of the sacraments just as common signs, not sanctified and effectual. Nor do we approve of those who despise the visible aspect of the sacraments because of the invisible, and so believe the signs to be superfluous because they think they already enjoy the things themselves, as the Messalians are said to have held. the thing signified is neither included in or bound to the sacraments. We do not approve of the doctrine of those who teach that grace and the things signified are so bound to and included in the signs that whoever participate outwardly in the signs, no matter what sort of persons they be, also inwardly participate in the grace and things signified. However, as we do not estimate the value of the sacraments by the worthiness or unworthiness of the ministers, so we do not estimate it by the condition of those who receive them. For we know that the value of the sacraments depends upon faith and upon the truthfulness and pure goodness of God. For as the Word of God remains the true Word of God, in which, when it is preached, not only bare words are repeated, but at the same time the things signified or announced in words are offered by God, even if the ungodly and unbelievers hear and understand the words yet do not enjoy the things signified, because they do not receive them by true faith; so the sacraments, which by the Word consist of signs and the things signified, remain true and inviolate sacraments, signifying not only sacred things, but, by God

210  Font of Pardon and New Life offering, the things signified, even if unbelievers do not receive the things offered. This is not the fault of God who gives and offers them, but the fault of men who receive them without faith and illegitimately; but whose unbelief does not invalidate the faithfulness of God (Rom. 3:3 f.). Chapter XX Of Holy Baptism the institution of baptism. Baptism was instituted and consecrated by God. First John baptized, who dipped Christ in the water in Jordan. From him it came to the apostles, who also baptized with water. The Lord expressly commanded them to preach the Gospel and to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). And in The Acts, Peter said to the Jews who inquired what they ought to do: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:37 f.). Hence by some baptism is called a sign of initiation for God’s people, since by it the elect of God are consecrated to God. one baptism. There is but one baptism in the Church of God; and it is sufficient to be once baptized or consecrated unto God. For baptism once received continues for all of life, and is a perpetual sealing of our adoption. what it means to be baptized. Now to be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered, and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God; yes, and in this life to be called after the name of God; that is to say, to be called a son of God; to be cleansed also from the filthiness of sins, and to be granted the manifold grace of God, in order to lead a new and innocent life. Baptism, therefore, calls to mind and renews the great favor God has shown to the race of mortal men. For we are all born in the pollution of sin and are the children of wrath. But God, who is rich in mercy, freely cleanses us from our sins by the blood of his Son, and in him adopts us to be his sons, and by a holy covenant joins us to himself, and enriches us with various gifts, that we might live a new life. All these things are assured by baptism. For inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit and outwardly we receive the assurance of the greatest gifts in the water, by which also those great benefits are represented, and, as it were, set before our eyes to be beheld. we are baptized with water. And therefore we are baptized, that is, washed or sprinkled with visible water. For the water washes dirt away, and

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  211 cools and refreshes hot and tired bodies. And the grace of God performs these things for souls, and does so invisibly or spiritually.

The first thing to notice in these two chapters on the sacraments in general and baptism in particular is that the symbolic parallelism between sign and signified that was highlighted in the Consensus Tigurinus carries over into the Second Helvetic Confession. According to CT 8, “God grants within us by his Spirit that which the sacraments [outwardly] figure to our eyes and other senses” (italics added). Outer signs and inner grace must always be distinguished (CT 9), for it is not the elements of water, bread, and wine that offer us Christ but the promise attached to those signs (CT 10). The efficacy of the sacraments must be attributed solely to the work of God through the Holy Spirit, not to any inherent power in the elements themselves (CT 11–​13, 15): “It is Christ alone who truly baptizes within. . . . It is he who fulfils what the sacraments figure” (CT 14). And since what is signified can be appropriated only by faith, it is possible to receive the sign without receiving the thing itself (CT 17). These parallelist themes are all reiterated in the Second Helvetic Confession. By the sacraments God “seals his promises, and outwardly represents, and, as it were, offers unto our sight those things which inwardly he performs for us” (italics added). In baptism, “Inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit and outwardly we receive the assurance of the greatest gifts in the water. . . . For the water washes dirt away, and cools and refreshes hot and tired bodies. And the grace of God performs these things for souls” (italics added). Moreover, just as the sacramental signs must be distinguished from that which they signify, so also in the administration of the sacraments, the Lord must be distinguished from the minister of the Lord: it is the minister who imparts the outward signs, but the Lord who bestows their inward substance. Finally, says Bullinger, “We do not approve of the doctrine of those who teach that grace and the things signified are so bound to and included in the signs that whoever participate outwardly in the signs, no matter what sort of persons they be, also inwardly participate in the grace and things signified.” People can receive the sign, but if they do not do so in true faith, they remain bereft of the grace signified. That begs the question whether Bullinger sees any connection or union here between these signs and the parallel spiritual grace that they signify. More specifically, did the Second Helvetic Confession retain any of Calvin’s

212  Font of Pardon and New Life language of connection that was included in the Consensus Tigurinus? Six key terms and phrases from the CT will serve as test cases. 1. “Exhibit” (CT 5: “in order that Christ may exhibit [exhibeat] himself ”). The notion of the sacraments exhibiting, or more precisely, holding forth, presenting, or offering Christ to us, was a significant concept in Calvin’s sacramental theology. Two occurrences of exhibere in the base text that Calvin employed for the CT were removed or replaced over the course of the negotiations, probably because Bullinger sensed in the term too close of a tie between Christ as the internal substance of the sacrament and the external signs. When Calvin utilized exhibere again in CT 5, an entirely new article that he wrote for the CT, Bullinger probably let it pass only because the reference there is to Christ himself and not the sacramental signs as the focal point of the exhibition. Calvin did not make such a clear distinction; Christ’s exhibition (presentation) of himself happens by means of the sacraments.106 Nowhere, however, in the Second Helvetic Confession, does Bullinger use the term in this Calvinian sense. In the one place in Chapters 19 and 20 where exhibere does occur, it has nothing to do with sacramental efficacy. It is simply a statement in Bullinger’s comparison of the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments that “since Christ the true Messiah is exhibited [sit exhibitus]107 unto us, the sacraments of the old people are surely abrogated and have ceased.” The context makes clear that Bullinger is talking here only about the coming of Christ to earth at the dawn of the New Testament age. 2. “Through the sacraments” (CT 7: “that through them [per ea] God may testify, represent and seal his grace to us”; CT 12: “If any good thing is bestowed upon us through the sacraments [per sacramenta], it is not because of any inherent virtue”). Bullinger had fiercely objected to the use of the preposition per in any context where the sacramental signs were made to sound like instruments of our participation in Christ’s benefits. Indeed, he insisted that the phrase per sacramenta be removed from the original text of another article (CT 10). The fact that he acquiesced in its inclusion in CT 7 and 12 might have been because the references were ambiguous enough to be read in more than one

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  213 way.108 In any case, the phrase per sacramenta is nowhere to be found in the Second Helvetic Confession. 3. “Ministry of the sacraments” (CT 12: “[God] uses the ministry of the sacraments [sacramentorum ministerio]”). 4. “Helps/​ aids” (CT 12:  “[God] uses [the sacraments] as helps [adminicula], yet so that all the power remains with him alone.”; CT 14: “[Christ] uses these aids [adminicula] in such a way that the whole effect rests in his Spirit”).109 5. “Instrument(s)” (CT 13: “God uses the instrument [organo], but only in such a way that all the virtue is his. . . . [The sacraments] are indeed instruments by which [organa quibus] God acts efficaciously, when he so pleases”). One of Calvin’s favorite expressions for the sacraments, instrumenta, did not make it into the final text of the CT. Earlier he had employed it in the base text from which CT 13 was derived, but as a concession to Bullinger, he agreed to replace it with organa, which Bullinger likely regarded as a weaker term. Nevertheless, Calvin was able to weave other instrumental terminology into the CT—​ministerium and adminiculum as well as organum—​that throughout his writings he had used as synonyms for instrumentum to portray the sacraments as both means of assurance and means of grace. The ablative case of the relative pronoun quibus also connotes the means “by which” something is done; in this case, it refers to the sacraments as instruments (organa) by which God acts efficaciously when it so pleases him. Bullinger did not like any of this terminology, but he tolerated it in the CT either for the sake of compromise or because in context it could be interpreted in such a way that he could live with it.110 None of this language, however, would reappear in the explanation of the sacraments in the Second Helvetic Confession. 6. “Not disjoin” (CT 9: “Therefore although we draw a distinction, as we must, between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin [non disjungimus] the truth from the signs”). The assertion from CT 9 sounds more Calvinian than Bullingerian. Not to disjoin sign and signified suggests, of course, that they are in some way conjoined, and that is the very verb (coniungere) that Calvin had often selected

214  Font of Pardon and New Life in the years leading up to the CT to characterize the intimate connection between the truth, or grace, of the sacraments and their external signs.111 It may seem surprising, then, that Bullinger devotes a paragraph in ­chapter 19 of the Second Helvetic Confession to the “sacramental union” (unio sacramentalis) between the sign and the thing signified and employs Calvin’s favorite term (coniungantur) to describe that union.112 Is it the case that the Second Helvetic teaches an instrumentalist view of sacramental efficacy after all? The key here is what Bullinger means by that conjoining of sign and signified, and fortunately he provides some explanation. Sacramental union occurs in two ways: (1) “by a mystical signification,” that is, by the signs taking on the names of the sacred things they signify (for example, the water of regeneration in baptism); and (2) “by the purpose or will of him who instituted the sacraments,” that is, by God’s choosing to offer the thing signified along with the sign to those who come to the sacrament in faith.113 Bullinger, therefore, is not, as Bromiley maintained, bypassing the distinction between an instrumental and parallel view of the sacraments and proposing instead a mystical union between sign and signified. “The thing signified is neither included in nor bound to the sacraments” (chap. 19). Truth and sign remain distinct and parallel and are conjoined only in name and in being offered and received together. We conclude, then, along with Rohls, Koch, Jacobs, Gerrish, and others that what we encounter in the Second Helvetic Confession is a clear doctrine of sacramental parallelism, not instrumentalism. In both Bullinger’s introduction to the sacraments and his treatment of baptism, he employs explicit parallelist language and avoids instrumentalist terminology, even terms that he had allowed for in the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549. The Second Helvetic does include the idea of a sacramental union but defines it in a very restricted way. Therefore, the difference here with the Calvinian confessional tradition is not just one of emphasis, as Venema claimed,114 but of fundamentally different approaches to the mediation of spiritual reality through material means. The Zurich tradition, following Zwingli’s lead, saw the bestowal of grace taking place apart from the sacramental signs and action; the Genevan tradition, following the lead of Luther and Melanchthon, understood the bestowal of grace to take place through material channels.115 For Bullinger, the sacraments visibly signify and seal the invisible work of the Holy Spirit for the renewal and strengthening of faith; for Calvin they do that but also something more: they also function as actual means or instruments of grace.116

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  215

Thirty-​Nine Articles (1571) Introduction The Thirty-​Nine Articles were adopted as the official doctrinal statement of the Church of England in 1571, seven years after Calvin’s death. However, the confession had its origins in the early years of the English Reformation, around the time that Calvin was launching his ministry in Geneva and two to three decades before the publication of any of the confessional documents we have examined so far. They first appeared as the Thirteen Articles in 1538 during the reign of Henry VIII, then in revised form as the Forty-​Two Articles (1553) shortly before the death of Edward VI, and finally as the Thirty-​Eight Articles (1563) and Thirty-​Nine Articles (1571) after the accession of Elizabeth I.117 There are no known direct historical links between John Calvin and the Thirty-​Nine Articles; any Calvinian influence was, at most, indirect. The Thirteen Articles, drafted by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1538 near the beginning of the English Reformation, were heavily dependent on the first seventeen articles of Melanchthon’s Augsburg Confession (1530). However, the revised and expanded Forty-​Two Articles of 1553 represented a theological shift away from the Lutheran tradition, providing “arguably the most thorough and advanced systematic expression of Reformed doctrine at that time.”118 This version of the articles was also composed by Cranmer, but it reflected his close collaboration during the reign of boy king Edward VI with several continental Reformed theologians whom he had invited to England to assist with the Reformation. Two in particular are worthy of mention: Martin Bucer, Calvin’s mentor in Strasbourg (1538–​41), who served as an adviser to Cranmer on the 1552 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli, an Italian Calvinist, who was a member of the commission that drafted the Forty-​Two Articles and who over the years “mediated to the English reformation the mature Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper born in Strassburg and nurtured in Geneva.”119 The final editions of 1563 and 1571 were modified versions of the Forty-​Two Articles. Some parts of the text indicate additional Lutheran influence from Johannes Brenz’s Württemberg Confession (1552),120 an expanded revision of the Augsburg Confession, but “the sacramental sections . . . are widely understood to reflect the Swiss Reformed traditions.”121

216  Font of Pardon and New Life

Text and Analysis XXV. Of the Sacraments122 Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of sacraments with baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

As Riggs has noted, there may be echoes of Calvin’s definition of the sacraments in the opening sentence of this article.123 The phrase “witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us  .  .  .  [to] strengthen and confirm our faith in him” is reminiscent of the 1536 Institutes’ characterization of a sacrament as “an outward sign by which the Lord represents and attests to us his good will toward us to sustain the weakness of our faith.”124 The further reference in this article to the sacraments as “badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession” also recalls Calvin’s addition to his definition in the 1543 Institutes: in the sacraments “we in turn attest our piety toward [God].”125 The description of sacraments as not only signs and testimonies of God’s goodwill toward us but also as “effectual signs of grace” may even represent “a classically Reformed affirmation of the instrumental realism characteristic of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s sacramental theology . . . and . . . Art. 38 of the ‘French Confession,’ ”126 not to mention Calvin’s own view of the sacraments as instruments of grace.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  217 A couple notes of caution should be sounded, however, when it comes to claims of Reformed instrumental realism in Article 25. First, as Table 8.6 makes clear, much of the wording of Article 25 extends back via the Forty-​ Two Articles (1553) and Thirteen Articles (1538)127 not to Reformed sources but to Article 13 of the Augsburg Confession (1530).128 However Calvinian or classically Reformed this article may sound in its final form, therefore, its provenance was actually Lutheran, and more specifically the Lutheran theologian Philip Melanchthon. Second, although Cranmer added the phrase “effective/​effectual signs of grace” (efficacia signa gratiae) to the text from the Augsburg Confession in 1538 and retained it in all subsequent revisions, he does not specify how the sacraments are effectual signs, that is, what exactly it is that they effect. The clause “through them, God . . . pours out his grace into us invisibly,” which he had also introduced in the Thirteen Articles in 1538 and which comes closest to identifying the sacraments as instruments of grace, was removed in the editions of 1553 and 1571. Article 25 now read simply “by the which he doth work invisibly in us,” without any further elaboration. Even if one interprets the following phrase “and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and

Table 8.6  Similarities in the doctrine of the sacraments in the Thirty-​Nine/​ Forty-​Two Articles, Thirteen Articles, and Augsburg Confession Thirty-​Nine/​Forty-​Two Articles Article 26/​25

Thirteen Articles Article 9

Augsburg Confession Article 13

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.

