Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession and Communion: Early Modern Protestant Penitential and Eucharistic Piety 9783666550416, 9783525550410

Citation preview

Refo500 Academic Studies

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon, (New Haven), Ute Lotz-Heumann (Tucson), Mathijs Lamberigts (Leuven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Johannes Schilling (Kiel), Zsombor Tûth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Linz), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück), David M. Whitford (Waco)

Volume 14

Herman A. Speelman

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession and Communion Early Modern Protestant Penitential and Eucharistic Piety

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISSN 2198-3089 ISBN 978-3-525-55041-0 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de , Jagtspoel Foundation and Van Coeverden Supported by Adriani Foundation, Free University Amsterdam. Ó 2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound by Hubert & Co KG, Robert-Bosch-Breite 6, 37079 Göttingen Printed on age-resistant paper.

To the cloister communities – the Trappists in Berkel-Enschot, the Friars Minor in ’s-Hertogenbosch, and the Franciscan Friars in Stoutenburg, Kranenburg and Hagatna, Guam – who welcomed me warmly during my years as student, chaplain, missionary and pastor. Your celebrations of the Eucharist and of the Liturgy of the Hours have revitalised me every day again for more than forty years.

Contents

Preface by prof. dr. A. van de Beek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Preface by prof. dr. P.J.J. van Geest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

PART ONE: Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era Chapter 1. Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period 1 Penance in the early church . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 From penance to confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Confession in the late medieval period . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Chapter 2. Man, Freedom, and the Church: How to Serve God Freely, within or outside the Power of the Church . . . . . . . . . . 1 Man in the Late Medieval Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A New Perspective on the Christian as Spiritual Man (homo spiritualis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Freedom of Conscience versus Ecclesiastical Power . . . . 4 New Ecclesiastical Regulations Curtailing the Individual’s Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Position of the Common People within the Christian Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 3. The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ . 1 The communal unification with Christ . . . . . . . . . 2 The necessity of a worthy preparation for communion 3 The effects or fruits of the Communion with Christ . .

. . . .

. . . .

29 29 33 37

45 47 48 52 53 56 65 72 78 83

8

Contents

PART TWO: Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution Chapter 4. Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Church renewal through visitation: the initial phase 2 Church renewal through visitation: the phase of the church’s revival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Church renewal through education . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

97 97

. . . . . .

108 122

Chapter 5. Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Luther’s turn and the sacrament of penance in the late 1510s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Melanchthon’s corrective addendum to Luther . . . . . 3 The influence of Luther and Melanchthon on Calvin . .

.

129

. . .

130 133 141

Chapter 6. Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence: Daily Practices of Life and Death . . . . . . . . . 1 Penance and the Daily Practices of Life and Death . . . . . 2 The Eucharist and Daily Practices of Life and Death . . . 3 The Heidelberg Catechism and the Daily Practices of Life and Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145 149 153 160

PART THREE: Calvin’s Turn and Contribution Chapter 7. The Importance of Being Well-Prepared for Participation in Holy Communion in Calvin’s Geneva . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The importance of being well-prepared for Holy Communion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The importance of good pastoral care by the office bearers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A comparison between the papal system of penance and confession and Calvin’s system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 8. Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline and our Struggle to Understand his View . . . . . 1 First phase: Calvin connects discipline to the Lord’s Supper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Second phase: Calvin insists on confession before the sacrament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167 167 177 183

193 196 199

9

Contents

3 Third phase: Calvin requires confession before the consistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Fourth phase: Calvin arranges confession at home and claims the power of excommunication for the consistory . 5 The final phase: Calvin demands that penitents return to the consistory to seek forgiveness and to be restored . . . Chapter 9. ‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Aim and use of partaking of Christ’s true body . . . . 2 Communion effected by the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . 3 Calvin’s response to other views on the Lord’s Supper

202 212 216

. . . .

231 233 239 243

Chapter 10. Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe . 1 The Reformation movement as a catalyst for Christian freedom and emancipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The formation of religious plurality in France . . . . . . .

253

. . . .

PART FOUR: The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Chapter 11. Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 How an evangelical penitential piety took shape . . . . . . 2 Eucharistic piety especially in Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Calvin’s desire for a very frequent celebration of the Holy Supper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The central role of the preparation for the Lord’s Supper . 5 How the new penitential and eucharistic piety was received in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1: Agricola’s Response to Melanchthon’s Doctrine of Penance in 1527 . . . . . . . Appendix 2: Centuries of Interpretations of Luther’s Preface from 1528 to Instructions for the visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 3: On Discipline in the Cities Surrounding Geneva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 4: Whose is the Right of Excommunication?

254 254

277 278 290 297 310 313

. . .

321

. . .

321

. . .

324

. . . . . .

327 331

10

Contents

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

337

Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

357

Index of Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

361

Preface by prof. dr. A. van de Beek

Herman Speelman’s book provides wonderful insight into Protestant thought on confession, penance, and the Lord’s Supper during the period when the Reformation was consolidating itself in Europe. His main focus is on the work of Melanchthon and Calvin, but he also demonstrates how closely their views were intertwined with those of their contemporaries and, even more so, how much they related to medieval practices. The book is not structured strictly chronologically, nor does it have a systematic framework. Rather, it provides different perspectives on the relevant issues in a kaleidoscopic manner, and in this way the author succeeds in demonstrating the complicated interrelations of confession, Eucharist, conversion, and penance. The most striking feature for me was the degree to which the Reformers proved to be indebted to medieval practices; there appears to be more continuity than discontinuity. From the very first chapter it is clear that both the medieval church and the Reformers were interested in a reformation, and especially in a Christian life for all church people – in a godly life for all of society, in fact. From this perspective one can consider the efforts of Calvin in Geneva a prolongation and intensification of the rules of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. A life according to God’s will for all people was also Melanchthon’s aim during the church visitations of the late 1520s. After the shock of the Reformation with its focus on grace alone, a Christian life proved to be a new challenge, since many interpreted Christian freedom as a license for libertine living. The church could not do without practices and rules for penance in order to keep its members on the right path. Calvin’s focus on the Christian life was even greater than in the case of Melanchthon. In light of later developments in Reformed church practice, one cannot but be amazed at how central the Eucharist was in his thought for Christian identity. Everything is centered around the Lord’s Supper, which he wanted to be celebrated every time the church assembled, at least once a week in the Sunday services, but also, if possible, on other days. A sound preparation for

12

Abraham van de Beek

the Eucharist was also required, as well as a consequent renewal of daily life. In order to keep to these standards Calvin developed an elaborate system of home visitations, in which the consistory played a central role. The result can be viewed as an intensification of the rules of the Fourth Lateran Council – now not just once a year at Easter, but continuously, every week and even every day. In Calvin’s theology one’s whole life is oriented by the Eucharist, and thus by confession and penance. The major difference between medieval theology and that of the Reformers is that penance is no longer a matter of retribution, almost a payment for previous sins, but the expression of a new life in Christ which is nourished by his body and offered in the bread and wine. A good book evokes desires. My wish, after reading this study, is a follow-up study comparing Calvin and the reformation of the Council of Trent, as well as a comparison between Calvin and Reformed Pietism. Abraham van de Beek

Preface by prof. dr. P.J.J. van Geest

If one writes a book on Melanchthon’s view on penance and Calvin’s view on confession and on the Eucharist, one takes a great risk. The literature on these subjects is abundant and there is a great danger that one may lapse into a presentation of insights that have already been put forward by others. There seems to be only a very small chance that one may offer a new perspective on this area of research. However, it may be deduced from the book presented here that there is no reason to despair. In the first half of the previous century theologians often used the works of Melanchthon and Calvin to find answers to questions that these two had not asked, at least not in the way assumed. Their questions were often coloured by the need for an all-embracing synthesis, by means of which the Christian world was supplied with a coherent image of man, the world and God, in times that were inversely proportional to the certainty and peace striven for in these theological syntheses. For the purpose of this synthesis the works of Church Fathers or theologians were used as stone quarries that one was free to ransack in order to construct a building of one’s own self-assurance. That the intention of the author or the dynamics of a text were often neglected in the process was an unintended but all the same questionable result. One of the strong points of Dr. Speelman’s book is that the works of Melanchthon and Calvin in which they have developed their penitential and Eucharistic piety, have been read with the intention to do justice to the spirit that is implicit in them. Usually two courses seem to be followed in order to get a proper picture of the piety of the ecclesial reformation of the first half of the sixteenth century in Europe. Some scholars study the continued effect of the guiding principles inherent in Melanchthon’s and Calvin’s way of thinking in order to find out where they were put on the Procrustean bed of their interpreters’ own presuppositions. Others have tried to trace the dynamics in the texts themselves in order to be able to estimate at their true value the scope and the depth of these theologians’ way of thinking.

14

Paul J.J. van Geest

The last-mentioned approach is no sinecure. Texts have to be read, reread, ruminated on and interiorised. Moreover, a double effort is demanded of researchers who want to trace the dynamics in the texts. On the one hand they will have to familiarise themselves with the texts to such an extent that they can, as it were, reap the same benefits from these that the contemporaries of Calvin or Melanchthon gained when they read the works and consequently came to repentance. Understanding of the text is promoted if the reader is touched by the contents. On the other hand, however, they will have to elucidate the work, with academic and critical distance, in the light of the historical, cultural, religious and biographical context, in order to estimate it at its true value. Interpreters who are able to combine the results of the double effort allow a text to come fully into its own and pass on to the next generation the treasures contained in it. In this book, Dr. Speelman, on the basis of painstaking reading of the text, maps out the penitential and confessional system, as developed by Melanchthon and Calvin, with a view to participation in the holy sacrament. The way in which he does so reveals his attempt at a double effort. In the words of St. Paul, he delivers what he has received, to the scholars in the field of research and to the members of the community of interpretation and communication, which is the Catholica of all ages. In more respects than one his book is extremely instructive. Paul van Geest

Introduction

This collection includes material from three earlier books, more particularly regarding Melanchthon’s view on penance, and Calvin’s view on confession and on the Eucharist,1 and from several lectures I have given on these subjects over the last three years in Oslo, Berlin, Bologna, Amsterdam, and Zurich.2 Some overlap has therefore proven inevitable in these eleven somewhat independent chapters. At the heart of this collection is Melanchthon’s and Calvin’s search, after the yoke of the established church was abandoned, for a new balance between, on the one hand, the Protestant emphasis on religious freedom, and, on the other, the so-called ‘Christian penitential confession’ or practice of the imitation of Christ. Both these spiritual leaders placed their mark on a new spiritual balance between the inner experience and the external practices of the new, broadly supported Protestant traditions. After the alarming experiences with the first church visitations in Saxony in the summer of 1527, Melanchthon demanded renewed attention for the necessity of penance, conversion, and the preaching the law. From the very beginning of his involvement in the reformations of the church, Calvin, in his turn, was to search for a replacement for the existing penitential system in the established Roman Catholic church. In this respect, the decisive and spiritual application and upholding of a stringent connection between the Supper and a controllable Christian doctrine and lifestyle in the church was of special importance. 1 Speelman (2010), Biechten bij Calvijn: Over het geheim van heilig communiceren, Speelman/ Korteweg (2013), Hoe overleeft de kerk? Melanchthons Onderricht aan predikanten, and Speelman (2014), E¦n met Christus: Een klein traktaat van Johannes Calvijn over het heilig Avondmaal, vertaald en ingeleid. 2 The conference in Oslo addressed ‘Preparing for Death, Remembering the Dead’, in Berlin ‘Anthropological Reformations-Anthropology in the Era of Reformation’, in Bologna ‘Arts, Portraits and Representation in the Reformation Era’, in Amsterdam ‘Protestant Traditions & the Soul of Europe’ and the Congress in Zurich was on Calvin Research in general. Refer to, in particular, the chapters 1, 3, 6, 8–10.

16

Introduction

The spiritual contribution of both men was of imminent importance in their days, with regard to theological content as well as form, for the continued existence of the evangelical movement in large parts of European Christendom. And even now, five centuries later, it appears that their contribution is still relevant, partly due to the connection that was made with older spiritual Christian traditions, both in their own ranks and in the broad ecumenical setting. Due to the variety of subjects and the perspectives from which these will be discussed, this introduction will now first provide a short historical and theological sketch of several backgrounds behind the most prominent issues. One can hardly underestimate the impact Philip Melanchthon had on the evangelical spirituality and more particularly the innovating way in which he reintroduced penance as one of the main focal points of the early Protestant movement. This is evidenced by the first official Protestant agreement regarding the church’s doctrine and liturgical practices, which he wrote in 1527, and the impact it had on the evangelical movement which at that time still had little structure.3 As a member of the first official group of church and school visitors, Melanchthon discovered that the new doctrine regarding ‘justification by faith alone’ and ‘Christian freedom’ was misinterpreted by many and could give way to carelessness and false security if penitence, repentance and conversion were not first of all properly brought to the fore in the preaching. Shortly after some turbulent years of crisis, in which it was unclear whether the ten-year-old Wittenberg movement would prove to be viable and attract broad support, he wrote a manual for priests and preachers. The combination of the forcefully initiated visitations and Melanchthon’s manual for parish clergy, in which he offered practical canonical and liturgical assistance and a new curriculum for primary and secondary education, proved to be not only of practical, but also of eminently theological importance for the survival of the evangelical movement. The Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors offered a summary of the new view on the gospel to the primarily former priests in the shape of what we would nowadays call a confession of faith. In the long run, the document had a great impact on the reformation of church and school in many parts of Europe.

3 We are referring here to the Instructions for the Visitators of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony (the Instructio visitatorum) and its forerunner, the Articuli Visitatores, which was the concept Melanchthon wrote in 1527 during the first evangelical church visitations. The first mentioned document was used by Melanchthon in 1530 when the Confession of Augsburg was composed.

Introduction

17

Our second main character is John Calvin, who, like Melanchthon, was to place a very particular mark on the penitential and Eucharistic piety of the evangelical and ecclesiastical reformation movement which was rapidly growing in the first half of the sixteenth century in Europe. This book started in fact with Calvin, years ago during a trip to Scotland in which my wife and I visited a museum in the historical city of St. Andrews. This museum was partly set up as an old sixteenth-century consistory : there was a long table at one end with several seats and at the other end one small stool, the so-called ‘stool of repentance’, a Reformed confessional. With that image emblazoned on my retinas, I looked with new eyes on John Calvin’s attempts to give shape to an evangelical form of confession. In order for the reader to understand what I saw, I found a picture in the fresco of Ghirlandaio from 1480, a forerunner of Leonardo da Vinci’s L’ultima cena. It depicts a horseshoe-shaped Eucharist table and a sinner in front of the table in an isolated place before the Lord, which portrays to some degree the connection which in the late Middle Ages was made between the Eucharist and confession. The result, this manuscript, is a description of the different stages in which Calvin developed his penitential and confessional system, whereby approaching and participating in the holy sacrament repeatedly involved the communicant’s appearance before God and simultaneously his experience of fellowship with Christ and, in Him, with fellow believers: the holy mystery of communion.4 Whereas today we usually view life through natural laws, Calvin placed everything within the framework of God’s government, his secret operation that is not visible apart from faith. The innermost circle of ecclesiastical worship, personal piety, and the experience of God’s care and guidance centres around the administration of God’s Word and sacrament. This secret operation of God’s Spirit sets forth the presence of Christ and makes us His table-companions.5 His thinking was dominated by the strong connection between the most holy mystery of the Lord’s table and what he called ‘Christian confession’, similar to the way in which the foci of an ellipse are inextricably bound together. In the late Middle Ages, confession had a range of functions but it was in the first place a form of church discipline and social control. Calvin adopted these and many other functions of confession in his process of restoration and sanctification, such as doing penance, showing contrition, confessing sin and guilt, repenting, 4 The French term communion has several denotations, such as communion with God and neighbour, the Christian congregation, mutual internal unity and solidarity, but most of all the table of the Lord. 5 In Calvin’s French the word secret and the Latin arcanum always refer to the arcana operatio, the secret operation of God. Heiko Oberman observed that no medieval theologian, nor even any Reformer from the sixteenth century, used the word ‘mystery’ as frequently and freely as Calvin. Oberman: 1988, pp. 19–21.

18

Introduction

promising improvement and giving proof of it, receiving instruction, taking counsel, begging for and receiving forgiveness, making atonement, and so forth. It was the church that made it possible for people to be examined questioned, assisted, advised, and corrected to ensure the salvation of the church and the individual. Calvin opposed the way church discipline had been made into a separate and independent element, as was at times the case in the established church. From the very moment he joined the evangelical movement of reform, Calvin, steadily focused on that mysterious communion with God, sought new ways to help those who were burdened by their conscience and in danger of perishing to attain true, Christian freedom. I have distinguished five stages in the development of Calvin’s reflection on ecclesiastical discipline, a process through which Calvin aligned himself with medieval practices of penitence and confession.6 Yet there still is much more to be written about this particular devotion of Calvin’s spiritual, pastoral, and liturgical religious everyday experiences. Calvin spent a great amount of time, attention, and energy on this aspect of his pastoral ministry, that is, in working to bring about reconciliation between God and people by repentance and confession, and in the fight against evil and the growth in holiness. In Calvin’s Geneva much attention was given to pastoral counseling and education, at home, in the consistory, and from the pulpit; there were also more than twenty weekly church services which mainly consisted of prayers, devotional singing of the Psalms, and listening to the Word of God.

1. In the middle of the 1520s, large groups of church people in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation rose up in protest, after having been stirred up by Protestant preaching on evangelical freedoms. More than a hundred thousand deaths were the result. In the summer of 1526, Emperor Charles decreed at the Diet in Worms that, up until a council that was yet to be planned, the different parts of the German empire were allowed to organize their ecclesiastical matters themselves. Following this, Elector John of Saxony initiated the church-reforming visitations in cooperation with Luther and Melanchthon a year later. Matters such as the dispossession of monasteries, the maintenance of church buildings, the preachers’ salaries, and the dismissal and appointment of pastors came under attention. At the end of the 1520s, it was still not clear whether Protestantism would make a definite breakthrough. There was growing criticism from adversaries and the support for the evangelical innovations among the 6 See ch. 6 and in particular ch. 8.

Introduction

19

followers of the Reformation was still fragile.7 But when the church increasingly became part of the state, new power relations came into being such that the Protestant princes in Germany became at once pope and emperor in their own territory and thus acquired even more power than their medieval predecessors had had.8 In the 1520s and 1530s, the evangelical reorganization of society and church in many parts of Germany was to follow the same pattern: the government was in charge and had a church order drawn up on the basis of which it ordered visitations. The church officials were evaluated and instructed according to this standard and all kinds of aspects of daily religious life, such as liturgy, had to be reformed. In 1527 there still was great unclarity over many different things. A form of ecclesiastical anarchy ruled, in which everyone acted as they saw fit.9 Already during the first official church visitation in July 1527, it became clear that to hundreds of (ex-)priests it was unclear what exactly the new doctrine of justification by faith alone implied and what the practical consequences were for the liturgy in the church and for the daily life of believers. It was concluded that first and foremost the preachers needed additional schooling. They had to learn how to interpret the Christian freedom and how to proclaim it for the salvation 7 The beginning of the 1530s was to be a crucial period for a definite breakthrough. Within a few years’ time, however, Luther had already suggested that improvements had been made in church life in Saxony. On May 20, 1530, Luther reported to his elector from Cobourg that “God’s Word was at work and fertile in the whole country (im ganzen Lande).” However, in this letter no direct references to the visitations in Saxony were made, but Luther tried to encourage the elector, who was in Augsburg at that time. He wanted to encourage his elector now that he had to endure the opposition of so many other sovereigns. “In this matter,” Luther continues to write, “the merciful God shows himself to be all the more merciful, that He makes his word known in the land of His Electoral Grace in a manner thus powerful and fertile. Because it is certain that the land of His Electoral Grace has the very best and most parish clergymen and preachers, who teach the Gospel so loyally and purely and who thus help to encourage peace, unlike any other country in the whole world.” Here he also speaks of the youth, who are raised through education and preaching from the catechism and Scripture: It touches me “when I see how, these days, young girls pray and believe better and are better able to speak about God and Christ than in the past and better also than in the convents, monasteries and schools.” WA 5, nr. 1572 Luther to John, 20 May 20 1530, pp. 324–328. 8 Pettegree: 2000, pp. 158–162. 9 Some pastors assumed that their preaching was sufficiently reformatory when they proclaimed that the pope was the antichrist. During the visitations Melanchthon complained: “I am involved in a complicated matter and as far as I can see, without result. Everything is confused, partly due to ignorance, partly due to the immorality of the teachers. My heart bleeds. I often isolate myself and I let my tears flow freely when we have finished a visitation in one or other place. And who would not mourn when he sees how the talents of mankind are so terribly neglected and that his soul, which is capable of learning and understanding so much, is even ignorant of its Creator and Lord?” Quote from Kooiman: 1963, p. 102. Weber : 1844, p. 21. Burkhardt: 1879/ 1981, pp. 18f. Herrmann: 1929f, pp. 203–229. MW 7/2, nr. 116 Melanchthon to Aquila in Saalfeld, shortly after 29 July 1527, pp. 22–23. Sehling: 1902f, vol. 1, pp. 37f. and pp. 148–149. Maurer : 1969, vol. 2, pp. 470–477.

20

Introduction

of the believers: “For the majority of the priests and clergy are of no use and incompetent; they do not instruct the people properly, but usually preached only one part of the gospel, that is, the forgiveness of sins, but without penance, so that the people’s consciences are worse and more rebellious than before.”10 This is why already during the first official church visitations in the summer of 1527, Melanchthon wrote a first confession to which a church order was appended, in which he demanded attention for penance and the preaching of the law. He emphasized this more than Luther had done. In his view not only forgiveness, freedom, and mercy ought to be proclaimed from the pulpit, but also repentance, conversion, and penance. Without real sorrow for one’s sins there is no room for the true comfort of the gospel, and without the fear of God the proclamation of the certainty of eternal life remains vague. Soon criticism arose. From all sides Melanchthon was reproached for falling back into the old Roman Catholic traditions, a reproach which was also made to Calvin ten years later. But because he had been so shocked by the noncommittal manner in which the new doctrine was proclaimed and given shape, Melanchthon insisted that faith can only find a place in a penitent heart. This is why, according to Melanchthon, the preachers who neglect penance and the preaching of the law have to be admonished, refuted, and punished. After all, in doing so they detract from one of the most principal issues in the gospel, since when they hold out a one-sided and cheap grace to theordinary believers, these believers are put on the wrong track. They then erroneously think that their sins have been forgiven, and the consequence is a false sense of peace and security. Thus we see that Melanchthon makes a highly significant turn in his visitation articles of 1527, which seems even to boil down to a rehabilitation of first penance or conversion, which in the old church had always been the gate through which one entered the Christian faith from a pagan past. “As Christ preached penance and forgiveness,” he begins, “thus the shepherds of the soul have to pass it on to the churches. There may be a lot of prognostication concerning faith these days, but what faith is still cannot be understood without the preaching of penance.” Faith without preceding penance, “without teaching the fear of God, without teaching the law,” to Melanchthon’s mind is like pouring new wine into old wineskins and makes the masses used to a “carnal security” and indifference.11

10 MBW 3, nr. 574 Visitation report of 13 August 1527, p. 131, l.12–17. “Den die priester und selsorger der mehren theil fast ubel und ungeschickt, das volck nicht gnugsam untterweisen, sonder alle gemeinigklich durchaus alleyn den eynen theil des ewangeliums, das ist remissio peccatorum, und nicht penitenciam, geprediget, dadurch das volck in yrem gewissen erger und roloser worden dan vor ie.” 11 AV, art. 1.

Introduction

21

Yet this ‘first penance’ in Melanchthon hardly stands on its own. The reason is that also those who have responded to the preaching of the gospel must endure penance in the sense of the ‘killing of the flesh’ and the ‘mortification of the old man’. This is why the Ten Commandments must be impressed on the hearers time and time again. Also the cross, which Christians bear in their lives, serves to incite them to do penance, so that the oppression which they must suffer can count as ‘part of the instruction of the law’ and as a punishment imposed upon them because of their sins.12 In addition, Melanchthon, despite the stress he places on the fear of divine judgment and punishment, does not teach the same attritionism as medieval theology. In the section on ‘the fear of God,’ he distinguishes between ‘servile fear’ (timor servilis), which only shudders at the judgment but does not believe in forgiveness, and ‘filial fear’ (timor filialis), in which the fear of God and faith in forgiveness again and again go hand in hand.13 This last issue, the dialectic of law and gospel, is therefore crucial, not only for the ‘first penance’ which must prepare the outsider for the preaching of the gospel, but also for the ‘second penance’ which permanently marks the Christian life from beginning to end. In this study we will place our main focus on Melanchthon’s doctrine of penance, which is the central subject matter of both his visitation documents. Some wonder whether Melanchthon’s Instruction also brought about a turn in Luther’s doctrine of penance, in the sense that from then on, he placed penance, which before he had considered as the fruit of faith, before faith. Already since Richard Albert Lipsius’s 1892 dissertation on Luther’s doctrine of the penance (“Luthers Lehre von der Busse”), the general assumption has been that it would be incorrect to call it a turn, and that at the very most we could speak of a difference in accent.14 The question is whether this is also the case for Melanchthon. Another question that ensues from Melanchthon’s Instructions for the Visitors is whether Luther and Melanchthon, in their attention for a continuing penance, oppose the medieval penitential practice or rather seek to connect to the spirituality of the late Middle Ages, in which the awareness of sin and ensuing fear of judgement played an important role, as Wolfhart Pannenberg claimed in 1986.15 A year later, Maarten den Dulk argued for the idea that in his Institutes, Calvin opposed Melanchthon’s and Luther’s thesis from 1527 concerning a penance that precedes faith.16 Here too, however, there is reason for reconsideration. 12 13 14 15 16

AV, art. 2. AV, art. 6. See ch. 5, n. 30. Thus Seeberg: 1930, vol. 4/1, pp. 262f and Bavinck: 1930, vol. 3, pp. 516f. Pannenberg: 1986, pp. 5–25. See ch. 2, n. 61. Den Dulk: 1987, pp. 25f. In a side note, Petrus Barth and Wilhelm Niesel suggested that Calvin is also referring to Melanchthon’s opinion when he writes: “Some are of the opinion

22

Introduction

Melanchthon made an explicit connection between penance and faith and Luther emphasized that a true Christian should not be forced, but ought to come to confession and receive communion by an internal desire to do so regularly. Calvin agreed, but made the connection less noncommittal. He created an entire penitential and confessional system of his own in preparation for the Holy Supper and eternal salvation, in which the church maintained the final responsibility. 2. This study partly considers the question to what degree Calvin was responsible for a Calvinistic organization of disciplinary church life and worship in which confessional and Eucharistic piety played a central role. In his 1536 Institutes, Calvin had already observed that no one should be surprised that he committed “to the civil government the duty of rightly establishing religion.” For, I do not allow “men to make laws according to their own decision concerning religion and the worship of God.”17 And in 1541 Calvin together with the Genevan government introduced a new form of consistory, in his own words, “something like a judicial college of elders (presbyterorum judicium),” a body that maintained supervision over the Lord’s Supper and churchgoers and that had only a small degree of independence from the city council.18 From the very beginning, Calvin fought the desecration of the sacrament. He wanted the Lord’s Supper to be celebrated frequently, although he did not view participation in it as a matter of course, without any form of supervision and discipline, which was emphasised already in his early articles “Concerning the organization of the Church and of Worship in Geneva.”19 that penance rather precedes faith, than it ensues from faith or is brought about by it like fruit from a tree, but they have never understood what penance truly means, and they are brought to this idea by very poor arguments.” “Christ and John,” they say, “inspire the people with their preaching to do penance and only then they add that the kingdom of heavens is approaching.” In this respect they refer to article 12 from the CA and from the Apology = BSLK, 64, 257–260 and to the Loci Communes from 1535 CR 21, 490. OS 4 (Inst. 3.3.1) 2, pp. 55–56, n. 3 and 4. See also McNeill: 1960, vol. 1, p. 593. 17 CO 1, 230, l.16–24 = OS 1, 260, l.23–30 = Inst. 4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.8–14. See Speelman: 2014, chapter 2, n. 200. Cf. n. 157 and 115f. 18 Hermj.: 1886, vol. 7, no. 1100, 439, l.35 and l.26–27 = CO 11, no. 389, 379, l.13 and l.2. 19 See ch. 6, n. 32. In 1532, under the leadership of Farel and Calvin, the church of Geneva took a different turn with regard to the discipline of the Lord’s Supper than did the neighboring canton of Bern. The synod of Bern, which met in January 1532, changed its course when it decreased the ecclesiastical element of its Chorgericht. This is evident, for example, in the new regulations that were made regarding the discipline of the Lord’s Supper. Eucharistic discipline was no longer counted as a responsibility of the Chorgericht, but was placed in the

Introduction

23

The oath policy of a few years earlier, in which at first the council and then every Genevan resident without exception was required to swear an oath of allegiance to the confession, so that the profanation of the Lord’s Supper might be avoided, confirms that Calvin did not see religion in general or the Lord’s Supper in particular as a purely individual choice. In Calvin’s understanding, all inhabitants in a Christian community belonged to the church just as much as they belonged to that Christian community. Furthermore, church discipline as Calvin had prescribed it in the 1540s and 1550s was not intended for one part of the Genevan population alone, but extended to include all residents of this city state. The Protestant churches in France were to be established under very different circumstances and under a government that was hostile to them. From 1559 onwards, they won a more independent position, in which they could celebrate the Supper in a Calvinistic manner and could apply the discipline of penance among each other. When in France in the beginning of 1562 the statesman Michel de l’Húpital, chancellor and at the same time one of the leading spokesmen for the moyenneurs, stated that someone was a Frenchman regardless of his confession, the government could offer the French Calvinist church its protection by making an exception for it, and defined this exception legally.20 This was an entirely unique situation, a historical starting point to ecclesiastical plurality. When the Calvinists in the Netherlands shaped the ecclesiastical life of the Republic, they followed the model of the French Calvinists more than the example of Calvin. Even after the transition to the side of the Prince had been made in 1572, the Reformed maintained their refugee church organisation, patterned after the tried and true example of the French. This form of the church’s existence, in which every citizen was free to enroll as a member of the church, now presented itself as the most essential one to them. The greatest difference with Calvin’s view on the organisation of the church and worship was that the unity of church and nation was now effectively undone. hands of the pastors. The pastors did not receive any new authority or power to keep someone from the Lord’s Supper table; they were limited to using verbal admonitions alone. All the same, the celebration of the Eucharist in Bern was from then on a matter of the ecclesiastical side of social life alone, and was not connected to discipline. With this, the Lord’s Supper was taken out of the public, legal sphere. See Speelman: 2014, ch. 1. As a result, in Bern the sacrament became a matter that pertained purely to the conscience. Calvin saw the Lord’s Supper as not only personal and internal, but also communal and external, with the government bearing the responsibility for the latter, public side. See Speelman: 2014, ch. 2, n. 148 and 198, and ch. 4, n. 52. 20 Nürnberger: 1948, p. 132, cf. 131.

24

Introduction

It was in France that the seeds for this divergence were sown. A defining change occurred in the kingdom when the church turned from an organ of the state into a church that was independent, also from the state. This change went against Calvin’s intentions for church and worship. A basic understanding in the state’s ecclesiastical laws was that the official church of the Netherlands ought to be a public church. In other words, the official church was to be accessible for everyone, so that every baptised person on reaching the age of discretion participated as a church member and as such had the right to partake of the Lord’s Supper. The same can be said about the discipline connected to the sacrament. Throughout the sixteenth century, and especially in the 1570s, the members of the Reformed churches amounted to considerably less than ten percent of the population in almost all parts of the Dutch Republic. The close connection between discipline and the Lord’s Supper can be seen as characteristic of Calvin’s view of the church, as well as that of the Reformed synods in France and the Low Countries. In the Republic, admittedly still within the framework of the organisation of church and worship as Calvin had conceived of it, an independent ecclesiastical institution was formed which sought to achieve a certain amount of independence for itself over against the state. As the public church, the Reformed church was ready to cooperate with the governments, while still retaining a significant part of the independence that it had won for itself. The synod thus allowed for every inhabitant to be baptized in the established church, so that the greater majority of the population could consider themselves to belong to the Reformed church. However, the Reformed church also maintained some aspects that gave it the appearance of an ‘association’ or ecclesiastical ‘society’ of which someone could become a member, in this instance by way of a public profession of faith. The practical result was a situation in which many people in the Dutch population were not confessing members of the very church in which they had been baptised, and for that reason did not belong to the mysterious Eucharistic community. For Calvin, in contrast, the church and worship were above all a Eucharistic community, of which every adult inhabitant of the city formed a part. Moreover, in the Dutch churches the people who had not enrolled as members could not be participants of the Lord’s Supper and were not subject to church discipline; for Calvin, however, his system of penance, confession, and communal celebration had both a public and a personal character. The book is generally structured around four periods or phases that refer to a turn in the reformation process: the time up to 1517, the period of Melanchthon’s turn in 1527 and Calvin’s turn starting approximately ten years later, and, finally, the turn of Calvin’s students from 1559.

Introduction

25

The first part (chapters 1 to 3) deals among others with freedom, confession, and the mystery of the Eucharist, and the second part (chapters 4 to 6) treats the first Protestant church visitations, Melanchthon’s new understanding of and renewed attention for penance, and the daily practices of life and death in the early modern era. The third main section (chapters 7 to 9) describes the development of Calvin’s confession and reflects on his view on and the importance of a good preparation for Holy Communion. The last part (chapters 10 and 11) discusses the beginning of religious plurality in Europe and the new position of the church in society as well as the new place of penitential and eucharistic piety, especially also in later Calvinism.

PART ONE: Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

Chapter 1. Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

1

Penance in the early church

Early Christianity as a penance movement To some extent early Christianity as a whole could be described as a baptism or penance movement. With the approaching Day of Judgment, converts had to make penance by fasting and prayer prior to their baptism, confess the sins they had committed, renounce the devil and all his works, and promise to persist in a sinless life. In this context, the notion of a ‘second penance’ soon arose – penance, that is, for the sins committed after baptism. In The Shepherd of Hermas, baptised Christians who have fallen back into their sins of old can receive forgiveness through further penance. At the beginning of the third century, also the Elkesaite missionary Alcibiades is said to have directed his propagandistic efforts to baptised Christians who had fallen into their former sins again. The heresy hunter Hippolytus charged that Alcibiades was following the same path as the Roman bishop Callistus, who similarly entertained the possibility of a ‘second penance.’ Hippolytus took this as an attack on the holiness which he considered to be a constitutive mark of the church, and together with his followers he started a rival church. Something similar occurred later on, around the year 250, when Novatian, who opposed the mild position of the Roman bishop Cornelius, separated himself with his adherents from the established church. Traces of the Novatianist group can be found until the seventh century Theological reflection on ‘second penance’ Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160–220), the first theologian to write explicitly On Penance, was similarly rather reluctant to speak of a ‘second penance’. He reminds his readers that we should not make undone the penance (paenitentia) offered to us a single time by the grace of God by falling into sin again. He points to the example of shipwreckers who, after being saved, avoid the dangers of the sea for the rest of their lives as much as they can. Christian converts ought to do

30

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

the same; their pre-baptism penance is like their life line (4, 2). And yet, even though they must be ashamed over the sins committed after their first penance, they ought not to be ashamed to do penance for a second and final time. Tertullian thus speaks of “two life lines” (12, 9) – even though later on, when became a follower of the strict Montanist movement, he wrote a treatise On Purity in which he admittedly introduced a significant reduction to that second life line: no ‘second penance’ is left for idolaters, adulterers, or murderers.1 The preceding therefore allows us to conclude that pre-baptismal penance (i. e., the first, not the second penance) was a basic element of the Christian faith in the first two centuries of its existence. This penance was to be followed by a sinless life and, in the end, by acquittal at the final judgment. But Tertullian warns baptisands that they should not think they have a licence to sin after they have been baptised. Baptism, he writes, was not instituted so that we might stop sinning, but because we already stopped and purified our hearts ahead of time. He even calls this inner cleansing our “first baptism” (6, 17). Although this was the ideal, between the lines we read that in practice things were happening very differently. As with the famous example of Augustine, or even before him Constantine the Great, the custom had grown for people to delay their baptism until they lay on their deathbed, for the very reason that they might yet sin after baptism. This pattern was accompanied by an increasing shift in the church’s pastorate to the ‘second penance’, which became an independent institution with its own set rules and customs. The increasing attention for this ‘second penance’ does not, however, mean that the early church disconnected it entirely from baptism as the ‘first penance’. For example, in his work On Penance written against the Novatians, Ambrose of Milan (ca. 333–397) repeatedly connected penance and baptism in the context of forgiveness, although he applied the concept of paenitentia especially to ecclesiastical penance which he thought should, like baptism, be performed a single time, in public. Aside from it, he also recognised a ‘daily penance’, but it pertained to lighter sins alone (II 10, 95). Similarly, in his Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, Augustine spoke of three kinds of forgiveness for sin “in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (7, 16). Penance as a means to discipline the masses The ideal of a sinless life for baptised Christians was therefore already abandoned in the time of Ambrose and Augustine, even though during the first centuries it had been at the basis for every view on penance. All the same, during the medieval period penance went on to gain an increasingly prominent place in the Christian life. A decisive role was no doubt played in this by the practice of 1 See Munier: 1984 and Le Saint: 1959.

Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

31

infant baptism that was gradually establishing itself, and by the forced mass conversions that were effected under (the threat of) violence. It goes without saying, of course, that anyone whose baptism is forced upon him or her will not hold a sinless life as his or her ideal. Accordingly, the clergy’s task for the great mass of believers was focused more and more on formation and education. Early in the medieval period we already encounter the notion that baptism remits the guilt of original sin, but still does not take away the corruption and evil inclinations resulting from sin.2 Pastoral practice therefore came to be directed increasingly to the suppression of these inclinations. This involved not only the so-called ‘capital sins’ (crimina capitalia), but also the countless daily sins that were confessed to the priest and whose set penances were described in the penance books or ‘penitentials.’ Late antiquity already emphasised that there is no offence that God leaves unpunished, such that for the church the believer’s life became a matter of constant self-examination, in which it itself played an important role through the priest in providing education and prescribing penalties. Here the use of penitentials with set forms of penance was in practice above all accompanied by a heavy emphasis on the external. The focus was no longer on penance as internal change, but rather on the external act that was to come to expression in the penance which the priest imposed upon the penitent following a set procedure, for which he used the so-called commutationes. These were conversion charts by which a punishment could be changed into a more suitable form, such that in later times, when more money was available, someone could acquit himself of the corporal penance (e. g. fasting, prayer, or a pilgrimage) prescribed for him by paying a sum of money (redemptio). At times people of high standing could even have their penance paid in whole or part through their subordinates.3 In spite of the above, we may not conclude that the notion of penance as an internal act was abandoned altogether. When twelfth-century scholastic theology focuses its reflection on the sacrament of penance above all in terms of the internal aspect of intentio, it actually draws on a theological trajectory that can be traced directly back to Augustine and Gregory the Great. This trajectory sets two kinds of fear over against each other. The first is the fear of punishment, which Augustine in his Tractates on the Gospel of John 43, 7 calls a “servile fear (timor servilis)”; over against it we find the “chaste fear (timor castus),” whose primary aim is to guard righteousness and therefore, as Augustine writes in the

2 Seeberg: 1930, vol. 3, p. 287. 3 Angenendt: 2005, pp. 629–644.

32

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

same context, comes from a “love for righteousness” such that it can be identified as the perfect love that casts out all fear (cf. 1 John 4: 18).4 As of ca. 500, penance was for the Christian faith also an important instrument to influence human behaviour and to correct those who were straying. Penance and penalties were accompanied by the instruction needed to equip the believers. Penitentials were written by Irish monks, who based themselves on their ethical ideals. Initially these penitentials were intended for the clergy class, but because the monasteries were so closely intertwined with (Irish) society, their size and scope expanded and began to look more and more like collections of laws. Penitentials were ‘catalogues of sins’, as it were, concentrated on the life of the individual sinner. In (the Christianisation of) Europe, the function of these penitentials was not limited exclusively to the religious sphere, but they also exercised a much greater influence on society than has commonly been assumed. Their influence extended also to society, the economy, politics, and culture, and this influence only increased as the influence of the Latin church as a whole increased. In this light, it is hardly useful to distinguish between social and pastoral aspects of the penitentials because all church-political regulations were closely intertwined with pastoral practice, and vice versa.5 Continual and preventative penance Penance had a preventative function in the fear of punishment and retribution, but as a medicine it also worked to heal, to fortify, and to renew.6 One of the most important aims of penance in the monasteries founded by Colombanus was the sanctification of the monastic life, focused in particular on the pursuit to perfect the Christian life. The number of rules for life and conduct grew and served to shape this pursuit of improvement. Daily confession and penance were means to help the monks in their pursuit to live in the greatest perfection possible. Rules were needed to correct those who failed. This was seen to in the penitentials, which provided descriptions of sins and transgressions and of the penance exacted. In addition to this Irish influence on the development of penance and confession in the church, another influence came from Germanic law. That is, an offence committed had to be resolved internally, within the family bonds, for example by making restitution for guilt following a set system of tariffs (compositio) in case of conflict; this was something also encountered in Irish society. This financial construction would return in the later penance system in the form of indulgences. 4 Luther would later follow him in this. 5 Oakley : 1933, pp. 489–500 and Poschmann: 1928. 6 Poschmann: 1930, pp. 18–22 and pp. 48–52.

Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

33

During the Carolingian renaissance, penitentials were determined to represent harmful influences from Germanic culture; the Council of Paris (829) even proposed that they be burned. The penitentials monks wrote on their own authority set different standards of punishment – the punishments for a comparable murder, for example, could range from two to ten years7 – and the Carolingian reformers wanted to undo this disparity. To this end they distinguished between public and private penance, although the latter remained extremely important and continued to attribute a prominent place to penitentials. In that period, canon law was still fragmentary and made up of isolated elements: precedents, conciliar and papal decrees, as well as certain parts that were taken over from the penitentials. Canon law was as yet uncodified. The rules in the penitentials were primarily intended for effecting change in (personal and collective) conduct, while canon law aimed to protect existing values and norms and to maintain order in society. Instead of presenting themselves as proponents of a certain system of canon law, the authors of the penitentials rather took their starting point in a certain morality, and sought to improve and change the conduct of individuals. Canon law was not officially codified until Gratian in the twelfth century. He proceeded from the assumption that natural law was included in the Mosaic law and the gospel. The result was that a new, more ecclesiastical context was created in which the laws could be collected systematically and new penitentials could be produced.8

2

From penance to confession

Daily penance and the duty of confession Although in the medieval church the ‘first penance’ that Augustine had called the ‘penance for catechumens’ practically disappeared, what did remain was the ‘daily penance’, in addition to the ‘penance of the lapsed (paenitentia lapsorum)’. This daily penance, which people made for all their non-capital or nonmortal sins, even at a later time did not have a sacramental character, and there was therefore no reason to perform it in the presence of a priest. Beginning in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, inner conversion (conversio) to God began to play an increasingly important role in personal piety. Here we only need to think of the impressive figure of Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), who wrote that the virtue of humility (humilitas) means that a person debases himself through true 7 Frantzen: 1983, pp. 42–44. 8 Feine: 1972, pp. 276–278.

34

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

self-knowledge (De gradibus humilitatis 1, 2).9 This is the only way someone can become an imitator of the crucified Jesus. For Bernard too the entire Christian life is characterised by penance. In the early medieval period as well, the central notion behind the practice of penance and confession was to restore the break that sin introduced in humanity’s relationship with God, and to re-establish communion with him through the confession of sin, penance, and absolution. In this, penance functioned as an instrument to control the lives of Christians and to correct them whenever they strayed. When in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that all believers who have reached the age of discretion must confess their sins in the presence of a priest at least once a year, that decree was at that time the high point in a development in which the church strove to control and discipline the entire Christian world, both within and outside the monasteries, using the means of grace entrusted to it.10 Someone was a Christian by birth, and this was confirmed in baptism. Accordingly, it should be clear that penance no longer had a role to play, nor was there any room for a conscious choice to believe. The church did, however, mobilise itself to suppress and remove any traces of original sin remaining after baptism with the discipline of penance it imposed from above. The new penance law (i. e., canon 21) was one of the most important decrees pronounced by the Fourth Lateran Council, and put an end to the process by which public penance had been developing toward a personal or auricular confession. Among other things, the duty of confession was intended to bring back onto the beaten path those who were straying and to deal with such disobedient subjects as the merchants who were lending money at interest. To this end, the council also instituted the episcopal inquisition and extended penitential measures, in part to be able to do something about the rebellious public functionaries. The new law began by addressing ‘all believers’, that is, clergy and laity, men and women. Its famous opening sentence runs as follows: “All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them.”11 As such, common believers were presented in an entirely new light. Three hundred years later this process of democratisation would be continued in a new reformation, when the common believer would himself be allowed to read the Bible 9 See ch. 3, n. 58. Schwarz: 1968, pp. 83–104. 10 Tentler : 1977 and Angenendt: 2005, p. 657. 11 Tanner: 1990, vol. 1, p. 245 = Mansi, vol. 22, p. 1010.

Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

35

in his native language. The council required that all partake of the Eucharist and confess their sins. This implied that the participants had to give an account of their acts in their own language, and had to learn themselves to discern between their good and evil deeds. The canon represents the very first occasion in history at which believers were directly addressed and pointed to their own responsibility as mature people. The new law assumed that believers would be closely supervised by the priest, who received a key role in hearing confession. Priests were given the following instructions: “The priest shall be discerning and prudent, so that like a skilled doctor he may pour wine and oil over the wounds of the injured one. Let him carefully inquire about the circumstances of both the sinner and the sin, so that he may prudently discern what sort of advice he ought to give and what remedy to apply, using various means to heal the sick person.”12 This meant that confessor had to be qualified to hear a confession, to prescribe penance, and to give advice to the penitent. In his remarkable book on sin and confession, Thomas Tentler clearly describes for us how important confession was in the late medieval period: “The first function of ecclesiastical penance […] is discipline, or social control. The penitent was accepted by society and in turn was expected to accept and conform to society’s rules. The second function is directed more to the individual: it is the cure of a guilty conscience.”13 This social and pedagogical function of confession gradually grew over the course of the late medieval period; here the penalty of penance was seen as a pastoral-medical intervention, as it was also expressed in canon 21.14 It was clear what was expected of everyone, and what the consequences would be if anyone should fail to obey the law. If a person disobeyed this penance law, “Otherwise they shall be barred from entering a church during their lifetime and they shall be denied a christian burial at death.” Lest anyone might claim that he did not know of the decree, it was to be published in a visible place and regularly announced from the pulpit: “Let this salutary decree be frequently published in churches, so that nobody may find the pretence of an excuse in the blindness of ignorance.”15 Everything was made easily verifiable, and catalogued at length in the penitentials. The priests also had to check the lists of names and update them. And numerous key (occupational) groups like the physicians, clerics, judges, notaries, and lawyers were to see to it that the people followed the new laws of the 12 Tanner: 1990, vol. 1, p. 245. 13 Tentler : 1977, p. 13. 14 Later Calvin would appropriate this element of the Roman Catholic system of penance and confession and give it a Reformed twist. See chapter 8 and Speelman: 2010, ch. 2–3, pp. 70– 125 and ch. 6–10, pp. 235–504. 15 Tanner: 1990, vol. 1, p. 245.

36

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

church.16 The new, highly detailed system of ecclesiastical supervision and discipline would go on to spread all over Christian Europe in the course of the following centuries. Canon 21 drew a connection between the sacrament of the Eucharist and confession, just as in the first millennium penance had been closely connected to the sacrament of baptism and even referred to as a ‘second baptism’. Everyone had the duty to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist and to make confession. The papal bull stipulated that all believers must “individually confess all their sins (omnia sua peccata) in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year […]. Let them reverently receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter unless they think, for a good reason and on the advice of their own priest, that they should abstain from receiving it for a time.”17 Because the council officially connected Holy Communion to confession, the importance of penitential confession grew even more than before and started to function increasingly as a sacrament.18 The papal penance law not only meant the end of a centuries-long development, but also solidified the form and content of confession for the coming centuries. In the end, the church gained a monopoly on the mediation of salvation. This was a turning point, of which Emil Fischer once wrote: “For that decree not only meant the end of a centuries-long development, but also governed the entire time that followed and in numerous ways guided the way the doctrine of the sacrament of penance would come to be crystallised.”19 Similarly, the sociologist Alois Hahn referred to the change that took place in the institution of confession as “perhaps one of the most significant changes introduced to religious life by the European Reformation.”20 While initially satisfaction had occupied an all-important place, later on the focus was shifted to the sinner’s sorrow and intention, and thereafter even to his or her confession of guilt before the priest. The penitent was at once accuser and accused, with the priest playing the part of the judge who determined whether or not a confession was valid and – as God’s representative – gave absolution.21 The confessor also determined what counted as sin, what was a more serious or less

16 See, for example, the Fourth Lateran Council, canon 22. 17 Tanner: 1990, vol. 1, p. 245. 18 Formally penance was not declared a sacrament until the Council of Florence in 1439, but in practice it had already functioned sacramentally since at least the twelfth century. 19 Fischer : 1972, vol. 1, p. 6. See Speelman: 2010, ch. 4–5, pp. 127–234. 20 Hahn: 1982, p. 416: “[E]ine der vielleicht einscheidensten Veränderungen des religiösen Lebens durch die europäische Reformation.” Tobias: 2002, p. 15. 21 Ohst: 1994, pp. 50–138.

Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

37

serious sin, and for what things he himself could exact penance and what was rather the prerogative of the bishop or even the pope.

3

Confession in the late medieval period

The ethical revival in the practice of confession after the Fourth Lateran Council In the context of the Fourth Lateran Council and the aftermath of its conciliar decrees, a wave of didactic-theological literature arose to work out the pastoral and social program of 1215 in greater detail. It was after this council in particular that new moral-theological penitentials (summae confessorum) were produced, as well as many other pastoral manuals. This period also saw an explosive growth in the number of penance preachers and confessors, and their status only grew. The result was an ethical revival, combined with a pursuit to achieve as much consistency as possible in the western church’s practice and reflection. The goal was to effect improvement in Christian living by dealing systematically with those who caused offence or committed sin. This was entirely in line with the spirit of the age: in the first centuries of the second millennium a spirit of reform was blowing across the west, and a greater need was felt for a life that was closer to that of the early church. It was this spirituality that produced the order of the Norbertines in the twelfth century, who devoted themselves to pastoral ministry, and the Cistercians and Carthusians, who withdrew into their abbeys and settlements. Then, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, we see the rise of the mendicant orders including the Franciscans and Dominicans, who preferred to settle in the city and thereby contributed to the revival of piety and personal spirituality. Sorrow over sin In the tradition of Peter Lombard (ca. 1100–1160), the priest’s task was still relatively limited; forgiveness depended on the sorrow of the penitent, a gift from God. But in the thirteenth century, penance came to be viewed increasingly as a sacrament, such that in the pronouncement of absolution the priest was given the power of the keys. The school of Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274) sought to create a balance between the sinner’s sorrow and the sacramental act performed by the priest; Thomas allowed for a person to do confession before a layman if no priest was available.22 In the theology of the Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1265/6–1308), the priest obtained a greater monopoly in confession. For Scotus a fear-based sorrow was already sufficient for someone to receive forgiveness. 22 Tentler : 1977, pp. 22f. and p. 66.

38

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

Scholastic theology debated whether and, if so, in what measure, the efficacy of the sacrament depended on the recipient. Did the efficient cause of forgiveness reside in the sorrow of the recipient by virtue of the work of the agent (ex opere operantis), or was the cause of forgiveness found in the sacrament itself, apart from the penitent’s inner motive (ex opere operato; i. e., by virtue of the work worked)?23 This question touched all three elements of the sacrament of penance: sorrow over sin, confession of guilt or sin, and penance or satisfaction. With an appeal to Thomas Aquinas, archbishop Antoninus Florentinus (d. 1459), who wrote a manual that proved exceedingly popular in the latter half of the fifteenth century, claimed that no one could be certain that he “has received the grace required for sorrow (contritio),” so that no one can be certain that his sins are forgiven him, either.24 The Italian vicar-general of the Order of Friars Minor, Angiolo da Chivasso (Angelus de Clavasio; d. 1495), wanted like his fellow Franciscan Duns Scotus to offer greater assurance of salvation by no longer putting the emphasis on the sorrow felt by the penitent, but on the power of the keys and on the objective work effected by the sacrament. In the sacrament, forgiveness is offered as a pure gift of God’s grace. When the sinner returns to the state of grace by the absolution of confession, he can be assured that his sins are forgiven him, even if he actually did not experience sufficient sorrow over his sin: “If the crushed penitent does not have the kind of act that suffices for congruent merit (ad meritum de congruo) but still does have the will to receive the sacrament from the church and has not committed a mortal sin, he still receives the effect of the sacrament, even if he is insufficiently sorrowful (attritus) and his sorrow (attritione) is not connected to the merit for the forgiveness of sin; because he wants to receive the sacrament of penance […], he receives absolution and grace.”25 Confession Another element that was not entirely clear concerned the power of discernment of the penitent. As Angelus de Clavasio observed, if the penitent does not have sufficient knowledge of a sin, he or she may consciously or unconsciously omit

23 In the time of the sixteenth-century Reformation, the efficacy of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper would be tied primarily to the faith of the recipient. Cf. ch. 6, n. 51, and ch. 7, n. 12f. 24 Antoninus Florentinus of Pierozzi: 1499: Summala confessionis, p. 7. Tentler : 1977, p. 264. Milway : 2000, p. 130. This manual included among other things an exhaustive list of questions to be used in penance, and an overview of suitable penalties; in the fifteenth century it underwent no less than 70 printings. 25 Angelus de Clavasio: 1500, Summa de casibus conscientiae: Confessio 2, 41 va. In this context Angelus cites Scotus’s commentary on the Sentences: “Ideo confessio ex vi absolutionis coniunctae culpam remittit, nisi homo obicem peccati mortalis in actu ponat.” Angelus, Confessio 2, 46 vb. Ohst: 1994, p. 255 and pp. 281–282.

Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

39

certain details.26 For the purpose of penance, he wrote a list with more than 750 questions based on the Ten Commandments, the capital sins and prime virtues, canon law, and works of charity. Another question related to the subjective element of confession of guilt. The renowned confessor Jean de Gerson (1363–1429) described the complexity of man for exemple in his treatise On the Art of Hearing Confession (Tractatus de arte audiendi confessiones) and On the Improvement of the Heart (De Perfectione cordis): “The diversity of the human constitution or condition is unfathomable – not just in many men, but in one and the same man – and not, I say, in different years, months, and weeks, but also in days, hours, and moments.”27 Gerson proposed in his treatise that a confessor ought to know the difference not only between mortal and venial sins, but must also be able to distinguish between the soul’s other sins and illnesses, so that he can help his patients “as the most competent physician for spiritual illnesses.” This image of the confessor as a physician, and the sacrament as a medicine for the soul, was a common and well-liked image for the sacrament of penance.28 After absolution for eternal punishment had been received, there were still temporal penalties that remained both here on earth and in purgatory. Forgiveness and penance (e. g. prayer, fasting, almsgiving) were connected to the temporal penalties prescribed at confession.29 The notion of restitution, which we also encountered in the Great Council’s confessional practice, was another element that became the subject of extensive attention in the late medieval period. This restitution pertained to sins that were only to be confessed after the matter had already been made right. Gerson considered restoration to be highly necessary : “For it does not suffice to be contrite and displeased over one’s sins and faults, even if you have confessed them piously to the priest, as we have said above, if these three [i. e., restitution, satisfaction, and penance – HAS] were not present. For this is the key of the sacrament of confession: restitution and satisfaction for everything one has done wrong.”30 In the medieval period the 26 Angelus: 1500, Confessio 3, 43 ra: “[…] puta quia est revelator confessionis vel sollicitator ad malum vel non habet debitam scientiam vel probabiliter videtur sibi periculum vel sacerdoti imminere vel est excommunicatus vel huiusmodi […].” As cited in Ohst: 1994, p. 259, n. 79. 27 Gerson: 1706 (Du Pin), vol. 3, 446B: “Est incomprehensibilis humanae diversitas complexionis, vel conditionis; nedum in pluribus hominibus, sed in uno eodemque, diversis non dico Annis, non Mensibus, non Hebdomadis; sed diebus, horis, et momentis.” Cf. Ibid., 442– 447. Tentler : 1977, p. 159, n. 31. For the first treatise see Gerson: 1706 (Du Pin), vol. 2, 446B– 453 A. 28 Tentler : 1977, pp. 99–100. McNeill: 1932 and idem: 1951. 29 Tentler : 1977, p. 15 and p. 320. 30 Gerson [?], Directoire des confesseurs, q8a: “[…] car il ne suffiroit pas auoir contrition et desplaisance de ses pechez et deffaultes: de les confesser deuotement au prestre: come dessus

40

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

institution of confession was closely interwoven with this principle of restitution, as it had been in the Germanic tariff system. Church reform as a battle over the sacrament of penance A question we must consider is whether late medieval piety sometimes witnessed a tension between the perfect sorrow over sin that grows from one’s love for God and Christ (contritio) as an inner orientation that ought to be present throughout one’s entire life, and sacramental penance as an external event that can be performed within a short span of time. Thomas Aquinas had still argued against the position that penance is a life-long process by noting that, after sin, the Christian life started over as it were with penance, but that thereafter one had to strive for perfection. All the same, he did allow for a distinction between an external and an internal penance, and created room for the latter (which consists in sorrow over sin) also in the lives of those who are perfect. He concluded that the “internal penance […] by which one has sorrow over sin committed (interior poenitentia …, qua quis dolet de peccato commisso)” must continue until the end of life, and that this penance “has a place also in those who are advanced and perfect (habet locum etiam in proficientibus et perfectis).”31 Whether it be understood more in an external sense or, as was the case as of the twelfth century, more in internal terms, the sacrament of penance offered the church the most significant means available to it for turning those who had been baptised into true Christians. The “making of penance (poenitentiam agere)” was in every case accompanied by an external ritual in which three elements came to be distinguished over time: a perfect or imperfect sorrow over sin (contritio cordis), a confession made in the presence of a priest (confessio oris), and the satisfaction the priest then prescribed for the penitent at confession (satisfactio operis). Accordingly, poenitentia came increasingly to be experienced as a poena (‘penalty’). Scholastic theology worked out this theme in greater detail, until eventually two opposing trajectories emerged: the first is the “attritionism” defended by Duns Scotus and his followers, which holds that an imperfect sorrow in the form of a fear for punishment (i. e., attritio) suffices; the second is the position of “contritionism” commonly ascribed to the pre-scholastic era, which holds that a perfect sorrow born of a love for God (i. e., contritio) is a necessary condition for forgiveness.32 The proponents of attritionism feared that the contritionists would derogate from the value of the sacrament of penance; after all, if someest dit: si ces trois ny estoient. Car cest la clef du sacrament de confessio: que restitution et satisfaction de tout ce quon a meffait,” as cited in Tentler : 1977, p. 342. 31 Thomas Aquinas: 1886, STh. III, q. 84, art. 8 (Utrum poenitentia debeat durare usque ad finem vitae). 32 Schwarz: 1968, passim and Oberman: 1967, pp. 146–160.

Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

41

one’s sorrow over sin was perfect, he would already have received forgiveness prior to the priest’s pronouncement of absolution. In their view, the very purpose of the priestly declaration was to effect the transition from attritio to contritio, from an imperfect to a perfect sorrow. The decline in the church’s external power In the late medieval period, we find an increasing number of accounts in which inner penance threatens to undermine the importance of the actual sacrament of penance. Wessel Gansfort (ca. 1419–1489), for instance, says in his treatise On penance33 that remorse (contritio) born from love should not be regarded as a part of the sacrament of penance, because where this remorse is present, the sins must already be considered forgiven and the sinner justified. This means that the third part of the sacrament of penance – i. e., satisfaction (satisfactio) – can be discarded: once sins have already been completely forgiven, there is no need to pay for them through ecclesiastical punishments anymore. In this way, inner penance or conversion to God and a crucified life in imitation of Christ worked to push the external sacrament of penance to the sidelines and thereby to reduce human dependence on the church as an institution. It indeed appears, as Reinhold Seeberg once suggested, that the ecclesiastical sacrament of penance and the external power the church could wield over the believer’s lives was beginning to disintegrate at the time.34 The ideal of a sinless life abandoned The ideal of a sinless life for those who have been baptised, which had been basic to every view on penance witnessed during the first Christian centuries, appears to have been abandoned definitively over the years in the early church. While certain groups of ascetics attempted to skirt penance as much as possible simply by avoiding sin, for the great mass of believers this proved to be an impossible ideal. Ambrose and Augustine argued that the primary mark of the Christian life was “daily penance”; similarly, Luther in his 1529 Large Catechism would, in following Augustine, describe the Christian life as a “daily baptism”. Against this background, when Luther launched an offensive against indulgences in 1517 and opened his 95 theses by declaring that our Lord Jesus Christ, when he said “make penance (poenitentiam agere),” willed that the be33 Wessel Gansfort, De sacramento poenitentiae et quae sint claves ecclesiae, in Benrath: 1968, pp. 61–92. An annotated English translation of the correspondence between Wessel Gansfort and Jacob Hoeck, dean of Naaldwijk, on indulgences and the sacrament of penance can be found in Oberman: 1967a, pp. 93–120. For Wessel’s doctrine of penance, see also Seeberg: 1930, vol. 3, pp. 793f: “Das ganze Busssakrament zerbricht unter seiner [Gansfort’s] Hand.” 34 Seeberg: 1930, vol. 3, pp. 626f. and 4/1, pp. 158f.

42

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

liever’s entire life should be penance, he may be viewed as a proponent of late medieval piety which increasingly contrasted the inner side of the life of faith with the church’s external authority. Luther as a proponent of late medieval piety On 10 December 1520 Martin Luther demonstratively distanced himself from medieval penitential practice when he publicly burned one of the favourite and most authoritative penitentials of his time, the Summa Angelica de casibus conscientiae. In 1515, or shortly after, Luther had come to a new insight, as he confessed to his mentor Johan von Staupitz (ca. 1460–1524) in a letter in which he discussed his 95 theses of 31 October 1517. In this letter, written on 30 May 1518, Luther told von Staupitz that he had been greatly impacted by his teaching “that penance can only be true if it begins with a love of justice and of God.” From that moment onwards, the word ‘penance’ in Scripture started to take on sweet rather than bitter connotations for him.35 According to Erasmus, the Greek word for penance, metanoia, was meant to be interpreted in an internal and spiritual way, rather than as something concrete and sacramental.36 As emerges from a passage in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews that probably dates from the spring of 1518, it had become clear to him by this time that Scripture never speaks about a sacrament of penance.37 As he notes in this letter to Staupitz and in his first conclusio to the Resolutiones joined to that letter38, he had been led to this insight by way of Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament (1516) with the new Latin translation it contained. There it was clear that Jesus’ call to repentance in Matt 4: 17, which the Vulgate translated with the phrase poenitentiam agere, was rendered in the original Greek with the word metanoia, which Erasmus explained must be understood more in terms of an inner, spiritual sense rather than in concrete, sacramental terms, as was commonly done. Accordingly, it became clear to Luther that Jesus was speaking about a total renewal of life, a transitus mentis or spiritual transition, and that Jesus’ call (in Matt 3:2 and 4:17) simply meant that we have to open ourselves to

35 LW (Clemen), vol. 1, pp. 16–19 = WA 1, pp. 525–527. A German translation is available in LD (Aland ed.), vol. 2, pp. 28–31. 36 LW, vol. 1, 22f = WA 1, pp. 530f. AV, art. 6. Augustijn: 1986, p. 50. The criticism on the translation of “poenitentiam agite” and the resulting practice can be found not only in Luther and Erasmus, but Erasmus himself had taken it over from Lorenzo di Valla (ca. 1405–1457), who himself objected to the common translation of metanoia as poenitentia, and the same for sacramentum. 37 See Luther’s comments on Heb. 12:17. 38 For the Latin text, see LW (Clemen), vol. 1, pp. 22f = WA 1, pp. 530f.

Penance and Confession in the Late Medieval Period

43

grace and the kingdom of heaven: “so that you may meditate on the heavenly, while up to now you have been seeking only the earthly.” Luther thus argued that people had been misled by the Latin expression poenitentiam agere, having understood it more as a call to an outward act than a total change of mind (mutatio affectus). He further reported to Staupitz that this had made Tetzel’s preaching on indulgences altogether repulsive to him, since Tetzel remained silent about the need for inner change and focused instead on good works alone as satisfaction to take away guilt, adding that it had further elicited serious doubts in him concerning the entire notion of an ecclesiastical sacrament of penance.39 Just as Luther can be said to have radicalised late medieval piety in connection with the doctrine of penance, it can be argued that he did the same when he in his ninety-five theses connected his attack on indulgences – and indirectly on the sacrament of penance – with an explicit ‘theology of the cross (theologia crucis)’. According to Luther, inner penance must be combined with a “killing of the flesh” and a “hatred of the self (odium sui)” as the real penalty (poena) a penitent must bear all the days of his life “until his entrance into the kingdom of heaven”.40 As several scholars have already suggested, it is no coincidence that the great conflict announced by the sixteenth-century Reformation concerned this very issue of the sacrament of penance. Karlmann Beyschlag even was more forceful than Reinhard Seeberg had been in what he wrote in this respect: “When Luther dismantled the church’s sacrament of penance, he called for no less than oneand-a-half millennia in barriers to be removed; or, to put it more precisely, he pushed the problem of the ‘western epoch’ (abendländischen Epoche) that had remained unresolved since the second century (i. e., the Christian problem of sin and penance) to a dogma-historical verdict.”41

39 In his 95 theses Luther attacked the indulgence preachers over their claim that the pope confers indulgences for all sins, since in fact he can only grant freedom from punishments he imposes by ecclesiastical right (not divine right). 40 According to the third thesis, it is not just about inner penance: “There is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work diverse mortifications of the flesh.”And according to the fourth thesis, the penalty (poena) remains as long as “hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and it continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.” 41 Beyschlag: 2000, vol. II/2, p. 325. Seeberg: 1930, vol. IV/1, p. 158.

Chapter 2. Man, Freedom, and the Church: How to Serve God Freely, within or outside the Power of the Church

Introduction Theological attention for the individual The penance law of 1215 demanded from all citizens, both men and women, that they critically examine themselves at least once a year. In that way, the focus in the sacrament of confession shifted from ‘sin’ to ‘the sinner’. This process would include interrogation by one’s priest on doctrine and life, a trend prompted a theological interest for psychology. The individual believer became the focus of attention, and in private confession the notion of remorse took centre stage, that is, attritio (a fear of punishment) or contritio (a fear of God based on love and respect). From then on, the sacrament of penance would come to dominate daily life in the West for centuries. A shift of focus from the external to the internal In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a development took place within the sacrament of penance towards a greater stress on internality. Many medieval theologians occupied themselves with the question of whether remorse alone might be sufficient for atonement between God and the sinner, and if so, whether this made penance superfluous.1 In this context, the sociologist Alois Hahn notes that “guilt shifts to the terrain of intentions,” and relates this development to the simultaneous process of individualisation in European society.2 Prior to that time, the sacrament of confession had been regarded as an instrument of the church that could turn newly baptized children into legitimate Christians.

1 Hahn: 1982, p. 416. See ch. 1, n. 20. 2 Hahn: 1982, pp. 408f. Further, Alois Hahn observes that in the Middle Ages, the sacrament of confession stands in the “Kontext […] von Sündenkatalogen, die die Beobachtung des eigenen Verhaltens und des Innenlebens ausrichten und im Dienst gesteigerter Selbstkontrolle stehen: Das Wissen, das man so von sich gewinnt, entspringt dem Gewissen.” See Hahn: 1987, p. 18. Angenendt: 2005, p. 657.

46

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

Luther’s novel perspective on penance In the letter he wrote to John Staupitz on 30 May 1518 accompanying his Resolutiones to the 95 theses, Luther insisted that his former teacher’s words that “true penance can only be that which begins with the love for righteousness and for God” had at the time (ca. 1515–1516) stuck in him like a sharp arrow, so that from then on the word ‘penance’ in Scripture was no longer bitter to him but sweet.3 Farewell to the Societas Christiana For Luther, truly being Christian was no longer a matter of birth or baptism but of conscious obedience to the gospel. Infant baptism, then, was not a separate sacrament, but rather the acceptance of the promises sealed in the baptism. The Reformation marks the end of medieval scholasticism. Luther saw penance and the preaching of the law as a key preparation for receiving the comfort of the gospel, rather than the Christian’s profession of a more or less sincere repentance in order to receive the sacraments. Luther stressed the importance of the sacrament of holy baptism received in infancy over adult baptism at conversion and over confession as a second escape route, as had been the case in the early church. Whenever there was relapse into sin, the sinner always had to be called to make confession and receive absolution. Luther would have nothing to do with the notion of confession as an instrument for disciplining the masses, as had indeed been its function in the medieval church. For him, being a Christian had become a matter of personal experience and a conscious choice. It was not the church that had to control life through its system of sacraments, but rather the believers had to make free use of the instruments of grace offered to them by the gospel. The familiar, age-old notion of a European Christendom guided by the church, whose pastoral care and rituals structured and disciplined the whole life as well as the notion of the corpus christianum – all of this was more or less rejected in the time of the Reformation.4 But how then did the Reformers view human beings and their individual relationship with God, and how did they put their new doctrines into practice in church life? In answering these questions, we will look at: 1. The relationship between the church as an external institution and the individual’s inner, spiritual life in the late medieval period; 3 See ch. 1, n. 35. 4 According to Zwingli the word ‘church’ could also be used to refer to a regular civil institution. Zwingli also understood a good citizen to be nothing other than a Christian, see ZW14, no. 6, p. 424.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

47

2. The homo spiritualis, whose salvation depends solely on the grace of God; 3. The power of the church as against the evangelical freedom (libertas evangelica) of the individual believer; 4. The necessary regulations that in the new ecclesiastical situation curtailed the freedom of the individual to a certain extent; 5. The position of lay believers within the church, in which their direct relationship with God grew in importance at the cost of the church as a human institution.

1

Man in the Late Medieval Period

Daily penance In the early church, ascetic movements sought to avoid penance as much as possible by avoiding sin altogether. For most believers in the medieval period, however, this proved an unattainable ideal. In their eyes, the Christian life revolved around the sacrament of penance. At the very beginning of the Reformation, the notion of ‘daily penance,’ which was already important in the early church of Ambrose and Augustine, was taken up by Luther ; in fact, we find it in the very first of his 95 theses, where he applies it integrally to the Christian life.5 In his Large Catechism, Luther echoes Augustine in calling the whole of Christian life a “daily baptism”; in the same way, Reformed Protestantism would distinguish between a “first or initial conversion” and a “continuous or daily conversion”.6 To be a Christian and to live in daily penitence represented a way of being and a humble attitude respectively, as exemplified in the well-known prayer of St. Francis of Assisi which ends with the words: “it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.” A crucified life in self-hate Luther and his followers opposed a feigned, external penance with a true, internal penance. They opposed the “satisfaction of works (satisfactio operum)” with justification through the satisfaction earned by Christ alone, and considered good works as nothing but the fruits of faith. 5 LW, vol. 4, pp. 87f = WA 30/1, pp. 220f. 6 For Johannes Tauler penitence could not be a one-time action because every day without exception (ane underlos) should be devoted to self-reflection. In 1516 and 1518 Luther published the Theologia deutsch of Tauler and it is likely that he was inspired by Tauler’s writing. See Süss: 2012, p. 40. For the distinction between conversio actualis prima and conversio cotidiana, see Bavinck, vol. 4, p. 157.