We teach that the sacraments which have been instituted by the Word of God are not only signs of profession among Christians, but even more, sure witnesses and effective signs of grace and of God’s good will toward us. Through them, God works in us invisibly, and pours out his grace into us invisibly, if we receive them rightly, and faith is also awakened through them and confirmed in those who use them.

They teach that sacraments were instituted not only to be marks of profession among human beings but much more to be signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us, intended to arouse and strengthen faith in those who use them.

218  Font of Pardon and New Life confirm our faith in him” as a description of that invisible work within, the role of the sacraments here seems to be more as a means of knowledge and assurance than as instruments of the grace of forgiveness and new life. XXVII. Of Baptism Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.129

In Article 27’s treatment of baptism specifically, the familiar Calvinian approach to this sacrament as both a means of knowledge and assurance and an instrument of grace once again comes to the fore. As a “sign” of regeneration and a means by which the promises of forgiveness and adoption are “signed and sealed” and faith “confirmed,” baptism certainly serves to bring greater clarity, assurance, and strength of faith to the baptizand.130 But it also appears to function here as an instrument of the very grace to which those promises point. To be sure, it is described here as a sign of regeneration or new birth, but if Article 27 is read in light of Article 25, baptism could then be understood as an effectual sign of regeneration, a sign “whereby [per quod], as by an instrument [tamquam per instrumentum], they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church.”131 The close tie here between baptism, regeneration, and grafting into the church suggests that what Cranmer has in mind is not just initiation into the visible church through baptism but a spiritual engrafting into Christ and the body of true believers by virtue of the new life that is bestowed at baptism.132 This is corroborated by the language of the baptismal liturgy for children that one finds in the revised Book of Common Prayer (1552), which was also composed by Cranmer and published just a year before the text of the Forty-​Two Articles that Article 27 closely follows. Already in the words of the priest at the beginning of the ceremony, a link is established between baptism, regeneration, and reception into Christ’s church and kingdom:

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  219 dearely beloved, for asmuche as all men bee conceyved and borne in synne, and that oure Saviour Christ saith, none can entre into the kingdom of God (except he be regenerate and borne a newe of water and the holy Ghost); I beseche you to call upon God the father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercie, he will graunt to these children, that thing which by nature they cannot have, that they may be Baptized with water and the holy ghoste, and receyved into Christes holy church, and be made lyvely membres of the same.133

The liturgy here interprets Jesus’s statement to Nicodemus in John 3 that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless spiritually born again of water and the Spirit as a reference to baptism by water and the Spirit by which one becomes a living member of the spiritual body of Christ’s church. These connections between water baptism, Spirit baptism (new birth), and entry into the spiritual community of Christ are maintained throughout the rest of the liturgy. In the prayers and exhortations that follow, baptism is described as “the lauer of regeneration,” in which those baptized are “buried with Christ in his death” and receive a “heavenly washing,” that is, “remission of theyre sinnes by spirituall regeneracion.”134 The community into which they are engrafted by this spiritual birth is “the bodye of Christes congregacion,” which is more than just a visible organization. It is “the noumbre of [God’s] faythfull and electe children,” “the flock of the true Christian people,” and ultimately the “euerlasting kingdome” to which they are heirs.135 Article 27, therefore, with its own wording but also in the context of Article 25 and the Book of Common Prayer, portrays baptism as an instrument of the very salvific benefits it signifies and seals. So far the language of Article 27 of baptism as a means of grace is familiar from our study of Calvin, even though there is no evidence that Calvin directly influenced the Thirty-​Nine Articles. However, the assertion near the end of the article that “baptism is . . . a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, . . . grace is increased by virtue of prayer unto God” adds a dimension to the instrumental role of baptism that we have not encountered in Calvin. In suggesting that prayer is a means of grace within baptism, Cranmer may have in mind, once again, the Book of Common Prayer, where no fewer than five prayers by the priest or congregation are spread throughout the liturgy for baptism, often with explicit intercessions for various aspects of baptismal grace. Just before the administration of the water, for example, the priest beseeches God that “al thy servauntes which

220  Font of Pardon and New Life shalbe baptyzed in this water, may receyve the fulnesse of thy grace.”136 The efficacy of baptism in the Thirty-​Nine Articles, therefore, has to do not only with the moment or act of applying water to the baptizand but with all parts of the ritual, especially the prayers, that surround the action at the font.137

Westminster Standards (1646–​47) Introduction If Calvin had any influence on the doctrine of baptismal efficacy in the Westminster Standards, it would have been much more indirect than in the case of the other confessions and catechisms we have examined. By the time the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) were completed in the mid-​1640s, Calvin had been dead for eight decades, and his colleagues and students, some of whom had been involved in composing the major Reformed confessions of the sixteenth century, had also passed from the scene. Furthermore, the Westminster Standards were the product not of a single author or committee but an assembly of 121 English Puritan ministers and scholars—​largely Presbyterian, but all of whom brought to the debates their own personal histories and theological predilections. On the subject of baptism alone, it can be shown that “multiple streams of Reformed theology fed into the discussion . . . [and] the divines embraced not the views of one man but rather a constellation of testimony on the subject.”138 Finally, the Westminster Confession in particular reflected the development of Puritan Reformed theology during the age of scholastic orthodoxy, integrating for the first time such themes as the two-​covenant schema and double predestination into a confessional system of doctrine.139 In short, the confession and its accompanying catechisms embodied “a consensus of Reformed theology modified by [seventeenth-​ century] English Puritanism.”140 Nevertheless, possible links to Calvin should not be dismissed out of hand. Although Calvin is just one of some six hundred names that are mentioned in the minutes of the Westminster Assembly, he, along with Augustine and Beza, was still among those most often cited.141 In addition, some of the confessions written by his former students—​for example, the French Confession of Faith and Heidelberg Catechism—​are cited by or exerted some

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  221 influence on the Westminster divines, and the Thirty-​Nine Articles provided the initial basis and framework for the assembly’s doctrinal work.142 A recent study of the influence in England of one Calvin’s distinguished students, Zacharias Ursinus, concluded that “Ursinus’ Calvinism was a notable part of the stream of continental Reformed theology that flowed into England in the late sixteenth century and nourished young English Calvinists who would later take their places in the Assembly of the Divines.”143 Is it possible then, after all, that despite its historical distance from Calvin and the variety of later theological influences and developments in England that helped to shape it, the Westminster Confession presents “a clear restatement of Calvin’s sacramental theology in a later context”?144 For an answer to that, we must take a closer look at the texts of the confession and the larger of its two attendant catechisms.

Text and Analysis Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)145 Chapter XXVII Of the Sacraments I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him; as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. II. There is in every Sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the Sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a Sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. IV. There be only two Sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.

222  Font of Pardon and New Life V. The Sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New. Chapter XXVIII Of Baptism I. Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which Sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. II. The outward element to be used in this Sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in, and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized. V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time. VII. The Sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.

Westminster Larger Catechism (1647)146 Q . 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  223 whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted. Q . 162. What is a sacrament? A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without. Q . 163. What are the parts of a sacrament? A. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ’s own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified. Q . 164. How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament? A. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s supper. Q . 165. What is baptism? A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s. Q . 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. Q. 167. How is our baptism to be improved by us? A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled

224  Font of Pardon and New Life for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavouring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body. Like the broader Reformed tradition of which they were a part, the Westminster Confession and Larger Catechism begin by defining sacraments as means of knowledge and assurance, though with an added focus on the covenant of grace. Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant that represent Christ and his benefits to us, “confirm our interest in him” (that is, build up our relationship to him), and strengthen and increase our faith (WCF 27.1; WLC, Q/​A 162). The sacrament of baptism in particular reminds and assures us of the covenant of grace, our ingrafting into Christ, remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and resurrection to eternal life (WCF 28.1; WLC Q/​A 165). However, the confession and catechism also indicate that sacraments are more than this, that they are also means by which the grace they signify and seal is actually conveyed. There is, first of all, “a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified” (WCF 27.2). Though the confession does not make clear what exactly that sacramental union is, the subsequent assertion that “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it” (WCF 28.5) implies by negation that grace is indeed “annexed” to the sacramental sign. Such grace is not only signified and sealed but also “exhibited,” that is, presented or offered “in or by the Sacraments” (WCF 27.3; WLC Q/​ A 162). Even the sacraments of the Old Testament “exhibited” what were in substance the same “spiritual things” as those of the New Testament” (WCF 27.5). In the right use of the sacraments, this annexed and exhibited grace is then “conferred”—​again, put negatively, “not conferred by any power in them” but by implication conferred nonetheless.147 They thus become “effectual means of salvation” (WLC Q/​A 161), and what is then strengthened and increased in these holy ordinances is not only faith but also “all other graces” (WLC Q/​A 162).

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  225 Much of the discussion of the efficacy of baptism in the Westminster Confession has centered on the meaning of ­chapter 28.6: VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

Here there is mention once again of the exhibition of grace and for the first time an explicit positive reference to that grace being “conferred” by the Holy Spirit. David Wright has read this as a straightforward affirmation of baptismal regeneration. He acknowledges that the confession adds certain qualifications to this doctrinal claim: the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of administration (28.6), and the grace of baptism is not linked to the external sign so closely that nobody can be saved without baptism or that all who are baptized are saved (28.5). Yet in his view, these qualifications only make the main point clearer: “The Westminster divines viewed baptism as the instrument and occasion of regeneration by the Spirit, of the remission of sins, of ingrafting into Christ (cf. 28.1). The Confession teaches baptismal regeneration.”148 J. V. Fesko, however, understands this paragraph quite differently. He is uncomfortable with Wright’s use of the term “baptismal regeneration” because it suggests a Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental efficacy ex opere operato. He points out that nowhere does the confession state that one is regenerated by baptism;149 in fact, paragraph 27.3 takes great pains to downplay the power of the sign and to emphasize the roles of the Word and the Holy Spirit instead. Rather than highlighting the regenerative role of baptism, the qualifications added in ­chapter 28 rule it out, making clear that “just because a person is baptized, he or she does not automatically receive the grace annexed to it. The person might receive it later in life, or not at all if he or she is not elect.”150 Fesko also notes that as the Westminster divines debated “the way in which God’s grace accompanies the sacrament of baptism” (italics added), they never applied the term “instrument” to it, even though they had that word at their disposal in the text of the Thirty-​Nine Articles.151 Where one ends up in this discussion depends in part on how one interprets the assertion that “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of time

226  Font of Pardon and New Life wherein it is administered” (28.6). To use Richard Lusk’s terminology, this could be understood as a reference to either a “perpetual efficacy” or a “latent efficacy” in baptism.152 According to the first view, his own preference, the Westminster Confession is saying that the efficacy of baptism is not limited to the time in which it is administered. Ordinarily, the grace of baptism is offered, exhibited, and conferred by the Holy Spirit at the usual “appointed time,” namely, the moment of baptism itself, but the power and fruit of the baptism extend beyond that moment to the whole of the individual’s life. This was the divines’ way of addressing the Roman Catholic teaching that the sacrament of penance was necessary as an antidote to postbaptismal sin. For additional evidence, Lusk points to parallel statements in the Westminster Directory for Public Worship and several other Reformed confessions that appear to substantiate this interpretation.153 From the perspective of latent efficacy, however, the confession is saying that the conferral of grace is not necessarily connected to the moment in which the sacrament is administered. According to William Evans, “The efficacy of the sacrament is not mechanically and temporally tied to the moment of administration, but when rightly used (i.e., with the proper response of faith), saving grace is efficaciously conferred at the appointed time upon those whom God has chosen.” A valid baptism, therefore, has a dormant or hidden efficacy associated with it: it may not take effect until long after the time it is administered. This, Evans concludes, is “a rather straightforward example of the Calvinian offer and reception model,” seeing as Calvin too often reflected on how the efficacy of one’s infant baptism, including his own, may be delayed until later in life.154 These manifold interpretations of the sixth paragraph of WCF 28 only add to the difficulty of determining whether the Westminster Confession contains, as Riggs claimed, “a clear restatement of Calvin’s sacramental theology in a later context.”155 In some respects, the answer can be affirmative, for there are indeed several formal similarities. Like Calvin, both the confession and the catechism view the sacraments not only as means of knowledge and assurance but also as “effectual means of salvation” (WLC Q/​A 161). Like Calvin they understand grace to be annexed to the sacrament of baptism and exhibited and conferred when the sacrament is properly administered. And like Calvin, they carefully qualify and balance this objective dimension of baptism by insisting that sacramental efficacy is dependent not on the power of the sign itself but on the sovereign will of God, the connection to the Word, the response of human faith,156 and the work of the Holy Spirit.157

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  227 To maintain, however, that what we have in the Westminster Standards is a “clear restatement of Calvin’s sacramental theology” is not true in every respect, especially when it comes to baptismal efficacy. The Westminster Confession includes a brief paragraph (27.2) on the “sacramental union” between sign and signified, but it defines that union rather vaguely as a “spiritual relation” that accounts for the occasional attribution in Scripture of the terms and effects of the thing signified to the sign. The closest the confession comes to Calvin’s language of an attachment between regeneration and the water of baptism is in the negative assertion that “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to [baptism], as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated” (28.5). Furthermore, as Fesko pointed out, the Westminster divines never describe baptism, as Calvin often did, as an instrumentum by which the Spirit confers grace, even though that term did appear in one of their base texts, the Thirty-​Nine Articles.158 As the debate between Lusk and Evans bears out, it is not immediately clear either what WCF 27.6 intends to teach about the timing of the efficacy of baptism. In our judgment, a stronger case can be made for latent efficacy than for perpetual efficacy, even though the evidence is not conclusive. Something that has not gotten much attention in this debate is that the confession’s biblical proof text for the statement “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered” is John 3:5, 8: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. . . . The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (KJV). The authors of the confession probably understood the phrase “born of water and of the Spirit” in verse 5 as a reference to regeneration through the combination of water baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit. By going on to cite verse 8, where Jesus compares the regenerative work of the Spirit to the wind, which “bloweth where it listeth [pleases],” the divines were trying to highlight the freedom of God in the work of salvation. To declare that “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of time wherein it is administered,” therefore, is another way of saying that the Holy Spirit “will not tether his work to his sacraments.”159 Paragraph 28.6 then proceeds to qualify this with a sentence introduced by the adversative “yet, notwithstanding,” apparently suggesting that despite the Spirit’s freedom in conferring the grace of baptism, something important

228  Font of Pardon and New Life still happens in the sacrament itself. When baptism is properly administered, the grace promised there is offered, exhibited, and then ultimately conferred at the time of the Spirit’s choosing. Even if such grace is bestowed after the baptismal ceremony, the conferral is still connected to that baptism; grace is conferred only because the individual has been baptized to begin with. The sacrament, in other words, provides the spiritual foundation or starting point for an efficacy that manifests itself later on. The efficacy is thus an extension or outworking of the original baptism.160 Once again, this bears some similarity to Calvin’s thought, in this case his notion of delayed efficacy. Calvin, too, had insisted that “it is erroneous to infer that the free course of Divine grace is tied down to instants of time.”161 Indeed, “No necessity must be imagined so as to prevent his grace from sometimes preceding, sometimes following, the use of the sign.”162 But Calvin also speaks in the Second Defence about seeds of salvation, particularly regeneration, and in the last edition of the Institutes about seeds of future faith and repentance that are planted in (infant) baptism and bear fruit later in life.163 In the case of regeneration, this usually occurs by way of a gradual development over time: “Renovation begun by the sacred laver is perfected by progress.”164 If this is what WCF 28.6 has in mind in the qualifying sentence “Yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost . . . in his appointed time,” then it can indeed be considered Calvinian, at least formally so. But it is not immediately evident that this is what paragraph 28.6 is espousing, and the text is open to other interpretations. In the formulation of this aspect of baptismal efficacy, therefore, the Westminster Confession is not as “clear” a restatement of Calvin’s theology of the sacraments or as “straightforward” an example of the Calvinian model as what some in the past have maintained.165

Assessment It is not easy to assess past scholarship on the legacy of Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy in the Reformed confessions because, as I noted at the beginning of this chapter, relatively little attention has been paid to this question. My own analysis, however, confirms with respect to baptism the claim that Rohls once made about the sacraments in general: Calvin’s view that “the external symbolic action definitely has an instrumental character insofar as

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  229 through this action God works grace internally” became the dominant position in the Reformed confessions166—​if by dominant view one means the number of important confessional documents in which it appears. In addition to the lesser-​known Bremen Consensus and Irish Articles mentioned by Rohls, six of the eight major confessions we have examined—​the French Confession, Scots Confession, Belgic Confession, Thirty-​Nine Articles, and to some degree the Westminster Confession and Larger Catechism—​display Calvinian features in their doctrines of baptismal efficacy, even when direct historical or literary links to Calvin himself cannot be demonstrated. Among these Calvinian elements are a parallelism, but not mere parallelism, between physical and spiritual baptism; a view of the sacrament as not only a means of knowledge and assurance but also a means of grace; a conjunction between sign and signified; the use of instrumental language to describe the sign of baptism; a middle position between an overvaluation (confusion of sign and signified) and undervaluation (separation of sign and signified) of the external sign; the phenomenon of delayed efficacy; and an insistence that baptism is only efficacious in connection with the biblical Word, the Spirit, divine election, and the response of faith. The approach to baptismal efficacy in the Heidelberg Catechism and Second Helvetic Confession is of a different sort, better described, in Gerrish’s terminology, as “symbolic parallelism” than “symbolic instrumentalism.” Calvin did not reject the parallelism between the external and internal washing of baptism, but for him and the confessions in his lineage the two were more than parallel. As Rohls put it, “The external washing can also be understood as a means of grace in the strict sense: that is, neither merely as a confessional sign of a grace that has already been imparted, nor as a mere pledge of the communication of grace, but as the instrument of that communication.”167 For both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Second Helvetic Confession, this reticence to go beyond symbolic parallelism was intentional, but for different reasons:  the authors of the Heidelberger intended to leave room for as wide a spectrum of Protestant views on the sacraments as possible; Bullinger in the Second Helvetic sought to steer clear of language that might sound too Roman Catholic or Lutheran, even though, as we have seen, he had allowed for some instrumental language in the Consensus Tigurinus seventeen years before. The baptismal theology of these latter two confessions, therefore, is still broadly Reformed, but when it comes to the efficacy of baptism, their teaching cannot be termed “Calvinian.”

230  Font of Pardon and New Life

Notes 1. Rohls, Reformed Confessions, 185. 2. Ibid., 211. 3. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition,  79–​87. 4. Rorem, “Consensus Tigurinus (1549),” 90. 5. The phrase is from Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Historical Theology, s.v. “Reformed Confessions and Catechisms” (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000). 6. The Westminster Assembly also produced the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), but it is basically an abridgement of the Larger Catechism. 7. For one example of the role that these confessions have played in current ecumenical discussions of baptism, see “These Living Waters: Common Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism:  A Report of the Catholic-​Reformed Dialogue in United States, 2003–​2007,” 14, 49, accessed March 9, 2020, http://​www.usccb.org/​beliefs-​ and-​teachings/​ecumenical-​and-​interreligious/​ecumenical/​reformed/​upload/​These-​ Living-​Waters.pdf. 8. The following summary of the traditional view is based on introductions to the confession by Arthur C. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1966), 137–​ 40; Emidio Campi, ed., “Confessio Gallicana, 1559/​1571, mit dem Bekenntnis der Waldenser, 1560,” in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, ed. Andreas Mühling and Peter Opitz et al., vol. 2/​1, 1559–​1563, ed. Mihály Bucsay et  al. (Neukirchen-​Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 1–​16; James T. Dennison, Jr., ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, vol. 2, 1552–​1566 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 140–​41; and Gianmarci Braghi, “Between Paris and Geneva: Some Remarks on the Approval of the Gallican Confession (May 1559),” Journal of Early Modern Christianity 5/​2 (2018): 198–​200. 9. Based on the research of Hannelore Jahr, Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Confession de foi von 1559, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, vol. 16 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), Campi (Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​ 1:4) concludes that the Genevan draft only “in sehr beschränktem Maβe Entlehnungen aus [the 1557 Confession de foi de l’eglise de Paris] aufweist.” 10. Braghi, “Between Paris and Geneva,” 199–​202. 11. Ibid.,  201–​2. 12. Ibid.,  202. 13. Ibid.,  209. 14. Ibid.,  217. 15. Cf. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 79: “The sacramental sections (articles 34–​38) are concise, to the point, and reminiscent of Calvin.” 16. This English translation of the French Confession is found side by side with the original French text in Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed., vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds with Translations (1931; reprint, Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1990), 356–​82 (Art. 28, pp.  375–​76). For a

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  231 recent critical edition of the French text, edited by Emidio Campi, see Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​1:17–​29. 17. Campi’s critical edition reads “l’efficace et vertu du Baptesme.” Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​1:25 (italics added). 18. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 100. See also “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 135 (Q/​ A 339), and Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 233 (comm. on Acts 8:13). 19. See, e.g., Calvin: Institutes, 2:1284 (4.14.9; CO 1:944); “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131 (Q/​A 313; CO 6:114); Calvin, Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 218 (COR 2/​ 12.2:222; comm. on Acts 22:16); “Mutual Consent,” 222–​23 (CO 9:17). 20. Calvin, Second Defence, 342. 21. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:378–​80. 22. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87. 23. Ibid. 24. Cf. very similar language in Calvin, The Form of Prayers, in Fisher, Christian Initiation, 114–​15: “[Because] these two things [remission and renewal] are accomplished in us by the grace of Jesus Christ, it follows that the truth and substance of baptism consists in him. For we have no other washing but his blood, and we have no other renewal but in his death and resurrection.” Cf. also Calvin’s reference to the “perpetual virtue and utility” of baptism. Second Defence, 343; see also “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 134 (Q/​A 333). 25. Cf. Cornelis P. Venema, “Sacraments and Baptism in the Reformed Confessions,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 11 (2000): 31: “[According to Article 34,] God has so conjoined the sacramental sign with the grace of Jesus X that they are instrumental to the communication of that grace.” 26. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:380–​81. 27. Dennison (Reformed Confessions 2:153) translates this phrase as “truly witnesses unto us.” 28. The verb in Campi’s critical edition is “conioingnons.” Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​1:28 (italics added). 29. E.g., Calvin, COR 2/​13:119 (comm. on Rom. 6:4; 1540 text only); First Epistle to the Corinthians, 203 (CO 49:454; comm. on 1 Cor. 10:3), 205 (CO 49:455; comm. on 1 Cor. 10:4); Acts of the Council of Trent, 174–​75 (CO 7:494; antidote to Session 7, Canon 6, on the sacraments in general); Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 68–​69 (COR 2/​16:86–​87; comm. on Gal. 3:27), 332–​33 (COR 2/​16:427; comm. on Col. 2:12); Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 382–​83 (CO 52:431; comm. on Titus 3:5); Catholic Epistles, 118–​19 (COR 2/​20:105; comm. on 1 Peter 3:21); Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 210–​11 (CO 36:132–​33; comm. on Is. 6:7); “Mutual Consent,” 225 (CO 9:18–​19), 227 (CO 9:20), 229 (CO 9:22–​23). 30. W. Ian P. Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560: Context, Complexion, and Critque,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 78 (1987): 287. 31. John Knox, Letter to Anne Lok, 1554, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Liang (Edinburgh:  Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1855), 4:240, quoted in W. Stanford Reid, Trumpeter of God:  A Biography of John Knox (New  York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), 132.

232  Font of Pardon and New Life 32. For examples of this view, see Hazlett, “Scots Confesssion 1560,” 287 nn. 1a, 2. 33. See Hazlett’s introduction to the Scots Confession in Mühling et  al., Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​1:211–​12, and Hazlett, “Scots Confesssion 1560,” 302. 34. Hazlett, “Scots Confesssion 1560,” 302–​4. 35. Ibid., 301, 319. 36. Alax C. Cheyne, “The Scots Confession of 1560,” Theology Today 17/​3 (October 1960): 332. 37. Ibid., 331–​32. See also pp. 324, 328, 334, 336. 38. Douglas J.  W. Milne, “Learning the Faith with the Scots Confession,” Reformed Theological Review 69/​3 (December 2010): 212. 39. Michael Owen, “The Structure of the Scots Confession of 1560,” Colloquium 36/​1 (May 2004): 50, 56: “In some points of fundamental significance and in its overall character, the Scots Confession reveals an independent line of thought and makes its own separate contribution. . . . The possibility of so working within the four-​fold structure of the Creed was exemplified by . . . the Institutes of 1559. The Confession has adopted that model and, to a considerable extent, follows Calvin’s sequence of topics.” 40. Alexander R. MacEwen, A History of the Church in Scotland (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1918), 2:159, quoted in Hazlett, “Scots Confesssion 1560,” 288. 41. This version of the Scots Confession is found in The Book of Confessions, pt. 1 of The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (Louisville:  Office of the General Assembly, 2002), 11–​25 (chap.  21, pp.  21–​22), which is reprinted from The Scots Confession 1560, edited by G. D. Henderson with a rendering into modern English by James Bulloch (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960), 58–​80. For a recent critical edition of the text, edited by Ian Hazlett, see Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​ 1:240–​99. An early Latin translation can be found in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:437–​79. 42. The Latin text reads, “per baptismum nos in Christum inseri.” Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3:468 (italics added). 43. For some of the earliest expressions of this point in Calvin, see Calvin, Institutes (1536), 88–​91; Calvin: Institutes [1539], 2:1284 (4.14.9), 1293 (4.14.17). 44. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1291–​92 (4.14.16). 45. Nicolaas H. Gootjes, The Belgic Confession:  Its History and Sources (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 59–​70. 46. For a recent biography of de Brès, see Émile Braekman and Erik de Boer, eds., Guido de Bres: Zijn Leven, Zijn Belijden (Utrecht: Kok, 2011). 47. Gootjes devotes an entire chapter to the authorship question in Belgic Confession,  33–​58. 48. Ibid.,  60–​62. 49. Ibid.,  62–​67. 50. The English translation is by Gootjes, ibid., 68. The Latin original can be found in CO 10/​1:224–​26 and in Gootjes, Belgic Confession, 199–​200. 51. Gootjes, Belgic Confession,  67–​70. 52. Ibid.,  70.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  233 53. This English translation of the Belgic Confession is found in Our Faith: Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources (Grand Rapids:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013), 26–​68 (Art. 15, p. 40). For the most recent critical edition of de Brès’s 1561 French text, edited by Eberhard Busch, see Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​1:324–​43. I will be referring to the revised 1580 French version, which was further revised at the Synod of Dort in 1619 and is reprinted in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:383–​436. It is this latter text on which the English translation in Our Faith is based. 54. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:365–​66. 55. “Though the article dealing with original sin (XV) implies that baptism is efficacious to remove some of the guilt and corruption of original sin, its explicit purpose is to oppose the exaggerated view in the RCC of the sacrament’s efficacy to expunge original sin.” Venema, “Sacraments and Baptism,” 40. 56. The Teaching of the Catholic Church: As Contained in Her Documents, originally prepared by Josef Neuner and Heinrich Roos, ed. Karl Rahner, trans. Geoffrey Stevens (New York: Alba House, 1967), 139. 57. A better translation of this clause, “même qu’aprés le baptême, c’est toujours péché quant á la coulpe,” might be “even after baptism it is always sin with respect to its culpability.” 58. Our Faith,  58–​59. 59. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:378–​79. 60. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87, 90, 91. 61. Gootjes, Belgic Confession, 89. 62. The French text of Belgic Confession, Art. 33, is found in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:424. For the French text of Beza’s Confession of the Christian Faith, Art. 31, see Theodore Beza, Confession de la foy chrestienne (Geneva: Conrad Badius, 1559), 89–​90; for the English translation, see “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 2, 1552–​1566 (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 284. 63. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:424. 64. Cf. Venema, “Sacraments and Baptism,” 42: “The sacraments, accordingly, are . . . effective instruments in presenting and communicating Jesus X to his church.” Venema adds in n. 21: “In this emphasis, the Belgic Confession follows Calvin who insisted that the sacraments not only ‘exhibit’ but also ‘confer’ the grace of Christ upon believers.” 65. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:430. 66. Our Faith,  59–​61. 67. Here the impact of baptism on original corruption that is implied in Art. 15 is made more explicit. 68. Calvin explicitly described baptismal forgiveness as a kind of cleansing in a body-​ soul parallelism that anticipates the language of Belgic Confession Art. 34: “Q. What similarity has water to these things, that it represents them? A. Forgiveness of sins is

234  Font of Pardon and New Life a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from all their stains, just as bodily defilements are washed away by water.” “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133 (Q/​ A 325). 69. Fred H. Klooster, “Calvin’s Attitude to the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, ed. Charles G. Nauert Jr., vol. 22 (Kirksville, MO:  Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994), 318–​21. 70. Ibid., 321–​31. 71. Lyle D. Bierma, “The Purpose and Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Lyle D. Bierma et al., An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids:  Baker Academic, 2005), 57–​74; Bierma, The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism:  A Reformation Synthesis, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013), 8–​9. 72. J. F. Gerhard Goeters, e.g., characterized Olevianus as “der wichstigste Calvinschüler deutscher Zunge.” Theologische Realenzyklopädie, s.v. “Olevian, Kaspar (1536–​1587)” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995). 73. Caspar Olevianus, Institutionis Christianae Religionis Eptiome:  Ex Institutione Johannis Calvinae excerpta, authoris methodo et verbis retentis. Cum Praefatione Gasparis Oleviani, ad Theodorum Bezam, in qua editionis consilium exponitur (Herborn: Christophorus Corvinus, 1586). 74. Erdmann Sturm, Der junge Zacharias Ursin:  Sein Weg vom Philippismus zum Calvinismus (1534–​1562) (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972). 75. Wilhem H. Neuser, “Die Übersetzung des Genfer Katechismus (1542/​1545) ins Deutsche durch Zacharias Ursinus im Jahr 1563,” Koers 74/​4 (2009): 683–​700. 76. See, e.g., Maurits A. Gooszen, “Inleiding,” in De Heidelbergsche Catechismus: Textus Receptus met Toelichtende Teksten (Leiden: Brill, 1890), 51–​53. 77. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 100. The English translation of the Heidelberg Catechism used throughout this section is found in Our Faith, 69–​117 (Q & A 43, p. 83). For a critical edition of the original German text, see “Heidelberger Katechismus von 1563,” ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, ed. Andreas Mühling and Peter Optiz et al., vol. 2/​2, 1562–​ 1569, ed. Mihály Bucsay et al. (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 167–​212. 78. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 110, 111; Our Faith, 106. 79. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 125; Our Faith, 114–​15. 80. For additional examples, see Bierma, Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism, 57–​59, 105–​7, 113–​14. 81. Charles D. Gunnoe Jr., “The Reformation of the Palatinate and the Origins of the Heidelberg Catechism, 1500–​1562,” in Bierma et al., Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 47. 82. Lyle D. Bierma, “The Sources and Theological Orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Bierma et  al., Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 75–​102; Bierma, Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism,  1–​12.