48

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

The young Luther radicalised a type of medieval piety in which he connected the sacrament of penance to an explicit ‘theology of the cross (theologia crucis)’. According to the third and fourth of Luther’s 95 theses, inner penance must be accompanied by a “mortification of the flesh” and by “self-hatred (odium sui)” as the true punishment that the penitent will have to bear all his life “until the entrance of the kingdom of the heavens.”7 Like Thomas Aquinas, Luther described this inner penance as a sorrow (dolor) over the sin committed, but to it he added the elements of “self-hatred” and the carrying of one’s cross in imitation of Christ.8 Intermezzo In the late Middle Ages, as well as for Luther, human freedom was a matter of repentance, and of self-loss, self-denial, humility, letting go, self-doubt, and even selfhatred.9 In the nineteenth century the Danish existentialist philosopher Kierkegaard (1813–1855), to name one example from a later date for the sake of comparison, placed the pursuit of one’s true self at the centre as a crucial stepping stone to finding one’s freedom. An earlier form of spirituality sought a freedom in which one’s highest ideal was to lose oneself in God, to whom one had to relate in set ways. In this later mode of spirituality, human existence forms the starting point – man searches for the right way to relate to oneself, a way in which he can become himself and in which losing himself is in fact the greatest danger.

2

A New Perspective on the Christian as Spiritual Man (homo spiritualis)10

The Christian is called away from himself Luther had for some time accorded central importance to the ‘spiritual man’. In his marginal commentaries on Tauler’s sermons (1516), in debate with both Gerson’s and Tauler’s anthropology, Luther construes the spiritual man in such a way as to exclude all varieties of “doing one’s best (facere quod in se est11)”: “The spiritual man [is he] who strives [not by the height of his mental powers, but] by faith; the Apostle calls this man spiritual [1 Cor 2: 14f], and true Christians are 7 Cf. ch. 1, n. 40. 8 Oberman: 1994a, ch. 6: ‘Wittenberg’s War on Two Fronts: What Happened in 1518 and Why’, pp. 117–148. 9 Cf. A Kempis: 1441, bk 3, ch. 37 (De pura et integra resignacione sui …): relinque te, loosing yourself, tibi mori, letting go, 39: abnegatio sui, self-denial, 40 (Quod homo nichil boni ex se habit), 42: te adnichilare, neglecting oneself, 43: compunctio cordis, heartfelt regret (cf. 1.21) and mortificatio, dying, in OO, vol. 2, pp. 212–222 and pp. 39–41. See also van Geest: 1996 and WA 1 (De Sermo de Poenitentia), 319–324. 10 For the background of this term, see Ozment: 1969, in particular p. 197. 11 Oberman: 1994a, p. 127.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

49

not unlike him.”12 In his commentary on this text, Heiko Oberman points out that Luther here laid “the anthropological foundations for the de-anthropologization of medieval soteriology. The believer is called away from himself, like Abraham from his kin; indeed, in the language of mysticism, ‘torn out of himself ’ (rapi). Here we find an outline of Luther’s principle ‘outside ourselves’ (extra nos), according to which the true Christian does not rely on his spiritual foundation or on his conscience in whatever sublimated form it may take. Here is the indispensable root of the Reformation principle ‘Christ alone’ (solus Christus).”13 Each person a spiritual person Luther saw each and every believer as a clergyman, as if each person was his own priest and subject to the rule of monastic life; he even spoke about “the priesthood of all believers.” With regard to this ecclesiastical ideal, this amounts to what may be called an “inner-worldly asceticism” – as Max Weber described this key aspect of religiosity during the Reformation.14 The writings of the young Luther show again and again that he interpreted the gospel as having high expectations for the demands that can be made of the true Christian. In his 1523 treatise On secular government, we learn that worldly government is superfluous for the Christian who, as a ‘spiritual person’ (homo spiritualis), is fully led by the gospel. However, since such Christians are few and far between, in practice we cannot do without secular authorities.15 Humanity remains sinful and in continuous need of God According to Luther, original sin stripped people of their initial righteousness and of every ability to be just. Original sin was more than a human deficiency ; it was “the inclination to evil, the turning away from the good, the loathing of light and wisdom, the love of error and darkness, the flight from and abhorring of good works, the pursuit of evil.”16 Luther opposed the medieval anthropological division according to which the higher human faculties (in contrast to the lower faculties) were not under the influence of sin. Luther argued that we are completely and utterly sinful according to human measures but truly and completely justified according to the 12 WA 9, pp. 103–104. Compare a religious man, living “sub disciplina,” which means under a certain (monastic) rule. Kempis: 1441, 1.25.37. 13 Oberman: 1994a, p. 129. 14 In his essay “Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus,” now in Weber: 1973, vol. 1, pp. 115f. 15 LD (Aland), vol. 7, pp. 13–16. 16 WA 56, pp. 312–313.

50

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

measure of God.17 In this way, human beings remain sinners in every respect, while they are simultaneously justified by God’s grace. This came to expression in his famous phrase: simul peccator et iustus.18 In the Reformer’s negative anthropology, Christians are and remain both justified and sinful – this means that they need permanent assistance in the form of God’s grace through Word and sacrament in order to survive. Luther’s point of departure was not the fear of punishment (attritio) but rather the love of God (contritio). This love of God leads one to recognize not his perfection and righteousness, but rather one’s own misery and inability. Those who love Christ must hate themselves, that is, they must develop an odium sui; paradoxically, therefore, true contritio implies that very little real contritio will actually be found in the world. As we learn at the end of Luther’s sermon On penance in 1519, penance cannot justify the sinner ; justification is by faith in the grace of God alone.19 In 1518, the ingenuous John Eck (1486–1543), who would be Luther’s opponent during the famous Leipzig Disputation of 1519, published a series of twelve theses directed primarily against him. In these theses, Eck argued against the idea that Jesus, in his call for penance, wanted the whole life of the believer to consist of penance. He also opposed the idea that the just sin in all their good works, even in righteous mortification, or that a just person could commit a mortal sin while also being righteous. Had Luther not declared that the works of the justified were mortal sins and that believers were at once both righteous and sinful?20 Beginning in 1520, Luther further developed his view that the entire Christian life is a continuous penance; years later this view was adopted by Calvin as well.21 Luther’s point was that every believer had to repent continuously, and seek refuge in the comfort of the gospel. 17 WA 56, p. 269. We are ‘brothers’ and ‘coheirs’ with Christ by adoption through grace, not substantively one with God the Father. And by the same faith in which the righteousness of God lives in us, sin also lives in us: conformity with God is simultaneously disconformity with God. Cf. WA 56, p. 79 and p. 231; Ozment: 1969, p. 214. 18 WA 56 (Commentary on Romans of 1515/6), p. 272. cf. WA 2, pp. 496–497. WA 39/I, p. 492. WA 39/I, p. 563. 19 LW (Clemen), vol. 1, p. 182 = WA 2, p. 721. 20 For example thesis 3 and 7 of the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518: Opera hominum, ut semper speciosa sint, bonaque videantur, probabile tamen est, ea esse peccata mortalia (“Human works, as splendid as they are and as good as they appear to be, nevertheless are probably mortal sins”) and: Iustorum opera essent mortalia, nisi pio Dei timore ab ipsismet iustis, ut mortalia timerentur (“The works of the righteous would be mortal, unless they are feared by the righteous themselves as mortal according to a pious fear of God”). See Härle: 2006, pp. 36f. and pp. 40f. = WA 1, p. 356 and p. 358. 21 Calvin did follow Luther entirely in his view of a continual and life-long repentance, penitence, and dying in imitation of Christ. For example, in his 1541 short treatise on the Lord’s Supper he writes: “Now true repentance is firm and constant; therefore it makes us battle

Man, Freedom, and the Church

51

In his 1520 bull Exsurge Domine (“Arise, O Lord”), the pope condemned Luther, among other reasons for his anthropology which presupposed that “every good work, however well it is done, amounts to daily sin”.22 In the following year, Luther defended his position and delineated it somewhat more clearly : “good works, done as well as possible, amount to everyday sins if measured by God’s grace, and are mortal sins if measured by God’s strict judgment.” Even when they engage in good acts and virtuous deeds, humans are self-seeking.23 Therefore, to fulfil the precepts of God’s law is impossible.24 This perspective on man would go on to impress its stamp upon the Protestant doctrine, as for instance in Calvin’s Small Catechism of 1537, where he confesses about man (De lhomme) that “our strength, weakened for every good work, madly dashes off into wickedness” (art. 4), while the next article on free will (De libero arbitrio) adds that, “because on account of the corruption of his feelings he utterly loathes all of God’s righteousness and is inflamed to every sort of wickedness, it is denied that he is endowed with the free capacity to choose good and evil which men call ‘free will’.”25 Faith as personal experience But why would those who have no free will, who lack the capacity to do good out of their own strength, and who will always remain wholly sinful – why would such people take the initiative to act piously, and why would they freely choose to read the Bible themselves, to pray and to go to church in order to receive the Word and the sacrament? Here the Reformation movement clearly failed to anticipate what would happen. Neither the laity nor the clergy would ‘behave’ properly without the firm hand of church discipline; this was the lesson of the mid 1520s. The flesh does not let go Many bitter experiences brought Luther and Melanchthon to the conclusion that the emphasis on the gospel as a message of liberation and forgiveness, resulting

22

23 24 25

against the evil which is within us, not for a day of a week, but without end or intermission (sans fin et sans cesse).” See CStA, vol. 1/2 (1994), p. 462 = OS 1, p. 514. Cf. Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute (1518) in WA 1, p. 608. In 1521 Luther says: “Eyn frum mensch sundigt ynn allen gutten werkenn,”see Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind, in WA 7, p. 438 and p. 433. WA 56, p. 236f. Cf. Luther’s comment on Rom 3: 10: “There is no one who is righteous.” Ozment: 1969, p. 191. WA 56, p. 355. Cf. Ozment: 1969, p. 207. OS 1, p. 381: “Les forces impuissantes a toutes bonnes oeuvres tendent furieusement a iniquite” (art. 4). “Mais parce que pour la corruption de son affection il a tresfort en hayne toute la iustice de Dieu et dautre part est fervent en toute espece de mal, il est dict navoir pas puissance libre de eslire le bien et le mal, ce quon appelle le liberal arbitre” (art. 5).

52

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

in “evangelical freedom,” had made people frivolous and negligent of their duties towards church and faith. In 1529, Luther complained that it would be better if the careless masses were to resubmit themselves to papal authority. “For the masses, who do not want to obey the gospel, need a servant of the law to act as God’s devil and hangman.”26

3

Freedom of Conscience versus Ecclesiastical Power

Luther: conscience thrown into freedom Because the medieval church held the key to salvation in its hands, it had a position of authority in the life of the individual believer. This is exemplified in the sacrament of penance: sinners could be certain that God had forgiven their sins and acquitted them of eternal punishment in hell simply by virtue of their participation in the sacrament of penance. Due to the thirteenth-century canonical law, no one could escape a yearly inquiry into his or her conscience. Here the Reformation effected a radical change. No longer did people have to achieve their own salvation by works of penance. God’s wrath and his accusing and condemning law reached into the individual human conscience. Judgment was now understood to take place in the conscience; this was also the place where individuals experienced their relationship with God so that it too had to be set free from the power of the church. In a 1521 work, Luther summarized this as follows: “Therefore, Christian or evangelical freedom is the freedom of conscience, by which the conscience is liberated from works – not so that they are not done, but so that one does not rely on them.”27 Accordingly, Karl Holl would later aptly characterize Luther’s theology as a “religion of the conscience” (Gewissensreligion).28 Calvin’s battle of conscience Calvin saw the human conscience as the place where individuals share knowledge with God (con-scientia) and where they are placed directly before the judgment seat of God. The young Calvin writes in a highly personal way about his fear of the God who judges and of the church’s inability to help him deal with these fears: “Whenever I descended into myself, or raised my mind to thee, extreme terror seized me – terror which no expiations nor satisfactions could 26 LD (Aland), 3th ed. 1961, vol. 3, pp. 145f. = BSLK, pp. 725f. 27 WA 8, p. 606: “Daher ist die christliche oder evangelische Freiheit die Freiheit des Gewissens, durch die das Gewissen von den Werken befreit wird, nicht dass sie nicht getan werden, doch dass man nicht darauf vertraut.” 28 Cf. TRE, part 1, vol. 13 (Gesellschaft/Gesellschaft und Christentum VI – Gottesbeweise), p. 222.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

53

cure. And the more closely I examined myself, the sharper the stings with which my conscience pricked me, so that the only solace which remained to me was to delude myself by obliviousness.”29 Time and again there was the torment of being left with one’s own repentance.30 In the established church, one’s peace of mind was in the hands of the church, which governed these things. At the same time, Calvin maintained that a continuous battle in conscience and in faith was characteristic of the pious life.31 The fear of God As a result, the conscience no longer was a tool that the church ruled over.32 The church lost some of its power, so that room was made for more direct interaction between God and believers. Echoing Melanchthon, Calvin warned of the importance of the fear of God. A spiritual person needs an outside substance (substantia extra nos33) to anchor his life and to dwell in that substance. The same attention for the presentia realis of the Lord applies for the administration of Word and sacrament. Calvin states that in this process the Lord draws near to us and offers us complete grace.34

4

New Ecclesiastical Regulations Curtailing the Individual’s Freedom

Preaching the Law prior to the comfort of the Gospel through faith Back to Wittenberg. During the Saxon church visitations, Luther and Melanchthon were forced to realize that the new view of human and Christian identity was a lofty or unattainable ideal. For this reason, both the 1527 Articuli visitationis and the 1528 Unterricht der Visitatoren heavily emphasised repentance and the preaching of the law. These practices ought to prepare one for faith and set the boundaries of the ‘evangelical freedom’.35 29 30 31 32 33 34

OS 1, p. 485 = CO 5, p. 412. Olin: 1966, p. 82. Inst. 3.4.17. Bouwsma: 1988, pp. 56f. Inst. 3.2.17 (1539) = Os 4, p. 27 = CO 2, pp. 411–412. Lohse: 1987, p. 59. Ozment: 1968, pp. 105f. CO 6 (Calvin’s Catechism), pp. 125–126, answer 346: “For though both in baptism and in the gospel Christ is exhibited to us, yet we do not receive him wholly [like in the Supper] but only in part (Car combien que Iesus Christ nous soit vrayement communiqu¦, et par le Baptesme, et par l’Evangile, toutesfois ce n’est qu’en partie, non pas pleinement).” 35 Oberman: 1986, ch. 7: ‘The Gospel of Social Unrest: 450 Years After the So-called “German Peasants’ War” of 1525’, pp. 155–178, here pp. 160f. (“for over a century the ‘libertas Christiana’ had been a current issue and a central question in pub and marketplace,” p. 161).

54

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

The chaotic events of the Peasants’ War and the many confusions of the Wittenberg Reformation, as they came to light in the visitations in Saxony, for instance, confirmed Luther in his pragmatism. Now not only critical outsiders like Erasmus judged that the reform movement had led in practice to civil strife and loose morals.36 Luther and Melanchthon too discovered that the movement of reform would not last unless a forceful intervention were to take place. The elector of Saxony therefore decided to lead a series of church visitations and wrote an instruction manual in June 1527. Melanchthon, who was part of the first group of visitors, spent the summer compiling a textbook for preachers, in which he outlined his new perspective on the central role of penitence and on the preaching of the law in order to curb the ‘evangelical freedom’ which had spun out of control. The conclusion Melanchthon reached after the first visitations in July 1527 was that people become “self-confident and fearless” when they believe they are forgiven by God even if there is no penitence. According to Melanchthon, this would be a greater sin than all the errors that have been discerned so far.37 Melanchthon describes faith without prior penitence, i. e., “without the doctrine of the fear of God or the doctrine of the law,” as putting new wine in old skins. He argued that people would only grow used to a “carnal security” and become careless. The preaching of penitence was in his mind to include the law as well as the temporal and eternal punishments with which God threatens sinners. When God “so scares the heart and produces a fear of judgment,” the soil will be prepared for the comfort offered in the preaching of the gospel.38 Just like the preaching of the law precedes the preaching of the gospel, so penitence precedes faith. To coerce or not to coerce Luther had insisted that participation in penance and in the Lord’s Supper was to be voluntary and ought not to be forced on anyone. He fiercely opposed any notion of laws and duties imposed by the church, as for example in the opening words to his treatment of confession in the 1529 Large Catechism: “Concerning confession we have always taught that it should be voluntary and purged of the pope’s tyranny. We have been set free from his coercion and from the intolerable burden and weight he imposed upon the Christian community. […] Up to now, as we all know from experience, there have been no law quite so oppressive as that which forced everyone to make confession on pain of the gravest mortal sin. Moreover, it so greatly 36 See Erasmus’s letter to Spalatin from 6 September 1524 in Allen: 1910, no. 1497. 37 UdV, art. 1. “Faith cannot settle except in a remorseful heart,” we read at the end of art. 1. This is why instruction in the law is necessary according to Rom 3: 20 (art. 15). 38 AV, art. 1.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

55

burdened and tortured consciences with the enumeration of all kinds of sin that no one was able to confess purely enough. […] Instead, it was made sheer anguish and a hellish torture because people had to make confession even though nothing was more hateful to them. Now they have been made voluntary, that we may make confession without coercion or fear.”39

Calvin would end up shifting this balance in the practice of penitence and confession through his Ecclesiastical Ordinances. The more external and practical orientation of his approach emerges above all from the form he gave to penitence and confession in Geneva, most notably in the introduction of the consistory as a place where sins were confessed, punishment was imposed and absolution was received upon remorse for and repentance from sin.40 This can be demonstrated with a quotation from article 163 of the Genevan church order : “If someone because of his rebellion, or because he continues to persist in sin, or because he has been found to be unworthy of Holy Communion, is kept from [communion], and, instead of humbling himself, scorns the ecclesiastical law and does not voluntarily confess his sin in the consistory, he is to be kept from the Lord’s Supper for a period of six months, and thereafter summoned, admonished, and compelled to return [to communion]. But if he persists until the end of the year without correcting himself according to the admonitions he has received, he is to be banished for a year as an unrepentant man, unless this should be avoided by him asking for forgiveness from the council and admitting his sin in the consistory, so as to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper community.”41

Therefore, like Luther and Melanchthon, Calvin demanded attention for the internal aspect of penitence as a life-long process: “Repentance can thus be well defined: it is the true turning of our life to God, a turning that arises from a pure and earnest fear of him; and it consists in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man, and in the vivification of the Spirit.” At the same time, he insisted more than them on the external form which this penitence and confession was to assume.42

39 40 41 42

Kolb/Wengert: 2001, p. 476 = BSLK, pp. 725–726. Speelman: 2010, pp. 454–567. OS 2 (17 Nov. 1557), p. 360 = CStA, vol. 2, p. 272 = Niesel, art. 163, p. 62. OS 1, p. 171. Inst. 3.3.5f. = OS 4, p. 60. Inst. 3.3.4 = OS 4, p. 60. Cf. Calvin’s discussion of the permanent battle against sin in our lives and of continuing penitence or repentance which is necessary in the Christian life, Inst., vol. 3, ch. 3.9 and 10. Here Calvin and Luther agree. True penitence consists in life-long repentance and continuous penitence, rather than the performance of certain rites at set times. In 1541 Calvin formulated his position as follows: true penitence is not something we do for a day or a week, but it has no end and means a constant (sans cesse) battle against the evil within us. Cf. OS 1, p. 514. See Speelman: 2010, pp. 442– 447.

56

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

A continuing call to repentance In the theology of Melanchthon, the penitence preceding faith is not just an isolated element. In those who respond to the preaching of the gospel, penitence must continue in the sense of the ‘mortification of the flesh’ and the ‘dying of the old man’. For this reason there must be constant attention for the commandments of God. The cross which Christians must bear in life also serves to incite them to penitence; the oppressions they suffer can therefore be seen as “a part of the instruction of the law” and a punishment for their sins.43 Yet in spite of his emphasis on fear of divine judgment and punishment, Melanchthon does not teach the attrition of medieval theology.44 His goal is the dialectic between law and gospel – this applies to both the first confession or conversion, which serves to prepare outsiders for the preaching of the gospel, and to the second confession or conversion, which runs throughout the entire Christian life from beginning to end. Yet the church visitations of the 1520s brought about a situation in which large groups of people, who had always been considered as Christians, were now primarily approached and addressed as if they were unbelievers and outsiders who still had to be prepared for the preaching of the gospel by having the law preached to them and by being called to confession or conversion.

5

The Position of the Common People within the Christian Religion

Greater internality and freedom as an ideal Although the Reformation arose as a movement against the church’s fully externalised practice of penitence, Protestantism too proved to be unable to avoid a certain externalisation when it produced ecclesiastical regulations and introduced more or less compulsory systems of penitence and confession in Saxony, as well as in Geneva. In line with its radically negative anthropology, Protestantism had a very positive view on the role of the civil government. Yet the remarkable thing is that, just as Luther’s efforts for ecclesiastical renewal ended with a state church (i. e., the evangelical variant of the landesherrliche Kirchenregiment), so in the Swiss Reformation the leadership of the church ended up in the hands of the members of the city council. Under Calvin a “mixed form (res mixta)” was developed, in which, especially in the consistory, the pastors and the elder-councillors closely cooperated in such matters as the discipline of confession, which in fact were typically spiritual in nature. 43 AV, art. 2. 44 See ch. 5, n. 30.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

57

The ideal the Reformers first entertained was to increase internality and freedom, and to decrease externality, coercion, and ecclesiastical control. A continuous penitence in combination with weekly communion True Christians ought to be intrinsically motivated, out of their love for God and his justice, to share in the treasures and gifts of Christ as they are worked by the Holy Spirit. In such a context the administration of the Word, as well as the sacraments, came to receive greater emphasis. The ideal was for someone to die (off) daily in his penitence and share in the suffering, death, and life of Christ. In the 94th and 95th of Luther’s theses (1517), this motif of a life of the cross is connected to the imitation of Christ: “Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell.” Thus they will be “more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations.” Luther developed the shift from a purely spiritual communion with Christ to a more frequent and sacramental communion, which finds its modest origins in the late Middle Ages.45 The shift occurred in significant measure when he established in the Sunday liturgy a weekly Lord’s Supper celebration which was open to all believers. Calvin followed Luther on this point in his first church order.46 Ideally people ought to have the chance to “partake of the Eucharist” at every gathering, that is, probably even at the weekday assemblies. As Calvin wrote, “plainly this custom which enjoins us to take communion once a year is a veritable invention of the devil.”47 Luther and Calvin attempted to pursue a weekly celebration of the Eucharist. In this respect Calvin may have failed in Geneva, and yet he did manage to give the Lord’s Supper an obligatory character. Thus, the liturgical changes of the Wittenberg and Genevan Reformations had far-reaching implications, and were not just limited to a renewed attention for the preaching of the Word. God’s Temple is not only “a house of the Word”. In addition to verbal food and conversation, the church is about the daily consumption of the body and blood of Christ. In communion, i. e., in being together, he reveals himself and thereby 45 In the medieval period, the custom was for people to receive sacramental communion once a year, around Easter. At that time they went to communion and received the host. Throughout the rest of the year, they only received spiritual communion in which one united one’s spirit with Christ without actually receiving the host. After the Reformation, the more frequent, communal participation in the Lord’s Supper expressed the communal character of the church members. In this way, the continued involvement of the people could be measured beyond the Easter period as well. However, people continued to show a certain reserve toward participating in communion more often than was strictly legislated. Spiritual communion was seen as a ‘safer’ way to be united to Christ without running the danger of partaking of the sacrament in an unworthy manner and to one’s condemnation. 46 See ch. 6, n. 30. 47 OS 1, p. 149 = Battles: 1989, p. 113.

58

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

enables a unity between himself and the believer.48 It is only when we understand Calvin’s view of the individual as sinful and unable to do anything without Christ that we can understand his emphasis on the frequent – as often as possible! – participation in communion by each and every believer. Why did the Reformers decide to offer the lay people a weekly celebration of the Eucharist, when just before they had harshly condemned the sacramental externalisation of religion as it had been practiced in the established church? Their decision will seem less strange to us when we consider that they were concerned with the inner experience of sharing in the body and blood of Christ, the unio cum Christo.49 As noted above, by abandoning the sacrament of penitence the Protestant churches had lost their hold on the congregation. A consequence of this was that the people’s own responsibility increased. In this new situation, the conscience was no longer governed by the church.50 The church had surrendered some of its power, and that ecclesiastical control was replaced by the direct communion which people could now enjoy with God. It is foolish, he claimed, to be smug and to think that we no longer have to fear God. In 1561, for example, Calvin wrote that we must remember that we stand directly “before the judgment seat of God,” and that we should accordingly “summon our conscience” to appear before it. It is “an all too common shortcoming that people who have sinned a thousand times and deserve eternal death a thousand times over believe that they have fulfilled their duty before God by means of a few frivolous ceremonies.” The fear of God naturally produces anxiety in the human conscience, but it also causes us to see the true value of God’s grace.51

Some Concluding Remarks How free can one be in a church-based society? The fact that the connection between confession and communion was maintained in the 1528 Saxon church polity ought to be considered remarkable. This 48 CO 6 (Calvin’s Catechism), pp. 127–128, answer 353: “I do not doubt but that, as testified by words and signs, he thus also makes us partakers of his substance, by which we are joined in one life with him. (Ie ne doubte pas qu’il ne nous face participans de sa propre substance, pour nous unir avec soy en une vie).” Cf. CStA, vol. 1/2, p. 454. 49 Cf. Luther’s Eyn sermon von dem hochwirdigen sacrament (1519). Cf. Süss: 2012, p. 227. About the phrase ‘as often as’, compare also ch. 3, n. 92, ch. 6.3, ch. 8.1 and ch. 11.3 and in A Kempis 1441, e. g. “As often as You are worthily and devoutly received” (3.1.32) and “As often as you renew this Mystery and receive the Body of Christ” (3.2.25). 50 Lohse: 1987, p. 59. 51 CO 18, no. 3485 (18 August 1561), p. 622. Cf. CO 18, no. 3161 (Letter to Blaurer). See also Smith: 2013, pp. 191f.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

59

connection is about more than introspective self-examination. It was not just the individual who was responsible for preparing his participation in the weekly communion, but the church too shared in this responsibility : “No one should be allowed to go to communion who has not been individually examined by his pastor to see if he is prepared to go to the holy sacrament.”52 Despite this rule, which bore great similarities with the tradition decreed by Rome, the Lutheran church remained strongly opposed to the implementation of force. People could be admonished or reprimanded, but they could not be forced to live or believe in a certain way : “no one is to be forced to believe, or driven by command or force from his unbelief, since God takes no delight in forced service and wants only those who are his servants by their own free will.”53 Individual religious freedom of conscience prevailed over the general interest of the church. In other words, in Lutheranism the internal dominated the external. The same is true of the Reformation in some of the Swiss cities, including Bern. Its synod of January 1532, which followed upon the bloody religious battle fought at Cappel in October 1531, decided that pastors should be allowed to support the state in the battle against sin, among others by serving as members of the local Chorgericht, i. e., the state committee for matters of morals.54 However, the clergy members did not as such receive any special powers or disciplinary means. Hundreds of pastors in the territory of Bern’s city state would have to motivate the people to do what is good without the use of coercion. Article 22 of the synod shows that the pastors agreed to this. The preachers were convinced that this committee for supervision and discipline in issues pertaining to morals ought to look more to “the internal […] than the external matters.” They further insisted that they were not trying to “increase their powers for the exercise of discipline”.55 Not long before the synod, in December 1531, Bullinger had fought for and managed to obtain for the pastors the freedom of preaching.56 By emphasizing penitence and confession as a beneficial remedy for both individuals as well as society as a whole, Calvin would reinvigorate the societal significance of ecclesiastical penitence and supervision. Penitence was used to educate and discipline the masses. In departure from the situation of the early church, Christians usually had not deliberately chosen their faith but instead acquired it upon their baptism as children. This created a need for the congregation to participate frequently in the sacraments and to be instructed in Scripture.

52 UdV, art. 8. 53 UdV, art. 6. 54 The synod of Bern had in mind such sins as prostitution, brothels, drunkenness, gambling, cursing, perjury, entering the service of foreign princes, mercenary warfare, etc., BS, art. 32b. 55 BS 1, art. 32a, p. 125. Cf. BS 1, art. 1, p. 37 and BS 1, art. 22, p. 93. 56 Speelman: 2014, ch. 1, pp. 19–56.

60

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

Luther considered such a spiritual life necessary for every Christian, not just for monks and pastors. Penitence prior to faith became a typically Lutheran doctrine. Melanchthon departed from Luther somewhat in teaching that penitence ought to flow from the fear of God. What Melanchthon meant, however, was that this fear, which God himself ignites in us and which technically comes forth out of love, should be connected to the contritio, even when the latter concerns the believer’s condition before ‘vivification’ or ‘comfort’, or, as he says elsewhere, before ‘justification’.57 It is God who brings about penitence in us, just as it is he who enables our faith. Remorse cannot be without faith; that would promote negligence and false security. Conversely, faith without remorse produces doubt instead of penitence. According to Luther, spiritual life ought not to be reserved primarily for monastics and preachers, but it was to be the prerogative of each and every believer. This had far-reaching implications. Just like in the early church, penitence and repentance obtained a new significance in the new doctrine. Instead of participating in external religious ceremonies, Christians were expected to participate and be involved personally. The Reformers taught that direct communion with God himself was possible without the mediation of a member of the clergy class. In this context Luther spoke about the “priesthood of all believers” – yet not as a way to elevate humanity. Today we witness an even more intense search for a balance between a purely individualistic spirituality as well as a more general ecclesiastical piety, where the sacred is not located in the heart alone but also in the objective. The evangelical movement’s failure to avoid a certain externalisation We have also seen how the sixteenth-century evangelical church could not avoid putting doctrine and life down on paper, and using its authority to ensure that its members stayed true to its tradition. The new church regulations which were introduced after the Saxon church visitations and intended to replace the existing externalised system nevertheless failed to avoid a certain degree of externalisation. As a result, Melanchthon was reproached by John Agricola, for example, who charged that he seemed ready to return to the Roman practices and to give up what Luther had gained. Luther himself did not agree with this evaluation, but approved the confession of Melanchthon published in March 1528.

57 To Agricola Melanchthon writes about the fear of the conscience and being upset before “vivification or comfort,” see MW, vol. VII/2 (Letter 121, Oct. 1527), p. 36. To Justus Jonas he writes about comparable feelings “before justification,” see MW, vol. VII/2 (Letter 122, 20 December 1527), p. 41.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

61

In the church’s practice and theological reflection, the medieval tradition came to revolve in increasing measure around the sacrament of penance. Whether more internal or more external, the sacrament of penance represented the most useful instrument for the church to turn those who had been baptised into true Christians. Penance (i. e., poenitentiam agree) was accompanied by an external ritual in which three elements came to be distinguished over the course of time: a full or partial contrition (contritio cordis), a confession made before a priest (confessio oris), and a fitting act of satisfaction (satisfactio operis) imposed by the confessor priest. As a result, the concept of poenitentia (“penitence”) came to be associated increasingly with poena (“punishment”). Luther did away with the sacrament of penance, but he renewed confession. Ten years later, Melanchthon introduced a second shift. He not only wrote a first confession or church order to which pastors were both bound and measured, but he also insisted on the importance of personal penitence. For the evangelical movement this would prove to be of both practical as well as immense theological significance. The freedom of conscience A remarkable difference can be observed between Luther’s and Calvin’s views on the freedom of conscience. Calvin had heartily followed Luther’s theology, especially in regard to the doctrines of God and humanity. Like Luther, he too thought that the Lord’s Supper should be a weekly event for believers, to be accompanied by some form of penance and confession. But in his eyes the whole was more important than the parts and the community more important than the individual. For Calvin, like for Melanchthon, this meant that the church’s representatives bore responsibility for the attendance at the Lord’s Supper. For Calvin this was not only a matter of theory. More so than Luther and Melanchthon, Calvin felt a great responsibility for the way in which the supervision of Lord’s Supper was executed. In this, he did not shy away from using a certain form of ecclesiastical power to enforce the evangelical doctrine and way of life. He expressed his struggles in this regard in the preface to his Small Catechism where he pondered aloud in the beginning of 1538: “Yet ought one not to consider that the pastor who has no delight in communicating it is himself profaning this great mystery?”58 For the practice of home visits in Geneva in the weeks leading up to Easter, Calvin in 1541 introduced – in line with the structures already in place in Geneva – the institution of the elder and, for the more delicate issues, the consistory. Backed by the state, Calvin, who had originally been trained as a jurist, drew up a series of ecclesiastical laws. He would work hard to perfect a Protestant system of 58 CO 5, p. 319 = OS 1, p. 429.

62

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

penitence and confession over the course of some 25 years. At their end, he could hardly disguise his pride and expressed the wish that his ecclesiastical laws might become an example for all the churches.59 This new and very detailed system of supervision and discipline once again extended to every corner of the church’s life, and was perhaps even more restrictive than what had been in place prior to the introduction of the Reformation to Geneva. In Geneva the eventual outcome was that every year hundreds of citizens, or some five percent of the total population, would be excommunicated for shorter or longer periods of time. This strict Calvinist approach soon spread from Geneva and across all of Europe. In countries with Calvinist (national) churches, the so-called Christian freedom of the individual would be highly impacted by the power of the church. Every new member “voluntarily” had to place himself under the supervision and penitential authority of the church council. The council of the church was the shepherd who cares for and leads sheep – a position that Calvin had actually envisioned as belonging to the bishop. The Reformers drew up ecclesiastical regulations with varying degrees of strictness, following from their common understanding that the human race is radically sinful, can only experience evangelical freedom through Christ, and constantly requires the grace of God. Yet they did not all agree on how the church ought to be supervised and on the form discipline ought to take, or on what powers and responsibilities the church was to have in the concrete daily realities of both people and society. While the church’s reform did obtain a certain degree of freedom of conscience for the individual believer, especially in the Reformed wing of the Protestant tradition the supervision of the church remained widespread. In the eyes of the Genevan Reformer, people did not worry enough about their eternal salvation. Their contempt for God resulted from a worldly self-confidence. They did not understand or recognise their own misery, so Calvin wrote to the evangelicals in France, and therefore they did not look for their own salvation. The sinners’ conscience had to be frightened once again, for only then would they value the reconciliation earned for us by the blood of Christ.60 59 In a meeting of the General Council of Thursday, 13 November 1561, Calvin held a speech in which he called the definitive regulations “a light” that may function as “an example to all churches which have been guided on the path of Christian reformation” and be a testimony “to those who are suspicious of our order and religion.” See CO 21, p. 766 = CO 10a, p. 92. 60 CO 18, no. 3485 (18 August 1561), p. 622. In his pastoral letter to his followers in France, Calvin warned that the majority had contempt for Christ and his gospel of the forgiveness of sins, because most people were “without fear, without a sense of evil in their own life, and without fear for God’s wrath,” and comforted themselves with a false sense of security. Decades earlier he had similarly complained about the way many laypeople were not serious enough about the gospel; see, for example, the preface to his catechism of 1538 in CO vol. 5, p. 319 = OS 1, p. 428.

Man, Freedom, and the Church

63

Later in the sixteenth century, members of the Calvinistic churches had to agree voluntarily to the accompaniment of church officials in their daily spiritual lives. Looking back we can say that the Reformers introduced a new view on man and his place in church life; here Christian freedom and penitence played an important role. In this context Wolfhart Pannenberg thought to discern a specifically Protestant “penance piety” (Bussfrömmigkeit). But, as we are arguing here, the typical element of this piety was not, as Pannenberg supposed, that the Protestants sought to follow the late medieval awareness of sin and fear of judgment.61 Instead, their very opposition to the medieval sacrament of penance was what moved them to give such a prominent place to sin and penitence in the Christian life, in which inner penitence and repentance were to occupy the centre of the stage. As such, the medieval sacrament of penance remained, albeit in a radically transformed manifestation, the formal principle which continued to structure the Christian life in the Reformation. Influenced by humanism, the Reformers’ doctrine of humanity was above all aimed at bringing about a personal faith and life renewal, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

61 Pannenberg: 1986, ch. 1 (Protestantische Bussfrömmigkeit), pp. 5–25.

Chapter 3. The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

Introduction One of the classic examples in the Western world of a symbol is the bread and wine of the sacrament of the Eucharist. It represents the struggle of humanity in its search for dealing with the invisible world. In this essay we will compare a Catholic and a Protestant figure, namely Thomas — Kempis (1380–1471), a leading figure within the late medieval renewal movement of the devotio moderna, and John Calvin (1509–1564), an influential person from the early modern reform movement. In particular, we will compare A Kempis’s 1441 Devota exhortacio ad sacram communionem and Calvin’s 1541 Petit traict¦ de la saincte cene on the subject of the Eucharist.1 In the time of Thomas, there were two forms of communion: an external communion, and an exclusively internal one. The first was called “sacramental communion,” in which one really partakes of the body and blood of Christ, usually at Mass. Then there was also “spiritual communion,” a purely internal act of faith without the real body and blood of Christ and independent of time and place. Wessel Gansfort (1419–1489), a layman, humanist, and representative of the devotio moderna, compared these two forms of communion and concluded that sacramental communion is of no use without spiritual communion, and that it can even lead to death if one partakes in an unworthy manner. Spiritual communion, on the other hand, always bears fruit and leads to life. Furthermore, Gansfort held sacramental communion to depend upon circumstances, while

1 Over seventy French editions appearing from 1488 to 1600 of (parts of) Thomas’s La ymitacion Jhesus Christ, a book that consists of four tracts, including the Devota exhortacio ad sacram communionem, and between 1541 and 1562 eight editions of Calvin’s Petit traicte de la saincte cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ, according to the list in Pettegree e.a.: 2007, vol. 2, 728–730; see also Higman: 1996.