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  235 83. For examples of proponents of each of these positions, see Bierma, Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism, 2–​5, 71–​72, and Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 155–​56  n. 33. 84. Wilhelm Neuser, “Die Väter des Heidelberger Katechismus,” Theologische Zeitschrift 35 (1979): 185–​86; Neuser, “Die Erwählungslehre im Heidelberger Katechismus,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 75 (1964): 311. 85. Our Faith,  91–​92. 86. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 131. 87. Bierma, Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism,  73–​75. 88. “Die Sakramente sind Heilsmittel. Dem Einwand, ‘bestätigen’ bedeute, dem Glauben werde nur gegeben, was er schon besitze, tritt Frage 66 entgegen:  Sakramente sind eingesetzt, damit Gott ‘durch den Gebrauch derselben die Verheissung des Evangeliums desto besser zu verstehen gebe und versiegle.’ Die Sakramente besitzen Gabecharakter.” Neuser, “Väter des Heidelberger Katechismus,” 185–​86. 89. Zacharias Ursinus, “The Smaller Catechism,” trans. Lyle D. Bierma, in Bierma et al., Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 150. The Latin text on which this English translation is based, “Catechesis minor, perspicua brevitate christianam fidem complectens,” is found in Der Heidelberger Katechismus und vier verwandte Katechismen, ed. August Lang (Leipzig:  Deichert, 1907), 200–​218 (Q/​A 53, p. 208). 90. Zacharias Ursinus, “Catechesis, Summa Theologiae per quaestiones et responsiones exposita:  sive capita religionis Christianae continens,” in Lang, Der Heidelberger Katechismus, 190, 192. English translation: “The Larger Catechism,” trans. Lyle D. Bierma, in Bierma et al., Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 163–​223 (Q/​A 266–​67, p. 212; Q/​A 278, p. 214). 91. Our Faith,  92–​94. 92. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133. 93. For this interpretation, see Rohls, Reformed Confessions, 211. 94. Riggs cites a number of examples from both traditions in Baptism in the Reformed Tradition,  80–​81. 95. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133. 96. Our Faith, 60. 97. Calvin, Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, 206 (comm. on Eph. 5:26). 98. “The Consensus Tigurinus,” trans. Bunting, 55. 99. Cf. Campi, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 34: “Obwohl der Consensus nie eigentlich den Rang einer Bekenntnisschrift erlangte, ist das Verdienst seiner Urheber meines Erachtens kaum weniger gross, besteht es doch darin, erstmals die reformierte Abendmahlslehre erarbeitet zu haben, die im Heidelberger Katechismus und im Zweiten Helvetischen Bekenntnis ihre klassische Formulierung finden sollte.” 100. Emidio Campi, ed., “Confessio Helvetica posterior, 1566,” in Mühling et  al., Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​2:243, 246–​47, 255–​56. Campi adds, “Das Zweite Helvetische Bekenntnis  .  .  .  zusammen mit dem Heidelberger Katechismus [ist] nahezu Allgemeingut des reformierten Protestantismus geworden” (243).

236  Font of Pardon and New Life 101. Rohls, Reformed Confessions, 182–​83. 102. Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, vol. 27 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 277–​78; Paul Jacobs, Theologie Reformierter Bekenntnisschriften in Grundzügen (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959), 58. Cf. also Gerrish, “Sign and Reality,” 124. 103. Venema, “Sacraments and Baptism,” 78 n. 61. Cf. also p. 76: “All of the Reformed confessions grope for words to express simultaneously the most intimate conjunction between the sacramental sign and the grace signified, as well as the necessary distinction between them. . . . The sacraments function instrumentally to communicate the grace of God in X, but only when the Holy Spirit works through them to strengthen the believer in faith.” 104. Bromiley, “Baptism in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms,” 410. 105. This English translation of the Second Helvetic Confession is found in The Book of Confessions, pt. 1 of The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (Louisville: Office of the General Assembly, 2002), 53–​116 (chap. 19, pp. 96–​100), which is reprinted from Cochrane, Reformed Confessions, 220–​301 (Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 2:810, claims that Cochrane’s citation of the proof texts in the confession is often incorrect). For a recent critical edition of the Latin text, edited by Emidio Campi, see Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​2:268–​345. 106. See ­chapter 5. 107. Campi, Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​2:325. 108. See ­chapter 5. 109. Torrance Kirby’s English translation of the CT renders adminicula as “supporting instruments” in Art. 12 and “instruments” in Art. 14. Campi and Ruedi, Consensus Tigurinus, 262. 110. See ­chapter 5. 111. For examples, see ­chapter 5. 112. Campi, Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​2:325. 113. Koch, Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior, 275–​76. 114. Venema, “Sacraments and Baptism,” 77–​78 n. 61. 115. David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2001), 109–​12. 116. Campi, Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​2:253. 117. For some historical background to the Thirty-​Nine Articles, see the introduction to the recent critical edition by W. J. Torrance Kirby, ed., “The Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1563/​1571) commonly called the ‘Thirty-​Nine Articles,’” in Mühling et al., Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​1:371–​76. 118. Kirby, Articles of Religion, 373. 119. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings, 113. 120. Kirby, Articles of Religion, 372. 121. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 83. Cf. Kirby’s comment (Articles of Religion, 373)  that “in doctrinal substance, particularly on crucial matters concerning Grace and the Sacraments, the ‘Articles’ are comparable to both the ‘French

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  237 Confession’ of 1559 and the ‘Second Helvetic Confession’ of 1566, authored by Jean Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger respectively.” Cf. also Mark A. Noll, ed., Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1991), 212:  “On baptism . . . and on the Lord’s Supper . . . the articles resemble Reformed and Calvinistic beliefs more than Lutheran.” 122. This English text of the Thirty-​Nine Articles is found in Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 2:754–​68 (Art. 25, pp. 762–​63). Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:487–​ 516, provides side-​by-​side texts of the 1563 Latin edition, 1571 English edition, and the 1801 American revision, respectively. A recent critical edition, edited by W. J. Torrance Kirby, can be found in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 2/​1:377–​410. 123. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 83. 124. Calvin, Institutes (1536), 87. 125. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1277 (4.14.1). 126. Kirby, “Articles of Religion,” 396 n. 108. Kirby, however, mistakenly characterizes the phrase “effectual signs of grace” as “a significant revision of the 1553 text” (ibid.). In point of fact, the phrase was already present not only in the 1553 text but also in the Thirteen Articles of 1538. 127. “The Thirteen Articles with Three Additional Articles, 1538,” in Documents of the English Reformation, ed. Gerald Bray (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 198. 128. “The Augsburg Confession (1530) [Latin Text],” in The Book of Concord:  The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, trans. Charles Arand et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 47. Cf. Kirby, “Articles of Religion,” 396 n. 106. 129. Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 2:763. 130. Cf. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Baptism in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms,” in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 171 (Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 410:  “The Thirty-​Nine Articles support an instrumental view. . . . Baptism is ‘an instrument’ whereby ‘they that receive it rightly’ receive a visible sign and seal of the divine promises. We do not read, of course, that they receive a fulfillment of the promises, only a sign and seal that they have received or will receive this. By baptism, however, the Spirit effectually enhances the faith that God grants what he has promised.” 131. The Latin text of Article 27 is found in “The Forty-​Two Articles, 1553; The Thirty-​ Eight Articles, 1563; The Thirty-​Nine Articles, 1571,” in Documents of the English Reformation, ed. Gerald Bray (Minneapolis:  Fortress, 1994), 301. For a recent critical edition, see “The Forty-​Two Articles (1552/​1553),” ed. Gerald L. Bray, in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, ed. Heiner Faulenbach and Eberhard Busch et al., vol. 1/​3, 1550–​1558, ed. Judith Becker et  al. (Neukirchen-​Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 233–​47. 132. Kirby, “Articles of Religion,” 399 n. 118: “As in Art. 25, ‘signum’ is to [be] interpreted as an effectual instrument whereby a real engrafting into the body of Christ (‘insitio in Christum’) is effected.”

238  Font of Pardon and New Life 133. “The Book of Common Prayer (1552) with Catechism (1549/​1662),” in Faulenbach et al., Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, 1/​3:41. 134. Ibid., 46, 44, 42. 135. Ibid., 44, 46. 136. Ibid., 44. 137. This view of prayer as itself a means of grace is expressed in a more general sense in the catechism that was included in the Book of Common Prayer as early as 1549: “My good chylde, knowe this, that thou art not able to doe these thynges of thy selfe, nor to walke in the commaundementes of god, and to serue him, withoute without [sic] hys speciall grace, which thou must leame at all tymes to cal for by diligent praier.” Ibid., 50. 138. J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards (Wheaton:  Crossway, 2014), 323–​24. Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly:  Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, NJ:  P&R Publishing, 2009), 333, notes that in a 1629 book on the baptismal regeneration of elect infants, the prominent Westminster divine Cornelius Burgess cites at least nine continental Reformed theologians, eleven English reformers, and five Reformed confessions in support of his position. 139. Muller, Dictionary of Historical Theology, s.v. “Reformed Confessions and Catechisms.” 140. John H. Leith, Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, s.v. “Westminster Confession of Faith” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992). 141. Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards,  55–​58. 142. Ibid., 62, 322–​23; Edward D. Morris, Theology of the Westminster Symbols:  A Commentary Historical, Doctrinal, Practical on the Confession of Faith and Catechisms and the Related Formularies of the Presbyterian Churches (Columbus, OH: Champlin Press, 1900), 668, concludes: “It will be evident to the student of these antecedent formularies [among others, the First and Second Helvetic Confessions, French Confession, Belgic Confession, Scots Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Thirty-​Nine Articles] that the Westminster divines compiled their doctrine from them all, selecting what was best in each and omitting what seemed doubtful or unimportant.” 143. R. Scott Clark and Joel R. Beeke, “Ursinus, Oxford, and the Westminster Divines,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, ed. J. Ligon Duncan et al., vol. 2 (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), 4. 144. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 84–​85. Regarding the “later context,” Riggs maintains that Westminster Confession chap. 28 on baptism is more predestinarian than Calvin had been in discussing conferral of baptismal grace by the Holy Spirit. 145. This text of the Westminster Confession of Faith is found in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 4, 1600–​1693 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 231–​72 (chap. 27, pp. 265–​66), and side by side with an early Latin translation in Schaff, Creeds of

Baptismal Efficacy in the Reformed Confessions  239 Christendom, 3:600–​673. I have not included the biblical references that accompany each chapter section. 146. This text of the WLC is found in Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 4:299–​352 (Q & A  161–​67 and 176–​77, pp.  341–​43, 346–​47). I  have not included the biblical references that accompany each question and answer. 147. Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith:  A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2014), 362 n. 2. 148. David F. Wright, “Baptism at the Westminster Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, ed. J. Ligon Duncan et al., vol. 1 (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 169. 149. Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards, 317. 150. Ibid., 321. 151. Ibid., 321, 317. 152. Lusk, “Baptismal Efficacy and Baptismal Latency,” 29. 153. Ibid., 30–​31. Cf. also Venema, “Sacraments and Baptism,” 70: “Though baptism is to be distinguished from the Lord’s Supper as a singular rite, not capable of repetition, its efficacy and power [according to WCF 28.6] are not restricted to the moment of its administration.” 154. Evans, “Really Exhibited and Conferred,” 85. Cf. also Bromiley, “Baptism in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms,” 413, who finds in WCF 28.6 the same concept as in Calvin’s Catechism of the Church of Geneva that “at a suitable time, the baptized infants of believers, who belong to God’s elect people and in whom the Spirit will do the work of effectual calling through the Word, will finally ‘exhibit the power of their baptism’ (GCat 2.88). Already ‘heirs of the blessing,’ they will in due time ‘receive and produce the fruit of their baptism’ (GCat 2.89).” 155. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition,  84–​85. 156. Actually, it is only the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q/​A 91) that mentions the necessity of faith. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition,  85–​86. 157. In their disagreement about whether the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration, Wright appears to overemphasize the objective side of this balance and Fesko the qualifications. See nn. 152–​55. 158. Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards, 317. 159. Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 379. 160. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 333–​34, points out that two important figures at the Westminster Assembly, Cornelius Burgess and Daniel Fealty, had earlier written books on baptismal regeneration in which they maintain, in Letham’s words, that “there is an infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit at the baptism of elect persons, including elect infants, while actual regeneration, which produces faith, occurs at effectual calling.” 161. Calvin, Second Defence, 343. 162. Ibid., 342. 163. Ibid.; Calvin: Institutes, 2:1343 (4.16.20).

240  Font of Pardon and New Life 164. Calvin, Second Defence, 342. 165. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, 84–​85; Evans, “Really Exhibited and Conferred,” 85. 166. Rohls, Reformed Confessions, 185. 167. Ibid., 211.

9 Baptismal Efficacy in Calvin’s Theology Conclusion

In ­chapter 1 I introduced three schools of interpretation of Calvin’s baptismal theology that I labeled instrumentalist, parallelist, and developmental, respectively. The central argument of this book has been that Calvin’s view of the efficacy of baptism does not fit exclusively into any one of those categories. There are some ways in which all three labels apply and other ways in which they do not. The second category, what Brian Gerrish called “symbolic parallelism,” has often been associated with Bullinger’s doctrine of the sacraments, but scholars like Beckmann and Cassidy were right that Calvin, too, sometimes employed parallelist sacramental language. Already in the 1536 Institutes, for example, he described baptism as follows: “These things, I say, [God] does for our soul within as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude is the surest rule of the sacraments.”1 This statement was retained in all subsequent editions of the Institutes, and a version of it appeared in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva as well.2 But Calvin was not just a parallelist. From the first of his works to the last, his baptismal theology also manifested features of what Gerrish called “symbolic instrumentalism,” according to which outer baptism is not just an analogy of the grace signified and sealed in the sacrament but also the very instrument or means by which that grace is communicated. Two such features of Calvin’s instrumentalism are especially noteworthy. First, throughout his writings Calvin consistently operated with a twofold sense of baptismal instrumentality: baptism is both a means of knowledge and assurance and a means of grace. Lusk lucidly describes this distinction in his summary of Calvin’s approach to the sacraments in general: Two strands continually emerge in Calvin’s sacramental theology. On the one hand, Calvin views the sacraments as signs of assurance that serve to Font of Pardon and New Life. Lyle D. Bierma, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197553879.003.0009.

242  Font of Pardon and New Life confirm and strengthen our faith. Through the sacraments, God grants certainty to believers. On the other hand, Calvin speaks of the sacraments as genuine instruments of salvation. As means of grace, the sacraments are said to effect what they represent and perform what they picture. In the sacraments, God creates, as well as nourishes, faith. . . .The two strands were not in a tug-​of-​war, pulling against each other, but woven together into a beautiful sacramental tapestry.3

As Calvin himself put it in the 1543 Institutes, “Sacraments have effectiveness among us in proportion as we are helped by their ministry [both] to foster, confirm, and increase the true knowledge of Christ in ourselves [and] to possess him more fully and enjoy his riches.”4 When it comes to one of the questions that precipitated this study, namely, how baptism for Calvin can serve as an instrument of grace for a person who has already appropriated the benefits of salvation by faith prior to baptism, Calvin suggests in various places that even for someone who has already come to faith, baptism involves the offer of Christ himself in the sacrament and a strengthening of our union with Christ and his benefits. In these situations, baptism is simultaneously an instrument of assurance and of grace. Through the act of baptism the believer enjoys an increase both of faith itself and of the gifts of pardon and new life that are appropriated by that faith.5 A second significant feature of Calvin’s instrumentalism that we find across all his works is a balance between baptismal instrumentality and the roles played by the biblical Word, divine freedom and election, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the baptizand’s response of faith. Calvin consistently sought to avoid the twin dangers of, on the one hand, a sacramental realism that regarded baptism as an almost mechanical or automatic (ex opere operato) dispenser of salvation, and, on the other hand, a symbolism that treated it as little more than a bare sign. He succinctly summarizes this point in the 1543 Institutes in his appeal to Augustine, who had highlighted both dangers by warning of two sacramental “vices.” One such vice, as Calvin puts it, is “to receive the signs as though they had been given in vain, and by destroying or weakening their secret meaning through our antagonism”; the other is “to transfer to [the outward signs] the credit for those benefits which are conferred upon us by Christ alone” through the agency of the Holy Spirit.6 Calvin’s own position always lay somewhere between those extremes. The constant goal of his theology of the sacraments was that “nothing be given to

Conclusion  243 them which should not be given, and conversely nothing taken away which belongs to them” (1539 Institutes).7 However, there are also aspects of Calvin’s instrumental approach to baptism that underwent change and development over his lifetime, although not to the extent that some in the third category, the developmental school of interpretation, have alleged. First of all, the amount of attention that Calvin devoted to each of the two forms of baptismal instrumentality was not always proportionally the same. In both the 1536 Institutes and his writings from the five years that followed, his emphasis was primarily on what we might call the subjective dimension of baptismal efficacy, that is, baptism as an instrument of knowledge, testimony, and assurance. This is hardly surprising considering his intent in the early editions of the Institutes and first catechism to forge a Protestant alternative to the Roman Catholic doctrine of efficacy ex opere operato. There are indications during this period that he understood baptism as an objective instrument of grace as well, but these are relatively few by comparison. However, in the following eight years (1541–​48) leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus, there was a gradual shift in Calvin’s approach, reflecting perhaps the influence of his mentor Bucer, his experiences in the religious colloquies with the Roman Catholics, and his first direct engagement with Anabaptists in Strasbourg. During this period, Calvin became more inclined to employ the terminology of “means” and “instruments” for both the sacraments in general and baptism in particular, and he did so now in a strictly positive sense. There was also a shift in focus from the subjective to the objective dimension of baptism in the life of the believer, that is, from the sacrament as an instrument of assurance to an instrument of grace. Finally, in the years after the Consensus Tigurinus (1549), particularly in his explanation and defense of the CT against the attacks of the Lutheran Westphal, Calvin proceeded to chart a middle course between Zurich and Wittenberg with a fairly even balance between the subjective and objective aspects of baptism. He also reflected for the first time on the interconnection between the two forms of instrumentality. Another significant development in Calvin’s instrumental approach to baptism had to do with how he understood a sacrament as a means of grace. His view of baptism as an instrument of knowledge and assurance remained fairly stable throughout his lifetime, but his understanding of the sacrament as instrument of grace grew in depth and clarity as time went on, especially when it came to the relation between the outer sign and the grace that it signified. In the first two editions of the Institutes, a link between sign and

244  Font of Pardon and New Life signified is only implied, and it is not until the Romans commentary of 1540 that Calvin explicitly ties the sign of baptism to the benefits that it signifies. There for the first time he employs the verbs “join” and “connect” to describe the relationship between the external sign and the internal “substance,” “reality,” and “truth” of God’s baptismal promises.8 The range and frequency of this language of attachment and efficacy would continue to increase in the period from 1541 to 1548, and to an even greater extent in the years after the Consensus Tigurinus. Previous developmental interpretations of Calvin’s doctrine of baptism, therefore, require some modification. These interpretations have been helpful in reminding us to read Calvin’s works chronologically and contextually and in suggesting the possible impact along the way of his interactions with Melanchthon, Bucer, Roman Catholics at the religious colloquies, Anabaptists in Strasbourg, Bullinger, and Westphal. But to claim that his baptismal theology underwent major shifts from a Zwinglian noninstrumentalism in the 1536 Institutes to a Lutheran-​like instrumentalism in the next decade, then back to a more Bullingerian position in the Consensus Tigurinus, and finally in a Lutheran direction again during or after the 1550s is more than the evidence will allow.9 There certainly was growth and development in Calvin’s position, and even some strategic ambiguities and silences in the 1549 agreement with Zurich, but the overall trajectory of his baptismal theology was one of increasing clarity and refinement of basic themes already present in incipient form in the Institutes of 1536. In the years that followed, Calvin did not walk a perfectly straight line between the Roman Catholic and Zwinglian/​Anabaptist extremes he sought to avoid, but neither were the turns he made in one direction or the other nearly as sharp as what some in the past have suggested. With respect to infant baptism (­chapter 7), Calvin’s approaches to the efficacy of pedobaptism and adult convert baptism were not fundamentally inconsistent, as some have alleged, but followed many of the same patterns. Throughout his writings he regarded infant baptism, too, as both an instrument of knowledge and assurance and an instrument of grace, and he once again qualified this instrumentality with an emphasis on the importance of the inscripturated Word, the Holy Spirit, election, and faith. A major new element here was his concept of the latent or delayed efficacy of baptism, which distinguishes between the valid administration of baptism to an infant and the enjoyment at a later stage of life of the benefits signed, sealed, and sometimes even initially delivered in the sacrament. Calvin introduced

Conclusion  245 this notion already in the 1536 Institutes and continued to expand and refine it over the course of his life, most strikingly in the 1550s with his use of a seed metaphor to describe the relation of infant baptism to regeneration, repentance, and faith. The efficacy of infant baptism, therefore, may follow a different timeline, according to Calvin, but his basic formulations of the doctrines of pedobaptism and adult convert baptism were enough alike that he seems to have considered them only age-​differentiated versions of the same sacrament. Finally, past scholarship has largely passed over the epilogue to this theological narrative, namely, the legacy of Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy in the confessional codification of Reformed theology during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Our own examination of eight of the major confessions and catechisms of this era (­chapter  8) has shown that many features of Calvin’s baptismal instrumentalism reappear in six of these documents, all from French-​speaking and English-​speaking parts of Europe, and all with some historical and/​or literary connections to Calvin: the French (Gallican) Confession of Faith (1559), Scots Confession (1560), Belgic Confession (1561), Thirty-​Nine Articles (1571), Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), and Westminster Larger Catechism (1647). The other two, the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) from Palatine Germany and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) from northern Switzerland, explicitly teach only a doctrine of sacramental parallelism. This diversity in confessional approaches to baptism across the various regions of Western Europe provides another case in point that as significant a figure as Calvin was in shaping Reformed theology during the great era of confession writing, “the Reformed tradition cannot be identified with the thought of a single theologian or with the definitions of a single major confessional document. . . . Instead, it should be defined as a broad consensus arising out of diverse formulations.”10 I close this study with a suggestion for future research. If my findings on Calvin’s view of the efficacy of the sacraments in general and baptism in particular are correct, then it would seem that some of the developmental interpretations of his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper need to be reexamined. As valuable as the developmental approach to Calvin’s Eucharistic theology has been in moving Calvin scholarship forward, its basic contours do not track well with the continuities and developments we have discovered in his doctrine of baptism. Davis, for example, concluded that from 1536 to 1559 Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper “developed in such a way that Calvin

246  Font of Pardon and New Life claimed as essential those very elements that he had originally denied as part of his Eucharistic doctrine.” Calvin went from rejecting the Eucharist as an instrument of grace to highly acclaiming it, from denying Eucharistic feeding on the substance of Christ to strongly affirming it, and from no recognition of a gift in the Eucharist to an assertion of the twofold gift of Christ himself and a clear picture of the promises of God.11 Janse, too, saw Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper undergoing significant directional changes, moving through Zwinglian, Lutheran (twice), and Bullingerian phases at different points in his life.12 Recently, a few scholars have begun to challenge these conclusions,13 and my own analysis of baptismal efficacy in Calvin adds further weight to the question whether the shifts in his Eucharistic theology were as dramatic as some in the past suggested. An adequate address to that question, however, will likely require another monograph.

Notes Calvin, Institutes (1536), 99. Calvin, “Catechism of the Church of Geneva,” 133 (Q/​A 325). Lusk, “Calvin on Baptism.” Calvin, Institutes, 2:1291 (4.14.16); CO 1:949. I  have altered the Battles translation slightly to reflect what I regard as a more accurate translation of tum . . . tum (“both . . .and” rather than “sometimes . . . at other times”) in this context. 5. My “tentative” answer several years ago to this question (“Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology:  A Tentative Proposal,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres:  Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, 142–​ 48 [Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008]), in which I suggested that for Calvin baptism functions as a means of grace only insofar as it provides assurance of a grace already conveyed, did not do justice to his distinction between means of assurance and means of grace. I was helped to a clearer understanding of this issue by Jack Cottrell, “Baptism according to the Reformed Tradition,” 70, who maintained that for Calvin an adult believer receives salvation through faith before baptism, but these same salvific benefits are offered again in baptism so as to be appropriated in even greater faith and assurance. 6. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1292 (4.14.16). 7. Calvin: Institutes, 2:1293 (4.14.17). 8. Calvin, COR 2/​13:119 (comm. on Rom. 6:4; 1540 text only). 9. This schema is a composite of elements from roughly equivalent developmental outlines of Calvin’s sacramental theology proposed by Janse and Zachman. For the details of each, see c­ hapter 1. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Conclusion  247 10. Muller, Dictionary of Historical Theology, s.v. “Reformed Confessions and Catechisms” (quotation slightly revised by the author in an unpublished expanded version). 11. Davis, Clearest Promises of God, 212. 12. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 39–​40. 13. For example, Arnold Huijgen, Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology:  Analysis and Assessment, Reformed Historical Theology, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, vol. 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 252 n. 528: “Janse, ‘Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,’ 35, 69 makes the point that because of various developments in Calvin’s position ‘[t]‌ he existence of the eucharistic theology of Calvin is [ . . . ] a fiction.’ I disagree, though I completely agree with Janse’s picture of Calvin’s development. I  contend that the motifs as described in the main text together account for the eucharistic theology of Calvin, since these motifs remained present through the various development.” See also Ewerszumrode, Mysterium Christi spiritualis praesentiae, 199:  “In vielen Formulierungen knüpft Calvin jedoch bewusst an ältere—​das heißt, aus der Zeit vor dem Abschluss der Consensio mutua stammende—​Gedanken und Formulierungen an und stellt so die Kontinuität seiner Abendmahlstheologie her. Inhaltlich gibt es daher keine großen Änderungen. Insofern ist die These von Wim Janse und Thomas Davis bezüglich der Entwicklung von Calvins Abendmahlslehre zu modifizieren, da die Veränderungen sich größenteils auf sprachliche Formulierungen, nicht aber auf materiale Aussagen beziehen.  .  .  . Auf keinen Fall sind fundamentale Veränderungen hinsichtlich der Gegenwart Christi festzustellen. Calvin ist in seiner Abendmahlstheologie recht konstant, da alle Elemente seiner Lehre bereits in der Frühzeit gefunden werden können, wenn auch nicht immer alle Motive in jedem Werk vorkommen.”

Bibliography Primary Sources “The Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1563/​1571) commonly called the ‘Thirty-​ Nine Articles.’” Edited by W. J. Torrance Kirby. In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften. Edited by Andreas Mühling and Peter Optiz et al., vol. 2/​1, 1559–​ 1563. Edited by Mihály Bucsay et al. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. “The Augsburg Confession (1530) [Latin Text].” In The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, translated by Charles Arand et al. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. “The Belgic Confession.” In Our Faith:  Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013. Beza, Theodore. Confession de la foy chrestienne. Geneva: Conrad Badius, 1559. “The Book of Common Prayer (1552) with Catechism (1549/​1662).” In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, edited by Heiner Faulenbach, Eberhard Busch et al., vol. 1/​3, 1550–​ 1558, edited by Judith Becker et al. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Calvin, John. The Acts of the Apostles 1–​13. Translated by John W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald. Vol. 6 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Calvin, John. The Acts of the Apostles 14–​28. Translated by John W. Fraser. Vol. 7 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966. Calvin, John. “Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote.” In Calvin’s Tracts, translated by Henry Beveridge, vol. 3. 1844. Reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Calvin, John. “The Adultero-​German Interim: To Which Is Added The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and of Reforming the Church.” In Calvin’s Tracts, translated by Henry Beveridge, vol. 3. 1844. Reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Calvin, John. “The Best Method of Obtaining Concord, Provided the Truth Be Sought without Contention.” In Calvin’s Tracts, translated by Henry Beveridge, vol. 2. 1844. Reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Calvin, John. Calvin:  Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Vols. 20–​21 of the Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Calvin, John. “The Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1545).” In Calvin: Theological Treatises, translated and edited by J. K.  S. Reid. Vol. 22 of the Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis. Translated by John King. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.