66

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

spiritual communion can take place anywhere as long as one’s faith is sincere. As such, Wessel shows himself to be a proponent of spiritual communion.2 However, in what was originally the third book of the De Imitatione Christi3, Thomas exhorts his readers to participate in sacramental communion and, against the usual custom, he tells them to do so frequently. A century later, Calvin would do the same under different circumstances. Their eucharistic spiritualities are characterised by the believer’s unification with Christ in communion. But what, according to Calvin, is the relationship between the partaking of the signs of the Eucharist and what communion really is about, namely unification with Christ and the resulting fruits? We will see that in the view of Thomas and Calvin there is no such thing as a Holy Communion without a bond to the God-man Christ, nor can one partake of this communion without preparing for it in a worthy manner, nor on the other hand speak of communion without any effects. In Thomas’s treatise these three main elements can be found in most of the eighteen chapters, while in his booklet Calvin in the first of five chapters treats, among other things, the effects of communion, union with Christ in the second, and in chapter three the preparation for Holy Communion, while the last two chapters focus on the refutation of the doctrine of the established church and of the other reformers. In what follows we will therefore reflect on: – The unification which is effected with Christ through communion – The necessity for each person to prepare for this holy unification in a worthy manner, and – The fruits of Holy Communion. First, however, we will address the tension between the sign and signified in the Eucharist. At the very end of this essay, we will also offer some remarks on the comparison between Thomas’s and Calvin’s Eucharistic treatises. The relationship between sign and signification: A comparison with Zwingli and Luther In the Marburg Colloquy of 1529, the reformers Luther and Zwingli were unable to understand each other on the subject of Holy Communion. In this discussion, 2 Wessel Gansfort, Tractatus de oratione et modo orandi, fol. lxxii–v and lxxv-r ; see Post: 1968, pp. 537–541. 3 Imitacio and imitari can be understood in English as ‘representation’ and ‘to represent’. The terms are commonly translated as ‘imitation’ and ‘to imitate’, but it is important to recognise that it is not a matter of a slavish, required, or external imitation. What Thomas means is the free, personal, and internal representation of the image of the invisible God. In this work Thomas accordingly treats the representation of Christ, also in communion and the communicant.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

67

on which Lee Palmer Wandel has written an insightful article, a key element was formed by the significance of the body, and thus, of the signs. For Luther, in contrast to Zwingli, Christ’s body could not be substantially the same as the human body, since that would place God under the rule of ‘mathematics’ (physics). Although Zwingli on his part did understand Christ’s body to be in heaven, he argued that the absence of his body in the Eucharist did not mean that the Eucharist lacked a somatic dimension. Accordingly, he said to Luther : “we speak also of a ‘sacramental’ presence of Christ’s body, and mean with it, that the body of Christ is ‘representative’ in the Supper.”4 For Zwingli images and visible things become idols in the mind of man, in a psychological sense. Specific representations in a complex interplay between matter and mind, not matter itself, turn things into idols. The transformation of an image or sign operates at the psychological and emotional level, as he explained in article 20 of the Sixty-Seven Theses: human beings “put their trust in images”, that is, “they entrust something to the images”.5 This helps us to gain a better understanding of the way Zwingli understood Christ’s ‘representative’ presence. According to him Christ is not present corporeally ; only the bread is substantially present. If we follow Zwingli’s sense of human psychology, the connection between the bread and Christ’s body takes place in the mind, and that connection is not simply ‘spiritual’ or ‘psychological’ but visceral. Human beings put their trust in representations of what they themselves each value as good. Once again he explains in article 20: “[E]verything in which man places his trust is for him God.”6 The value does not exist independently in the thing itself. For those who look to God through the bread, this bread is more than mere matter. It is a material site for a connection to Christ’s body, through a complex cognitive process. What matters for Zwingli is that we trust in God. More in line with Luther, for Calvin the eating of the sacramental bread as a sign is not enough. In contrast to Zwingli, Calvin emphasises that the signs in Holy Communion are not naked figures: “[T]he internal substance of the sacrament is joined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed by hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us, so that we are made participants in it 4 Zwingli and Luther had different conceptions of the body of Christ, which prevented them from understanding each other at Marburg. Each followed a different concept of physics and metaphysics. Trained as a humanist, Zwingli stated in the course of the debates: “It is wonderfully consoling to me, each time I think of it: Christ had flesh like I do,” while Luther with his more mystical physics departed from a different notion of the relationship between matter and divine agency and argued that Christ’s body could be ‘similar’ to ours in ‘form’, but not in ‘power’. Köhler : 1929, p. 14 and pp. 29–30. Wandel: 2007, pp. 195–213. 5 ZW II, art. 20, pp. 166–222, p. 218 = HZW II, pp. 255f. 6 ZW II, art. 20, pp. 166–222, p. 219 = HZW II, p. 256.

68

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

[…] Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, so that we may possess him fully” (§ 17).7 In communion, what is consumed is an internal, spiritual substance, because the act of eating this bread of Communion is about more than just believing. “For as it is eating bread, not looking at it, which gives nourishment to the body, so must the soul truly be made a participant in Christ, so as to be sustained by him in eternal life. However, we confess that this eating does not occur except by faith.”8 On the one hand, Holy Communion is not an “empty sign” which may transmit a message or form an alternative for the abandoned worship of images, as in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Calvin clearly states: “in Holy Communion, the Lord gives us what it depicts, and thus we truly receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ” (§ 52). On the other hand, he does not explain how the Eucharist mediates between sign and signified, reality and faith. Calvin like Erasmus chose to describe Christ’s presence in Holy Communion as a ‘spiritual’ communion; like Zwingli he opposed a localised presence; and in the spirit of Luther he used the word ‘substantial’. A key message in Calvin’s treatise is that the substance of Holy Communion consists in Christ (§§ 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 30, 51 and 60). Calvin likes to call communion a mystery, whose main goal is “that we live in Christ and He in us”, a biblical reference which also Thomas cites in the very first chapter of his work. It is well-known that Calvin’s eucharistic theology sought out a middle ground between symbolism and realism, a position generally known as ‘symbolic’ or ‘realistic instrumentalism’. I myself would prefer to call it ‘spiritually substantial’. Because “a miraculous power” is able to “connect that which is physically separated”, Calvin ends his pamphlet by stating that, through the power of the Holy Spirit as the “connector (lien),” a substantial unification with Christ’s body and blood is realised in the Eucharist. In order to express the manner in which sacraments effect the conveyance of grace, one can use the language of representation and signification. Calvin, like many contemporaries, describes the sacraments as instruments that maintain the faith of believers and help to confirm their union with Jesus Christ. He describes a sacrament as “an outward attestation of the grace of God which represents to us by a visible sign spiritual things in order to imprint the promises 7 Higman: 1970, pp. 107f. The paragraph division is taken over from TT (Beveridge: 1958), vol. 2, pp. 163–198; other critical texts can be found in CO 5 (Erichson/Reuss), pp. 433–460, OS 1 (Barth/Niesel), pp. 503–530; and with an accompanying German translation CStA, vol. 1.2 (Busch), pp. 442–493. 8 IRC, c. 4, pp. 18f = McKee: 2009, p. 553.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

69

of God more firmly in our hearts and make us more certain of them.”9 In using this distinction between visible signs and the invisible realities to which these signs refer, Calvin places himself in a tradition of interpretation that goes back to Augustine.10 In the ninth century, during the first controversy over the Holy Supper, Ratramnus comments that for Augustine sacramentum already stood for the earthly form while the res corresponded to the Platonic intelligible idea or reality.11 Ratramnus presupposes the Platonic concept of participation, namely that sensible things are the image of the intelligible reality and that they are what they are through their participation in that intelligible reality. Using this framework of sign and what it represents, Ratramnus depicts Christ as being present in the Eucharist according to the Platonic mode of an idea. In this way he could at once hold on to the real presence and yet deny the identity of the eucharistic body of Christ with the historical body of Christ. This is very similar to the framework we encounter in Calvin. In his treatise Thomas, who speaks positively about the position of the celebrating priest and the dedication of the Mass, does not depart from the church guidelines on the subject, while Calvin is more critical than him of established church doctrine on the sacrifice of the Mass (§§ 33–38) and transubstantiation (§§ 39–40). At the same time, both authors show themselves to be somewhat in line with Ratramnus and Berengarius.12 And what binds them above all is their late medieval eucharistic view of piety, in which a worthy preparation for communion and its fruits holds an important place, and in which the encounter with Christ stands central. As Thomas puts it: “Give me Yourself – it is enough; for without You there is no consolation. Without You I cannot exist, without Your visitation I cannot live. I must often come to You, therefore, and receive the strength of my salvation lest, deprived of this heavenly food, I grow weak on the way” (3, 6–813 ; cf. § 4, 11 etc.). In the Short Treatise on the Holy Supper Calvin acknowledges his debt to Augustine for the distinction between visible sign (signum) and invisible matter, 9 CO 6, p. 111. 10 Markus: 1972. 11 For his teacher Paschasius this figura was only an external enclosure for the true flesh and blood of Christ. This realistic interpretation in the end carried the day. Ratramnus had a spiritual understanding of the ‘body’. His work was rediscovered in 1526 and published in Geneva in 1541. Angenendt: 2005, p. 503 and McDonnell: 1967, pp. 50ff. 12 Speelman: 2010, pp. 378ff. 13 Chapter 3, verse 18 = hereafter 3, 18, l.18 = OO, p. 102. Unless otherwise noted, the parenthetical references to Thomas are taken from book 3 of his De imitatione Christi. “Devota exhortation ad sacram communionem,” in OO, vol. 2 (1904), pp. 89–138. Thomas’s treatise takes the form of a dialogue or antiphon in which Christ as the Loved One (dilectus) invites the student (discipulus) to enjoy the sacrament of his holy body.

70

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

reality and truth of the sacrament (res) as the two constituent elements given in the Supper.14 For Calvin the real matter of the Eucharist is something incorporeal, invisible, mysterious: “It is a spiritual mystery, which cannot be seen by the eye, nor comprehended by the human understanding. It is therefore figured by visible signs, as our infirmity requires” (§ 15).15 Because this divine reality goes beyond the ability of our minds to comprehend, God uses physical signs as instruments through which to communicate a mysterious reality to us. By making a distinction between the thing and what it represents, Calvin does not by any means seek to diminish the communication of the body which is offered to believers in the Eucharist: “Now, if it be asked nevertheless we should reply that the bread and the wine are visible signs, which represent to us the body and the blood; but that the name and title of body and blood is attributed to them, because they are as instruments by which our Lord Jesus Christ distributes them to us” (§ 14). Because the earthly sign of the sacrament signifies a transcendent world, Calvin wants to distinguish clearly between the spiritual and the material. In line with this Calvin reacted against the generally accepted popular piety of his time whereby the signs change into what they represent and become the real matter of the Eucharist, that is, the concept of a local presence of Christ’s body and blood.16 The analogy between the visible, material sign and the invisible, spiritual reality of the sacrament is threatened when the sign and its referent are unequivocally and unambiguously identified, as when the consecrated wafer is said to be the actual body of Christ. Sign and reality have to be distinguished: “But we likewise add that the sacraments of the Lord ought not and cannot at all be separated from their reality and substance. To distinguish them so that they be not confused is not only good and reasonable but wholly necessary. But to divide them so as to set them up the one without the other is absurd” (§ 15).17 The material signs of bread and wine do not lose their corporal, earthly reality when they exercise their significative function. Even in so holy a function they remain bound to the transitory world. More than that, for Calvin it is only on the condition that they remain bread and wine that they are able to signify the spiritual heavenly reality. He who would destroy the materiality of the bread in its significative function would destroy the communion and participation of which it is a sign. This is one of the reasons why Calvin rejects transub-

14 15 16 17

Higman: 1970, p. 107, § 15 = OS 1, p. 509. Cf. OS 2 (La forme de prieres), pp. 43–44. See also n. 88. Higman: 1970, pp. 106f = OS 1, p. 508. Cf. IRC, c. 4, p. 18. Higman: 1970, p. 107 = OS 1, p. 509.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

71

stantiation: it denies the permanent substance of bread and wine and, therefore, denies their function of signifying the spiritual reality. Christ comes to us in the sacrament, says Calvin, as in a mirror : “Now our heavenly Father, to succour us from it, gives us the Supper as a mirror in which we contemplate our Lord Jesus Christ crucified to abolish our faults and offences, and raised to deliver us from corruption and death, and restoring us to a heavenly immortality” (§ 8). This theme is part of a larger complex for Calvin, given numerous dangers like prayer to or worship of idols. On the one hand, the dilemma is for him that we neither tie the grace of God to the sacraments, nor transfer to them the work and influence of the Holy Spirit. It is not the sacraments’ ‘work’ but God in them! “We refer the whole efficacy to the Spirit of God”. On the other hand, the sacraments are the instruments of God’s grace, and their proper use can be effectual.18 Christological considerations, together with the doctrine of Christ’s ascension, were adduced as impediments to the assertion that Christ was present bodily in the meal.19 We short-change Christ if we lower him to perishable elements. But the bread should also retain its true substance in order to be able to point to the other reality.20 In what sense, then, can it be said that we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ? Calvin says that it is necessary for our salvation that we possess him in this way, as he makes himself ours, and we receive him as nourishment for eternal life.21 He adds the reality of himself to the bread and wine. How, then, if his body is in heaven and we are still on earth? He does it by raising our minds to heaven to obtain the reality of the signs.22 The message is clear : Christ cannot be conceived of as locally present in the Supper, and the bread and wine are signs referring us to the body and blood of Christ in heaven. The words ‘bread’ and ‘body’ function in the words of institution: “The name body of Jesus Christ is transferred to the bread, as it is the

18 TT, vol. 2 (Mutual Consent of the Churches of Zurich and Geneva), pp. 199–244, p. 230. 19 Higman: 1970, pp. 120f, § 40f = OS 1, pp. 521f. On this point Calvin very closely followed his Reformed Swiss predecessors Zwingli, Oecolampdius, and, among the French, Farel and Marcourt. 20 “I only say that the nature of the sacrament requires that the material bread remain as visible sign of the body. For it is a general rule for all sacraments that the signs which we see have some correspondence with the spiritual things they symbolize. As then at baptism we have assurance of internal washing when the water is given us for attestation to cleanse our bodily defilements, so in the Supper there must be material bread, to testify to us that the body of Christ is our food. For otherwise what meaning could there be in whiteness symbolizing it for us?” Higman: 1970, pp. 119f, § 39f = OS 1, pp. 520f. 21 Higman: 1970, pp. 102f = §§ 5, 6, 9 etc. 22 TT: 1958, vol. 2 (Catechism), pp. 37–94, p. 91 (answer 355).

72

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

sacrament and figure of it,” explains Calvin (§ 14). In this way, the image of the bread is used in communion to signify another reality. There is, therefore, a relationship of signification between the sign and the thing signified. We might think here of the example of the dove, which image Calvin uses as a visible sign of the Spirit.23 Not only was John the Baptist certain that the Holy Spirit was present when he saw the dove, but we too “truly receive in the Supper the body and blood of Christ.” If he gave us only bread and wine, the institution of Holy Communion would be a deception.24 The sacrament is not a sign alone, but “is combined with the reality and substance” (§ 14). There does, however, remain a paradox in the position Calvin assumes. On the one hand, he is insistent that a sign is nothing but itself; on the other hand, he emphasises our need for signs as vehicles to carry our minds to see things we otherwise could not perceive. While the Holy Spirit moves the heart and enlightens the mind directly, the sacraments, as secondary instruments, are used by God because our weakness needs them as mirrors in which we may see heavenly things in a familiar and earthly way, for otherwise we could not reach them in our understanding.25 Yet to what extent do the views of Calvin and Thomas on the Eucharist as an instrument for communion with Christ agree, as we find them in their respective treatises on the Eucharist?

1

The communal unification with Christ

Thomas and Calvin both consider unification with Christ a central characteristic of eucharistic piety. But they each do so in their own way.26 Calvin was a second-generation reformer, who followed Zwingli in simplifying the liturgy (or liturgical acts) and the interiors of the worship spaces27, and also in some aspects of his theology of the Holy Supper. For example, Calvin too taught that Christ’s natural body ascended into heaven and stayed there. If this spatial separation of sign and thing signified is not emphasised, the result will be idolatry. Calvin spoke also about a spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper, but not in a psychological sense. In the Eucharist Christ offers his own 23 Higman: 1970, p. 106, § 14 = OS 1, p. 509. See also Inst. 4.17.21. 24 Higman: 1970, pp. 107f, §§ 15 and 17 = OS 1, pp. 508f. 25 TT: 1958, vol. 2 (Catechism), 84 (answers 312–214) and Higman: 1970, p. 104, § 8 = OS 1, p. 506. 26 Caspers: 2006, p. 159. 27 Luther, in contrast, found all matter (e. g., images, bells, liturgical vestments, church decorations, ancient lights, and the like) unimportant. He therefore opposed the iconoclasts in Wittenberg. Luther, Vom Abendmahl Christi, Bekenntnis, published in 1528, in LW (Clemen: 1959), vol. 3, p. 514.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

73

body and blood to the communicant in a very mysterious way through the power of the Holy Spirit and makes believers real participants of his substance. “How this is done, some may deduce better and explain more clearly than others,” says Calvin, “we must hold that this sacred mystery is accomplished by the secret and miraculous virtue of God, and that the Spirit of God is the bond of participation, for which reason it is called spiritual” (§ 60). Beginning around the year 1200, two developments brought about a new form of piety, namely the ‘eucharistic piety’.28 Theology came to be increasingly detailed in its description of the actual presence of Christ in the sacrament. The liturgy saw the introduction of the elevation of the host in the Mass, in which the priest lifted the consecrated wafer above his head so that the people could worship Christ. The Fourth Lateran Council declared the doctrine of transubstantiation, according to which bread and wine actually change into the body of Christ. It held that the change nevertheless cannot be witnessed by the senses, since the accidental properties of the bread and wine (accidentia) such as colour, taste, and dimension do not change. This new, eucharistically oriented piety was also cultivated in the eleventh century among the Cistercians by uniting the focus on Christ with a desire to unite with him on a spiritual level.29 In late medieval religion, the main goal of religion was eventual unification with God the Father after death, but during this earthly life a certain degree of unification could be reached through communion. Followers of Geert Groote, who saw in Christ the invisible head of his visible body the church, experienced this unification mostly internally.30 According to scholastic theology, communion was a ‘sacramental unification’ with Christ – not an immediate unification with God, but a mediated one. Immediate unification would only be possible in heaven.31 In Thomas’s Devout Exhortation to the Holy Communion, sacramental unification is both mediated and (quasi) immediate. In chapter 3 on frequent communion, the student says that unification with God is incomplete because “[t]his, indeed, is the one chief consolation of the faithful soul when separated (peregrinatur ; cf. 2 Cor 5: 6f Vulgate!) from You by mortality, that often mindful of her God, she receives her Beloved with devout recollection.” (3, 18). And in chapter 11, we read:

28 Browe: 1933. Caspers: 1996, pp. 193–215. 29 The commentaries of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) and William of Saint-Thierry (d. 1149) on the Song of Solmon ushered in the so-called ‘bridal mysticism’. 30 As a reaction to the division of the church following the Western Schism, Geert Groote in his days saw a threat especially for the internal bond with Christ, and that while in his view the unity of the church is rooted precisely in every believer’s union with Christ. Van Dijk: 2012, p. 263. 31 See also ch. 11, n. 68f.

74

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

“For, hidden though You are beneath another form, I have You truly present in the Sacrament. My eyes could not bear to behold You in Your own divine brightness, nor could the whole world stand in the splendour of the glory of Your majesty. In veiling Yourself in the Sacrament, therefore, You have regard for my weakness. In truth, I possess and adore Him Whom the angels adore in heaven – I as yet by faith, they face to face unveiled. I must be content with the light of the true faith and walk in it until the day of eternal brightness dawns and the shadow of figures passes away.” (11, 5–9)

A turn does follow, however. The Beloved is not refuted, but is told to make a “big, well-stocked dining room” of his heart (12, 3; cf. Rev 3: 20). We belong together, give yourself to me: “I am He to Whom you should give yourself entirely, that from now on you may live, not in yourself, but in Me, with all cares cast away” (12, 23). The depiction of a (quasi) immediate or mystical unification with God comes back later in the chapter on the desire to become one with Christ in the sacrament. Here the prayer evolves into a eulogy. First he begs to be completely united with Christ (13, 2–5), then he praises God’s goodness which feeds him and gives him joy (13, 6–11), to conclude with a wish that the unification might never end: “There is nothing I can give more pleasing than to offer my heart completely to my God, uniting it closely with His. Then shall all my inner self be glad when my soul is perfectly united with God. Then will He say to me: ‘If you will be with Me, I will be with you.’ And I will answer Him: ‘Deign, O Lord, to remain with me. I will gladly be with You. This is my one desire, that my heart may be united with You.’” (13, 13–19) And toward the end of the treatise the student expresses the need to keep uniting oneself with Christ even more urgently : “From this moment to all eternity do You alone grow sweet to me, for You alone are my food and drink, my love and my joy, my sweetness and my total good. Let Your presence wholly inflame me, consume and transform me into Yourself, that I may become one spirit with You by the grace of inward union and by the melting power of Your ardent love. Suffer me not to go from You fasting and thirsty, but deal with me mercifully.” (16, 9–11) For Calvin in the sacrament a melting together or unification takes place, in which one dissolves into the other and the believing participant ceases to live independently. In his form for the Holy Supper (La maniÀre de c¦l¦brer la cÀne), which he wrote shortly after the treatise, Calvin writes repeatedly : the communicant “lives in Me, as I live in him”.32 Our soul must be ready, “fueled by its substance and made alive when they exalted above all earthly things reach heaven (attaindre iusque au Ciel) and enter 32 CO 6 (La maniÀre de c¦l¦brer la cÀne), pp. 193–201 = CStA, vol. 2 (Marti: 1997), pp. 194–214. Cf. John 6: 56b.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

75

into the kingdom of God (entrer au Royaulme de Dieu), where he lives.”33 Seen from this point of view, this communion with Jesus Christ does not take place on earth but in heaven. The food and drink of the bread and wine are also designed to head in the direction of the sky and to enter into God’s kingdom.34 Through the eating and drinking of His body and blood, the participants in communion receive the whole Christ and have a part in His death and resurrection for the comfort of forgiveness of sins and certainty of eternal life. The lines of connection that exist between heaven and earth and between the visible and the invisible world, are embodied, signified, and sealed in the sacrament. It is clear that for both Thomas and Calvin the unification with Christ is essential to the Lord’s Supper.35 The communion, other than its preparation, is purely a divine act, in which humans only participate passively. Believers intensely desire the unification with Christ and want to keep that in their life. It is a wondrous meal in which not only the food is different from our normal food, but also the believer undergoes and in fact is also changed by it. We become like Christ, one with Him, without ceasing to exist ourselves.36 In his description of the goal and meaning of the Holy Supper, Calvin like Thomas takes a middle position between his contemporaries, disapproving of the two more extreme solutions. For example, in a response to the question of what happens in the sacrament and how it takes place, Calvin on the one hand points to the possibility that the signs of bread and wine are identified with the body and blood of Christ, like the papal theologians and Lutherans teach. On the other hand, he wants to exclude the possibility that the signs are empty. The bread, he says, is called ‘body,’ not just because the sign “represents the body of Christ,” but also because it offers us the body of Christ (§ 15). He repeats that we should keep it for certain “that the Lord gives us in the Holy Communion, that what he depicts in it, and that in this way, we truly receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ” (§ 52).

33 CO 6, p. 200 = CStA, vol. 2, p. 210. Cf. Royannez: 1979, p. 575. 34 See also Calvin’s reference to the sursum corda in his small catechism of 1537; for “our eyes, formerly glued to earth,” are no longer directed to ourselves but heavenward. OS 1, p. 382 (art. 7). 35 The German literary historian Kurt Ruh, who has written a standard work on the history of western mysticism, concluded: “Die Eucharistie ist jedenfalls für Thomas und die Devotio Moderna schlechthin die eigentliche und wesentliche Vereinigung mit Christus […] Es ist in der Tat die Eucharistie, die die mystische unio vertritt.” Ruh: 1999, vol. 4, p. 194. 36 In 1523 Zwingli – referring to John 6 (44) and Gal. 2 (20) – posited that man “is attracted by God’s Spirit to Him and changed into Him” also in the body (“Deinde per Spiritum Dei in Deum trahuntur et veluti transformantur”). ZW2, p. 72, thesis 13. For Augustine’s view, see n. 82.

76

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

To prevent the sacrament from remaining limited to the external and material and to see it as something human, Calvin emphatically demands attention for the mystical unification with Christ, and for that reason he prefers to use the Greek word ‘mysterion’.37 With this Calvin turns against the sacramental realism of Luther and the papal teachers, who explain the miracle too much, but also against the opinion of Zwingli, for whom the sacrament is restricted to symbolism. The sacrament is for Calvin like a tool: the visible, external aspects and the inward, invisible aspects of the sacrament should be distinguished, but it is impossible to separate them. He repeatedly mentions that God works through the external signs in an invisible way. He writes, for example, that we should not think that the Lord only warns us through external signs and enflames our hearts. For the main message is that he works in us through his Holy Spirit (§ 19). The external signs function as tools which are used by the Spirit the moment they are consumed by the believer.38 The miracle of the invisible unification with Christ is “an unintelligible mystery” which needs to be visualized to support our faith, but exceeds human understanding.39 “As the bread is given in the hand,” Calvin writes, “so the body of Christ is communicated to us, so that we will take part in him.” Christ’s sacrifice of His body and blood does not depend upon faith, but its reception does. That Christ offers himself in the sacrament is one thing, that we truly receive him is another. “We have then to confess that if the representation which God grants in the Supper is veracious, the internal substance of the sacrament is joined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed by hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us, so that we are made partakers of it. […] Thus, as a brief definition of this benefit of the Supper, we may say that Jesus Christ is there offered to us that we may posses him, and in him all the fullness of his gifts which we can desire; and that in this we have great assistance in confirming our conscience in the faith which we ought to have in him.” (§ 17)

Thomas and Calvin thus show themselves in many respects to hold similar positions in their treatises. For both men it was clear that God uses the sacrament as an instrument to, as Calvin put it, “provide inward care.” (int¦rieurement) (§§ 17 and 19) When Calvin calls the elements in communion “visible words” (verba visibilia) in which the promises of the gospel, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and his 37 IRC 1539–1541, ch. XII (1541: ¦d. Olivier Millet), vol. 2, p. 1348. Carbonnier-Burkard: 2010, p. 236, n. 49. 38 Calvin scholars generally agree that Calvin was interested above all in practice; in that line it has become common to speak of the “instrumental” character of Calvin’s eucharistic theology. See, for example, Campi: 2009, p. 16 and Busch: 2005, p. 127. 39 Inst. 4.17.1 = OS 5, p. 342 and OS 1, p. 118. Cf. Inst. 4.17.7 and 18.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

77

resurrection are depicted, he assumes with Augustine that words and things are both capable of signification.40 Knowledge comes to us in two kinds: that which is concerned with things and that which is concerned with words.41 For the medieval tradition to which Calvin was heir, the question of the Eucharist underlies all talk of images and sacraments. It is not simply a matter of whether a word signifies a thing or whether it has a real and effectual connection with the thing it signifies. There is also the issue of analogy. Created things that signify a divine reality with a real similarity between them were seen as holding the mind and heart of man in a complex relationship with the truths to which they pointed the believer and as instruments used by God to bring the believer to himself.42 It is in this tradition that Calvin stands as he describes the sign as a help that points us directly to Christ.43 They help our weak understanding to grasp something of the mystery they signify.44 Thomas expresses himself somewhat in the spirit of the later Reformed tradition when he writes about sola gratia (12, 8–16; 15, 1), sola fide (18, 17–21) and the necessity of both Word and sacraments (11). A difference over against Calvin is that Thomas acknowledges non-sacramental intimate, spiritual communion as a sacrament, although he prefers sacramental communion. For Calvin, the external-sacramental and inwardspiritual communion are two aspects of the same thing which are not to be had separately. Communion is in essence both an inward and outward event. If the two are disconnected, it would in theory be possible for the believing participant to have real communion with the body and blood of Christ, while his life would remain unchanged. That would be wrong.45 Both men agree that a worthy communion means becoming one with Christ. Christ offers himself, the participant receives him and offers himself with the goal of becoming more like Christ. For both communion is a goal in and of itself as well as an instrument with long-term effects. Holy communion is for them both objective and subjective. That is why both devote much attention in their treatises to the role of both Christ as well as the recipient.46

40 Inst. 4.14.6 (1536); Calvin here refers to Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John 80, 3: MPL 35, p. 1840. 41 Erasmus: 1933, p. 1f. 42 Evans: 1989, p. 38. 43 TT (Catechism), vol. II, 84 (answer 315). 44 Higman: 1970, pp. 102f, § 5 = OS 1, p. 505. 45 In order to express his disagreement he applied this duality to the sacrament of penance. Following this same line of reasoning, it would then be possible to obtain two kinds of absolution, the one external and the other internal. In this way the visible sign and the thing signified would be separated from each other and the sacrament reduced to something purely external. Inst. 4.19.16. OS 5, p. 450 = OS 1, p. 201. 46 Speelman: 2014a, pp. 11–32.

78

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

For Thomas and Calvin, it is certain that a Christian cannot live without communion with Christ in the Eucharist. It renews a believer and changes his interaction with God and his fellow believers. Calvin describes the life-giving sacrament at the end of the treatise as a holy mystery, in which God works through “a secret (secrette) and miraculous (vertu miraculeuse)” power. And because the Spirit of God in this becoming one with Christ acts as the “connecting factor (lien),” he also considers the participation in sacramental communion a matter of spiritual communion (§ 60).47

2

The necessity of a worthy preparation for communion

The importance of a recurring desire to unite with Christ Calvin writes that people are unwilling to attend communion due to their own unworthiness or that of others, as well as a lack of personal motivation (§ 30–32). However, once we have tasted just a bit of the “sweetness” of the heavenly bread, we will come to desire it more and more, and we will accept it every time it is offered to us (§ 32). A recurring and increasing desire for communion with Christ in the Eucharist is characteristic of Calvin’s thought, just as it is for Thomas (3, 4–5). According to Calvin, our soul is in constant need of bread from heaven, just like our body is in constant need of earthly food. It is clear to him that “it is the intention of our Lord that we participate in communion frequently ; else, we will not fully know the blessings we are offered through it.” (§ 29; cf. 15,13)48 It is very important to Calvin that we have a desire to strengthen our connection to Christ, and to be nourished by him. At the heavenly table, our existing relationship with Christ is strengthened and the promises of the gospel are sealed. It would be highly unfitting to attend if we do not dwell in the house of the Heavenly Father. Calvin also notes that we cannot truly be part of the body of Christ unless “the substance and the reality of communion” have already been realised within us. It would be shameless to “call upon God as our father, if we are not members of Jesus Christ”. If we are, however, we will be all the more justified in attending.49 Calvin establishes a connection between the relation to God that 47 See ch. 9, n. 28f. 48 The proposal Farel and Calvin made in January 1537 in the Articles Concerning the Organization of the church and of worship in Geneva to celebrate Communion on a weekly basis was in line with Luther’s practice in Wittenberg. In the refugee church in Strasbourg, Calvin celebrated communion on a monthly basis, where every participant was required to make confession at the pastor’s manse prior to the celebration. 49 Cf. the beginning of book III of the Institutes about “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ”: People stay outsiders “as long as Christ remains outside of us (extra nos est

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

79

the believer needs to have prior to attending, and the necessity of his desire to maintain this relation. He concludes that for someone who “does not want to receive the Eucharist”, it is impossible to “pray to God” (§ 30). It is also typical for Calvin that an existing relation with Christ is the basis of the Holy Communion.50 Thomas and Calvin both state that tepidity is the most dangerous reason why weak Christians postpone communion. In chapter 14, Thomas advises to pray for a strong and loving desire; for this desire too is for God to give to us: “Your mercy can give me the grace I long for and can visit me most graciously with fervour of soul according to Your good pleasure. For although I am not now inflamed with as great desire as those who are singularly devoted to You, yet by Your grace I long for this same great flame, praying and seeking a place among all such ardent lovers that I may be numbered among their holy company.” (14, 7–8; cf. 17, 2)

From the beginning, Thomas deals with the reasons why people hesitate to participate in communion. He points out that man himself is never worthy enough for communion, but that in spite of his unworthiness, and thanks to God, he can nonetheless attend (2; 4; 14; 5, 1; 6–9). It is important, Thomas admits, for believers to be aware of their unworthiness, and to strive to be received and to become what is given. Nevertheless, weakness and unworthiness are in themselves no reason to forego communion. If we deign to belong to Christ, we approach him “with true remorse, if we aim to mirror our lives to the example of Jesus Christ,” Calvin says (§ 24). We need to realise that we are mortals for whom it is vital to receive the Holy Supper as a divine medicine. God has given it to us “to assist our weakness, to strengthen our faith, to augment our charity and to help us proceed in the sanctification of life.” Related to this, Calvin deals with the excuses people make in order not to attend communion. Some people claim that they ‘lack in faith’ or an ‘honourable life’. But, Calvin responds dismissively, we also do not refuse a medicine because we are ill: “The weakness of our faith that we feel in our hearts, and the defects in our lives should rather encourage us to attend, because it is an exceptionally useful way to amend them” (§ 28). More than Luther and Zwingli, Calvin, in the spirit of Thomas, has pointed to the importance of preparing for the Supper. He too refers to the threat of God’s judgment if we lack in worthiness (§ 20).

Christus) and we are separated from him.” Christ’s human nature remains useless and without any value as long as he does not become ours (nostrum fieri) and live in us. Inst. 3.1.1 (1536). OS 4, p. 1. 50 Cf. ch. 9, n. 17f.

80

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

Self-examination The right course of events, according to Calvin, is that people test and examine themselves in preparation for the celebration (§§ 7, 8, 21–29)51, and that they allow themselves to be questioned by the church officers (§ 31).52 By emphasising the role of the communicant, Calvin gives personal preparation for the Lord’s Supper a prominent place in his reflection from his Strasbourg period. The communicant was expected to examine whether and to what extent he had succeeded in renouncing himself and had turned in obedience to God’s law. For true repentance and true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ are intertwined to such an extent that one cannot exist without the other : “Now to pollute and contaminate what God has so sanctified is intolerable sacrilege. It is, then, not without reason that Paul passes such grave condemnation on those who take it unworthily. For if there is nothing in heaven or earth of greater value and dignity than the body and blood of our Lord, it is no small fault to take it inconsiderately and without being well prepared. Therefore he exhorts us to examine ourselves well, in order to use it properly. When we understand what kind of examination this should be, we shall know the use for which we seek. […] In following it, we have to examine whether we have a true repentance in ourselves and a true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. These two things are so joined that the one cannot stand without the other. […] Moreover, it is to be noted that we cannot desire Jesus Christ without aspiring to the righteousness of God, which consists in self-denial and obedience to his will. For it is absurd to pretend to be of the body of Christ while we abandon ourselves to all licence and lead a dissolute life.”53

Calvin provided in the Reformed liturgy a central place to the traditional early Christian call to pray to lift up our hearts to heaven.54 For we should not direct our attention to the earthly and visible elements and worship Christ as if he were contained in the bread and wine. Rather, we look upward to Christ who is seated at the right hand of God in heaven. Calvin repeats the liturgical call to elevate our hearts – the so-called sursum corda – multiple times (§ 42, 52, 60). It is an act

51 Calvin saw the human conscience as the place where individuals share knowledge with God (con-scientia) and where they are placed directly before the judgment seat of God. Time and again there was the torment of being left with one’s own repentance. In the established church, one’s peace of mind was in the hands of the church, which governed these things. At the same time, Calvin maintained that a continuous battle in conscience and in faith was characteristic of the pious life. Inst. 3.4.17. Cf. Inst. 3.2.17 (1539). Bouwsma: 1988, pp. 56f. 52 See ch. 8, n. 38. 53 Higman: 1970, pp. 109–111 = §§ 20, 21 and 24. 54 The classical function of the sursum corda in the liturgy is to call the people to prayer. See in Thomas’s treatise the following prayer, for example: “Raise my heart to You in heaven and suffer me not to wander on earth” (16, 8). See also OO, vol. 2 (De elevatione mentis), pp. 397– 418.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

81

that seemingly proceeds from the believer, but is actually from God.55 We should “shut out all carnal fancies, raise our hearts on high to heaven, not thinking that our Lord Jesus Christ is so abased as to be enclosed under any corruptible elements,” Calvin repeatedly points out in the treatise (§ 60). As our bodies need to be nourished with bread and wine, our souls, through God’s caring paternal benevolence, are nourished in communion with the true body and blood of Christ. “It is very true that we have it as evidence of his fatherly goodness in maintaining us as far as the body is concerned, seeing that we participate in all the good things which with his blessing he gives us.”56 A crucified life of self-hate In opposing the externalisation of the ‘satisfaction of works’ (satisfactio operum) with justification through the satisfaction earned by Christ alone, the reformers considered good works nothing but the fruit of faith. They closely connected their ‘theology of the cross’ with the late medieval and early modern anthropology with the sacraments, including confession and communion, like Thomas who spoke about walking on The Royal Road of the Holy Cross.57 From the eleventh and twelfth centuries onwards, inner conversion (conversio) to God came to play an ever larger role in personal piety. Here we need only think of Bernard de Clairvaux (1090–1153). According to Bernard, the virtue of humility means “that, through true self-knowledge, humans come to consider themselves as worthless.”58 Geiler von Kaisersberg, a preacher who was active in Strasbourg from 1478 and who has been described as a ‘German Savonarola,’ claimed that “the whole life of a Christian consists of nothing other than a cross.”59 In late medieval piety and theology, then, we not only see the sources for Luther’s view of the religious life as a continuous penance but also of his ‘theology of the cross’ – even if he gave both of these concepts a twist of his own by calling the Christian life a penitent, crucified life.60 Thomas — Kempis formulated it like this: “The more recollected a man is, and the more simple of

55 For Calvin the sacramental reality has a christological and a pneumatological side to it, although he does not distinguish precisely between the presence of Christ and the Spirit in the Lord’s Supper. It is a dynamic event. This dynamic can be seen also in the liturgy in the call to lift our hearts up to Christ in heaven on the one hand, and the epiclese (i. e., the prayer for the presence of the Spirit in Communion) on the other. 56 Higman: 1970, pp. 101ff = § 3, 9, 13, 17, 30, 50. Cf. A Kempis, 11.8. 57 See A Kempis: 1441, 2.12. 58 Bernard of Clairvaux, De gradibus humilitatis 1, 2. 59 Seeberg: 1930, vol. 3, 627. Cf. A Kempis: 1441, 2.12.1f. “De regia via sanctae crucis” and 3.34.19: “Adhuc proch dolor viuit in me vetus homo: non est totus crucifixus, non est perfecte mortuus” = OO, vol. 2, p. 82, l.7f. and p. 208, l.20f. 60 See ch. 2, n. 7 and n. 8.

82

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

heart (interius simplificatus) he becomes, the easier he understands sublime things, for he receives the light of knowledge from above.”61 Although the true Christian does not rely on his spiritual foundation or on his conscience in whatever sublimated form it may take, we find our basis “outside ourselves” (extra nos). Heiko Oberman observes in this the indispensable root of the Reformation principle “Christ alone” (solus Christus).62 Applied to the sacrament, this means that in communion there is only the unique, irreplaceable sacrifice of Christ (§ 37 and §§ 49–52). But that does not alter the fact that every lay believer must be a spiritual being (homo spiritualis)63, in such a way as to exclude all varieties of “doing one’s best”64, as Luther reminds us. “The spiritual man [is he] who strives [not by the height of his mental powers, nor by synteresis, but] by faith; the Apostle calls this man spiritual [1 Cor 2:14f.], and true Christians are not unlike him.”65 Calvin had a more active preparation of communion in mind, somewhat more in the line of Melanchthon. In the late Middle Ages, preparation for communion consisted in reflecting on the mystery of Easter in combination with a faithful agreement with church doctrine and sincere repentance and love of Christ demonstrated in confession.66 Many were worried about whether they were worthy enough to participate in communion and – in fear of judgment – would choose spiritual confession instead (for which the preparation was the same). By implementing compulsory Easter communion, the church authorities limited this common tendency to avoid communion. Two centuries later, Thomas would address especially those who were worried about their unworthiness in his Devout Exhortation of the Holy Communion. According to Thomas, Christ already solved the problem of communion avoidance himself with the words with which he starts the exhortation67: ‘“Come to me,” You say, “all you that labour and are burdened, and I 61 A Kempis: 1441, 1.3.13; see also 4.42.7f: “Man ascends higher to God as he descends lower into himself and grows more vile in his own eyes. […] the Holy Spirit seeks always the humble heart.” 62 Oberman: 1994a, p. 129. 63 For the background of this term, see Ozment: 1969, in particular p. 197. 64 See ch. 2, n. 11. 65 See ch. 2, n. 12. 66 Cf. Caspers: 1996, pp. 205ff. By an upright and devout desire (minne) and the remembrance of the suffering and death of Christ, a close bond is developed with the Lord. William of SaintThierry wrote that we must have in our mind an image of Christ’s suffering, “some image or painting or other” so that “our eyes, glued to earth, might see something on which they can concentrate their sight.” “Our worship is then not concerned the image itself, but the reality of your suffering as it is portrayed.” Thierry : 1978, § 6. 67 Among other passages we find the invitation to “Come to me” (Matt 11: 28) in ch. 1, 1 and 9, 12, 16, 47 and in ch. 4, 21.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

83

will refresh you.” Oh, how sweet and kind to the ear of the sinner is the word by which You, my Lord God, invite the poor and needy to receive Your most holy Body!68 “If You, Lord, had not said it, who would have believed it to be true? And if You had not commanded, who would dare approach?” (1, 9–10 and 17–18; Matt 11: 28). Thomas calls his readers to do their utmost to be as worthy as possible at communion, remaining aware, however, that one can never be worthy enough by one’s own power.69 One has to prepare a home in one’s own heart for the coming of the Beloved, but his arrival is not based on one’s own merit but only thanks to grace: “Everyone who loves prepares the best and most beautiful home for his beloved, because the love of the one receiving his lover is recognized thereby. But understand that you cannot by any merit of your own make this preparation well enough, though you spend a year in doing it and think of nothing else. It is only by My goodness and grace that you are allowed to approach My table, as though a beggar were invited to dinner by a rich man and he had nothing to offer in return for the gift but to humble himself and give thanks” (12, 6–8). The beloved wants to reside in a pure heart, and in that heart the communicant is a guest at the table of the Beloved (12, 8).70 The preparation of communion further consists of an investigation of one’s conscience (7), total submission to God, humility (8 and 15), prayer (9), confession and faith in the real presence (4, 8; 7, 1–3; 10, 11–13). Of primary importance to be able to receive him is humility and self-denial: “So also the more perfectly a man renounces things of this world, and the more completely he dies to himself through contempt of self, the more quickly this great grace comes to him, the more plentifully it enters in, and the higher it uplifts the free heart” (15, 13; cf. § 20–28).

3

The effects or fruits of the Communion with Christ

In addition to the exclusive nature of Communion as union with Christ71, there are also many derived effects mentioned in Thomas’s Devout Exhortation (4). He 68 “Who am I, Lord, that I should presume to approach You? Behold, the heaven of heavens cannot contain You, and yet You say : ‘Come, all of you, to Me.’ What means this most gracious honor and this friendly invitation? How shall I dare to come, I who am conscious of no good on which to presume? How shall I lead You into my house, I who have so often offended in Your most kindly sight? Angels and archangels revere You, the holy and the just fear You, and You say : ‘Come to Me: all of you!’” (1, 11–16). 69 Cf. 5, 1–9. 70 Cf. 2, 1–14. 71 Thomas speaks in chapters 1 and 3, for example, about the joy of the unification and of the full realization of eternal salvation, as often as you are worthily and devoutly received: “O happy mind and blessed soul which deserves to receive You, her Lord God, and in receiving

84

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

usually talks about the fruits (fructus or effectus), which strengthen the soul in a healing and nourishing way.72 In his union with Christ, the faithful communicant is transformed in him, and for the purpose of his life and salvation he receives power, food, and graces.73 “Oh, the wonderful and hidden grace of this Sacrament which only the faithful of Christ understand, which unbelievers and slaves of sin cannot experience!” (1, 37).74 The fruit of communion was at the same time like a visit from God, food for the soul and spiritual medicine, at times not more than “some small spark of divine fire” (4, 19). It is the essential connectedness with Christ to not collapse along the way, as a student summarises in chapter 3: “Without You I cannot exist, without Your visitation I cannot live. I must often come to You, therefore, and receive the strength of my salvation lest, deprived of this heavenly food, I grow weak on the way.” (3, 7–8) Thomas switches between communion as an exclusive unification with Christ and the fruits of it – the beneficial strengthening of the soul. With this distinction he places himself in a long tradition that also Calvin places himself in by means of this treatise.75 Thomas ends the twelfth chapter on the preparation of communion with the admonition that the student, after he has received Christ in his heart during communion, should live his life actively with its after-effect. That is at least as important as the preparation: “Not only should you prepare devoutly before communion, but you should also carefully keep yourself in devotion after re-

72

73

74

75

You, is filled with spiritual joy! How great a Master she entertains, what a beloved guest she receives, how sweet a companion she welcomes, how true a friend she gains, how beautiful and noble is the spouse she embraces, beloved and desired above all things that can be loved and desired!” A Kempis: 1441, 1.32 and 3.20–21. As early as the beginning of the thirteenth century these fruits were specified in “lists of fruits,” which included anywhere between three and 36 different fruits and which could largely be divided into the categories of ‘healing’ and ‘edification’. Caspers: 1992, pp. 192– 197. Thomas Aquinas, who was largely responsible for the shape of eucharistic piety and whose reflection on the fruits of communion were included by Pope Eugenius IV (1383–1444) in the bull Exsultate Deo and adopted by Thomas — Kempis, calls the first effect of the sacrament the soul’s unification with Christ, the increase of grace, the maintenance, improvement, and strengthening of the spiritual life (as with physical food for the body), and an aid against sin and growth in virtue and grace. Denzinger : 2001, nr. 1322, p. 458. “In it spiritual grace is conferred, lost virtue restored, and the beauty, marred by sin, repaired. At times, indeed, its grace is so great that, from the fullness of the devotion, not only the mind but also the frail body feels filled with greater strength.” (1, 38–39; for the healing effect, see also 3, 14 and 4, 11). Together with Augustine he shared the insight that “Christ is the end, insofar as he is God,” for which reason we must participate in communion in a worthy manner, and “that Christ is the way, insofar as he is man,” who communicates the fruits to us. Gründler : 1987, p. 183. Augustinus: 1865 (Sermones ad populum, no. 123), p. 685.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

85

ceiving the sacrament. The careful custody of yourself afterward is no less necessary than the devout preparation before, for a careful after watch is the best preparation for obtaining greater grace. If a person lets his mind wander to external comforts, he becomes quite indisposed. Beware of much talking. Remain in seclusion and enjoy your God, for you have Him Whom all the world cannot take from you. I am He to Whom you should give yourself entirely, that from now on you may live, not in yourself, but in Me, with all cares cast away” (12, 17–23). The student receives much in a worthily received communion, but he is still on his way. In addition, the duty to responsibly and caringly hold on, “for you have Him Whom all the world cannot take from you.” But what more is there to desire when you have Him? The answer is: more of Him. According to Calvin, too, believers receive the gifts of God’s grace through participation in communion. It is confirmed, over and over, that “our actual life (nostre vie unique)” is in Him (§ 4). The Holy Spirit plays a hidden mediating role in this holy exchange of offering and receiving eternal salvation. He melts the lives of Christ and believers together, just like he makes sure that people come to faith and obedience to Christ and receive the certainty of eternal life, and that people are hungry and long for this unique unity with Him. Without the Spirit, the physical consumption of the bread of communion cannot bear fruit, as is also the case with the hearing of God’s Word.76 He writes: “Now what is said of the Word fitly belongs also to the sacrament of the Supper, by means of which the Lord leads us to communion with Jesus Christ” (§ 5).77 Although Calvin likes to make clear distinctions, we must note that in the treatise on the Eucharist he hardly differentiates between the unification with Christ as the main goal of communion and its fruits. Just as it is for Thomas, this unification seems to be a goal in and of itself and might even be the most important, most unique fruit of communion (§ 4, 11 and 17; cf. 1, 32). Characteristic for the believing student is the intrinsic motivation and the desire to, once again, experience the connection with Christ and to live in accordance with his will and be helped and fed by him more and more (§§ 22, 23, 27 and 32).78 76 Hesselink: 2008, pp. 339f. 77 The Spirit anchors the promises of God in our conscience, causes us to share in divine salvation in a tangible way, and therefore makes us his thankful and joyful companions (§§ 3 and 6). The communicant eats the bread and drinks the wine in faith, but this does not automatically lead to the reception of Christ’s body and blood. Although in Calvin’s view the communicant receives an important role, namely to receive the elements in a worthy manner and in faith, it is God the Holy Spirit who ensures that the spiritual effect takes place. 78 In the medieval church people were legally required to participate in communion once per year and to go to confession in preparation for this participation. Luther argued that no one should ever be forced to participate. At the same time, he did not consider those who did not partake of the sacraments to be Christians. Lietzmann: 1998, pp. 717–719 and pp. 731–732 (Luther’s 1529 Large Catechism on the Lord’s Supper and on Confession).

86

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

In addition, Calvin finds it important that the weak faith and the scared heart of the communicant is encouraged and that he receives certainty of salvation: “it pleased him to add a visible sign to his Word, in which he puts before us the essence (substance) of his promises, to confirm us and to strengthen us by liberating us from all doubt and uncertainty” (§ 5)79 and to anchor his promises “in our consciences” he gives us access to his body and blood, so that our faith in God’s salvation is being enforced and strengthened (§ 6; cf. § 17) and so that our gratitude towards him might increase and to help him openly testify to our faith in him. “[I]n this we see another outstanding benefit of the Supper, that it turns us from ingratitude, and does not allow us to forget the good our Lord did us in dying for us, but rather induces us to render thanks to him, and, as it were, by public confession, protest how much we are indebted to him” (§ 18). According to Calvin, when Christ instituted Holy Communion he meant it as a seal as well as a sign, that is, a ‘means’ of giving us assurance of our salvation, a ‘prompter’ to praise and thanksgiving, an ‘exhortation’ to union and brotherly love (§ 6). It is a sign with an effect. It brings about in us confidence and holiness of life.80 Calvin is striving to find the right point of balance (in the medieval and contemporary debate about signification and analogy) between signs as mere pointers and as powerful realities. Calvin gives the example of the bread, which represents the Lord’s body, and the wine, which represents his blood, to teach us that, just as bread and wine nourish our bodies, so the body of Christ and his blood nourish our souls spiritually. As one of the great advantages of participating in Holy Communion, Calvin mentions the life-changing aspect, namely that it encourages us to live holy, pious, and closely connected lives.81 “The third benefit consists in our having a vehement incitement to holy living, and above all to observe charity and brotherly love among us. For since we are there made members of Jesus Christ, being incorporated into him and united to him as to our Head, this is good reason, first, that we be conformed to his purity and innocence, and especially that we have to one another such charity and concord as members of the same body ought to have. […] For the chief thing is that he cares for us internally by his Holy Spirit, so as to give efficacy to his ordinance, which he has destined for this purpose, as an instrument by which he will do his work in us” (§ 19).

79 Cf. OS 1, pp. 118–119. 80 Higman: 1970, p. 104, § 9 = OS 1, pp. 506f. A few years later he calls the sacraments not only ladders for our understanding to climb, but ladders by which we ourselves may scale upwards to heaven. TT, vol. 2 (Exposition of the Heads of Agreement of the Mutual Consent of the Churches of Zurich and Geneva), p. 229. 81 William of Saint-Thierry and many after him appealed to Augustine’s statement “that this food is not like other foods that are included in our body, but on the contrary, our bodies change in the nature of this food.” Augustinus: 1981, libri XIII, pp. 103–104.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

87

Some Concluding Remarks In our analysis of Thomas — Kempis’s Devout Exhortation and John Calvin’s Petit Traict¦, we discussed the importance of a good preparation for and the rewards of Holy Communion as a connection with Christ. The communion with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is for them a mysterious representation of the conjunction with Him. A middle position Both influential spiritual leaders we have examined propagated a position that holds a middle ground between the various spiritual movements in the established church of their time. Calvin furthermore attempted to bring the followers of Zwingli and Luther closer to each other on the point of communion (§§ 53– 60). Thomas unites the existing opinions on communion. He reconciles opinions that had often led to irreconcilable positions, such as the minimal and maximal interpretation of unification with Christ in the sacrament. Because of this, his own opinion is sometimes less easy to comprehend, such as on the point of unification with God which is real but not complete.82 For him, communion is not just a (final) goal, a foretaste of the eventual unification with God, but because of the many benefits also a (middle) goal, a step in the right direction on the way to eternity. Illustrative of Calvin’s middle position is the way he introduces in his treatise its own internal and spiritual concept of substance, in which he placed Jesus’ words “This is my body” – which in the liturgy are read right before the communion, understood both as spiritual and as substantial (§ 60). Calvin does not want to weaken any part of the reality of the presence of Christ. In this tract he introduces his interpretation of loaded words like ‘substance’ (substance) and ‘participation’ (participation) to make it clear that the believer actually receives Christ in the sacrament, invisibly and spiritually, but that this does not make it any less real. With the first term ‘spiritual’ he mainly reflects the Zwinglian tradition, and with the second term ‘substantial’ the Lutheran tradition. That Christ’s body and blood are offered to us in the sacrament is for him very real, i. e., not in a local and material substantial way, but imaginable in a spiritual-substantial sense. Thomas places himself between the late medieval and post-Tridentine spirituality. His great appreciation for spiritual communion was typically medieval and would later devaluate. His preference for a frequent sacramental communion for all believers inspired people like Luther and Calvin. 82 Caspers: 2006, pp. 167f.

88

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

In the late medieval period, lay believers did not frequently participate in sacramental communion, but spiritual communion was widely and commonly accessible. For the layman the two were interchangeable, with spiritual communion even being preferred, as it did not involve any dangers and did not cost anything. This is another example of Thomas’s middle position in terms of sacramental and spiritual communion.83 For Thomas the two supplement each other. Although he promotes frequent attendance of sacramental communion throughout the book84, in chapter 10 he argues that spiritual communion is something which is in no way inferior, but in which one should someone only participate if legally prevented from attending sacramental communion.85 Calvin propagated a very frequent, weekly sacramental communion for every believer, just like Luther before him, and he did not acknowledge spiritual communion as a sacrament. In his opinion the bread and wine should be given to all churchgoers not just during the annual Easter communion, but frequently, as Thomas had promoted before him, or even on a weekly basis.86 Liturgical innovations Calvin’s view of communion liturgy is characterised by a continuous search for a new balance between verbal and non-verbal ways of communication. During the mass, Christ’s sacrifice was often enacted and repeated as a holy play. Calvin complains about the excess of theatre without the necessary explanation (§§ 47– 50). He experienced the inaccessibility of adequately expressing the theological truths which could only be partly grasped and did not fail to recognise how far the mystery was beyond man’s comprehension: “Now, if anyone should ask me 83 On this point he also steers a middle course between two other representatives of the devotio moderna, namely Geert Groote (d. 1380) and GabriÚl Biel (d. 1495). Groote out of a sense of modesty preferred spiritual communion, while Biel did not look upon spiritual communion of God’s work in us but as the result of the believer’s own religious act. Post: 1968, pp. 181– 187 and Goossens: 1999, vol. 1, pp. 173–191. 84 For the element of daily sacramental communion, see 3, 7–8 and 10, 19. 85 “When he is indeed unable to come, he will always have the good will and pious intention to communicate and thus he will not lose the fruit of the Sacrament. Any devout person may at any hour on any day receive Christ in spiritual communion profitably and without hindrance. Yet on certain days and times appointed he ought to receive with affectionate reverence the Body of his Redeemer in this Sacrament, seeking the praise and honour of God rather than his own consolation. For as often as he devoutly calls to mind the mystery and passion of the Incarnate Christ, and is inflamed with love for Him, he communicates mystically and is invisibly refreshed. He who prepares himself only when festivals approach or custom demands, will often find himself unprepared” (10, 22–25). Caspers: 1992, p. 217, n. 362. 86 The late medieval church promoted frequent spiritual communion, with the clergy being the only one to partake of actual communion. Caspers: 1992, p. 215 and p. 223.

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

89

how this [presence of Christ in the Eucharist] takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it.”87 In opposing the theory of a local presence and the practice it supported, Calvin used the liturgical call to point (elevate) one’s heart up to heaven: “For only then will our souls be disposed to be nourished and quickened by his substance when they are so lifted up above all earthly things to attain even unto heaven and to enter into the kingdom of God where he dwells. Let us, then, be content to have the bread and the wine as signs and attestations, seeking the truth spiritually where the word of God promises that we shall find it.”88 The sacramental reality has a Christological and pneumatological side to it. A precise distinction between the presence of Christ and the Spirit in the sacrament is not indicated by Calvin. It is a dynamic act that we find in his liturgy, both in the epiclese, the prayer for the presence of the Spirit in the sacrament, and in the sursum corda, the call to lift up the hearts to Christ in heaven. The importance of maintaining a healthy tension The Eucharist was in Calvin’s thought a mysterious event because of the more or less Platonic background of his eucharistic theology. It is necessary to go beyond the wine and bread because they are signs and not the reality. He can say that the Eucharist is the presence of Christ in a physical sense, and that it is not. The sacrament has reality and validity to the degree that the earthly sensible signifies the heavenly intelligible.89 It is this dialectical thinking which characterises Calvin’s theology of communion and connects it with Thomas. Through dying we receive life; to become yourself you have to submit yourself. Thomas and Calvin find this form of expression necessary, because the mystery endlessly exceeds our human ability to understand, while our entire life is formed by it. But Calvin is more radical in this dialectical way of speaking than Thomas is. A person is justified in Christ while also remaining a sinner ; the unification with God is God’s hidden work for which people prepare themselves incessantly ; communion takes place in heaven and on earth; in the sacramental communion it happens while the communicant consumes the visible signs, but in reality the 87 Inst. 4.17.32. Cf. A Kempis: 1441, e. g., 1. 1.9: “I would rather feel contrition (compunctio) than know how to define it.” 88 CO 6, p. 200. See also, for example, Higman: 1970, pp. 119f and pp. 128f, § 40f and 58f = OS 1, p. 521 and pp. 529f. OS 2, p. 48 = CStA 2, p. 210. 89 The same could be said about the church. The church is invisible and visible; to the degree that the earthly, sensible church participates in the eternal and intelligible, it has a reality and validity.

90

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

most important part is hidden behind those signs; Christ only offers himself to those who receive faith from him; it is Christ alone, but not without a worthy preparation of the human; the communicant possesses Christ and wants to meet Him again and again; he is certain of eternal life and wants at the same time to be reassured of his being a child of God and of his eternal fate; the communicant is intensely and actively present but at the same time not an active participant, etc. It is curious how for Calvin the existence of this paradoxical tension plays an essential role in his thinking on the unification with Christ in communion, as if he wants to say two things at once. The mysterious Communion is in his view both immanent and transcendent, sacramental and spiritual, practical and mystical, ecclesiastical and more than that. In Calvin’s opinion, in the Eucharist it is not about the historical body of Christ, but rather about the mystery of the body of the God-man Christ. The opposita must remain. Transubstantiation destroys the healthy tension: sign becomes signified, the intelligible reality becomes the image, heaven comes to earth. And gone is then the mystery! The dialectic here is between the earthly and the heavenly, between the image and the intelligible reality. Through the earthly sign one participates in the heavenly body, per visibilia ad invisibilia.90 The sacrament binds people on earth and at the same time connects the visible and the invisible world. It is about unification with Christ as well as with the other, it is a very intimate and personal and at the same time communal process, life is about becoming one with Christ as well as the preparation for that moment.91 And one should do that as often as possible. The balance between inner and outer, transcendence and immanence Calvin’s eucharistic realism was most critical of the juridicism and triumphalism of the established church. The reform movement (i. e., devotio moderna) to which Thomas belonged grew from a critical attitude towards church life. The

90 In this way Calvin could combine the imperative of the ascension and Christ’s words that ‘This is my body’. This happens very clearly in his christological dialectic of what is called the extra calvinisticum. The Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he was born, lived on earth, and was crucified, and yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning. Inst. 2.13.4. The godhead fully committed in the incarnation remains the godhead uncommitted, the godhead unmixed, present everywhere, the godhead undivided, present in his humanity. McDonnell: 1967, p. 213. 91 For both men there was a close connection between knowledge of God and knowledge of self, and between these two kinds of knowledge and their sacramental spirituality. There are clearly overtones of Thomas’s view of man in Calvin’s doctrine of wisdom, which are found in the very first sentence of the Institutes in the editions after 1539: “The whole sum of our wisdom which is worth calling true and certain is practically comprised of two parts, the knowledge of God and of ourselves.”

The Eucharist as a Mysterious Representation of Christ

91

goal was to have more internal connectedness with Christ and less emphasis on external appearances in the church.92 The flight from secondary causality is seen as a return to transcendence. For Calvin, sacramental theology is not a closed system that should be transmitted, not even an institution of sanctification, but rather a dynamic event, a union of head and members, a participation with the dead and resurrected Christ. The Eucharist for him is a preceding union with Christ. The entire Christ, both God and human, is present in the Eucharist, but not entirely, because his spatial body is in heaven. This is why we are offered, according to Calvin, the whole (totus) but not the entire (totum) Christ. To clarify this distinction, Calvin points to an existing scholastic expression: ‘totus (sed) non totum’. To be present as the entire human and divine being, his body does not need to leave heaven. And because the divinity of Christ is always present in his believers, Christ’s flesh can also remain in them.93 The fact that the entire Christ and the believer are spatially separated but in reality have communion in the Eucharist can be seen as a mystical aspect of Calvin’s doctrine of communion.94 The sacrament does not work automatically. Humans have to receive him respectfully and prepare themselves well. For this it is necessary that communicants know their own need for salvation (chapter 3), investigate their own conscience and weaknesses (chapter 7–13), and long to better their lives (chapter 16–18). Christ offers himself, and believers have to accept him in the right way. The sacramental unification is ideally a total one. Believers have to become one with Christ, or are transformed into Christ, because we live in God (§ 3 and 4). In communion Thomas and Calvin both aim above all at union with Christ. In the intimate connection of the soul with him, the communicant is digested in the words of Thomas and transformed in Christ through God’s grace and Spirit: “Let Your presence wholly inflame me, consume and transform me into Yourself, that I may become one spirit with You by the grace of inward union and by the melting power of Your ardent love” (16, 10).

92 Cf. Martin Bucer’s rendition of a statement from the medieval theologian Wessel Gansfort at the Diet of Augsburg on 11 October 1533: “Wir müssen gothes, nit Luthers oder einige menschen gleubigen sien.” As cited by De Kroon: 2004, p. 158. 93 CO 9 (De vera participatione Christi in coena), pp. 475–476 and pp. 509–510 = TT: 1958, vol. 2, p. 515 and p. 560. 94 Applied to the Lord’s Supper, the extra calvinisticum means that we do not partake of Christ’s flesh in a material-historical sense, but that through the divine-human unity of Christ believers truly receive his entire person in body and soul in an invisible, spiritual way at communion.

92

Piety in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era

For both men, no life is imaginable outside this intimate communion with Christ, which is why they are so passionate in their plea for frequent communion. As Thomas points out in a reference to the story of Zaccheus, drawing a link to the metaphor of the pure heart as a dinner table (12, 3) and a house: “I long to receive You now, devoutly and reverently. I desire to bring You into my house that, with Zaccheus, I may merit Your blessing and be numbered among the children of Abraham. My soul longs for Your Body ; my heart desires to be united with You” (3, 4–5). Typical for the eucharistic piety we have discussed is the desire to be united with Christ, to ‘house’ him in ‘my soul’ and in ‘my heart,’ as Thomas puts it, and to own him, as Calvin repeatedly states in his treatise. At the same time, each communion strengthens that desire to be one with him (12, 19; § 9, 13, 17, 30, 50).95 It is the duty of Christians to make sure that nothing comes in between the person and work of Christ and the believer (12, 20). The unio cum Christo at the table of the Lord is for Thomas and Calvin a mysterious event which connects them in Him also to each other, and to us.

Conclusion Both men, Thomas and Calvin, had a critical attitude towards the church of their time and tried to restore the more personal elements and to issue a call to inwardness and interiority. Like Thomas, Calvin pursues interiority and with almost implacable zeal directs everything to the eternal intelligible reality. In this move away from the objective view of the sacramental theology of the established church, they did not become mere subjectivists. Both found a middle way between a purely spiritual communication, in which the actual consumption of the sacrament was not necessary, and a sacramental communication, in which the role of the communicant did not really matter and the hidden mysterious site of the sacrament was reduced or even eliminated.96 The different views on the Eucharist formed a divisive issue between Protestants and Catholics and also internally among sixteenth-century Protestants. In October 1561, the French clerics and Calvinists managed to formulate a compromise for which Calvin’s doctrine of communion partly formed the basis, in particular his dialectical solution to hold together sign and res signified as a transcended mystery without identifying any material of finite locus with God, and his attempt to preserve both distinction and conjunction, distance and 95 For the notion of ‘housing’ Christ after communion as based upon the story of Zaccheus, see Caspers: 1992, p. 199. 96 De Lubac: 2006, pp. 13ff. Boersma: 2011, pp. 112–116 (The Threefold Body).

Conclusion

93

proximity, in explaining the relationship between Christ’s body and the sacramental signs.97 Coming to the heart of the matter they speak less in rational or practical terms, but rather in hearty, intimate, affective, and relational terms about experiencing, feeling, participating, communication, and even being united with Christ and God, or at least about the intense desire to all that. The beginning is a sign, a piece of bread and a sip of wine, but it represents the reality of heaven, a divine relationship, a great invisible faith commitment, where words fail. The bread remains in Calvin’s view simply bread, but used by the Spirit of God it changes the communicant, brings him in contact with God, merges the one into the other, whereby both God and man are glorified. And this is the wondrous thing that happens in the holy sacrament: a simple symbol works out “a mystical union,” as Calvin calls it. “He in me” becomes through a sacramental change “I in Him”. This eucharistic piety of Holy Communion with Jesus Christ applies to both the Reformed and Catholic faiths.

97 Elwood: 1999, p. 168. For the attempt at the Colloquy of Poissy to create a compromise formula on the Eucharist, see Speelman: 2014, pp. 191–200.

PART TWO: Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

Chapter 4. Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

1

Church renewal through visitation: the initial phase

The relationship between church and state The sixteenth-century Reformation began in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in the city of Wittenberg, and shortly thereafter also in cities such as Zurich in the southern regions. From there, the influence of the ecclesiastical renewal movement spread, and rulers and city councils were to become increasingly involved. This evolution was not something radically new, because already throughout the medieval period sovereigns and city magistrates had been known to mediate in the affairs of the church, just as bishops from time to time intervened in worldly affairs. In one of his early writings, An den christlichen Adel (1520), Luther already assumed that the civil magistrate authority was the only feasible institution for carrying out the practical implementation of the ecclesiastical reforms. In October 1522 he was invited to preach at the court of Weimar. On this occasion, Frederick the Wise, who had been elector since 1486, requested him to elaborate and publish his thoughts on the civil magistrate.1 The result was the “Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei (On the civil magistrate, to what extent one owes it obedience)”.2 During the Diet of Altenburg in 1523, the Saxon nobility urged Luther to initiate a visitation with a view to the implementation of the reforms.3 In November of that year, Luther declared 1 WA Br 2, nr. 546, p. 613. In his “An die Ratsherren aller Städte deutsches Lands, dass sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen” (1524), Luther further elaborated on the role of the government in the reforms (WA 15, pp. 27–43), although in An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christlichen Standes Besserung he in fact had already asked for the reform of education. WA 6, pp. 439–440 and pp. 457–462. Cf. CStA, vol. 3, p. 456. 2 WA 11, pp. 245–281, p. 229. Cf. Jadatz: 2007, pp. 47f. 3 The knightly class was a proponent of the implementation of Luther’s doctrine under the leadership of the governent and, in the same spirit, it had made several demands during the Diet of Altenburg in 1523. It opposed the persecution of the clergy who followed “the pure Word of God,” because “faith is a matter of freedom, into which no one should be coerced.”

98

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

himself in favour of a moderate form of episcopalian visitation, as in the Bohemian church.4 Growing tensions and obscurities The Reformation spread from Saxony and Thuringia to Alsace, the Palatinate, and Hesse, and it also found acceptance in a number of northern German cities such as Magdeburg, Stralsund, Celle, Goslar, Braunschweig, Göttingen, Hamburg, and Lubeck. But unlike the the German cities in the south that had already been won for the Reformed cause, these were not imperial cities. Over the course of the 1520s, the spokesmen of the evangelical movement not only had to deal with opposition from Rome, but also with resistance from within their own ranks. The Reformation’s radical left wing consisted of a diversity of groups, like Anabaptists, social revolutionaries, antitrinitarians, spiritualists, sacramentarians, and the like. From Melanchthon’s and Luther’s viewpoint these agitated separatists, insurgent peasants, urban reformers, and wandering spirits were united in their insubordination to the authorities and lack of love or sense of responsibility towards the church and society. With their dismissal of church and society, they together threatened the goals of the Reformation.5 The social unrest came to expression in many different ways, which even led to the use of violence. In some regions, the initially peaceful movement had taken on the character of a rebellious popular movement. In the middle of the 1520s, the German Peasants’ War saw destruction and massacres in which more than 100,000 people were killed. This fact made it clear to Luther and Melanchthon, who as noted by Wilhelm Maurer were shocked by these development,6 that the chaos had to be brought to an end and that the reform movement had to be better organised. Luther responded to the popular revolts in several fierce pamphlets. Because of the reigning ambiguity over the new doctrine and life, the question arose, for example, whether the itinerant penitent and mendicant monks who offered their spiritual services in certain milieus could still practice meaningfully and salutarily under the new circumstances. And who was in a position to give advice on ordinary, everyday liturgical issues? To what degree were people still bound by the existing laws and common duties? Who had to supervise the local clergy who, in their desire for renewal, sometimes called on their parishioners to rebel against the established order? Who had the authority Furthermore, the knighthood demanded that Christian preachers be sent to all cities and villages, and that measures be taken against pastors who rejected the new doctrine. Staatsarchiv Weimar, Reg. Q 18, Bl. 105–107; see Müller : 1984, pp. 175–176. 4 Brecht: 1986, pp. 254f. 5 Oberman: 1988, p. 227 and p. 229. 6 Maurer : 1969, vol. 2, pp. 415f.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

99

to address the parish clergy and priests, and who would have to fill the recently vacated positions now that the episcopal power had disappeared? And how would this be done? In short, who was to take charge in the reorganisation of church life? In 1522 Luther and Melanchthon had developed their theory of the ‘two kingdoms’. Herein they stated that it would be inappropriate for the church to have civil power.7 Conversely, also worldly monarchs were not to have any control over the church. The realm of faith needs freedom, while that of the civil order requires coercion and rules. In the mid-1520s, this view of a more or less strict division between the worldly and spiritual realms would lose its foundation because of the traumatic events caused by the great and widespread peasant revolt. Now that the established ecclesiastical structures had been shaken, an authoritative form of ecclesiastical supervision and discipline was lacking. The shifts created uncertainty as to who had to perform the episcopal responsibilites in the spiritual, legal, organisational, and societal domains. For example, who in these circumstances was responsible for supervision and discipline, and who was to administer the ecclesiastical possessions? Who was to be in charge of the churches, schools, charities, and hospitals? The traditional source of income from the daily sacrifice of the Mass during church services and from the ecclesiastical institutions and possessions had for the larger part been cut off.8 The pressing question arose as to the source for the income of the many ecclesiastical functionaries, now that the people were much less willing to donate to the institute of the church and no longer paid regular contributions as in the framework of the old penitential system of meritorious good works.9 The Reformation brought with it the necessity of creating and executing new rules and regulations on many fronts including the social and political, based on the new insights into the Christian faith. Under these circumstances, Luther, however,

7 For Luther’s theory of the two kingdoms, see Beisser : 1970, 229–241 and Schrey : 1969. 8 Concerned here is the loss of earnings from the so-called accidentalia, such as the Masses for the dead, the yearly commemorations, patronage income, offerings, money received for hearing confession, for administering the sacrament of marriage, for ringing the bells for new births, for funerals, for administering last rites, for anointing of the sick, etc. MBW 3, nr. 567 (report of the visitors to Elector John, dated 29 June 1527), p. 108, l.13 and p. 119, l.379. In the Middle Ages the term cura pastoralis was used to refer to the financial independence of the local pastors in their congregations. There is mention of multiple income streams via the benefices of the pastor, who had to take care of his household and those of his chaplains, via a board for buildings and goods as well as several funds that provided a third stream for poor relief. 9 During the visitations, for example in Oberwierau, it was found that the peasants refused to pay their contributions because no Masses were being read.