250 Bibliography Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Translated by Thomas Myers. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. Translated by Charles W. Bingham. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Calvin, John. Commentarii in Epistolas Canonicas. Edited by Kenneth Hagen. Vol. 20 of Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate, ser. 2, Opera exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Geneva: Droz, 2009. Calvin, John. Commentarii in Pauli Epistolas ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses. Edited by Helmut Feld. Vol. 16 of Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate, ser. 2, Opera exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Geneva: Droz, 1992. Calvin, John. Commentariorum in Acta Apostolorum Liber Primus. Edited by Helmut Feld. Vol. 12.1 of Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate, ser. 2, Opera exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Geneva: Droz, 2001. Calvin, John. Commentariorum in Acta Apostolorum Liber Posterior. Edited by Helmut Feld. Vol. 12.2 of Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate, ser. 2, Opera exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Geneva: Droz, 2001. Calvin, John. Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Edited by T. H. L. Parker and D. C. Parker. Vol. 13 of Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate, ser. 2, Opera exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Geneva: Droz, 1999. Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Translated by William Pringle. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Translated by T. H.  L. Parker. Vol. 11 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Vol. 8 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Translated by John W. Fraser. Vol. 9 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Calvin, John. “The Form of Prayers.” In John D.  C. Fisher, Christian Initiation:  The Reformation Period: Some Early Reformed Rites of Baptism and Confirmation and Other Contemporary Documents. London: S.P.C.K., 1970; Chicago: Hillenbrand Books, 2007. Calvin, John. “Der Genfer Katechismus von 1545:  Der lateinische Text mit deutscher Ubersetzung.” Edited by Ernst Saxer. In Calvin-​Studienausgabe, edited by Eberhard Busch et al., vol. 2, Gestalt und Ordnung der Kirche. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. Calvin, John. The Gospel according to St John 1–​10. Translated by T. H. L. Parker. Vol. 4 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961. Calvin, John. A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. Vol. 2. Translated by T. H. L. Parker. Vol. 2 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Bibliography  251 Calvin, John. In Evangelium Secundum Johannem Commentarius Pars Prior. Edited by Helmut Feld. Vol. 11.1 of Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate, ser. 2, Opera exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Geneva: Droz, 1997. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1536 Edition. Translated and annotated by Ford Lewis Battles. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Calvin, John. Instruction et confession de foy don’t on use en l’Eglise de Genève. Edited by Anette Zillenbiller and Marc Vial. Vol. 2 of Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate, ser. 3, Scripta ecclesiastica. Geneva: Droz, 2002. Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrate. Edited by Brian G. Armstrong et al. 22 vols. Geneva: Droz, 1992–​. Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera uae supersunt omnia. Edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss. 59 vols. Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863–​1900. Calvin, John. Letters, Part 3: 1554–​1558. Edited by Jules Bonnet. Translated by Marcus Robert Gilchrist. Vol. 6 of John Calvin:  Tracts and Letters. 1858. Reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2009. Calvin, John. “Mutual Consent in regard to the Sacraments [Defence of the Sane and Orthodox Doctrine of the Sacraments].” In Calvin’s Tracts, translated by Henry Beveridge, vol. 2. 1844. Reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Calvin, John. Second Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith concerning the Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal. In Calvin’s Tracts, translated by Henry Beveridge, vol. 2. 1844. Reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Calvin, John. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Translated by T. A. Smail. Vol. 10 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Calvin, John. The Sermons of M.  John Calvin upon the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomie. Translated by Arthur Golding. 1583. Reprint, Edinburgh:  Banner of Truth Trust, 1987. “Confessio Belgica: The Belgic Confession of Faith A.D. 1561. Revised 1619.” In The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed., edited by Philip Schaff, revised by David S. Schaff, vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds with Translations. 1931. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. “Confessio Belgica von 1561.” Edited by Eberhard Busch. In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, edited by Andreas Mühling and Peter Optiz et al., vol. 2/​1, 1559–​1563, edited by Mihály Bucsay et al. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. “Confessio Fidei Gallicana: The French Confession of Faith A.D. 1559.” In The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed., edited by Philip Schaff, revised by David S. Schaff, vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds with Translations. 1931. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. “Confessio Gallicana, 1559/​1571, mit dem Bekenntnis der Waldenser, 1560.” Edited by Emidio Campi. In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, edited by Andreas Mühling and Peter Optiz et  al., vol. 2/​1, 1559–​1563, edited by Mihály Bucsay et  al. Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. “Confessio Helvetica posterior, 1566.” Edited by Emidio Campi. In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, edited by Andreas Mühling and Peter Opitz et al., vol. 2/​2, 1562–​ 1569, edited by Mihály Bucsay et al. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009.

252 Bibliography “Confessio Scotica 1560.” Edited by Ian Hazlett. In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, edited by Andreas Mühling and Peter Optiz et al., vol. 2/​1, 1559–​1563, edited by Mihály Bucsay et al. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. “The Consensus Tigurinus.” Translated by Ian Bunting. Journal of Presbyterian History 44 (1966): 45–​61. Consensus Tigurinus (1549):  Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl:  Werden-​Wertung-​Bedeutung. Edited by Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. “The Forty-​ Two Articles (1552/​ 1553).” Edited by Gerald L. Bray. In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, edited by Heiner Faulenbach and Eberhard Busch et  al., vol. 1/​3, 1550–​1558, edited by Judith Becker et  al. Neukirchen-​Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. “The Forty-​ Two Articles, 1553; The Thirty-​ Eight Articles, 1563; The Thirty-​ Nine Articles, 1571.” In Documents of the English Reformation, edited by Gerald Bray. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. “The French Confession (1559).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 2, 1552–​1566. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. “The French Confession of Faith, 1559.” In Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century, edited by Arthur C. Cochrane. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. “The Heidelberg Catechism.” In Our Faith: Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013. “Heidelberger Katechismus von 1563.” Edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser. In Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, edited by Andreas Mühling and Peter Optiz et al., vol. 2/​2, 1562–​ 1569, edited by Mihály Bucsay et al. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. Knox, John. Letter to Anne Lok, 1554. In The Works of John Knox, edited by David Liang, 240. Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1855. Noll, Mark A., ed. Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. Olevianus, Caspar. Institutionis Christianae Religionis Eptiome:  Ex Institutione Johannis Calvinae excerpta, authoris methodo et verbis retentis. Cum Praefatione Gasparis Oleviani, ad Theodorum Bezam, in qua editionis consilium exponitur. Herborn: Christophorus Corvinus, 1586. “The Scots Confession.” In The Book of Confessions, pt. 1 of The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Louisville:  Office of the General Assembly, 2002. Reprinted from The Scots Confession 1560, edited by G. D. Henderson with a rendering into modern English by James Bulloch. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960. “The Second Helvetic Confession.” In The Book of Confessions, pt. 1 of The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Louisville: Office of the General Assembly, 2002. Reprint of “The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566.” In Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century, edited by Arthur C. Cochrane. Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1966. “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 2, 1552–​1566. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. The Teaching of the Catholic Church: As Contained in Her Documents. Originally prepared by Josef Neuner and Heinrich Roos. Edited by Karl Rahner. Translated by Geoffrey Stevens. New York: Alba House, 1967.

Bibliography  253 “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 2, 1552–​1566. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. “The Thirteen Articles with Three Additional Articles, 1538.” In Documents of the English Reformation, edited by Gerald Bray. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. “The Thirty-​Nine Articles (1562/​63).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 2, 1552–​1566. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. “The Thirty-​Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England.” In The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed., edited by Philip Schaff, revised by David S. Schaff, vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds with Translations. 1931. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. Ursinus, Zacharias. “Catechesis, Summa Theologiae per quaestiones et responsiones exposita: sive capita religionis Christianae continens.” In Der Heidelberger Katechismus und vier verwandte Katechismen, edited by August Lang. Leipzig: Deichert, 1907. Ursinus, Zacharias. “Catechesis minor, perspicua brevitate christianam fidem complectens.” In Der Heidelberger Katechismus und vier verwandte Katechismen, edited by August Lang. Leipzig: Deichert, 1907. Ursinus, Zacharias. “The Larger Catechism.” Translated by Lyle D. Bierma. In Lyle D. Bierma et  al., Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought, edited by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Ursinus, Zacharias. “The Smaller Catechism.” Translated by Lyle D. Bierma. In Lyle D. Bierma et  al., Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought, edited by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 4, 1600–​ 1693. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014. “The Westminster Confession of Faith A.D. 1647.” In The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed., edited by Philip Schaff, revised by David S. Schaff, vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds with Translations. 1931. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. “The Westminster Larger Catechism (1647).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., vol. 4, 1600–​1693. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014.

Secondary Sources Alting von Geusau, Leo G. M. Die Lehre von der Kindertaufe bei Calvin, gesehen im Rahmen seiner Sakraments-​und Tauftheologie:  Synthese oder Ordnungfehler? Bilthoven:  H. Nelissen; Mainz: Matthias-​Grünewald, 1962. Beckmann, Joachim. Vom Sakrament bei Calvin:  Die Sakramentslehre Calvins in ihren Beziehungen zu Augustin. Tübingen: Mohr, 1926. Berkouwer, Gerrit C. The Sacraments. Translated by Hugo Bekker. Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

254 Bibliography Bierma, Lyle D. “Baptism as a Means of Grace in Calvin’s Theology: A Tentative Proposal.” In Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres:  Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 142–​48. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Bierma, Lyle D. “The Purpose and Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism.” In An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism:  Sources, History, and Theology, edited by Lyle D. Bierma et al., 49–​74, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought, edited by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Bierma, Lyle D. “The Sources and Theological Orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism.” In An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, edited by Lyle D. Bierma et al., 75–​102, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought, edited by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Bierma, Lyle D. The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism:  A Reformation Synthesis. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013. Braekman, Émile, and Erik de Boer, eds. Guido de Bres:  Zijn Leven, Zijn Belijden. Utrecht: Kok, 2011. Braghi, Gianmarci. “Between Paris and Geneva:  Some Remarks on the Approval of the Gallican Confession (May 1559).” Journal of Early Modern Christianity 5/​2 (2018): 197–​219. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. “Baptism in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms.” In Baptism, the New Testament and the Church:  Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.  E. O.  White, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, 402–​18. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, vol. 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Burkhart, John Ernest. “Kingdom, Church, and Baptism: The Significance of the Doctrine of the Church in the Theology of John Calvin.” PhD diss., University of Southern California, 1959. Campi, Emidio. “Consensus Tigurinus: Werden, Wertung und Wirkung.” In Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl. Werden-​Wertung-​Bedeutung, edited by Emido Campi and Ruedi Reich, 9–​41. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Cassidy, James J. “Calvin on Baptism: Baptismal Regeneration or the Duplex Loquendi Modus?” In Resurrection and Eschatology: Theology in Service of the Church: Essays in Honor of Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., edited by Lane G. Tipton and Jeffrey C. Waddington, 534–​54. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008. Cheyne, Alax C. “The Scots Confession of 1560.” Theology Today 17/​ 3 (October 1960): 323–​38. Clark, R. Scott and Joel R. Beeke. “Ursinus, Oxford, and the Westminster Divines.” In The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, edited by J. Ligon Duncan et al., vol. 2, 1–​32. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2004. Cottrell, Jack W. “Baptism according to the Reformed Tradition.” In Baptism and the Remission of Sins, edited by David W. Fletcher, 39–​81. Joplin: College Press, 1990. Courvoisier, Jacques. “Les Catéchismes de Genève et de Strasbourg:  Étude sur développement de la pensée de Calvin.” Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme français 84 (1935): 105–​21. Davis, Thomas J. The Clearest Promises of God: The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching. AMS Studies in Religious Tradition 1. New York: AMS Press, 1995.

Bibliography  255 de Greef, Wulfert. The Writings of John Calvin, Expanded Edition: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Lyle D. Bierma. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Doumergue, Emile. Jean Calvin:  Les hommes et les choses de son temps. Vol. 5, La pensée ecclésiastique et la pensée politique de Calvin. Lausanne: Georges Bridel et Cie, 1917. Doumergue, Emile. Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temps. Vol. 6, La lutte. Lausanne: Georges Bridel et Cie, 1926. Ebrard, Johann Heinrich August. Das Dogma vom heiligen Abendmahl und seine Geschichte. Vol. 2. Frankfurt am Main: Heinrich Zimmer, 1845–​46. Eussen, Humbert Matthew. “John Calvin:  The Effects of Baptism.” STL diss., Aquinas Institute of Philosophy and Theology, Dubuque, IA, 1967. Evans, William B. “Calvin, Baptism, and Latent Efficacy Again: A Reply to Rich Lusk.” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 32/​1 (Spring 2006): 38–​45. Evans, William B. “‘Really Exhibited and Conferred . . . in His Appointed Time’: Baptism and the New Reformed Sacramentalism.” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 31/​ 2 (Fall 2005): 72–​88. Ewerszumrode, Frank. Mysterium Christi spiritualis praesentiae: Die Abendmahlslehre des Genfer Reformators Johannes Calvin aus römisch-​katholischer Perspektive. Reformed Historical Theology, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, vol. 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Fesko, J. V. The Theology of the Westminster Standards. Wheaton: Crossway, 2014. Gäbler, Ulrich. “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus im Jahre 1549.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979): 331–​32. Ganoczy, Alexandre. The Young Calvin. Translated by David Foxgrover and Wade Provo. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Gerrish, Brian A. “Children of Grace.” In Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin, 87–​123. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Gerrish, Brian A. “Sign and Reality: The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confessions.” In The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, 118–​30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Goeters J.  F. Gerhard. “Olevian, Kaspar (1536–​1587).” Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995. Gooszen, Maurits A. “Inleiding.” In De Heidelbergsche Catechismus: Textus Receptus met Toelichtende Teksten. Leiden: Brill, 1890. Gootjes, Nicolaas H. The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Gordon, Bruce. Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Grass, Hans. Die Abendmahlslehre bei Luther und Calvin:  Eine kritische Untersuchung, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 2nd ser., Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Monographien 47. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1954. Grislis, Egil. “Calvin’s Doctrine of Baptism.” Church History 31 (1962): 46–​65. Gunnoe, Charles D., Jr. “The Reformation of the Palatinate and the Origins of the Heidelberg Catechism, 1500–​ 1562.” In An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, edited by Lyle D. Bierma et al., 15–​47, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought, edited by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Haitch, Russell. “John Calvin: Baptism Is Sign and Seal.” In From Exorcism to Ecstasy: Eight Views of Baptism, 93–​111. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

256 Bibliography Hartvelt, Gerrit Pieter. Verum Corpus:  Een Studie over een Centraal Hoofdstuk uit de Avondmaalsleer van Calvijn. Delft: Meinema, 1960. Hazlett, W. Ian P. “The Scots Confession 1560:  Context, Complexion, and Critique.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 78 (1987): 287–​320. Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. he Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Huijgen, Arnold. Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology:  Analysis and Assessment. Reformed Historical Theology. Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis. Vol. 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Jacobs, Paul. Theologie Reformierter Bekenntnisschriften in Grundzügen. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959. Jahr, Hannelore. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Confession de foi von 1559. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche. Vol. 16. Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. Janse, Wim. “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology:  Three Dogma-​Historical Observations.” In Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres:  Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 37–​69. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Janse, Wim. “The Controversy between Westphal and Calvin on Infant Baptism, 1555–​ 1556.” Perichoresis 6/​1 (2008): 3–​43. Kater, G. De Kinderdoop bij Calvijn. Hersteld Hervormde Studies. Edited by W. J. op ‘t Hof and P. de Vries. Houten: Den Hertog, 2014. Klooster, Fred H. “Calvin’s Attitude to the Heidelberg Catechism.” In Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, edited by W. Fred Graham, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, edited by Charles G. Nauert Jr. and W. Fred Graham, vol. 22. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994. Koch, Ernst. Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche. Vol. 27. Neukirchen-​ Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 1968. Kreck, Walter. “Die Lehre von der Taufe bei Calvin.” Evangelische Theologie 6 (1948): 237–​52. Leith, John H. Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith. Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 1992. Letham, Robert. The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009. Locher, Gottfried W. “Discord among Guests: Lessons to Be Learned from the Reformers’ Debate about the Lord’s Supper for a Contemporary Understanding and Celebration.” In Zwingli’s Thought:  New Perspectives, 303–​39. Studies in the History of Christian Thought. Edited by Heiko A. Oberman. Vol. 25. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Lusk, Rich. “Baptismal Efficacy and Baptismal Latency:  A Sacramental Dialogue.” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 32/​1 (Spring 2006): 18–​37. Lusk, Rich. “Calvin on Baptism, Penance, and Absolution.” Theologia (2002). http://​www. hornes.org/​theologia/​rich-​lusk/​calvin-​on-​baptism-​penance-​absolution (accessed November 1, 2019). Lusk, Rich. “Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy:  Historic Trends and Current Controversies.” In The Federal Vision, edited by Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner, 71–​ 125. Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004.

Bibliography  257 Lynch, John Q. “The Teaching of John Calvin on Baptism.” MA thesis, St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, 1963. MacEwen, Alexander R. A History of the Church in Scotland. Vol. 2. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1918. Martin, Jules. “Notion du baptême dans Calvin: Signification, efficacité et conditions.” ThB thesis, Faculté de Théologie Protestante de Montauban, 1894. McKee, Elsie A. The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2016. McLelland, Joseph C. “Meta-​Zwingli or Anti-​Zwingli? Bullinger and Calvin in Eucharistic Concord.” In Huldrych Zwingli, 1484–​1531: A Legacy of Radical Reform. Papers from the 1984 International Zwingli Symposium McGill University, edited by E. J. Furcha, 179–​95. Montreal: McGill University, 1985. Milne, Douglas J. W. “Learning the Faith with the Scots Confession.” Reformed Theological Review 69/​3 (December 2010): 197–​216. Montgomery, Hugh Reid. “Baptism in the Teaching of John Calvin.” STM thesis, Biblical Seminary in New York, 1965. Morris, Edward D. Theology of the Westminster Symbols:  A Commentary Historical, Doctrinal, Practical on the Confession of Faith and Catechisms and the Related Formularies of the Presbyterian Churches. Columbus, OH: Champlin Press, 1900. Muller, Richard A. “From Zurich or from Wittenberg? An Examination of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought.” Calvin Theological Journal 45/​2 (November 2010): 243–​55. Muller, Richard A. “Reformed Confessions and Catechisms.” Dictionary of Historical Theology. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000. Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Neuser, Wilhelm. “Die Erwählungslehre im Heidelberger Katechismus.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 75 (1964): 309–​26. Neuser, Wilhelm. “Die Übersetzung des Genfer Katechismus (1542/​1545) ins Deutsche durch Zacharias Ursinus im Jahr 1563.” Koers 74/​4 (2009): 683–​700. Neuser, Wilhelm. “Die Väter des Heidelberger Katechismus.” Theologische Zeitschrift 35 (1979): 177–​99. Neuser, Wilhelm. “Der zweite Abendmahlsstreit.” In Handbuch der Dogmen und Theologiegeschichte, edited by Carl Andresen, vol. 2, Die Lehrentwicklung im Rahmen der Konfessionalität, edited by Bernhard Lohse et al., 272–​85. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Nevin, John W. “Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord’s Supper.” In The Mystical Presence and Other Writings on the Eucharist, 269–​401. Lancaster Series on the Mercersburg Theology. Edited by Bard Thompson and George H. Bricker. Vol. 4. 1846. Reprint, Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1966. Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. Translated by Harold Knight. 1956. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Owen, Michael. “The Structure of the Scots Confession of 1560.” Colloquium 36/​1 (May 2004): 33–​58. Pitkin, Barbara. “Children and the Church in Calvin’s Geneva.” In Calvin and the Church:  Papers Presented at the 13th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society May 24–​26, 2001, edited by David Foxgrover, 144–​ 64. Grand Rapids:  CRC Product Services, 2002. Pitkin, Barbara. “Faith and Justification.” In The Calvin Handbook, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 288–​99. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

258 Bibliography Pitkin, Barbara. “From Fiducia to Cognitio.” In What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context, 9–​40. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Piuz, Anne-​Marie, and Liliane Mottu-​Weber. L’Economie genevoise, de la Réforme à la fin de l’ancien régime XVIe–​XVII siècles. Geneva: Georg, 1990. Reid, W. Stanford. Trumpeter of God:  A Biography of John Knox. New  York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974. Riggs, John W. Baptism in the Reformed Tradition: An Historical and Practical Theology. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Riggs, John W. “The Development of Calvin’s Baptismal Theology 1536–​1560.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1985. Riggs, John W. “Emerging Ecclesiology in Calvin’s Baptismal Thought, 1536–​1543.” Church History 64 (March 1995): 29–​43. Rohls, Jan. Reformed Confessions: Theology from Zurich to Barmen. Translated by John Hoffmeyer. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 1997. Rorem, Paul. Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper. Alcuin/​GROW Joint Liturgical Studies 12. Bramcote: Grove Books, 1989. Rorem, Paul. “The Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Did Calvin Compromise?” In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser, 72–​90. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Rozeboom, Sue A. “The Provenance of John Calvin’s Emphasis on the Role of the Holy Spirit regarding the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2010. Saxer, Ernst. “‘Siegel’ und ‘Versiegeln’ in der calvinisch-​reformierten Sakramentstheologie des 16. Jahrhunderts.” Zwingliana 14/​8 (1977): 397–​430. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 8, Modern Christianity:  The Swiss Reformation. 1910. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Schenck, Lewis B. The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America. Yale Studies in Religious Education 12. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940. Schlüter, Richard. “Das sakramentale Taufverständnis bei Calvin.” In Karl Barths Tauflehre:  Ein interkonfessionelles Gespräch, 141–​56. Paderborn: Bonifacius-​Druckerei,  1973. Spierling, Karen E. Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva: The Shaping of a Community, 1536–​1564. Aldershot, England:  Ashgate, 2005; Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 2009. Spinks, Brian D. “Calvin’s Baptismal Theology and the Making of the Strasbourg and Genevan Baptismal Liturgies 1540 and 1542.” Scottish Journal of Theology 48/​1 (1995): 55–​78. Steinmetz, David C. Reformers in the Wings. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2001. Stephens, W. P. Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Sturm, Erdmann. Der junge Zacharias Ursin: sein Weg vom Philippismus zum Calvinismus (1534–​1562). Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. Sytsma, David S. “Calvin, Daneau, and Physica Mosaica:  Neglected Continuities at the Origins of an Early Modern Tradition.” Church History and Religious Culture 95 (2015): 457–​76.

Bibliography  259 Thorley, Carol. “‘No Part of Our Salvation Should be Transferred to the Sign’: John Calvin’s Understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism in Light of Faith Union with Christ.” ThM thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2005. Van Dixhoorn, Chad. Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2014. Van Genderen, J. “De Doop bij Calvijn.” In Rondom de Doopvont, edited by W. van ‘t Spijker et al., 263–​95. Goudriaan: De Groot, 1983. Venema, Cornelis P. “Sacraments and Baptism in the Reformed Confessions.” Mid-​ America Journal of Theology 11 (2000): 21–​86. Voightländer, Johannes. Ein Fest der Befreiung:  Huldrych Zwinglis Abendmahlslehre. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013. Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1953; Tyler, TX: Geneva Divinity School Press, 1982. Wendel, François. Calvin:  Sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse. Paris:  Presses Universitaires de France, 1950. Wendel, François. Calvin:  The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairet. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Woelderink, Jan G. Het doopsformulier: Een verhandeling over zijn leer van den h. doop. The Hague: Guido de Bres, 1938. Wright, David F. “Baptism at the Westminster Assembly.” In The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century:  Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, edited by J. Ligon Duncan et al., vol. 1, 161–​86. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2003. Wright, David F. “Development and Coherence in Calvin’s Institutes: The Case of Baptism (Institutes 4:15–​4:16). In Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe:  Essays in Honour of Brian G. Armstrong, edited by Mack P. Holt, 43–​54. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Zachman, Randall C. Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. Zachman, Randall C. “Revising the Reform: What Calvin Learned from Dialogue with the Roman Catholics.” In John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique, Engagement, Then and Now, edited by Randall C. Zachman, 165–​ 91. Grand Rapids:  Baker Academic, 2008.

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Tables are indicated by t following the page number À Lasco, John, 196–​98, 199 Epitome of the Doctrine of the Churches of East Friesland (1544), 182–​83 Abraham, 49, 52, 146, 148, 157, 164 Acts of the Apostles (Calvin), 118, 129, 131–​32, 133, 154–​55,  156–​57 Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (Calvin, 1547), 2, 8, 11–​12, 62, 74–​76, 79–​80, 89 Acts, book of, 25, 28–​29, 30, 32, 43, 128–​ 29, 160–​62, 164–​65, 195 adoption, 74, 119–​20, 140–​41, 146, 152–​ 53, 155, 157, 159–​60, 224 Anabaptists, 33–​34, 64, 139, 140–​41, 146–​ 47, 154–​56, 158, 161–​63 Antoine de Chandieu, 177, 178 Apostles’ Creed, 196 Aristotle, 61n.65, 84n.70 Augustine, 70–​71, 139, 161, 220–​21,  242–​43   baptism and assurance, 31–​32, 43, 53, 118–​20, 140–​41,  144 its assuring and salvific functions, 133 and burial with Christ, 52–​53 and children of believers, 68–​69 of Christ, 28 as a confirmation, 74, 117, 120–​21,  180 consolation of, 28, 151 and double spiritual washing, 202 dual instrumental roles of, 122–​23, 133, 241 dual purpose of, 28, 145–​46, 150–​51 faith–​baptism, 138–​39,  164

and forgiveness, 30–​32, 67–​68, 120–​21 as a formal reception into the visible church, 125–​26,  164–​65 and God’s promises, 9–​10, 23–​24, 28–​ 29, 42, 56, 95–​96, 145–​46 inner baptism and outer baptism, 203, 204, 211 as the laver of the soul, 120–​21 as a means of cleansing, 158–​59, 181–​82,  195 of Noah, 116 the order of baptism and salvific benefits, 67–​68, 118–​19, 121, 158–​59, 161–​62, 166,  203–​4 and original sin, 39n.77, 74, 189, 190, 233n.55 and perpetual efficacy, 225–​27 as a public profession, 145–​46 remembrance of, 8–​9 the salvific role of, 74, 130–​31, 219 as a seal, 8, 11, 28, 146, 158, 159–​60, 180,  181–​82 and status, 144, 195 subjective and objective benefits of, 67–​ 68, 79–​80, 115–​16, 243 as a symbol of cleansing, 28–​29, 43, 65, 68–​69, 74, 75–​76, 116, 127–​28,  145–​46 of unbelievers, 115–​16, 123–​25 and unworthy minister, 124–​25 Battles, Ford Lewis, 26, 27 Beckmann, Joachim, 6–​7, 139, 241 Belgic Confession (1561), 186–​95, 203,  228–​29 Bernese synod (1549), 90, 93, 95–​96, 100, 102

262 Index Beza, Theodore, 177, 191, 220–​21 Confession de Foi Chrétien (1559), 182–​83,  193t Book of Common Prayer (1552), 215, 218, 219 Braghi, Gianmarco, 177–​78, 187 Bremen Consensus (1595), 175–​76,  228–​29 Brenz, Johannes Württemberg Confession (1552), 215 Bromiley, Geoffrey W., 205, 213–​14 Bucer, Martin, 10–​11, 13–​14, 41–​42, 57, 62–​63, 78–​79, 86, 139, 176, 215, 243 Bullinger, Heinrich, 3–​4, 6, 10–​11, 86–​87, 90, 91–​92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99–​100, 104–​5, 106, 114, 121–​22, 151, 154, 181–​82, 204–​5,  241 disagreement with Calvin, 99, 131–​32,  175–​76 Burkhart, John, 8–​9   Calvin, John compromise of, 93, 100–​1, 106 impact of, 175–​76, 182–​83, 204–​5, 220,  228–​29 mature theology of, 126–​27, 128–​29 as a pastor, 41 polemics of, 33–​34, 53 theological methodology of, 167n.15 worship practice of, 20n.68 Calvinism, 86, 182 Cassidy, James, 7–​8, 241 Catechism of 1537/​1538 (Calvin), 11, 42–​ 45, 50, 62–​63, 66–​67, 92, 138 Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542/​ 1545), 1, 3–​4, 10–​12, 41–​42, 62, 63–​ 68, 71, 72–​73, 79–​80, 88, 96, 98, 104, 105–​6, 118, 138, 151, 175–​76, 196, 197t, 199t, 203 Christ Blood of, 43, 65–​66, 68–​69, 120–​21,  180–​81 Christ alone, 97, 102–​3, 116–​17, 121, 124,  127–​28 Christology, 88, 91 Engrafted in Christ, 71, 72–​73, 121, 123, 125–​26, 158–​60, 180–​81, 218, 224 Exhibition of Christ, 27, 36, 45, 49–​50, 73–​74, 90–​91,  212

Leading to, 88 Participation in, 95–​96 Church, 2, 8, 68–​69, 179 government of, 87–​88 invisible and visible church, 9–​10, 78–​79,  125–​26 Church of England, 215 circumcision, 24, 52, 144, 145–​46, 148–​50, 151, 164, 165–​66 as a seal, 24, 146, 164 Colossians, the Epistle to, 28–​29 Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Calvin, 1546), 11–​12, 62, 72–​75, 79–​80, 89, 96 Commentary on 1 Peter (Calvin, 1551), 11–​12,  116 Commentary on De Clementia (Calvin, 1532), 21 Commentary on Exodus (Calvin), 132–​33, 136–​37n.72 Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Calvin, 1548), 11–​12, 62, 76–​78, 79–​80, 88, 96, 102, 104 Commentary on Genesis (Calvin), 157 Commentary on Isaiah (Calvin, 1551), 117,  131–​32 Commentary on John (Calvin, 1553), 131–​ 32, 134n.24 Commentary on Romans (Calvin, 1540), 14–​15, 50–​53, 66, 71, 72–​73, 79–​80,  96 Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Calvin, 1555), 155–​56, 164–​65 Commentary on Titus (Calvin, 1550), 11–​12,  115–​17 communion with Christ. See union with Christ Confessio Gebennensis (1549). See Bernese synod (1549) Confession de foi de l’eglise de Paris,  177–​78 Consensus Tigurinus (1549), 10–​11, 12–​ 13, 62–​63, 114, 117–​18, 122–​23, 132–​ 33, 153–​54, 175–​76, 204, 205–​6, 229 non–​Calvinian tone of, 89 Corinthians, Epistle to, 49–​50, 70, 74–​75, 142–​43,  164–​65 Cornelius, 30, 72, 118, 124–​25, 161–​62 question of, 67–​68, 125–​26