100

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

was not yet convinced that a top-down intervention would be necessary. The Word alone will suffice, he stated.10 An uncertain search in the mid-1520s: Who will take the initiative? Although the elector of Saxony favored the evangelical movement, he did not consider himself responsible for the organisation of church life. He assumed a conservative position and did not see it as his task to take control over the religious reforms in his territory. In this phase, the foundation of a new church was not yet an issue, but the question rather concerned who was to lead the impulse for renewal in the ecclesiastical community. In these organisational matters, Luther too assumed a conservative position. In his view, the unity of the church did not consist in a common exterior arrangement or settlement, but in faith and in the Word of God.11At the same time, he worked hard to create regulations for the worship services and to establish greater uniformity amongs evangelicals in the liturgical domain. Earlier visitations had hardly been successful, among other reasons because of the lack of a well-devisedthought-through plan and the absence of support from rural politicians. However, the Peasants’ War had raised the conviction at the court and among the Wittenberg theologians that a legal and material arrangement for the church in the electorate of Saxony was now necessary. The uprisings had revealed a church-orderly vacuum that had to be attended to. The same applied to the education of the growing new generation. Immediately after the war, Melanchthon published his “Widder die artickel der bawrschafft (Against the peasants’ articles)”, in reaction to the twelve peasant articles from March 1525, in which he underlines the importance of schools “through which the people will be brought to peace and virtue (da durch die leut zu frieden und erbarkeijt erzoegen werden).”12 A first initiative for a church and school visitation was not taken by Luther, but by a preacher from Zwickau, Nikolaus Hausmann. In the fall of 1524, he visited Elector Frederick and his brother, Duke John, and on 2 May 1525 he at their request in a vast memorandum made a proposal for a visitation regulation regarding ecclesiastical matters. Instead of the bishop, it was the elector who was to pressure the canons, archdeacon, and suffragans to implement the Reformation, following the example of King Jehoshaphat in 2 Chron 17: “If you find yourself inept and ignorant, then relieve yourself of your office (Finden sie sich dazu untauglich und ungelehrt, so geben sie ihr Amt auf)”. He emphasised that 10 Aland: 1957, vol. 10, no. 85, Luther to Hausmann, 17 March 1522, pp. 117–118; see also Burkhardt: 1879, pp. 4f. 11 WA Br 3, nr. 793 Luther to Hausmann, 17 November 1524, p. 373. 12 MW, vol. 1, p. 214. Strauss: 1974, p. 277.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

101

supervision and discipline should be strictly executed and also pointed to the duty the civil authorities had, now that the bishops had neglected and no longer carried out their position as overseers. He further suggested that the elector should involve Luther in the further implementation of the visitations.13 In the summer Hausmann addressed Luther directly regarding the necessity of the church visitation, and received an answer on 27 September 1525. Luther thought that especially matters concerning worship services and the income of the preachers were to be discussed during the visitations.14 Even while the Peasants’ Revolt was still going on, Elector Frederick’s chancellery had already started on a preliminary regulation for the church visitations, as is evident from a letter of 17 March 1525. In his Landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments from 1967, Hans-Walter Krumwiede showed how this regulation provided the basis for the visitation instruction two years later under Elector John. A difference between them was the emphasis the latter Instruction placed on the independence of the visitors. It was clear that the authorities urgently needed to pay more attention to internal issues, but, because of the uprisings, the magistrate first had others things on its mind. Only after the Diet of Spier in the summer of 1526 was sufficient political space available for more structural changes in Saxony. At the end of September 1525, Luther decided to approach the elector as soon as the new regulations on academic matters and the Mass were agreed upon, and to direct his attention to the matter of church visitation. In this he focused not so much on supervision and discipline or on reaching greater doctrinal unity, but rather on managing the financial side of the ecclesiastical organisation and on protecting the positions of preachers.15 Priests, vicars, chaplains, and other spiritual leaders were finding themselves in a troubling position because the people were refusing to pay ecclesiastical taxes. Luther was drowning in complaints over this matter. On 31 October he addressed the elector with the request to see to the continued proclamation of the Word of God now that donations and gifts for the church were at a low.16 This concerned a fundamental issue, because 13 Burkhardt: 1879, p. 7. Sehling, vol. 1, p. 34; WA 26, p. 177. 14 WA Br 3, nr. 926 Luther to Hausmann, 27 September 1525, p. 582. 15 WA Br 3, nr. 926 Luther to Hausmann, 27 September 1525, p. 582 and nr. 927 Luther to Spalatinus, 28 September 1525, p. 583. On 24 November 1524 a financial arrangement was agreed to in Leisnig, but the Elector did not support it at that time. WA Br 3, nr. 798 Luther to Spalatinus, 24 November 1524, pp. 390–391. After this, Luther pointed to the safeguarding of the church’s possessions as the principal reason for the church visitations. WA Tischreden 3, nr. 2928. Money played a major role in the ecclesiastical life. Local church life was financed from separate funds (e. g., based on land ownership) and through the payments of believers for ecclesiastical rites (e. g., on festive days, for hearing confession, baptism, marriage, and last rites) or for granting dispensations on compulsory holidays. 16 WA Br 3, nr. 937, 31 October 1525, 594–596, p. 595.

102

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

the financing of the church’s office bearers also implied the right to appoint and dismiss them. By means of church visitations the possessions of the churches and monasteries were to be registered, and a new destination for these ecclesiastical possessions and incomes was to be agreed upon.17 Luther was of the opinion that these means were best used for the church and schools. The elector, however, took a broader perspective and, for instance, allowed the nobility to appropriate ecclesiastical possessions, possibly also because of missed income due to insurgent peasants who refused to pay the tithes. Luther opposed this.18As early as 7 November 1525, Elector John replied to Luther that he needed time to think. He was cautious with a view to Luther’s proposal, because he was unable to estimate to what extent the state would have to compensate for the shortfall in the church’s income and see to the livelihood of the preachers.19 On 11 November 1525 Luther took up the question with George Burkhardt, also called Spalatin (1484–1545), court preacher and Luther’s confidant, with whom he corresponded most in the course of this exciting decade of the 1520s, and discussed who was responsible for the reformation of the church, or in other words, for the “cleansing and purification of the temple” from religious abuse. Luther thought that the government could assume this task, provided that the content of the faith was not involved.20 On 30 November Luther returned to the matter and explained himself further to the elector. His proposal was to divide the electorate into four or five regions that were to be examined materially as well as spiritually by several groups of visitors, consisting of two officials or nobles. In this new proposal, Luther for the first time mentioned the necessity of a visitation which aimed also at the implementation of the evangelical doctrine in 17 Considerable possessions were involved here, because in the course of the medieval period many estates had come into the hands of the church, in part through inheritances. For example, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, in the county of Groningen alone no less than 25% of the land was in the hands of 25 monasteries, and in Frisia 20% of the land was in the hands of 43 monasteries. There were a large number of monasteries. In 1517 the episcopate of Utrecht counted 477 monasteries, 193 for men and 284 for women. These monasteries were inhabited by an estimated three thousand monks and almost ten thousand nuns. Nissen: 2008, p. 182 and p. 192. 18 WA Br 3, nr. 866 Luther to the Council, 14 May 1525, pp. 492–496 and nr. 925, 26 September 1525; Luther a.o. to Elector John, pp. 580–581. WA Br 4, nr. 1091 Luther to Hausmann, 29 March 1527, pp. 180–184, p. 180. WA Br 5, nr. 1452 Luther to margrave Georg von Brandenburg, pp. 119–121. 19 WA Br 3, nr. 944 John to Luther, 7 November 1525, pp. 613–614; Burkhardt: 1879, p. 9. 20 WA Br 3, nr. 946 Luther to Spalatinus, 11 November 1525, pp. 615–617. Krumwiede: 1967, p. 69. Spalatinus, who in 1503 was the first student to graduate at the new university of Wittenberg, became Luther’s most skillful advocate at the court and was constantly in contact with him. This can be illustrated by the more than four hundred letters Luther is known to have written to him.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

103

the churches of Saxony. All preachers in the entire electorate were to be visited. Above all, however, the lay visitors had to investigate the church’s organisational side. In this proposal Luther did not suggest that theologians should be involved in the church visitations. What needed to be examined was whether and, if so, to what degree, the incumbent preachers were favorable towards the evangelical cause and fit for their function as evangelical priests. If they resisted, they were to be dismissed. For unfit ministers and elderly priests – regardless of whether or not they were still serving – separate arrangements would have to be made.21 “This is why now also attention should be paid to old pastors or the otherwise unfit. If they are pious in one or other way or do not oppose the gospel, they should read from the Gospels with the aid of the Postil (if they are unable to preach by themselves) or be required to have them read, so that the people may receive a clear administration of the gospel and be nourished. For it would not be right to dismiss the incumbent preachers without [financial] compensation, if they do not oppose the gospel.”22

The elector did not look unfavorably upon Luther’s proposition. He took to heart the position of the parish clergy and monks. In the meantime, Luther was concerned with the fact that an arrangement needed to be made quickly for the payment of the preachers and teachers. He found the fact that the clergy was underpaid or even starving to be a blemish, and even saw this as a scorning of God and his Word. According to him, the nobles and peasants were declaring in this way that they had no real need for the preachers. After all, it was said, the church people could read sermons for themselves.23 Regardless of who was to blame, a solution had to be found for this precarious situation. Up until then, both Luther and the Saxon elector had each for their own reasons adopted a somewhat restrained stance towards a definitive settlement. The humble beginnings of restoration Early in 1526 a wide-scale, general visitation did not take place yet. The previous elector’s cautious approach was still more or less being followed. Only a small

21 WA Br 3, nr. 944 John to Luther, 7 November 1525, pp. 613–614 and nr. 950 Luther to John, 30 November 1525, pp. 628–629. 22 WA Br 3, nr. 950 Luther to John, 30 November 1525, pp. 628f; see also Weber : 1844, p. 12 and Müller: 1984, pp. 183–184. Later on the country would be divided into a number of visitation regions, following the suggestion of Luther. Sehling, vol. 1, pp. 41–55; Burkhardt: 1879, pp. 28–29. 23 For examples of poverty among the clergy between 1524 and 1529, see WA 15, p. 361; WA 14, p. 653 and p. 664; WA 16, pp. 556–558; WA 17b, p. 147 and pp. 627–628; WA Br 5, nr. 1440 Luther to Michael von der Strassen, 29 June 1529, p. 107. Brecht: 1986, vol. 2, p. 475.

104

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

number of locations were visited, such Amt Borna in Saxony and Amt Tennenberg in Thuringia.24 On 8 January 1526, several weeks after Elector John’s approval, George Spalatin and Michael von der Strassen commenced their activities as visitors in Amt Borna. The preachers were examined to see whether they were preaching the gospel and whether they were married. The results in this case were somewhat reassuring, as a reasonable number of preachers turned out to be followers of the evangelical doctrine. During Lent in March 1526, a visitation lasting three full weeks took place in Amt Tenneberg, in which Myconius and Spalatin took part. This time, however, only the clergy was investigated. In Amt Tenneberg the situation was worse. The investigation of the preachers concerned their knowledge of and vision on the doctrine of sin, faith, the sacraments, and freedom. None of the preachers passed the first round. Some were publicly Roman Catholic or opposed the new doctrine. Other pastors had no opinion of their own, and mixed Catholic and Lutheran practices in their parishes. The time was not yet ripe for a general visitation ordinance. The elector may not have interfered yet with the church visitations, but he did already take radical measures. On 27 August 1526 the Diet of Spier decided that, in anticipation of a council or national assembly, each imperial state was allowed to “live, rule, and act as they hope and trust they will be able to account themselves of before God and the imperial majesty” (“für sich also zu leben, zu regieren und zu halten, wie ein jeder solches gegen Gott, und käyserliche Majestät hoffet und vertraut zu verantworten”).25 This compromise formula was anything but clear, perhaps intentionally so. Each ruler in the empire was now able to take measures concerning issues that had not been clearly circumscribed yet, somewhat following in the wake of the Diet of Augsburg thirty years earlier and its cuius regio, eius religio-policy (‘Whose empire, his religion’).26 In time, and because of new 24 Burkhardt: 1879, p. 3 and pp. 10–12. The beginning of Burkhardt’s book presents a survey of the visitations in Saxony. For 1525 and 1526 he mentions eight visitations. In a short period thereafter, many dozens of large-scale visitations were to follow. 25 Leppin: 2006, p. 266. Cf. Oberman: 1988b, nr. 69b, pp. 138f. During the initial years of the Reformation, Melanchthon hoped for a synod or national council, while others, such as Erasmus, rather favoured religious colloquies between scholars. MW, nr. 558 = nr. 451, Assignment for Albrecht von Mainz, June 1527, p. 366. Müller : 1910, pp. 28f. In September 1523, and with reference to 2 Kings 23 and Acts 15, Spalatin brought his request for a general council to the attention of Elector Frederick the Wise. Höss: 1972, p. 319. It would take almost a quarter of a century, until shortly before Luther’s death, for a papal council to gather on German soil in Trent. 26 The ius reformandi, the right of the elector to implement religious reforms (the cura religionis) in his own territory, was laid down in 1555, but, according to Luther, for Saxony this

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

105

legislation and treaties amongst the different Protestant areas, the reforms were to be led and carried out by the civil authorities. In Germany, confidence in the existing clergy had declined so far and there was such confusion that territorial churches increasingly emerged, which were founded by the civil authorities and stood under their leadership. This process was a ‘magisterial’ rather than a ‘clerical’ Reformation.27 Luther calls in the elector’s help On 22 November 1526 Luther brought the necessity of the church visitations back under the elector’s attention. This was to be his final impetus to this end, with the investigation considering among other things the doctrine and life of the clergy. The main focus was to be placed on church life in the city and countryside and on the functioning of the schools, as well as on the doctrine and life of the church’s officebearers. In this proposal, Luther also provided a theological foundation for the government to intervene in the church, because our children must receive a Christian upbringing and schools and preachers are therefore necessary (“weil uns allen, sonderlich der Obrigkeit geboten ist, für allen dingen doch die arme iugent, so teglich geborn wird und daher wechst, zu zihen und zu gottes furcht und zucht halten, mus man schulen und prediger und pfarher haben”). Because the papal and episcopal authority and regulation had disappeared, this duty was now conferred upon the prince as the highest authority.28 However, it was hardly self-evident at all that the prince was, at Luther’s request, to lead the episcopal visitations. Earlier on, we explained that the medieval bishop was at once also a (church) ruler and landowner, and in this capacity he was able to intervene in the territory of other landowners. This implied that, when civil matters were concerned, a civil ruler sometimes also needed to take into account one or more other rulers in his own territory. After all, the ecclesiastical borders did not correspond to the civil territorial borders, but overlapped. The opposite was likewise possible: a bishop could assign cerhad already been decreed in the secession treaty of 1448: “that everyone, in his kingdom, should spread the faith to his own insight.” WA Br 4, no. 1187, Luther and Bugenhagen to the brothers Von Einsiedel, whose territory lay in two kingdoms, 8 December 1527, pp. 303–306, p. 306. Oberman: 1994, p. 48. 27 The territorial churches were founded by the land owners, who often interfered with the appointment of the clergy. In the late medieval period the power of the bishops over the state churches increased, at the cost of the land owners. The leaders of the Reformation were to take a different approach. See, for example, the regulations in Hessen in October 1526, Reformatio ecclesiarum Hassiae, in which the leadership was placed in part with the synod and in part with the landlords. Sehling, vol. 8 (Hessen church order), pp. 43–65. WA Br 4, nr. 1071 Luther to Philip of Hessen, 7 January 1527, pp. 157–158. 28 WA Br 4, nr. 1052 Luther to John, 22 November 1526, p. 133.

106

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

tain ecclesiastical responsibilities to a landowner, or the latter could appropriate them, for instance by undertaking his own visitations and exercising supervision and discipline. The government takes control over the visitations Four days later, on 26 November 1526, the elector gave a response, in which he agreed to Luther’s request and provided a detailed proposal. John interpreted Luther’s request in the spirit of the diet which had provided him with the space to take measures for renewal. For example, he appointed Gregor von Brück to lead the negotiations with the Wittenberg theologians.29 The university and electoral chancellery would both provide a number of visitors. There was as yet no other specifically ecclesiastical organ, but this too was to be attended to by the visitors, for example by founding an institute for supervision and discipline. Two council members and two representatives from the university were entrusted with the task of visitation through an instruction drawn up by the chancellery and signed by the elector.30 On 6 November the university proposed as visitors Philip Melanchthon and Jerome Schurff from the faculty of philosophy and law, respectively. The visitations proved to be challenging. The elector wrote that God has abundantly lavished his Word upon us, for which we are grateful, but in many parishes the call for reformation is still not being answered. In many places where the gospel has been accepted, our subjects seem to be very ungrateful. They have shown no willingness to provide their clergy, who serve God and the Word, with an income and a future livelihood. The result could be “that due to sin and such ungratefulness, the Almighty would again take away his holy Word and withdraw it from us.”31 The preachers could not stay on without an income. Many of the parish clergy held views which were still rooted “in the popish faith”, and they were “wholly inadequate to impress God’s Word on the people and, accordingly, to administer the holy sacraments or to perform the ceremonies”. But it would be unfair to dismiss these poor men without providing for their livelihood. The visitors were to “carry out their work in such a way that the parishes, according to their wealth, should bestow on them either a certain lump sum at the time of their dismissal, or determine a yearly pension which would last the lives of these clergymen.”32 And because the visitations were one-time, the intention was to appoint a ‘superintendent’ (a later Latin term for the Greek word episkopos) to supervise the clergy in each region, who in fact took on the 29 WA Br 4, nr. 1052 Luther to John, 22 November 1526, pp. 133–135 and nr. 1054 John to Luther, 26 November 1526, pp. 135–138, p. 136. Cf. Jadatz: 2007, p. 51. 30 WA Br 4, pp. 136–137. Herrmann: 1929/31, pp. 191–193. 31 Sehling, vol. 1, pp. 142–143. 32 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 143.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

107

existing canonical function of the archdeacon, who represented the bishop in a specific region. For this exceptional step, in which a totally new ecclesiastical system had to be set up, one could only turn to the power of the government. This is why the government was given the leading role in the organisation of the church. In this set-up, the care for moral affairs was placed in the hands of the government officials. It remained unclear to what extent these arrangements turned the visitors who were appointed by the rulers into civil officials. They had to report to the elector, but the elector had also given them some independent powers, so that they could take measures on their own initiative. According to the electoral Instruction, the ruler did not intend to prescribe to people how they should think or what they should believe, but a form of religious freedom was also out of the question, because “in all places it must be earnestly impressed upon the clergy, preachers, and chaplains that none of them should be so audacious as to teach, preach, or attend to the sacraments and ceremonies in any other way than we have accepted through the power of God’s Word and with the humility that we and our subjects have taken on in this time, in which God has demonstrated and granted his mercy. For if there is someone who opposes this or is of the opinion that on one or more issues they should teach and act differently than we have laid out here, then this person should not exercise his dissenting opinion in our kingdom, but remove himself from it and abandon his parish and office as a preacher.”33

In this way, the monarch tried to counter rebellious behavior, abuse, false doctrine, schisms, and sectarianism. On the order and by the authority of the elector, a legal foundation for the visitations in his territory was laid down on 17 June 1527.34 But from the very beginning of the first visitation, the visitors saw that in certain matters and issues the elector’s Instruction was not sufficiently clear. After all, by that time the visitations had obtained a double purpose. On the one hand, the visitations investigated the material aspect of ecclesiastical life, and, on the other, the spiritual. Therefore, two different visitations were in fact being carried out. For the first aim of the visitation, it was the elector’s Instruction that served as a manual, but for the other Melanchthon’s Instructions for the Visitors was to function as a manual for preachers. Up until then, it was assumed that it, in order to implement the reforms in church and state, it would suffice to apply the Bible – that is, law and gospel – to both kingdoms. The elector’s Instruction similarly made no mention yet of any confessional binding. The visitors, however, soon found out that without a common agreement on doctrine and life in the church, no effective 33 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 144a. 34 Sehling, vol. 1, pp. 142–148 = MBWT3, 80–94 = Speelman: 2013, pp. 281–296.

108

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

visitations could be carried out. This was when Melanchthon wrote his manual, which did not refer to the Elector orthe visitations at all, except in the title. It was to be a practical work conveying instructions to the evangelical pastor. In the church visitation, civil and spiritual officebearers were to work closely together.

2

Church renewal through visitation: the phase of the church’s revival

The state takes the lead from Luther Luther thought it to be the magistrate’s duty to “force the officials of the old religion to abandon their pernicious practices” and to return “to Christianity its freedom”. But in practice this seemed to imply as well that the Christian magistrate was to attend to its subjects’ spiritual welfare. Approached from another perspective, this also meant that the civil government was to become responsible for the preachers and would also be involved in their dismissal and appointment.35 In the course of the 1520s repeated requests were made by the evangelicals to summon a council organised by the pope, or a religious assembly under the authority of the emperor, but these went unanswered. At the same time, Luther and his followers were detaching themselves more and more from the papal hierarchy. But from the renouncement of papal practices it did not automatically follow that people would now be anxious to convert themselves to the new view on the gospel. How were they to form a church? Karl Müller assumes that Luther, upon arriving at this point, held the ideal of a broad national church comprising in its midst a smaller circle of converted Christians.36 But how did Luther conceive of the relationship between the Christian community and the civil magistrate? According to Müller, Luther saw the Word of God as the constitutive element of the church. The parish members’ primary concern was that they would receive the gospel through sermons. They did not find it necessary to appoint the preachers themselves. But, then, was it to be the government duty to appoint pastors and to provide for them, and was it

35 Müller: 1910, p. 62. Krumwiede: 1967, p. 32. 36 Müller: 1910, pp. 28–39. Here Karl Müller refers to Luther’s famous sermon on Maundy Thursday 1526, and his foreword to the edition of the Deutsche Messe of the same year. Already since Christmas 1525, the elector had given his approval for celebrating the Mass in German. Höss: 1972, p. 321. Even before the Diet of Speyer, during Lent 1526, the Elector of Saxony made Luther’s liturgical handbook, the “Deutsche Messe” which was published in the same year, mandatory in all of Saxony and shortly thereafter he set up an alliance with the 21year-old Philip of Hessen, which is known as the defensive alliance of Gotha-Torgau.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

109

willing to do so? After all, the Christian government formed a part of the church, as was also the case for the city councils and territorial princes.37 The elector becomes an ecclesiastical ruler The Saxon Elector joined in with the aforementioned late medieval developments towards a territorial church structure, but the planned visitations, in which also the clergy members were to be investigated, constituted a rupture with the old canon law. No longer did the diocesan and traditional churchpolitical borders form the point of departure for the church’s leadership, but the territorial and political borders did. Elector John, who a year earlier on 7 November 1525, had requested Luther’s approval for the church visitations,38 immediately agreed when Luther approached him on this matter on 22 November 1526. Subsequently, he had the chancellery draw up an instruction that mainly concerned the external aspect of church life. These plans received an official status when the church visitations were carried out by the territorial government. The initial phase had passed. The first series of church visitations officially led by the government was to commence. Luther had placed a great part of the leadership over the evangelical reform movement in the hands of the elector, who shortly thereafter gave the command to initiate the church visitation. Luther himself no longer led the movement. The elector stressed the fact that the visitation of his empire had now become a government responsibility, by not appointing any clergymen in the first group of visitors.39 Melanchthon was to take part in the visitations of Thuringia as a representative of the university. In 1526 he had drawn up a new curriculum for the progressive merchant city of Nuremberg.40 In 1527, during his participation in the church and school visitations, he was exposed to the bare facts of the situation in Saxony. It seemed that many of Luther’s writings had been of some effect, but that the new doctrine had only in part established itselfand found its 37 Müller: 1910, pp. 43–54. 38 WA Br 3, nr. 944, p. 614. 39 Only a year later, on 25 July 1528, would Luther himself be asked to visit. On 30 August he was informed that the elector had assigned the area surrounding Wittenberg in the Kurkreis to him, in order to minimise the need to travel far. His first visitation round lasted until 12 March 1529. WA Br 4, nr. 1299, Elector John to Luther and others, 25 July 1528, pp. 505–507. WA Br 5, nr. 1394, John Frederick to Luther, 12 March 1529, p. 36. 40 Melanchthon created a new school structure for preparatory higher education, a middle school in between Latin school and university ; he also drew up a curriculum for it, in which attention was given to mathematics, rhetorics, philosophy, and especially language education. This school started in the spring of 1526. It was to be the forerunner of the later gymnasium. Kooiman: 1963, pp. 90–95. Maurer : 1969, vol. 2, pp. 462–470. Strauss: 1972, p. 272.

110

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

way to the hearts. The ecclesiastical functionaries usually lacked the most basic knowledge of and insight into religious matters, as he noted. This is why Melanchthon decided to focus on the pastors by helping them in their teaching and preaching.41 Together with Luther’s two catechisms from a year later, Melanchthon’s Instruction to Preachers constituted an impressive pedagogical program, which conveyed the aspects of the Christian religion that he found to be most elementary.42 With his catechism, Luther placed himself in the medieval Christian tradition, but he started his discussion of the three classical parts with the law (i. e., the Ten Commandments), and not with prayer (i. e., the Lord’s Prayer) or faith (the Apostles’ Creed).43 Above all else, the will of God had to be made clear to the people. But for evangelical church life to survive in the Electorate of Saxony, the program that was being followed would have to be expanded. The reform or revival of the church of Saxony is–in hindsight – generally dated to 1527 and 1528, when the first visitations took place with their pastoral and church-political goals. Several cities and territories would follow this example. Four documents from these years formed the foundation of this second, new phase of the Reformation: next to the two aforementioned works of Melanchthon, these were Luther’s Preface and the government’s Instruction. The instructions of Luther and the Elector Although Luther and John had a good mutual relationship, in the mid-1520s they were both testing the boundaries of the magistrate’s responsibility in ecclesiastical matters. In his foreword to Instruction to preachers, Luther wrote that it was the worldly government’s duty to prevent discord and rebellion among subjects, and furthermore noted that it was not the duty of His Electoral Grace to “teach and govern in the spiritual domain.”44 At the same time he realised that after the Peasant’s Revolt, the former episcopal duties of supervision would have to be exercised as soon as possible, and he saw no other option than to temporarily bestow these on the tlector. Furthermore, Luther stated, the elector was a born leader and that is why he could easily be considered a supervisor in ecclesiastical affairs. Later on, in the course of the 1530s, Melanchthon was to

41 Spalatinus for his part developed an instruction that was directed at morality more than doctrine. Leppin: 2006, p. 273. 42 In his 1522 Wider den falsch genannten geistlichen Stand, Luther pondered whether it was necessary first to attend to “die Besserung des geistlichen Standes (the improvement of the clerical class).” Weber : 1844, pp. 5–6. 43 Zwanepol: 2009, pp. 16f. 44 MW, vol. 1, pp. 216–220 = Luther’s Work 40/2, 269ff.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

111

refer to the rulers as “the most distinguished members of the church.”45 To forcefully underline this idea he used the familiar medieval term Notbischof.46 In his Instruction, the elector focused mainly on the financial and organisational side of the visitations, while Melanchthon complemented the elector’s work by paying greater attention to the spiritual side in his manual. Sometimes these perspectives overlapped, for example in the treatment of marital issues which were discussed in both manuals, and sometimes the elector also touched on a practical matter concerning the church, for example with regard to the merging of parishes. In general, however, the elector was interested in recording abuses and in materially arranging the organisational aspect of the ecclesiastical reforms. Due to the influence of the evangelical movement, religious and ecclesiastical life had drastically sobered. The elector joined in by calling for simplicity and austerity : “But in all places the clergymen, preachers, and chaplains must” be admonished to administer the sacraments and perform the ecclesiastical practices “with the simplicity which, in this time, has been taken on by us and our subjects.”47 The elector admonished the visitors not to grow lax, but to exhort officials, tax collectors, city councils, and nobles who had legal jurisdiction to “take into protection all kinds of people and especially the poor, and to be watch out for 45 Melanchthon does this in 1537 in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, which, like Luther’s Schmalkaldic Articles of the same year, would be counted as an official Lutherian confessional writing. When, later on, attempts were made to forge Lutheranism into a unity, a new confession was not created, but the existing documents were instead brought together into what was known as the Book of Concord. Next to the foreword, this volume is comprised of the three ecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession, the Schmalkaldic Articles, Luther’s Catechisms, Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and a Formula of Concord which elaborates on specific debated issues. Exactly fifty years after the Augsburg Confession had been read aloud at the diet, on 25 June 1580 a total of 180 Lutheran theologians signed the Formula Concordiae. See Kooiman: 1963, p. 145 and Oberman: 1994, pp. 48f. 46 He used this term especially between 1539 and 1542. Estes: 1998, p. 481. Cf. Estes: 2000, pp. 48–76 and Brady : 2000, pp. 20–47. 47 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 143. According to the electoral Instruction, it was not the intention to prescribe for people how they should think or what they had to believe, but any form of freedom of religion was also out of the question, since “in all places it must be earnestly impressed upon the clergy, preachers, and chaplains that none of them should be so audacious as to teach, preach, or attend to the sacraments and ceremonies except according to the power of God’s Word and with the simplicity that we and our subjects have taken on in this time, in which God has proven and granted his grace. For if someone should oppose this, or be of the opinion that on one or more issues they should teach and act differently than we have laid out here, then he should not exercise his dissenting opinion in our territory, but remove himself from it and abandon his parish and office as preacher.” Sehling, vol. 1, p. 144a. In this way, the elector attempted tried to thwart sedition, abuse, false doctrine, schisms, and sectarianism.

112

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

abuse and crimes which have until now always been punished severely, such as murder, manslaughter, etc.” Additionally, the elector made it clear that certain elements were not to be tolerated among Christians. In order not to “cause discredit, accusation, and scandal” among the adversaries of the reforms, a special lookout was to be kept for scandalous sins. He provided a number of specific examples, such as “rash oaths and the taking of God’s name in vain, as well as drunkenness.” Further on in this list are mentioned the mockery and frivolous discussion of matters concerning faith, the singing of “scandalous songs that offend our youth” at home or in the streets. Furthermore, officials were especially and publically to attend to adultery, fornication, rape, and the disobedience of children towards their parents.48 The elector wished to avoid the impression among the opponents of the reformations that evangelical freedom in reality came down to lawlessness, and therefore stressed that the reforms also implied an earnest enforcement of Christian values and norms. But the visitations were important to him for several other reasons as well. He sought to obtain better control over the complex and fast development in his territory. The triedand-true method of church visitation was revisited once again, and temporarily put to use to establish a totally new ecclesiastical structure. This is why in Saxony a regional church was to arise which was governed by the civil government. Melanchthon’s preaching norm in response to the first visitations The first Saxon visitation round took place in the summer of 1527 and examined the situation in several cities and their surroundings, such as Neustadt, Kahla, Jena, and Eisenberg. The visitation reports describe a general chaos in the ecclesiastical practices and in the clergy’s conduct, partly due to ignorance and partly due to the indecency of the teachers. In an addendum to a letter dating 16 August 1527 from the elector to Luther, several topics are mentioned that the visitors had come across and that required attention.49 The preachers needed to receive new training, they had to come to understand the new doctrine concerning Christian freedom, and had to learn to proclaim it to the spiritual welfare of the believers. “For the majority of the priests and clergy are of no use and incompetent; they do not instruct the people properly, but usually preached only one part of the gospel, that is, the forgiveness of sins, but without penance, so that the people’s consciences are worse and more rebellious than before.”50

48 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 143 and p. 147. 49 WA Br 4, nr. 1129, pp. 229–231, appendix 231. Cf. WA Br 4, nr. 1130 Luther to Spalatinus, 19 August 1527, p. 232. 50 MBW 3, nr. 574 Visitation report of 13 August 1527, 131, l.12–17. “Den die priester und selsorger der mehren theil fast ubel und ungeschickt, das volck nicht gnugsam untterweisen, sonder alle gemeinigklich durchaus alleyn den eynen theil des ewangeliums, das ist remissio

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

113

The moderate Melanchthon was not scared at all to rethink and put into perspective the preaching of evangelical justification and Christian freedom, which was positively received by so many. In this matter, Melanchthon was not merely an inspector appointed by his superiors, but above all he was an initiator and reformer. In their visitation report, the visitors referred to an arrangement, an Ordnung, which they would like to see functioning as a norm for preaching. This probably refers to Melanchthon’s visitation writings. In August 1527 the elector had received Melanchthon’s hand-written manual for the visitors. On 16 August the elector forwarded this document with further developed articles – the elector calls this a Verzeichnis – to Luther with the request for approval. Luther received these pieces – he calls them acta visitationis – on August 18, and the next day wrote about them to Spalatin.51 Two days later he informed Hausmann that a visitation arrangement was being drawn up. He describes this as an excellent arrangement (pulcherrima ordinatio), probably referring to the first draft of the Instruction to preachers.52 Spalatin had been asked by the Elector to go through the visitation reports and to formulate his advice. In a sidenote, Spalatin suggested that due to the lack of ecclesiastical agreements the visitations had started too early. A list of fourteen points needing attention was drawn up in preparation for a common deliberation at the palace in Torgau at the end of September of that year. Emil Sehling assumes that the list of fourteen ‘Zweifel-Punkte’ had existed since the appointment of the visitors, but also after the first official visitations in the summer of 1527, a number of these attention points served “as a basis for further discussion (als Grundlage weiterer Berathung),” together with the other faults which had been noted during the visitations.53 A letter from 31 August suggests that Luther was still postponing his judgment on the Ordnung until he had spoken to Melanchthon about it.

peccatorum, und nicht penitenciam, geprediget, dadurch das volck in yrem gewissen erger und roloser worden dan vor ie.” 51 WA Br 4, nr. 1130 Luther to Spalatinus, 19 August 1527, p. 232. 52 “Spes est visitationem facile processuram, iam per visitatores composita pulcherrima ordinatione, quam Princeps editurus est, ut nobis postea facile sit convenire et ordinare, quae necessaria sunt pro Ecclesiis.” WA Br 4, nr. 1131 Luther to Hausmann, 20 August 1527, p. 234. In this letter it is suggested that it was also Luther’s wish for church-orderly regulations to be drawn up, because he writes: “Omnia pulchra sunt, si modo sic ut constituta sunt administrentur.” 53 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 36. Carl Burkhardt provides a summary of these fourteen articles in Burkhardt: 1879, p. 21. Some issues had already been included in UdV. See also WA 26, p. 181. Hans-Walter Krumwiede assumes that these fourteen articles were used by the elector earlier on when the Instruction was drawn up in June 1526. In that case, they would be based on earlier visitation experiences. Krumwiede: 1967, p. 82. Aside from doctrinal conformity, all kinds of decisions were taken on concrete issues. See Sehling, vol. 1, p. 36.