Index  263 Cottrell, Jack, 4–​5 Council of Trent (1545–​1547), 74–​75, 189 covenant, 49, 93, 141, 146, 148, 149–​50, 152–​53, 157, 158–​59, 164–​65, 185–​ 86, 220, 224 Cranmer, Thomas, 215   Davis, Thomas, 13–​15, 33, 35, 41–​42, 56–​ 57, 86–​87, 96, 100–​1, 102, 114, 128, 129–​30, 133,  245–​46 De Brès, Guido, 186–​87, 189–​90, 194–​95 Defence of the Sane and Orthodox Doctrine of the Sacraments (Calvin, 1555), 121–​25, 131–​32,  158 Doumergue, Emile, 86   Ebrard, J. H. A., 86 Edward VI, 215 election, 5–​6, 104, 123–​24, 139–​40, 147–​ 48, 156–​57, 166 common election and special election, 166 elective grace, 132–​33 in Scots Confession (1560), 183 Elizabeth I, 215 English Reformation, 215 Ephesians, the Epistle to, 28–​29, 32, 43 Era of the Great National Confessions, 176 Ethiopian eunuch, 118, 154–​55, 161–​62 Eucharist, 3–​4, 13–​15, 26–​27, 154, 185–​86, 195, 215 Calvin’s modification of his understanding on, 86–​87 in the Consensus Tigurinus, 90,  95–​96 efficacy of, 175–​76, 245–​46 as a mere symbol, 95–​96 theology of Calvin, 114, 122–​23, 128, 131, 148 as a way to know the goodness of God, 128 Evans, William, 226, 227 Ex opere operato, 5, 7, 36, 74–​75, 141, 225,  242–​43   faith, 4–​5, 143 appropriation of, 25

and effect of the sacraments, 74–​75, 118, 127 importance of, 64–​65 of infants and adults, 148 its role in the sacraments, 127, 145, 166–​67,  185–​86 strengthening of, 31–​32, 42, 49, 55, 64, 67–​68, 119–​20, 123–​24, 128, 180,  185–​86 and symbols, 52–​53, 117–​18 which appropriates, 121 federal vision movement, 5–​6 Fesko, J. V., 225, 227 First Confession of Basel (1534), 182–​83 First Helvetic Confession (1536), 182–​83 Form of Prayers (Calvin, 1542), 14–​ 15, 62, 68–​6 9, 79–​8 0, 92, 102, 231n.24 Forty-​Two Articles (1553), 182–​83 Frederick III, 195–​98 freedom of God, 7, 78, 121, 132–​33, 161,  242–​43 Bullinger’s understanding of, 87 French (Gallican) Confession (1559), 175–​ 76, 177–​82, 186, 187, 189–​90, 192t, 216, 220–​21,  228–​29 French Protestants, 33–​34, 138–​39, 177   Galatians, the Epistle to, 28–​29, 32, 70 Ganoczy, Alexandre, 34 Geneva, 10–​11, 50, 68, 78–​79, 138–​39, 182,  187–​88 Gerrish, Brian, 3–​4, 8–​9, 140–​41, 214, 229, 241 Gnesio-​Lutheran, 10–​11, 121–​22,  196–​98 God glory of, 34–​35 God alone, 102–​3, 117–​18, 120–​21, 132–​33,  160 power of, 63, 75–​76, 115–​16 sovereignty of, 18n.35, 77–​78, 116,  127–​28 will of, 6 Gootjes, Nicolaas, 186, 187 grace amplification of, 120–​21 cause of, 160

264 Index grace (cont.) conferral of, 24–​25, 29–​30, 53, 62–​63, 64–​65, 66–​67, 74–​75, 86–​87, 98–​99, 103, 104–​5, 106, 118, 224, 225, 226, 227 as a consolation, 151–​52 fruit of, 66–​67 infusion of, 239n.160 instrument of, 56, 75–​76 invisible,  79–​80 participation in, 52–​53, 157 Grislis, Egil, 139–​40, 165–​66 guilt, 8, 74, 189–​90, 233n.55   Hartvelt, Gerrit Pieter, 33 Hazlett, W. Ian P., 182–​83 Heidelberg Catechism (1563), 175–​76, 195–​204, 220–​21,  229 Henry VIII, 215 holiness. See piety Holy Spirit, 5 the agency of, 70–​71, 242–​43 and faith, 49 freedom of, 227–​28 Gabecharakter of, 199–​200 Holy Spirit alone, 102–​3, 121, 124 illumination of, 146–​47 and infant baptism, 155 the power of, 52, 54–​55, 56, 64, 98, 104 and regeneration, 115–​16, 139 and the sacraments, 41–​42, 47–​49, 73, 106, 118, 160–​61, 185–​86, 199–​200 sprinkled with, 124–​25 and water baptism, 118–​19 human agency, 25–​26, 127–​28   infant baptism, 15, 89, 125–​26 and its benefits, 140–​41, 165–​66 and its benefit for the parents, 146 and covenant, 141, 144–​45, 146–​47, 148–​49,  152–​53 and emergency baptism, 168n.32 and faith, 147–​48, 154–​55, 162–​63 fruit/​power of,  151–​52 and God’s vengeance on parents,  148–​49 and infant death, 142–​43 and instrumentality, 139–​40

and knowledge, 155–​56 in liturgy, 171n.87 and the New Testament converts,  159–​60 and perpetual virtue and utility, 161, 163 its place in Calvin’s works, 138–​39 reasons for its adequacy, 142 as a seal, 140–​41, 144, 146 and seed of regeneration, 163, 166 and seed of repentance and faith, 162–​63,  166 Servetus’s rejection of, 161–​62 and three categories of children, 145,  150–​51 Institutes, 88, 89, 118, 183 1536 edition of, 2, 9–​10, 11, 42–​45, 46, 47–​48, 53–​54, 57, 63, 66–​67, 75–​76, 78, 88, 93–​94, 127, 130–​31, 138, 139, 141, 142–​45, 150–​51, 160–​61, 163, 179, 180, 192t, 203–​4,  216 1539 edition of, 9–​10, 11, 45–​50, 64, 93–​94, 97, 98–​99, 138, 139, 145–​51, 163, 164 1543 edition of, 2, 9–​10, 11–​12, 62, 69–​ 73, 79–​80, 98, 102, 104, 163, 185–​86, 216, 242 1550 edition of, 126–​27 1559 edition of, 4, 10–​12, 13, 114, 126–​ 32, 138, 141, 161–​63, 228 instrument. See means Irish Articles (1615), 175–​76, 228–​29   Jacobs, Paul, 205, 214 Janse, Wim, 11, 12–​15, 33, 34, 41–​42, 56–​57, 62–​63, 78–​79, 86–​87, 89, 90, 93, 97, 100–​1, 102, 104–​5, 114, 131, 132–​33,  245–​46 John the Baptist, 147–​48, 164–​65 John, Gospel of, 219, 227 justification, 49, 51–​52, 164, 180–​81 and baptism as its instrumental cause,  75–​76 fourfold causality in relation to, 61n.65   King Francis I, 33–​34 King Philip II, 186–​87

Index  265 knowledge of God, 144 impartation of, 146–​47 Knox, John, 182–​83 Koch, Ernst, 205, 214   Lord’s Prayer, 63, 196 Lusk, Rich, 5–​6, 10–​11, 13, 114, 128–​29, 130–​31, 225–​26, 227,  241–​42 Luther, Martin, 9–​10, 11, 35–​36, 41–​42, 57, 62–​63, 123–​24, 214   Mark, Gospel of, 28–​29, 143 Matthew, Gospel of, 28–​29, 43, 144, 148–​49,  164–​65 McKee, Elsie A., 33 means, 62, 63, 79, 212 the ablative of, 22–​23, 44, 91, 100–​1, 132–​33, 180–​81,  213 and aids, 102–​3, 117, 127, 213 of assurance, 6–​7, 10–​11, 24–​25, 42–​44, 49, 52, 55–​57, 72, 78–​79, 139–​40, 151,  185–​86 of assurance and grace, 67–​6 8, 70, 78, 106, 117, 118, 128–​2 9, 133,  159–​6 0 of assurance, knowledge and grace, 150–​51, 166–​67, 180–​81, 200–​1, 218, 226, 228–​29, 241, 244–​45 of grace, 7, 11, 21–​22, 26, 56–​57, 64–​65, 67, 68–​69, 70, 71, 116, 143–​44, 148–​ 49, 150, 151–​52, 158–​59, 165–​66, 175–​76, 181–​82, 185–​86, 191–​92, 195, 224, 229, 243–​44 and the Holy Spirit, 159–​60 inferior, 77–​78, 79, 101, 120–​21, 135n.43 of knowledge, 128, 142–​43 of knowledge and assurance, 64, 65, 68–​69, 72, 91, 119–​20, 123–​24, 129–​ 30, 145–​47, 180–​82, 191–​92, 199, 217–​18,  224 of salvation, 10–​11, 35–​36, 42, 49–​50, 59n.42, 64–​65, 72, 89, 199–​200, 224 usage pattern of instrumentum and organum, 101 medieval scholasticism, 49–​50 medium (moyen, medium). See means

Melanchthon, Philipp, 11, 35–​36, 62, 78–​ 79, 86, 195–​98, 214, 217 Augsburg Confession (1530), 215, 217, 217t Examen ordinandorum (1552), 199 metaphor. See sign mortification and renewal, 28, 56, 65, 68–​69,  145–​46 Muller, Richard, 27   Netherlands,  186–​87 Neuser, Wilhem H., 199–​200 Nevin, John, 86   Olevianus, Caspar, 195–​96   Paul, the apostle, 7–​8, 29–​30, 35–​36, 49–​50, 52–​53, 69–​70, 96, 105–​6, 118,  120–​21 Pentecost, 118, 125–​26, 164–​65 Peter, Epistles of, 28–​29, 74, 161–​62 piety, 69–​70, 93, 94, 150 Platonism, 6 post-​Reformation period, 176 prayer, 17n.22, 155–​56 as a means of grace, 219–​20 preaching as an instrument, 51, 102 and the Holy Spirit, 51, 69–​70, 146–​47 and sacraments, 64, 70 predestination, 104, 220, 238n.144 Psychopannychia (Calvin, 1534), 21 Puritan Reformed theology, 220   radical Protestantism, 64, 78 Reformed Protestantism, 176, 182–​83, 204 regeneration, 74, 75–​76, 121, 139–​40, 147–​ 48, 156, 161, 163, 200, 218, 225 Riggs, John, 9–​10, 13, 41–​42, 127, 140–​41, 175–​76, 216, 226 righteousness, 51–​52, 94, 185–​86 Rohls, Jan, 175–​76, 204–​5, 214, 228–​29 Roman Catholic being baptized in the Roman Catholic church, 179 Calvin’s movement toward its sacramental theology, 78 colloquies with, 62, 86, 140–​41, 243

266 Index Roman Catholic (cont.) persecution of, 177 polemic against, 53, 54, 64, 65–​66, 70, 74–​76, 116–​17,  152–​53 sacramental theology of, 11, 33–​35, 62, 119–​20, 121, 141, 160, 189, 225 Romans, the Epistle to, 28–​29, 32, 43, 50–​53, 66, 69, 146–​47, 156–​57, 164,  189–​90 Rorem, Paul, 86–​87, 93, 94, 96, 100, 104–​5,  175–​76 Rozeboom, Sue, 35   sacramental realism, 36 sacraments,  21–​28 administration of, 88 as an appendage, 75, 89, 118–​19, 180 Calvin’s high view of, 131–​32 delayed benefits of, 143–​44, 149–​50, 153–​54, 155, 158, 160–​61, 162–​63, 165–​66, 228–​29,  244–​45 its dual instrumental role, 70–​71, 123–​24,  181–​82 its effect and use, 64–​65 as an external attestation, 64 God’s freedom from, 105–​6 holding forth the presence of Christ, 26, 27–​28, 35–​36, 90, 117–​18, 212 as an instrument of salvation or grace, 74, 89, 94, 100 material and substance of, 70–​71, 74–​75,  88 ministry of, 48–​49, 98–​99, 213 of the Old Testament, 49–​50, 73, 88, 117,  126–​27 overvaluing of, 127–​28 and participation, 128 as profession, 93, 216–​17 their relationship to images, 93–​94 and their relationship to what they signify, 74–​75, 94–​97, 102–​3, 125, 160–​61, 180–​82, 191–​92, 194t, 204, 211,  213–​14 Roman usage of, 25–​26 sacramental union, 224, 227 as a seal, 24–​25, 29–​30, 42, 52, 56, 64–​ 65, 92, 93, 94, 211 second sacramental war, 121–​22

as a spiritual foundation, 227–​28 as a superstition, 123, 155 as supplements to doctrines, 127 as unnecessary, 64–​65, 116–​17, 123 as a verification, 17n.19 as a way to recall, 93 without Christ, 99 salvation assurance of, 29–​30 cause of, 29–​30, 34 communication of, 89 knowledge of, 8–​9 recognition of its benefits, 43–​44 sanctification, 29–​30,  180–​81 Schaff, Philip, 121–​22 Schlüter, Richard, 9 Schwenckfeld, Caspar, 73, 75–​76, 116–​17 Scots Confession (1560), 175–​76, 182–​86,  228–​29 Second Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith concerning the Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal (Calvin, 1556), 2, 114, 125–​26, 131–​ 32, 158–​61, 162–​63, 228 seed metaphor of, 163 Second Helvetic Confession (1566), 204–​14,  229 Sermon on Deuteronomy 34:9 (Calvin, 1556), 2, 8, 172–​73n.123 Servetus,  161–​63 Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper (Calvin), 78 sign, 22, 29–​30, 33 blessings without participating in the signs,  124–​25 with a certain power, 115–​16 confidence in, 98–​99 its connection to what it signifies, 57, 66–​6 7, 71, 73–​7 4, 104, 115–​1 6, 117–​1 8, 120, 123–​2 4, 130, 132–​3 3, 179, 199–​2 00, 211–​1 2,  228–​2 9 as exercises to instruct, 23–​24, 115–​16 and forgiveness, 144 as a fortification, 28–​29 of grace, 216 not having power, 47, 53, 64, 98–​99

Index  267 ordinary signs, 22 outward sign (externo symbolo), 22–​24, 42–​43, 44, 52–​53, 66, 91, 132–​33, 164–​65, 179, 180 and promise, 22–​23 as a representation, 65, 68–​69 as a seal, 65, 74, 75–​76, 92, 93, 118–​20, 123–​24, 140–​41, 185–​86,  199 as a testimony, 24, 35, 91 which confers the spiritual food, 49–​50 without any effect, 73 Simon Magus, 118, 121, 195 Strasbourg, 9–​11, 45–​46, 57–​58n.3, 63, 68,  78–​79 Swiss Articles of the Synod of Bern (1532),  182–​83 symbolic instrumentalism, 3–​4, 204–​5,  241 symbolic memorialism, 3–​4, 8–​9 symbolic parallelism, 3–​4, 6, 204–​5, 211, 214,  228–​29   Ten Commandments, 196 thanksgiving, 94 Thirty-​Nine Articles (1571), 175–​76, 215–​21,  228–​29 historical background of, 236n.117 Titus, Epistle to, 7–​8, 28–​29, 32   union with Christ, 4, 28–​29, 66–​67, 70, 105–​6, 123, 125–​26, 158–​60, 179,  185–​86 and benefits of baptism, 17n.23, 58n.15

a deeper union with Christ, 126, 128 and faith, 133 Ursinus, Zacharias, 195–​96, 220–​21   Venema, Cornelis P., 205, 214 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 215, 216   Wallace, Ronald, 5–​6 Wendel, François, 4–​5, 86–​87, 139 Westminster Directory for Public Worship,  225–​26 Westminster Standards (1646–​47), 175–​76,  220–​29 Westphal, Joachim, 10–​11, 104, 114, 115–​16, 121–​22, 125, 132–​33, 158–​59,  160–​61 Word of God, 22 as the incorruptible seed of regeneration,  161–​62 ministry of, 50–​51 and sacrament, 5, 104, 124, 179, 180,  191–​92 and salvific power, 50–​51 Wright, David, 138–​39, 141, 164, 225   Zachman, Randall, 11–​13, 15, 33, 41–​42, 56–​57, 62–​63, 72–​73, 77,  78–​79 Zurich Consensus. See Consensus Tigurinus (1549) Zwingli, Ulrich, 3–​4, 9–​10, 35–​36, 37n.29, 39n.74, 176, 199–​200, 214 Zwinglianism, 34, 41–​42, 57, 64, 65–​66, 75–​76, 86, 93, 114, 183, 203–​4 Zwinglians, 140–​41, 196–​98