114

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

The visitors encountered such a diversity of issues that they found it unwise to continue their visitations without a manual that had the elector’s approval. In their report the visitors noted: “We did not think it good to continue the visitations till we know that the Elector of Saxony agrees with the instructions.”54 Melanchthon had already mentioned this a few days earlier in a letter to Chancellor Brück dating 10 September 1527, since he was of the opinion that the government should first create greater clarity and establish agreements on doctrine and church life.55 Melanchthon chose to address both of his visitation volumes, which had emerged from fieldwork, to the clergy. He and his colleagues had quickly come to understand the inadequacy of the theological training which the clergy had received. A common ground needed to be formulated that could be used to address them.56 To this end Melanchthon made a draft in which he formulated a predominantly evangelical view on the sacrament of penance. This again caused renewed attention for and a reappraisal of penance, sorrow, and confession, because, so Melanchthon stated, only a crushed heart in which the fear of God’s punishment is alive can truly believe. Soon he was overwhelmed with criticism. Melanchthon’s articles had been published without his knowledge in Wittenberg in July by Nicholas Schirlentz,57 and soon the content of his first visitation pamphlet became public, as we learn from a letter from Luther dating 31 August 1527, in which he requested John Agricola (c. 1494–1566) from Eisleben to exercise restraint in his criticism.58 Also Kaspar Aquila from Saalfeld was of

54 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 36. Melanchthon and Schurff found it necessary to go back to the university of Wittenberg because of the troubles there. Suppl. Mel. 6/1, nr. 465d / nr. 578, 15 September 1527, pp. 385–386. 55 Suppl. Mel. 6/1, nr. 465c / nr. 577 Melanchthon to Brück, 10 September 1527, pp. 383–384. Herrmann: 1929/ 31, p. 200. This is why Melanchthon and Schurff wrote a letter to the electoral council, in which they discussed the crisis at the university. From the beginning, Melanchthon had fought to free the university from papal authority and to give it a new organisational structure. The events in Wittenberg in 1527 left a great impression on him, which was why he thought he had to return as soon as possible. Suppl. Mel. 6/1, nr. 465d / nr. 578, p. 385. In the middle of September 1527, Jerome Schurff (1481–1554) was dismissed as visitor and replaced by the theologian and jurist Spalatinus. It had been Schurff ’s task to investigate and reorganise the material side, but in questions concerning the confiscation of buildings and in other cases pertaining to ecclesiastical property he as a jurist wished to retain existing canonical law. Höss: 1972, pp. 323–324. 56 CR 26, pp. 7–28. Maurer : 1969, vol. 2, pp. 475–481. 57 We read about this in letters from Melanchthon to Camerarius from 23 October 1527, and to Agricola from 10 November 1527. See CR 1, p. 904 and p. 919. 58 Agricola was of the opinion that Melanchthon had renounced the gospel in the visitation document. See also Köstlin: 1875, pp. 32f. This is why a couple of months later Luther introduced the distinction between general faith and justifying or saving faith.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

115

the opinion that Melanchthon’s contribution meant a relapse towards the papal tradition.59 A theological conflict threatened to break out.60 The development of an ecclesiastical structure increasingly governed by the magistrate In his visitation letter, the elector left no doubt about how serious and profound the announced church and school visitations were to be. “If there are to be preachers who preach the Word and if a meticulous investigation, which the visitors must perform for every matter, is to reveal that they declare, preach, or harbour an error, whether it be concerning the issue of the blessed sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, of baptism, or otherwise, then they must be told to abandon our territory immediately with the warning that, if they are caught committing a violation, they will be punished severely. Should, however, their inadequacy be of such a serious and crude nature that, as a means of deterrence, it would be fair to punish them or their kind of preachers in advance, then we do not oppose this in any way, but will hereby have granted our visitors the power to exercise such punishment on their own judgment.”61

Despite the visitors’ urgent request to the elector to put a halt to the visitations for the time being in anticipation of a fuller arrangement, the visitations in Amt Altenburg of 15 to 17 September continued as normal. At that time, the visitors were already able to consult a draft of the future manual, because on 13 September Luther had sent a manuscript copy to the two visitors in Altenburg, the preachers Georg Salatinus and Eberhard Brisger. Luther called the manual a

59 CR 4, 958f. Brecht: 1986, vol. 2, p. 259. Despite their differences on certain issues, Melanchthon and Aquila were on friendly terms throughout their lives. Scheible: 1996, p. 337. Their disagreements did not go unnoticed among the opponents of the Reformation, however. 60 For Luther the distinction between ‘fear of punishment’ and ‘fear of God’ was to fight over words, and he wrote a reassuring letter to Agricola on 31 August in which he emphasised that he did not want to return to the earlier papal tyranny, and later, on 27 October, he wrote about this to Melanchthon. Melanchthon’s good friend Joachim Camerarius later remarked that Melanchthon’s visitation manual had met with such criticism “from those who lacked the skill and spark of debate (von denen die einen die Kraft und den Schwung der Debatten vermissten),” and that the others said “that as a result the common cause was betrayed, freedom taken away, and people returned to their slavery (dass dadurch die gemeinsame Sache verraten werde, die Freiheit genommen und die Menschen wieder in die Sklaverei geführt würden).” Camerarius: 2010, p. 103. Clear and plain language was to be used: there was to be no rom for doubt, but a false security was also not to be given. WA Br 4, nr. 1138 Luther to Agricola, 31 August 1527, p. 241f. and nr. 1126 Luther to Melanchthon, 27 October 1527, p. 272. Melanchthon defended his views on this issue in letters to Agricola and Aquila. CR 4, p. 958 and pp. 961–962. See also Appendix 1. 61 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 143b.

116

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

“very good arrangement,” which could be used to regulate all kinds of affairs on a local level as well.62 Later that month, the visitation handbook was to be discussed during a meeting specifically organised for that purpose. The meeting on doctrine and life needed the broadest possible support with a view to unity in the land. This commission, in which also Luther and Melanchthon participated, met for the first time in Torgau on 26 September 1527.63 At this conference, which brought together theologians and representatives from the elector, also the preachers Johannes Bugenhagen and Georg Spalatin played an important role. During this first meeting, they discussed Melanchthon’s draft and changed very little.64 However, a few days later and with a view to the persistent criticism on Melanchthon’s doctrine of penance, which according to some was too close to the papal tradition, the elector requested Luther and Bugenhagen to create more clarity in Melanchthon’s Instruction concerning the differences with Rome on this one specific and sensitive issue. In the course of October, the commission’s conclusions were presented to the court.65 The elector was shocked by the commotion which had arisen over certain points in the visitation document.66 The disagreement over the content of the 62 WA Br 4, nr. 1129 John to Luther, 16 August. 1527, pp. 229–230, nr. 1130 Luther to Spalatinus, 19 August 1527, p. 232, nr. 1131 Luther to Hausmann, 20 August 1527, p. 234, nr. 1143 Luther to Spalatinus, 13 September 1527, p. 247. Maurer : 1969, vol. 2, pp. 475–476. In his letter to Agricola from 31 August 1527, Luther reported that Instruction to the Visitors was going to be printed. WA Br 4, nr. 1138, pp. 241–242, n. 4. 63 Suppl. Mel. 6/1, nr. 578 / nr. 465d Melanchthon and Schurff to the Council, 10 September 1527, p. 385; idem, nr. 582 / nr. 484 Melanchthon to Jonas at the end of Sept. 1527, p. 387; idem, nr. 584 / nr. 466b Melanchthon to Agricola early October 1527, p. 388. 64 CR 1, pp. 919–921. 65 The elector wrote: “Wir wollen Euch auch gnädiger Meinung nit bergen, dass uns angelangt, als sollten die Papisten etwas Frohlockung haben, dass diese Ordnung der Visitation dergestalt als mit Titelen der Bussbericht ausgehen soll. Denn sie wollen solchs dahun deuten, als ob man jesst von vorigen Lehren wider zurück auf ihre Missbräuch fallen wolle. Und ob sich wohl die Meinungen unter beruhrten Titelen mit der Papisten Missbräuchen, so sie des Bussbericht halben bisanhere gefuhrt, nit vergleichen, so sehen wir doch nit fur unguet an, dass Ihr unter einen geschriebenen Titel der Papisten Bussbericht und was vergleichen ist, und wie diese Ordnung davon reden thut, mit einer Erklärung unterscheiden hättet, damit ihrem unnessen Geschwätz domit dest mehr beanget und dasselbige abgeleint wurde, und dass sichs mit ihrer Meinung nit vergleiche.” WA 26, p. 184. MBW, vol. 3, nr. 611, pp. 188f. 66 Suppl. Mel. VI/l, nr. 604 / nr. 478 Melanchthon to Agricola, 10 November 1527, p. 399; idem, nr. 615 / nr. 482b Melanchthon to Aquila, 21 November 1527, p. 603. The conference was organised by the elector. CR 1, pp. 914–918. WA Br 4, p. 255. According to Agricola, penance ensued from and therefore followed faith. No more than a year later, Luther reproached Agricola for teaching that faith could exist also without good works. WA Br 4, nr. 1322 Luther to Agricola, 11 September 1528, pp. 557–558. WA Br 4, nr. 1325 Agricola to Luther midSeptember 1528, pp. 562–564. For bibliographical references, see Wengert: 1997, pp. 219– 224.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

117

new doctrine could severely damage the unity of the church, all the more because the dispute concerned the topic central to Melanchthon’s Instructions to preachers. For this reason, the elector arranged another gathering in Torgau some weeks later, from 26 to 29 November 1527. The topic of this conference was the aforementioned criticism of Agricola on Melanchthon’s view on penance and freedom.67 As a result of these talks, Spalatin edited the manuscript somewhat, and on 3 January 1528 Elector John sent this version to Luther in Wittenberg, with the request to go over it once again, to make corrections, and to add a prologue, so that everyone would know that he endorsed this document.68 The most, and also definitive, changes in Melanchthon’s manuscript were made during a third meeting in Torgau held in the course of January 1528. During this gathering, which once again was attended by Melanchthon, the text of the Instruction was established in its definitive form.69 In the Articles Melanchthon had tried to persuade in a balanced way those who were of the old faith and to convince them of the new elements in the doctrine. Others, however, interpreted this as a recatholisation.70 The Instruction to Preachers therefore had two functions. It had to be a unifying document and not lead to internal disputes within the evangelical camp, but at the same time it had to cause as little offence as possible to the Roman Catholic adversaries of the Reformation. For this reason, it is understandable that this document played a major role in the formation of other confessions in the years to come. On 27 January 1528, Luther reported to Nikolaus Hausmann that the work had been finished, and two months later, on 22 March, the first edition was ready.71 Several editions were to follow and the book would place its mark on many evangelical church orders to follow.

67 Hardly anything is known about what Agricola’s thoughts were exactly on the visitation book in 1527. It appears that he wrote a brochure at the end of October, but Melanchthon never laid eyes on this document, as he wrote on 20 December 1527, and it was not preserved either. The conflict arose on account of Melanchthon’s Articles, and more specifically concerned Christian freedom, the emphasis on penance, and the fact that he located penance before faith. The articles were not in any way meant to attack Agricola. The latter’s criticism only came later on, and was very painful to Melanchthon, who rather wished to avoid these kinds of theological disputes because he was convinced that they were of no use. See also ch. 5, n. 31ff. 68 WA Br 4, nr. 1200 John to Luther, 3 January 1528, pp. 325–327. 69 Maurer: 1969, vol. 2, p. 471. 70 WA Br 4, nr. 1199 Jonas to Luther, 3 January 1528, pp. 321–325, p. 323f., nr. 1143 Luther to Spalatinus, 13 September 1527, p. 247, nr. 1150 John to Luther, 30 September 1527, p. 255, and nr. 1158 Luther to John, 12 October 1527, p. 265. WA 26, p. 182. CR 1, p. 99. 71 WA Br 4, nr. 1217 Luther to Bugenhagen and Spalatinus, 31 January 1528, p. 373. WA 26, p. 186. StA 3, p. 404.

118

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

A confessional foundation for the evangelical movement The first nine articles of the Instruction emphasised the main topics of the evangelical doctrine and their explanation. Next, some church-political issues are discussed and settled, such as that of prayer through the chanting of Psalms in the German and/or Latin language, faithful participation in the Lord’s Supper within the setting of the congregation, the reception of the Eucharist under two species, marriage, obedience to the governments and the payment of taxes, and the legitimicy of warfare by Christians. The conclusion discusses a new plan for the organisation of education in different groups, and it comprises only one article. The small booklet was written in a clear, somewhat dry, but pedagogically solid writing style, that is, it contained simple vocabulary and addressed questions the people encountered every day, such as the matter of language: “Some sing the Mass in German, others in Latin. Both are allowed.”72 A central issue was the determination of the evangelical position concerning different theological, liturgical, religious, social-ethical, and pedagogical matters. In his Instructions to Preachers, Melanchthon continuously supported his viewpoint by simply referring to the text of the Bible, which he did several hundreds of times.73 This method of argumentation was typical for this young movement in which ordinary people had been enabled to turn to the Bible themselves. Only after the arrival of the unifying Augsburg Confession at the beginning of the 1530s would the evangelicals also appeal to their own, common confessional tradition, next to the Bible.74 However, Melanchthon’s handbook 72 UdV, art. 10. 73 There are 39 direct or indirect references to the Old Testament in the Articles, and 65 in the Instruction. There are 74 direct or indirect references to the New Testament in the Articles, and more than one hundred in the Instruction. Furthermore, it is striking that more than two-thirds of the Bible references from the first visitation document do not return in the Instruction. Although Melanchthon referred primarily to the Bible in his visitation documents, through them he established a new tradition by connecting to the existing teaching, for example, by deliberately making use of the same theological concepts. Only very few references are made to the church fathers, such as Cyprian and Augustine in AV, art. 8 and 12 and Hilary in UdV, art. 6. 74 In the early days of the Reformation, the Bible was handed to the ordinary believers and considered sufficient. Later on greater reservation was exercised when it came to handing the Bible over to the people without supervision and further explanation. In the schools, Luther thought it best first to teach children the main elements of the Christian religion from the catechism. BSLK, foreword Small Catechism, p. 503. Everything that should be known by the ordinary Christian “who is unable to read Scripture” is comprised in the three catechetical pieces, he stated. Soonba catechism or confession was to function as a guideline for reading the Bible. We see the same happening later on in Reformed Reformation. In his “word to the reader” in the second edition of his Institutes in 1539, Calvin stated that with this introduction to the Christian faith he wished to make it easier for people to read Scripture. Beza was to intend his confession of faith as a reading companion or road map for those who wanted to turn to Holy Scripture in order to distinguish main issues from subsidiary matters.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

119

already created the beginning of a status confessionis for the evangelical-Lutheran church which at that time still was in the process of formation, a first confessional foundation that served as a predecessor for the common Augsburg Confession of 1530.75 Melanchthon’s concern for the questions of the illiterate Despite Melanchthon’s careful formulation, this document still demonstrated sharply and clearly the differences there were between, on the one hand, the radical evangelically-minded pastors and the popular preachers of the more conservative Roman Catholic side, and, on the other hand, the moderate, humanistic teachers.76 The hostile attitude among the evangelical preachers mainly ensued from the fact that Melanchthon simply forbade the more or less shrewd polemics against the old church. The renewal movement was young and brittle, and, according to Melanchthon, it did best to adopt a moderate and not too radical position, both in the religious and in the moral domain. In order not to unnecessarily fatigue the ordinary, illiterate citizens with marginal theological disputes, sermons were merely to emphasise the most important issue, which is the fear of God’s judgment and his wrath, and the love for God’s justice (amor iustitiae). Melanchthon distinguished between two categories of fundamental principles. Of one category he said that they “are wholly incomprehensible” and lead us to “cold and un-Christ-like disputes, while the other category consisted of topics of which Christ wanted them to be heard very acurately by the whole community of Christians.”77 This latter category concerned sin, law, and grace. In the introduction to his confession, he writes that it is necessary that people, “before they start reading the texts of Scripture, have received a brief instruction to familiarise themselves with the subject matter and to become used to the language of the Holy Spirit.” De Bèze: 1965, vol. 3, p. 260. Speelman: 2009, pp. 48–53. 75 Hoffmann: 1938, pp. 419–490. The Articuli visitationis and the Unterricht der visitatoren are said to form the foundation for Melanchthon’s famous Augsburg Confession, which is sometimes also referred to as ‘the Saxon confession’. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1962a, vol. 1, p. 101. In this first Foreword, Melanchthon twice mentions the doctrine and practices of “the lands and territories of the elector of Saxony,” referring to what he had unfolded in the Augsburg Confession. BSLK, o. 35 and p. 37. Next to the Articles and the Instruction to preachers, for the composition of the Augsburg Confession also Luther’s 1528 confession Vom Abendmahl Christi was used, as well as two documents for dialogues held in October 1529, the Schwabach Articles, the Marburg Articles, and the Torgau Articles of March 1530 in preparation for the diet a couple of months later. See Hoffmann: 1938. For a parallel text of these articles, see BSLK, pp. 33–137. For Luther’s Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), see WA 26, pp. 241–510. See also the Luther Studienausgabe (Delius ed.: 1979f), vol. 4, pp. 13–259. 76 As an example we refer to the articles in UdV about the Ten Commandments, temptation, true Christian penance, confession, free will, and Christian freedom. 77 Pöhlmann: 1993, p. 22 and p. 24. Melanchthon begins this first Protestant dogmatics with a list distinguishing between what we cannot understand and more accessible matters. Pöhlmann, op. cit., pp. 18–19. His criticism of the preaching in the established church is that

120

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

Also in the Instruction to the Visitors Melanchthon did not engage in sharp polemics and, in this second visitation document, his tone was even milder and more balanced than it had been before. He was furthermore restrained in the making of new rules. Affairs concerning doctrine and the Christian way of life, he thought, had the right of way over organisational issues. In July 1527 the highly-educated Melanchthon stood eye-to-eye with the practical and everyday issues that church goers needed advice on. The fact that the visitation articles had come about from practical experience made both documents highly useful. They were not purely academic documents, but an engaging elaboration on Christian doctrine for people who were critical vis-—-vis the traditional ecclesiastical convictions and practices. The visitation’s twotrack policy, with its material and spiritual side, is evidenced also by the fact that Melanchthon interfered little in the first category. He was primarily concerned with bringing illiterate preachers to insight and conversion, and, via this route, he hoped to be able to address the welfare of the ordinary people, who without proper guidance could interpret Christian freedom erroneously.78 Luther’s call for participation Earlier we observed that Luther warmly welcomed Melanchthon’s handbook. And on 12 October 1527 he reported to Elector John how much he liked the document and that he had made only small changes in it. The wider population learned of Luther’s opinion concerning the evangelical confession through his prologue to the Instruction to preachers, in which he, at the request of the elector, unfolded the history of the church visitations and the rediscovery and transformation of the episcopal duty of visitation by the evangelicals. This was not intended as a lapse into the papal tradition. Luther was explicitly concerned with voluntary participation in a totally new form of visitation under the guidance of the civil magistrate, although not everyone experienced it in this way. The most important thing was that Luther, as the unchallenged leader of the Reformation, from Wittenberg openly endorsed this agreement on doctrine and life in the church. In his foreword to the visitation manual, Luther additionally provided a theological rationale for the church visitations and the new, top-down ‘episcopal’ arrangement. Referring to the Bible and the history of the church, he explained the most important things were neglected, since the focus was placed too much on matters of secondary importance. Melanchthon’s magnum opus was very popular and of great influence. Between 1521 and 1559 it was published in three different editions. The first was printed seventeen times within a few years, among others in Wittenberg, Basel, and Strasbourg; the second edition was printed fourteen times in the years following 1535; and the third edition 42 times between 1543 and 1580. Together this amounts to 73 editions, excluding translations. In 1546 a French edition was published in Genevan with a foreword from Calvin. CO 9, pp. 848f. 78 UdV, art. 13.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

121

how the Lord had originally intended the ecclesiastical office of the visitor. However, Luther noted, in the course of the Middle Ages this visitor’s office had been undermined. When the bishops set themselves up as monarchs and rulers, the office of the visitor had become ‘secularised’. Because the visitors of the established church were neglecting their duties, Luther saw no other possibility than to temporarily place them in the hands of the authority.79 But this temporary care for religious life in his country did not mean that the elector had received jurisdiction over the content of the preaching. After a perhaps less successful initiation of the church visitations based on the magistrate’s Instruction, the church’s doctrine and life within the electorate of Saxony was officially determined for the first time in the spring of 1528 in Melanchthon’s Instruction to Preachers, which was a kind of confession and church order all in one. Now the manuscript could be published and distributed to all preachers as the common point of departure. This settled the initial phase of the church reform. The vacuum that had emerged because of the rupture with the old regime and which certainly had led to a degree of religious carelessness, had now been filled by the new agreement on doctrine and by the understanding that had been reached over ecclesiastical practices. Melanchthon’s work stressed a continuing penance, accentuation of the commandments, and obedience to the authorities in the context of God’s fear, and in doing so it created more clarity and unity in the land regarding the new ecclesiastical course. However, Luther followed his call for voluntary participation by the priests, pastors, and preachers by the threat that, if someone was willfully to offer resistance against this official church visitation under the leadership of the elector of Saxony and to continue to exercise his position as an ecclesiastical office-bearer as he deemed fit, then he would be removed from his office and banished from the land. The leaders of the reforms ardently hoped for the cooperation of the clerical state. Although the leaders of the Reformation and the authorities depended in every possible way on the voluntary cooperation of the workers in the field, the strong arm of the magistrate, under whose power this temporary work fell, could also coerce them into doing so.

79 Sehling, vol. 1 (Luther’s preface to the UdV), pp. 149–150. Luther remarked on this matter that the position of the overseer these days “had degenerated into the mockery and trickery of the devil and the antichrist.” Sehling, vol. 1, p. 150. In his foreword, Luther also referred to the downfall of the sendgerichten or synods, which were sessions of the court held by the bishop or his representative, the archdeacon, in different places in his territory, as well as to the position of the judicial vicars (Latin: officiales), who attended mainly to marital matters and to issues concerning prebends and right of patronage. Sehling, vol. 1, p. 143. On 1 November 1528 Luther wrote: “We are visitors, which means bishops, and everywhere we find poverty and want.” WA Br 4, nr. 1347, p. 597.

122

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

As was to be expected, the Saxon visitations were ridiculed and criticised by Roman Catholic adversaries.80 However, friends and foes alike could acknowledge that the Unterricht der visitatoren had marked a change, the beginning of a new phase in the reformation of the church.

3

Church renewal through education

The Reformation was as much concerned with school as it was with church. Appreciating the role of education in directing church and society back to the source of the Christian faith, the Reformers were committed to the schooling of the young and, from the pulpit, also the adults. During the visitations, Melanchthon had come to the conclusion that ordinary people were confused and were uncertain about the meaning of the faith and that they were not getting clear answers to the questions they were asking. This is why quality education was one of the spearheads of his reform program. People should be helped to come to faith and insight. Already during the 1520s he complained about the many topics that were incomprehensible to the common man, but that nevertheless troubled the church people. A Christian needed certain basic religious knowledge about “the power of sin, the law, and grace, for Christ is given to us as a medicine.” It is he whom we should know, but in a different way than scholars make us believe in words which are often difficult to comprehend. “After all, this is Christian knowledge, knowing what the law demands, where one can find the power to fulfill the law, where one can receive mercy for sin, how one can raise up

80 As was to be expected, the Saxon visitations were ridiculed and criticised by Roman Catholic adversaries. In July 1528 John Fabri wrote his “Christliche Unterrichtung über etliche Punkte der Visitation im Kurfürstentum Sachsen (Christian instruction on several aspects of the visitation in the Electorate of Saxony)” in Prague. This work contained 63 chapters of criticism, and was published in September 1528 in Dresden with a call for Luther to turn back. In the fall of 1528, also Cochlaeus of Dresden came with a manuscript in which he cites many works of Luther and thus provides an account of his course of development in the last ten years. This work became well-known because of the cartoon on the title page in which Luther is represented as a seven-headed monster, alluding to the seven-headed beast from the Revelation of John. In this way Luther was ridiculed as the cause of great confusion. The illustration shows a monk with seven heads, which symbolise Luther’s functions and life phases: doctor ; the new saint Martin; the third head is depicted as a Turk, or an unbeliever ; in the middle we see Luther the preacher, who tells the people what they want to hear ; then follows the head of a Schwärmer (radical Anabaptist) with tousled hair and bees around his head; next is the head of an ignorant, anti-Roman Catholic visitor or church leader. To conclude, we see an image of the head of Barabbas holding a club, depicting Luther as a criminal. All of these heads are reading a book, which is meant to illustrate that everyone reads the Bible differently, causing a Babylonian confusion of speech.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

123

a straying soul against the devil, his own flesh, and the world, and how one can comfort the affected conscience,” he wrote in 1521.81 Three years earlier, on 29 August 1518 when he was only 21 years old, Melanchthon had held his inaugural speech, De corrigendis adulescentiae studiis, on the improvement of education for the youth. According to him, the old sources would increase piety in them and help to renew theology. For him, the humanistic and the reformatory ideal went hand in hand. Students had to learn how to “delve into the sources of the sciences (artes) from the best writers.”82 Illiteracy had to be fought and the children had to be formed and had to develop piety and insight. The social consequences of the Reformation comprised a crisis not only in the church, but also in the school system. This can be explained by the fact that, in medieval Europe, church and education had always been closely connected. In Germany, the Reformation had brought with it the dismantling of the various ecclesiastical institutions that had always served to embed education in the medieval period. Monasteries and chapters were abolished. This crisis of institutions played a major role both before and during the Saxon church and school visitations of 1527, but did not constitute the only factor that must be taken into account. In the beginning of the 1520s, many cathedral and monastic schools were closed down. The new school system would increasingly come

81 Pöhlmann: 1993, pp. 19–24. 82 CR 11, pp. 15f., quote p. 22; Augustijn: 2003, p. 96. With a view to education, Melanchthon prepared many editions and commentaries, already before 1528; of Latin authors, such as Terence’s Comoediae P. Terentii metro numerisque restitutae (Tübingen 1516; Antwerp 1516 and Leipzig 1518), of Cicero in 1524 M(arci) Tullii Ciceronis de oratore libri tres a Phil. Melanchthone (Frankfurt 1524; Hagenau 1525; Paris 1526) and in 1525: Officia Ciceronis, cum scholiis Phil. Melan. (Hagenau 1525 and 1526), in 1522 of Jerome: Hieronymi ecloga de locis hebraicis (Wittenberg 1522), and of Pliny : Contra Aristogitonem, Demostenis orationes duae doctissimae a Philippo Melanchthone iam primum latinitate donatae (Hagenau 1527). Additionally, Melanchthon, with a view to education, cooperated to produce all kinds of editions of Latin authors, of Terence in 1516, for example, and of Cicero in 1524, and of Pontanus in that same year. Prior to the appearance of the Instruction, the following editions of Greek authors were published by him: of Aristophanes: Aristophanis Poetae Comici Nubes (Wittenberg 1521), of Demosthenes: Demosthenis Olynthiaca prima in latinam linguam versa a Phil. Mel. (Hagenau 1524) and two years later: Oratio Demosthenis kata Aristogeitonos / referta egregiis ornamentis (Wittenberg 1526), of Lucian: Luciani Sophistae oratio in calumniam, a Philippo Melanchthone latina facta (Leipzig 1518), of Plutarch: De Nota Pythagorica, qua hospitem Hirundinem recipi nolebant (Hagenau 1517), and of Xenophon: Critiae orationem contra Theramenem; Prodici de Hercule narrationem (Hagenau 1525). He did the same for numerous editions of Greek authors. In 1517 he prepared a Latin translation of Plutarch’s De nota Pythagorica, in 1519 a text edition of Plutarch and Pindar, the same year he was involved in the publication of Plutarch’s De liberorum institutione, and two years later a Greek edition of Sermo convivalis primus. We can also note that in those early days he helped produce editions of Thucydides, Demosthenes, Aratus, Aristophanes, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Lucian.

124

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

under the influence of the Christian magistrate.83 When, in 1524, Luther called for the council members in the German lands to found and maintain schools,84 he was not so much concerned with this crisis of the institutions and related financial problems as he was for the lack of motivation which he has noticed in the council members to effectively put things in order. In his view, they were much too materialistic. In the past, it was said, one could find an honourable and lucrative position in a convent or monastery for sons and daughters for whom there was no work at home, but now that this was no longer the case people saw little use for an education as it used to be taken care of by the church: “Yes, they say, why should we let those who are not going to become priests, monks, and nuns anyways study? It is better to let them learn what will provide for their upkeep in the future.”85 And a little further on in his treatise, Luther has the same materialistically-minded citizens sigh that if schools are really necessary, then surely they can do without Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. “Indeed, you say again, if schools are really necessary, then of what use is it to us to learn Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and the other subjects? Can we not after all study the Bible and God’s Word in German as well, and do we need anything more for our salvation?”86 When Luther then weaves into his argument a broadly construed defense of the languages as being the sheath that encloses the knife of the Spirit,87 he stands up as the spokesman of not only the Reformation and its rediscovery of the Bible, but also of the humanistic Bildungsideal which exactly in these years seemed to be gaining more and more support in the north of Europe. In his eyes, it is this humanistic movement which has prepared for the new insight of the Reformation: “No one knew why God has made the languages reappear, until now when we have learned that this has happened because of the gospel, which he has then wished to reveal in order to uncover the kingdom of the Antichrist and to destroy it. This is also why he has granted Greece to the Turks, so that the Greek 83 Maurer: 1969, vol. 2, 463. 84 In 1982 Dietz Lange prepared an accessible, modern German edition of To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany (An die Ratsherrn). Lange: 1982, pp. 40–72. 85 “Ja, sagen sie, was soll man die lernen lassen, die nicht Pfaffen, Mönche und Nonnen werden sollen? Man lasse sie lieber lernen, womit sie sich ernähren können.” Lange: 1982, p. 42. 86 “Ja, sprichst du noch einmal, wenngleich man Schulen haben sollte und müsste: Wozu nützt es uns aber, die lateinische, griechische, hebräische Sprache und andere Wissenschaften zu lernen? Können wir doch gut auf Deutsch die Bibel und Gottes Wort lernen, das uns vollauf genug ist zur Seligkeit!” Lange: 1982, p. 52. In his introduction, Lange suggests that the aversion of languages should be credited to the so-called Schwärmer, such as Karlstadt. Given the context, in which Luther contrasts the disinterest in languages with the predilection for foreign luxury articles, he seems rather to be directing his attacks against the upper-middle class. When, at the end of his plea for the study of languages, he also addresses his opponents who appeal to the Spirit for despising languages, he only names the Waldensians as an example. Lange, op. cit., pp. 59–61. 87 Lange: 1982, p. 54.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

125

would be dispelled and dispersed and thus the knowledge of Greek would be spread and form the instigation to learn also other languages.”88 According to Luther, we should not neglect this moment, which was granted to us by God himself. We are experiencing a true jubilee: never before has Germany seen so many good and educated young men, gems in the field of languages and sciences, who can be deployed to educate the young.89 And a welleducated youth is necessary for the civil as well as the spiritual regiment. In order to make this possible, good libraries are needed. It would be better to remove the medieval manuals books, which until now have been used in the schools, such as the Catholicon,90 the Florista,91 the Graecista,92 the Labyrinth,93 and similar donkey’s mist (und dergleichen Eselsmist),94 and acquire new ones at the advice of educated men: first of all the Holy Scripture in as many languages as possible, as well as a number of commentaries, especially those of the church fathers, then books to learn grammar from, such as poets and orators “without considering whether they are gentile or Christian”, books about the liberal arts and other sciences, and legal and medical books. Especially chronicles and history books are of importance, because just as the Greeks and Romans and also the Jews recorded their trials and tribulations in the past and thus guarded it from oblivion, the Germans as well will have to do this in the future.95 In 1530, during his stay in the castle of Coburg for the Diet of Augsburg, Luther sent a sermon to the Nuremburg council member Lazarus Spengler, in which he repeated his argument “that children ought to be kept in school”96 in a more elaborate version. From this letter we learn that Luther still entertained the concern that had made him write his appeal in 1524. Also in Nuremberg, he writes to Lazarus Spengler, the devil will undoubtedly try to seduce citizens so that they will despise God’s Word and schools and would rather destine their children for Mammon. Once again, Luther brings a materialist and idolator onto the stage and puts the following words in his mouth: “As long as my son knows 88 “Niemand hat gewusst, warum Gott die Sprachen hervortreten liess, bis man jetzt erst erkennt, dass es um des Evangeliums willen geschehen ist, das er hernach hat offenbaren wollen, um dadurch die Herrschaft des Antichrist aufzudecken und zu zerstören. Darum hat er auch Griechenland den Türken gegeben, damit die Griechen verjagt und zerstreut würden, die griechische Sprache verbreiteten und ein Anstoss dazu würden, auch andere Sprachen dazuzulernen.” Lange: 1982, p. 53. 89 Lange: 1982, pp. 45f. 90 The Latin dictionary of the monk John Januensis from 1286. 91 Rhymed Latin syntax from 1317. 92 Greek grammar annex lexicon from the twelfth or thirteenth century. 93 Rhymed grammar, rhetoric, and manaual of poetics from the beginning of the thirteenth century. 94 Lange: 1982, p. 68. 95 Lange: 1982, pp. 70f. 96 Lange: 1982, pp. 90–139.

126

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

how to count and read, he knows enough; there are now also German books etc.”97 Luckily, and exactly on this point, the Nuremberg council provided a strong counterbalance by establishing an ‘Obere Schule’ in 1526, according to a plan drawn up by Melanchthon, which was fully aimed at training in the languages. According to Luther, such an education in the humanistic spirit is a strictly necessary condition for the spiritual as well as the worldly regiment. Melanchthon as a reformer of education Initially, Melanchthon was foremost a philologist and grammarian,98 but in his theses for obtaining the theological baccalaureate in 1519, he already proved to be a convinced follower of Luther’s teachings as well.99 In any case, even as a theologian Melanchthon remained a defender of the humanistic ideal of the emendatio vitae (improvement of life).100 He was grateful to Luther for the insight he had given him into the letters of Paul. After all, as he had already described in a festive oration on the ‘teachings of Paul’ held at the university of Wittenberg in 1520, these concern the ‘blessing of Christ’ which can change a person from within and can free him from the power of sin. This is what our eternal blessing depends on. Furthermore, Paul’s letters also contain moral prescriptions and life lessons, but these are shared with the other writers and even, as we will learn later on in the Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, with the heathen orators and philosophers.101 This duality, in which the inner 97 “Wenn mein Sohn rechnen und lesen kann, so kann er genug; man hat jetzt deutsche Bücher usw.” Lange: 1982, p. 91 and p. 93. 98 John Eck called him the “Wittenberg grammarian” in his written defense against Melanchthon’s report of the Leipzig Disputation in 1519. But in this report addressed to Johannes Oecalampadius, Melanchthon had also presented himself to a large extent as an outsider, who looked upon the theological hustle and bustle with a certain degree of skepticism. See MW, vol. 1 (Stupperich ed.), in which Melanchthon’s report can be found on p. 3–11, and where information can also be found on Eck’s written defense on p. 12f. 99 The theses in MW, vol. 1 (Stupperich ed.), pp. 23–25. When, in his report on the Leipzig Disputation, Melanchthon claims that it had served mainly to illustrate how big the differences were between “the old theology of Christ and the new-fashioned Aristotelian,” MW, vol. 1, p. 5, we cannot yet read in it a specifically Lutheran influence, but he apparently does view Luther’s aim as being completely in line with the humanist offensive against scholasticism. This somewhat relativises the importance which Willem Kooiman gives to this claim in his monograph on Melanchthon. Kooiman: 1967, 19f. 100 In a letter from 22 January 1525 to Joachim Camerarius in Nuremberg (CR 1, p. 722), he makes the oft-cited statement that he is unaware of having ever done theology except to serve the “improvement of life (nisi ut vitam emendarem).” Richard Nürnberger discusses this in MW, vol. 3 (Humanistische Schriften), pp. 9–12. However, Melancthon at the same time also hoped in the hereafter to receive insight into the “wondrous secrecies,” such as the unity of both natures in Christ, as we know from the well-known note which he had written shortly before his death and was found among his papers. See Kooiman: 1967, p. 167. 101 The Declamatiuncula in Divi Pauli doctrinam in MW, vol. 3 (Nürnberger ed.), pp. 26–53.

Melanchthon: Church Renewal through Visitation and Instruction

127

and outward sides of the Christian life are each assigned their own place, is in fact persistently present in everything Melanchthon had written since. For example, in 1522, he began a number of theses defended in Wittenberg with the statement that there are two regiments, ‘a spiritual and a corporal’. In the spiritual kingdom, only God’s Word can rule. In the other kingdom, one is allowed to retain ecclesiastical traditions, on the condition that they do not conflict with Scripture. This regnum corporale is one of the means with which those who do not possess the Spirit of God can be suppressed.102 In a German notebook on the Difference between Worldly and Christian Piety dating from around the same time, this distinction is further elaborated on and Melanchthon counts first and foremost among what he calls here ‘external piety’ the government’s military power, but then also the education of children: “External piety secondly consists in the education of children, as is prescribed by God, which we call pedagogy. Granted, this is not a spiritual piety but an external practice, which nevertheless was given to the parents by God, so that they would protect the children from scandalous sins. An example, to instill on children or uneducated people the habit to fast, pray, attend church, wear certain clothing, etc.”103 The new curriculum In his inaugural speech of 1518, Melanchthon was concerned with academic education, and in 1526, the school of Nuremberg was mainly intended to prepare for academic education. The school plan, however, which was created in light of the Saxon visitation in 1527 and included in the Instructions for the Visitors, rather intended to provide a comprehensvie comprising also elementary education, which in the cities and villages had until then been provided, under the auspices of the parish clergy, by a teacher in the person of a sexton or organist in his home.104 But before he, in his Instruction, disclosed his curriculum which was set up in this manner, he first provided a more specific motivation to impress on the preachers, whom he addresses, the importance of good education. Here we find the same topics that we already found in Luther and that had also been on the horizon on the oration he gave in 1526 at the opening ofthe Nuremberg school: the spiritual as well as the worldly regiment need adequate and well-educated 102 MW, vol. 1 (Stupperich ed.), pp. 168–170. 103 MW, vol. 1 (Stupperich ed.), pp. 171–175, quote p. 174. “Zum andern ist eusserlich Fromkeyt kinderzucht, von Gott gebotten, die man nennet paidagoogian, welche nicht Gottlich Fromkeyt ist, sundern ein eusserlich übung, yedoch von Gott bevolhen den eltern, das sie die kinder vor groben sunden bewaren. Als wenn man kinder oder grob leut zu fasten, zu betten, zu kirchen gehen, yn solchen kleydern zu gehn gewent.” 104 Arnhardt/ Reinert: 1997, p. 125 and pp. 138f; cf. p. 169: “Nicht zu übersehen ist das Verdienst der Reformation, die fast ausschliesslich privat betriebenen deutssprachigen Elementarschulen nach und nach in den Aufsichtsbereich der Obrigkeit der Städte und der ländlichen Gemeinden gebracht zu haben.”

128

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

leaders, and, in choosing a school, parents should not only have material interests in mind, but also must keep their eye on this higher interest. Next, as the first manual with which children should acquaint themselves, Melanchthon refers to “the children’s little manual” (der kinder handbüchlein) with which he apparently means the Enchiridion elementorum puerilium, which he had edited in 1523 and which includes the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and several prayers in Latin.105 Children were to learn to read with this book. Then follow the ‘Small Grammar’ of Aelius Donatus, which had been a medieval favourite, and the equally used Disticha Catonis.106 In the second class, children are expected to know how to read, and a central position of importance is attributed to grammar. In the third group, in which the students work their way toward an advanced academic education, first Terence and Plautus and then also the other Latin writers from classical antiquity are featured, namely Virgil, Ovid, and Cicero. Melanchthon was not the creator of a totally new curriculum, and also in his pedagogical pursuits and convictions that lie at its basis he was not alone in his time. To a certain extent, he was merely an exponent of the humanistic educational reform of the sixteenth century which was taking place all over Europe in the wake of the Reformation, but just as well in those territories that had remained Roman Catholic. Also his striving to make rulers and urban government increasingly responsible for education tied in with evolutions which had already started since the late Middle Ages. However, Melanchthon did devote himself to the realisation of this educational program with unstoppable energy and generally recognised authority. In this very critical period for the evolution of regular education in which the Saxon visitations took place, the formation of an administrative elite received new impulses that were much needed for the future of church and society – and in this Melanchthon’s accomplishments must be recognised. The first officially recognised evangelical confession and church order, combined with the first Protestant church and school visitations, were both to be not only of practical but also eminently theological importance for the continued existence of the evangelical movement. It provided a great stimulus as well for the creation of more unity in doctrine and life in the reform-minded territories of the German empire. And also exactly because of his search for a good balance between education, human improvement, and the new theological views on law and gospel, Melanchthon as Praeceptor Germaniae delivered a constructive contribution to the formation of many new generations in Europe. 105 See Wollersheim: 1997, p. 68. It came from the so-called schola privata which he organised in Wittenberg in 1521. 106 Aelius Donatus was a Roman teacher of rhetoric from around 350. His Ars grammatica was a popular textbook in the Middle Ages. The so-called Disticha Catonis is a collection of wise proverbs in the form of a rhyme, which in the medieval period was used during grammar education and has been attributed to Dionysius Cato from the third or fourth century.

Chapter 5. Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance

Introduction A debate that caused much turmoil in the early church was that concerning the matter of ‘second penance’.1 The question was whether and, if so, which sins of once-baptized Christians would still be eligible for forgiveness. There have always been strict factions in the church wishing either to exclude the possibility altogether or at least to subject it to maximal restrictions. Notwithstanding, this ‘second penance’ became an increasingly accepted practice across the church, and the entire, extensive ecclesiastical institution of penance has grown from it over the course of the ages. In the early church this still took the form of a public display of penance in the presence of the bishop, while in the medieval era the secrecy of auricular confession made its entrance through the monasteries and became common practice in the western church, until it was opposed and abandoned as a sacrament by the sixteenth-century Reformers. However, an important point which should not be forgotten is that the meaning of penance plays a much more profound role in Christian faith and life and stretches out much further than would seem to be suggested by the specific discussion over the ecclesiastical practice of penance and discipline that continues up until the present day. One might even state that the primary significance of the sixteenth-century Reformation and, more specifically, also of Melanchthon’s Instructions for the Visitors, lies in the very fact that the fundamental significance of penance was rediscovered in Christian doctrine as well as in the practice of the Christian life.

1 A brief survey can be found in Chadwick: 2001, pp. 688–693 (Penance) and Angenendt: 2005, pp. 626–630 (Die altkirchliche Busse). Karpp: 1969 provides original texts from the first three centuries and an extensive bibliography.

130

1

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

Luther’s turn and the sacrament of penance in the late 1510s

In 1517 Luther waged war on indulgences and opened his 95 theses with the statement that our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when he said ‘Repent!’, wished the entire life of his believers to be a matter of penance. This statement can be seen as an exponent of late medieval piety, which increasingly stressed the inner aspect of religious life as opposed to the church’s outward authority.2 According to Luther, people were misled by the Latin phrase ‘poenitentiam agere’ and interpreted it as a call for outward actio, rather than a total change of mind (mutatio affectus). To Staupitz he declared that this is what had made Tetzel’s indulgence preaching, in which none of this is mentioned and in which good works are only referred to as satisfaction (satisfactiones) with a view to the absolution of guilt, truly intolerable for him and what had raised serious doubts in him about the entire sacrament of penance.3 If we can here read in Luther’s words a radicalisation of a kind of late medieval piety, then this also applies in his attack on indulgences and, indirectly, on the church’s sacrament of penance to an explicit ‘theology of the cross (theologia crucis)’.4 The motive of hatred of the self is as we saw connected to that of the imitation of Christ: Christians must follow their Head “through penalties, death, and hell” and this is how they will “ascend to heaven through many tribulations”.5 In 1518, Luther elaborated on several issues in his Resolutiones. Thomas of Aquinas had already circumscribed inner penance as remorse (dolor) for a committed sin and Luther described a similar hatred of sin, though he added also ‘hatred of the self (odium sui)’ and the cross which should be borne in imitation of Christ.6 Luther thus closely ties the idea of a life-long ‘inner penance’ or penance as ‘virtue (virtus)’, as it was developed by scholastic theology, together with the ‘theology of the cross’, which, in the late Middle Ages, had been cultivated in monastic circles in the wake of Bernard of Clairvaux. By doing so, he indeed relativised the importance of the sacrament of penance, and in fact more even than Wessel Gansfort had done, although in his 95 theses he did not reject it yet.7 2 See Appendix 2. 3 In his 95 theses, Luther attacked the indulgence preachers for claiming that the pope grants remission for all sins, since the pope can only grant remission of punishments that he has imposed according to canon law (and thus not according to divine law). See ch. 1, n. 39. 4 See ch. 2, n. 7f. 5 See ch. 1, n. 40. 6 LW, vol. 1 (Conclusio II, Resolutiones), pp. 23f = WA 1, p. 531. See ch. 2, n. 40. 7 Between 1521 and 1523, more than 30 years after his death, the works of the Dutchman Wessel Gansfort appeared from the press, consecutively in Zwolle, Wittenberg, and Basel. As a recommendation for the publication of his work, Luther wrote: “If I had read this man earlier

Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance 131

Justification not by remorse, but by faith alone However, during the same years, Luther struck a completely different note when he commented on Staupitz’s remark that “true penance starts with love for God and for justice.” According to Luther, contritio, as it is traditionally described in this remark, no longer counts as the goal and climax of Christian piety. For this reason, in his sermon On penance which was published in Latin probably in 1518, he refers to the thesis (which he claims to hear frequently) that penance born out of love in itself procures the absolution of sin. He calls this a dark statement, which he himself has never completely understood. According to Luther, one should not trust one’s own remorseful life, but only the absolution granted to us by Christ, after which we finally learn that all are damned who do not believe that they have been freed from sin before they have assured themselves of having a sufficient degree of contritio. The result is that not contritio, but faith alone justifies us.8 Subsequently, from 1518 onwards, we see in Luther’s writings an increasing emphasis on faith, a faith that unconditionally entrusts itself to the promise we find in the sacrament. In the sermon On the sacrament of penance, delivered in German in 1519, he even distinguishes between the actual sacrament of penance on the one hand, which is said to comprise the Word of God in the form of absolution, our faith in this absolution, and the forgiveness of sins, and, on the other hand, penance itself, for which he provides the traditional tripartite distinction of remorse, confession, and satisfaction.9 And, in his famous 1520 tract On the Babylonian exile of the church, promise and faith have become the one and all not only for the Lord’s Supper and baptism, but also for penance. In this context, a contrast between law and gospel arises in Luther which will increasingly mark the whole of his theology.10 on, it could have appeared to my enemies that Luther drew everything from Wessel, this is how much we both breathe the same spirit.” Gansfort: 1966, p. 854. De Kroon: 2004, p. 65. 8 A recent edition of the Sermo de poenitentia can be found in Schilling: 2006, vol. 2, pp. 35– 51 = WA 1, pp. 319–324. For the references to Augustine, p. 42 = WA 1, p. 321, for those to Bernard of Clairvaux, p. 48 = WA 1, p. 323. Both examples are also mentioned in LW, vol. 1 (Conclusio IVof the Resolutiones), pp. 26f = WA 1, p. 534. On page 50 of the Sermo = WA 1, p. 324, we read that faith alone justifies us: Cum sola fides iustificet, et accedentem ad Deum oporteat credere. 9 LW, vol. 1, p. 182 = WA 2, p. 721. On the meaning of the three German sermons delivered in 1519 on penance, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, see: Bayer: 1989, p. 162, p. 167, p. 202, n. 27, and p. 254. For the precise role of Luther’s new view on the sacrament of penance in his “reformatory turn,” 164–202. For the sermon on penance, see also Rittgers: 2004, pp. 53– 58. On page 54, Rittgers states that Luther dismissed the traditional division of remorse, confession, and satisfaction, but this is not entirely true. This is indeed the case for the sacrament of penance, but not for penance itself. 10 For the significance of this topic in Luther’s theology, see: Ebeling: 1964, pp. 120–136. On page 120, Ebeling mentions a gradual transition from one pair of concepts (letter and Spirit) to another (law and gospel), in which the latter became increasingly normative. But, ac-

132

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

Again, Luther opposes those who are of the opinion that “in one moment of remorse” (i. e., the contritio brought about by the sacrament) “their lives have changed”, and insists that the main point should be the “killing of the flesh” in imitation of Christ. This is the same life-long penance from the first of the ninety-five theses, but in the meantime another motive has become dominant in the context of the Christian life: that of the certainty of salvation which is enclosed in the divine promise and on which our faith can fall back under any circumstance.11 The actual sacrament which ensures us of the divine promise and the forgiveness and absolution that come with it is, for Luther, no longer that of penance, but of baptism, which must govern the Christian’s entire life and which retains its power also if he falls back in sin. Luther strongly opposes the use of terms that describe penance as “the second rescue board after shipwreck”, which is his mind wrongly implies that sin can destroy the operation of baptism. On the contrary, it is baptism which should keep inciting us to true evangelical penance throughout our lives. From this moment onwards, the Christian life is for Luther fundamentally constituted by baptism, which from now on counts as the actual sacrament of penance.12 Considered against the background of medieval theology and practice, this conviction, which is repeated again in the Great Catechism of 1529, contains a radically innovating element concerning the view on infant baptism as well as that on penance and the Christian life as a whole. Furthermore, Luther restores to the locus de poenitentia the same place which it in fact had occupied since time immemorial, namely in the framework of the problem of sins committed after baptism, in which penance had always been closely connected to the fact of that baptism. Earlier on we already remarked that, like Augustine who could call penance a ‘daily baptism’ in one of his sermons, also Luther was able to use the exact same words in his Great Catechism to describe the Christian life as a whole.13 According to Luther, one is not a true Christian by virtue of one’s birth and, therefore, also not by virtue of infant baptism as a sacramental action in cording to him, this transition did not constitute a rupture, but “rather a ripening and consolidation, which had announced itself from the beginning.” See also Lohse: 1987, pp. 284–287 and Bayer : 2007, pp. 53–61. 11 In this regard, see the aforementioned study of Oswald Bayer, Promissio. 12 The fact that baptism is the actual sacrament of penance and that the latter should not be seen as a “second rescue board” is argued by Luther in De captivitate at the beginning of his discussion of baptism, see Beyer : 209, vol. 3, pp. 252–262 = WA 6, pp. 526–530 and Impeta: 1959, pp. 55–60. 13 LW, vol. 4, pp. 87f = WA 30/1, pp. 220f. Later on the Heidelberg Catechism was to distinguish (LD 33, q. 88) between the mortification of the old man and the coming to life of the new as the two most prominent elements of the Christian life, although in the original German text speaks about “the true penance or conversion of man (die wahrhaftige busz oder bekerung des menschen).” NBG, p. 200. For the distinction between conversio actualis prima and conversio cotidiana, see ch. 2, n. 6.

Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance 133

itself, but because one consciously accepts the promise enclosed in this baptism and thus obeys the gospel.

2

Melanchthon’s corrective addendum to Luther

The teaching of justification by faith alone turned out to be susceptible to misunderstandings, and not infrequently gave rise to an erroneous sense of carelessness and false security. At the beginning of the fourth section of the chapter on ‘justification and faith’ in his Loci from 1521, Melanchthon points our attention to the feeling of trust in God’s mercy and promise, placing more stress now on the remorseful and agitated conscience which will allow us to receive peace and consolation through our faith in Christ.14 In November 1527, Luther came up with a compromise for retaining unity among his followers. He revised a passage from the first article of Melanchthon’s Instructions for the Visitors by making a distinction between particular faith on the one hand, which justifies and through which forgiveness is obtained, and, on the other, general faith, also subsuming penance and law, which does not justify. In this way, Luther was able to create some room for those with a dissenting view on penance. From these discussions, the so-called Antinomian Controversy was to ensue later on (1537–1540), which was in fact the largest conflict within the Protestant camp apart from the Lord’s Supper controversy. For the development of the evangelical movement, Melanchthon’s handbook turned out to be not only of importance for the practical constitution of the church, but it also had great theological influence. Melanchthon stressed that the so-called usus theologicus legis, which is the function of the law that produces knowledge of sin, simply cannot be denied.15 Melanchthon’s Instruction formed, as has already been said, the basis of Lutheran Protestantism, of the new literary genre of confessional writings, and of Protestant church orders. The central topics discussed in this sermon manual are: penance and confession, faith and good works, justification, baptism, Eucharist and the use of sacraments, government, freedom, and free will.16 Almost every subject is discussed within the broader context of the search for alternatives to the existing penance and confession system of the established church, 14 UdV, art. 2, 3, 7 and 9. Cf. AV, art. 3. Andresen: 1980f, vol. 2, pp. 39–43. Lohse: 1995, pp. 195–198. 15 In Melanchthon and Calvin the law plays a denouncing, punishing, and renewing role. See Speelman: 2013, p. 254, n. 29. 16 The topics of prayer, trials, excommunication, the superintendent, the fight against the Turks, and marriage are discussed separately in the Instruction, but they pertain to doctrine more indirectly.

134

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

whose foundation was provided by canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. The necessity of preaching penance and law The Reformers sought to rid confession of its coercive side.17 However, this at the same time implied for someone like Melanchthon the necessity of preaching penance and law seriously. This can be illustrated by the first article on faith. For how can someone come to a true, living faith (that is, “how does the heart apprehend faith?”) – how else except through God, who “in his compassion instills awe into the heart and makes a person fear the judgment,” that is, in other words, through penance or remorse? Faith starts acting upon one’s heart once that person hears and accepts the gospel of the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ.18 Melanchthon warned that many err when they think and say that they believe. Time and again, Melanchthon stressed that, due to the threatening attacks of Satan, the fear of God must first carefully descend into the heart and be instilled on it.19 People only come to faith after they have “first believed that there is a God, who threatens, commands, and instills fear.”20 For this, a true knowledge of God and ourselves is of prime importance. In this context, emphatic attention was to be placed on the law of God in order to replace in a certain sense the confessional books which had enabled medieval man to distinguish between good and evil and to recognise his sins. Much of Melanchthon’s article on prayer was devoted to impressing the Ten Commandments on the preachers. And, as many as four times we encounter a brief catalogue of virtues and sins.21 Furthermore, Melanchthon remarked that the entire Decalogue had to be treated regularly from the pulpit.22 This is how the consciences are called to repentance, and, through repentance, to faith and Christian righteousness. This was a necessary alternative to the penitential preaching and confession literature of the

17 BSLK, pp. 725–726. 18 AV, art. 1. Cf. for Calvin OS 1, p. 382. 19 AV, art. 1, 5 and 6. Cf. UdV, art. 2. In his foreword to the CA from 1530, he repeatedly writes to the emperor that the question concerns the appropriation of salvation, “how one is to attain mercy and forgiveness of sins.” BSLK, p. 38. 20 UdV, art. 1. 21 UdV, art. 3. Cf. UdV, art. 6, 7 and 10. Melanchthon had a broad understanding of the Decalogue. Later on Melanchthon would call the teaching of Moses another term for “the general law of nature” and “the eternal law (lex aeterna)” or “moral law (lex moralis).” CR 23 (in 1554 in Latin), 85. MW, vol. 6 (in 1552 in German), p. 185. Cf. Speelman: 2013, p. 121, n. 27. In the early modern era more emphasis was placed on the Decalogue as a replacement for the many medieval catalogues of virtues and sins. Luther, for example, deliberately placed his discussion of the law at the beginning of his catechism, which was different from what people were used to. 22 AV, Introduction and art. 4.

Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance 135

medieval period23, since otherwise church goers would develop a wrongful sense of security and erroneously presume that they “possessed the justification of faith, because they do not know that faith can only be present in those who have remorseful hearts because of the law.”24 Apart from most theological issues, which contributed little to true piety, Melanchthon in his visitation articles focused on the most necessary matters that were to be taught in the church. In his most central thesis, which he subsequently elaborated on in the other articles, he pleaded movingly for the necessity of penance or penitence, which is inherently connected to faith and must in fact precede it. The shepherds of the soul, as he remarked, prognosticate much about faith, but “what faith is cannot be understood without penance having been preached. It is clear that those who pour new wine into old wineskins, who preach faith without penance, without the teaching of God’s fear, without the teaching of the law and in this way accustom the masses to a security that can be called ‘carnal’. This security is worse than all the errors that occurred under the pope.”25

In this way, according to Melanchthon, a wrong sense of having arrived was encouraged among church goers.26 In order to break through this, Melanchthon attempted to achieve a productive tension between faith and obedience, between a life lived out of justification in Christ and the pious Christian life. According to him, the core issues in preaching involved penance, the fear of God, faith, and good works.27 Hence, in his Articles from 1527 and, shortly thereafter, in his Instructions for the Visitors, we see Melanchthon take a highly significant turn which seems even to boil down to the rehabilitation of ‘first penance’. In the old church, this ‘first penance’ had always been the gate through which one entered the Christian faith from a pagan past. For that reason, the law had to be placed in the foreground, as well as the temporary and eternal punishments with which God threatens sinners. When God thus “instills awe into the heart and makes a person fear the judgment,” fertile soil is being prepared for the comfort which is then offered in

23 See Speelman: 2010, ch. 4: The papal confession decree of 1215, and ch. 5: Penance and Confession in de Middle Ages, pp. 127–234. 24 AV, art. 15. Cf. UdV, art. 12. 25 AV, introduction and UdV, art. 1. On the tensions surrounding the content of the new doctrine, see also Geyer: 1965 (Probleme aus den Anfängen der Theologie Melanchthons). 26 Compare this to Luther in his foreword to the Great Catechism of 1529, in which he warns for “the secret contagion with self-assurance and self-satisfaction,” which causes many to believe that they know the Christian doctrine, while in fact they are “self-satisfied and audacious saints.” BSLK, p. 547 and p. 551. 27 UdV, art. 1 and 12.

136

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

the preaching of the gospel.28 Penance therefore precedes faith, just like the preaching of the law also precedes the preaching of the gospel. Yet this ‘first penance’ in Melanchthon hardly stands on its own. The reason is that also those who have responded to the preaching of the gospel must endure penance in the sense of the ‘killing of the flesh’ and the ‘mortification of the old man’. This is why the commandments must be impressed on the hearers time and time again. Also the cross, which touches Christians in their lives, serves to incite them to do penance, so that the oppression which they must suffer can count as “part of the instruction of the law” and as a punishment imposed upon them because of their sins.29 In addition, Melanchthon, despite the stress he places on the fear of divine judgment and punishment, does not teach the same attritionism as medieval theology. In the section on ‘the fear of God’, he distinguishes between ‘servile fear’ (timor servilis), which he finds in James 2: 19 and which only shudders at the judgment but does not believe in forgiveness, and the ‘filial fear’ (timor filialis), in which the fear of God and faith in forgiveness again and again go hand in hand.30 This last issue, the dialectic of law and gospel, is therefore crucial, not only for the ‘first penance’ which must prepare the outsider for the preaching of the gospel, but also for the ‘second penance’, which places a permanent mark on the Christian life from beginning to end. But the church visitations led to large numbers of people, who had previously been counted as Christians, being addressed in the first instance as unbelievers and outsiders, who first had to be prepared for the preaching of the gospel through the preaching of the law and the call for repentance. This penance preaching, as Melanchthon had sketched it in his Articles, undeniably placed great emphasis on the fear of punishment. ‘Evangelical freedom’ under threat Therefore, when Melanchthon’s Articles became more widely known over the course of 1527, first in manuscript form and later also in their printed version, it is of no surprise that they evoked opposition in John Agricola, a theologian from Eisleben who had also become active as a preacher there, and who considered himself a loyal student of Luther. A letter from Luther to Agricola, dated 31 August of the same year, reveals that the latter had already complained to him that Melanchthon, in his position as church visitor as well as by the Articles he had composed, harmed the ‘evangelical freedom’, or, as he called it, the ‘freedom 28 AV, art. 1. 29 AV, art. 2. 30 AV, art. 6: De timore Dei. Cf. CR 21 (Loci 1535), pp. 409–491 and UdV, art. 1 (Luther’s distinction between a fear-based faith and justifying faith). Melanchthon does not mean a purely physical fear, but “a fear that God himself was working in us”, that is, “out of love for justice.” To receive the real timor filialis is usually a life-long process.

Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance 137

of the consciences’. After all, Melanchthon had failed to urge caution upon those preachers who lashed out all too fiercely against the papacy, and it also seemed to Agricola that Melanchthon’s emphasis on penance announced a return to the mother church of Rome. Luther diplomatically replied that ‘evangelical freedom’ must indeed not be harmed, but that the work of visitation was too important to subject it to all kinds of criticism at this early stage.31 Notwithstanding, Agricola must have expressed his objections to a broader audience in a manuscript work,32 since in a letter to the Nuremberg rector Joachim Camerarius (1500–1574) from 23 October 1527, Melanchthon complains about the ‘tragedies’ which his small booklet has brought about, while it was actually only meant to serve as a children’s catechism and printed without his prior knowledge. In a letter to Justus Jonas (1493–1555), Melanchthon reports on the Torgau conference (26–27 November 1527), and specifically on his view on penance and Christian freedom in Instructions to Preachers and Agricola’s criticism on these issues, and he elaborates on the reproach that he had not been anti-Roman Catholic enough. Melanchthon writes that he could not bear the one-sided criticisms on the monks. Furthermore, he only wished to advance peace, also with Agricola, who, however, refused to accept his outstretched hand. “This I have written to you frankly, with a view to reaching peace with him, more than I have ever spoken to any man.” This last phrase reveals something of the im-

31 For this letter : LW, vol 6 (Hans Rückert: 1933), p. 189f = WA Br 4, nr. 1138 Luther to Agricola, 31 August 1527, pp. 241ff. It is interesting that Luther, similar to what we see in Erasmus more than once and what he himself argues in On Secular Authority, is of the opinion, with reference to Paul, that the ‘spiritual man’ is allowed to restrict his ‘evangelical freedom’ in favor of the ‘weak’, but that one should not yield to tyranny (in this case, to the papal tyranny). Apparently Melanchthon was suspected of having taken this too far. This suspicion is also reflected in a letter quoted by Rückert, op. cit., p. 200, n. 3, which Luther received from the elector on 30 September 1527. In his letter to Agricola, Luther concludes with the complaint that the insight “that Christ is our righteousness” apparently surpasses the apprehension of “the world and reason”: people thus continue to turn to ‘works’. This would be supported by his experiences during the church visitation. 32 In his letter to Justus Jonas from 20 December 1527, MW, vol. 7/2 (Hans Volz: 1975, Briefe 1527–1530), nr. 122, pp. 38–45, p. 40, Melanchthon mentions a ‘scriptum’. Apparently this concerns the same criticism (censura) that had already been mentioned in his letter to Camerarius of 23 October (Briefe, nr. 29) and that, in the meantime, was said to have been spread all over Germany by Agricola (Briefe, nr. 39). It is unclear how Timothy Wengert: 1997, p. 116, can claim that this refers to Agricola’s catechism, published in 1527 (130 Fragestücke). For the preceding correspondence with Caspar Aquila regarding the visitation articles, see Wengert, op. cit., pp. 104–110. In it also the “moderation (moderatio)” concerning the ‘evangelical freedom’, as proposed by Melanchthon, is discussed, as well as the suspicion of a return to Rome, which was raised by this moderation as well as by Melanchthon’s traditional tripartite division of poenitentia into remorse, confession, and satisfaction. See also Appendix 1.

138

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

portance of the letter!33 In his conference report, Melanchthon also briefly referred to the Articles and his dispute with Agricola. “The book was read (aloud) and the first discussion concerned the issue of penance. While the others saw nothing wrong with it, Agricola claimed that my booklet was in conflict with Scripture and with Luther’s theses. According to him, Luther taught that penance must start with the love for justice. And also in Jonah it reads: “they believed and repented.” And in the gospel: “Repent in my name”, not in the name of Moses or an irate judge. This is what Agricola’s argument came down to. I briefly answered that feelings of fear should govern the emotions prior to justification, and that in this fear it is difficult to distinguish between love for justice (amor iustitiae) and the fear for punishment (timor poenarum), especially since I had not spoken of a feigned penance, but of feelings of fear which arose by divine providence. Agricola agreed, but said that repentance should commence with faith in the (divine) threat. By making these precise distinctions, he thus discredited a friend and got him into trouble. I answered that feelings of fear could not be distinguished from faith in the (divine) threat, for indeed, what does the joining of faith with threat mean other than fear?”34

For Melanchthon, true penance arises from the fear of God and the love for God’s justice. However, Agricola talked of Melanchthon’s theological knowledge with disdain, as if the latter was wholly ignorant of all these subtle medieval distinctions, “while after all, I have spent so many years among theologians.” But, as Melanchthon remarks, Luther ended the dispute: “He (Luther) deemed it apt to give the name of faith to the faith that justifies and that comforts us in those feelings of fear, and to interpret penance correctly as a general faith. Here you (Jonas) have the whole dispute recounted in its most elementary form. After this, he (Agricola) did not formulate any further reproaches regarding anything else from my book, although during breakfast he reproached me privately for proclaiming that the Decalogue should be taught, seeing that we have been liberated from the law and therefore no longer fall under the demands of the Decalogue, but under the prescriptions in the letters of Paul. But to this I answered that these prescriptions coincide exactly with the Decalogue and that in the practice of instruction they could easily be understood as the Decalogue, even more so because Christ explained and taught the Decalogue. But he disagreed that the example of Christ related to us, because it was the Jews Christ had been teaching. Oh, how clever can a person be!”35 33 MW, vol. 7/2, nr. 122, p. 44. 34 MW, vol. 7/2, nr. 122, p. 41. Already on 10 December 1527, the day his eldest daughter was born, Luther had reported to Jonas on the events in Torgau from two weeks earlier (26–29 November). WA 4, nr. 1180, pp. 294–297. 35 MW, vol. 7/2, nr. 122 (letter from Melanchthon to Jonas, 20 December 1527), pp. 41–42. The correspondence concerning the dispute with Agricola, which we have discussed in chapter 4, is limited and one-sided. The only details we have of Agricola’s view in those days comes from what others, and in particular Melanchthon, tell us about it. I refer to his letter to Spalatin from 21 October 1527, to Camerarius from 23 October 1527, to Agricola from the beginning of November, four letters to Aquila from November, and the letter to Jonas from 20

Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance 139

It thus appears that Melanchthon knew of the existence of Agricola’s polemical pamphlet, but further on in the aforementioned letter to Justus Jonas from 20 December of that year, he declares that he has so far not laid his eyes on it personally and that he is not very curious about it either. Notwithstanding, it would seem that he had a good knowledge of its argument, because in several of his letters from this period (and among them the two mentioned above) he enters into the matter in detail. Time and again Agricola’s reproach returns that he, allegedly, had inflicted damage upon the ‘evangelical freedom’ and that with his position as visitor and his booklet he had paved the way for a return to the church of Rome. According to Agricola, Melanchthon had tainted the “purity of the evangelical doctrine.” For, while Melanchthon had penance precede faith and arise from the fear of punishment, Luther had taught that penance commences with ‘love for justice’ and, instead of preceding faith, penance was for him rather the fruit of faith. And did the Scripture itself not state in Jonah 3:5: “They believed and did penance”?36 Agricola appears here to reproach his adversary for teaching a pure attritionism, in contrast to the contritionism that, especially after the aforementioned intervention of John Staupitz, had always been Luther’s point of departure in his statements on penance and confession. And in the preaching of the law as well as in the proclamation of the gospel, it is, of course, God himself who addresses them. Indeed, as Melanchthon states, this concerns a fear that is inspired in the sinner by God himself, and not a pure ‘natural fear’, which, in the end, concerns only man himself. But before a person is ready for the true timor filialis, that is to say, before he has learned to love God ‘for himself ’ and not ‘because of the punishment’, this usually takes a lifetime and the issues in question usually simply surpass the understanding of ordinary people.37 This is why, according to Melanchthon, without meaning to defend attritio explicitly in the sense of ‘servile fear’, it is better to start by preaching December 1527, which we have cited here. CR 1, nrs. 471, 486, 487, 478, 479 and CR 4, nrs. 480b, c and d. 36 MW, vol. 7/2, nr. 122, p. 41. 37 In almost exactly the same formulation we read in his letter to Agricola from the end of October 1527, as well as in his letter to Aquila from the beginning of November of the same year, that people are late to arrive (sero eo pervenire) at loving God for himself. MW, vol. 7/2, p. 36 and n. 11. Karl Holl has drawn attention to a remarkable passage in Augustine’s De catechizandis rudibus 27. Holl: 1932, vol. 1, p. 205 n. 1. There Augustine writes that it is the advanced Christian who has learned to love God more than he fears hell (“[…] qui etiam proficiendo perveniet ad talem animum, ut plus amet deum, quam timeat gehennam”). Holl’s interpretation of Luther is rigorously Kantian, and in it any pursuit of happiness is regarded as absolutely inferior. This is possibly why Holl believes that Luther, when he says about those who love God out of their desire for heaven or fear of hell that their love is actually not directed at God but at themselves, is actually attacking Augustine. Both Luther and Melanchthon, like many other medieval theologians, in fact made a gradual transition from the one to the other through Augustine.

140

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

God’s judgment, while also after ‘justification’ or ‘vivification’, that is to say, after one has received the consolation of the gospel, an entire life will be spent in reaching the ‘killing of the flesh’ and the true renewal of life, in which one will love God only for himself.38 This is why it leaves Melanchthon unaffected that, as he writes to Camerarius, he had, according to Agricola, placed too much emphasis on the preaching of the law.39 As we learn from a later letter, Agricola had wanted him to insist more on the “prescriptions of Paul”, because the Decalogue, even though Christ had preached it himself, was in his view only intended for the Jews.40 For Melanchthon, in contrast, there is no essential difference between the Decalogue and the prescriptions of Paul. But, Melanchthon says in reply to Agricola, I never referred to a purely human fear, but rather intended a fear that is inspired in us by God and that strictly speaking indeed should ensue from the ‘love for justice’.41 Therefore, Melanchthon does in fact wish to hold on to contritio.42 Yet what we see happening at the same time is that, within the framework of the new debate which had arisen from Luther’s doctrine, these intricacies lose their actual relevance. The issue no longer concerns Christians who, in order to receive the sacrament, need to give evidence of perfect or imperfect remorse in the confessional chair, but rather it concerns outsiders, who need to be prepared for the comfort of the gospel by means of the preaching the law. Time and time again Melanchthon emphasises in his Articles as well as in the Instruction that faith without penance only produces carelessness and a false sense of security. This is why, in the practice of the ecclesiastical life, the preaching of penance must precede that of faith, wholly in the spirit of the order defended by Luther, in which the law first frightens the conscience and the gospel then offers consolation. When Agricola attacks this by referring to Luther’s earlier use of the medieval definition of ‘perfect sorrow’ (as he had appropriated it in the context of the debates over the sacrament of penance), which ensues 38 39 40 41

See ch. 6, n. 10. MW, vol. 7/2: Briefe, nr. 119, Melanchthon to Camerarius, 23 October 1527, pp. 28–33, p. 30. MW, vol. 7/2: Briefe, nr. 122, p. 42. MW, vol. 7/2: Briefe, nr. 121, p. 36. According to one medieval prespective, the “servile fear” connected to attritio meant that man was concerned only with his own fate and not with God himself. In that instance, only a fear of punishment remains. It is also remarkable that Thomas Aquinas: 1886, vol. 3, q. LXXXV, art. V, describes the origin of poenitentia in such a way that first of all there is an “effect of God that converts the heart.” Then a “movement of faith (motus fidei)” follows from the side of man, and thereafter also a “movement of servile fear (motus timoris servilis).” The next is “the act of love (motus charitatis),” and then “filial fear (motus timoris filialis)” follows. Here too ‘servile fear’, the fear of punishment (timor suppliciorum), is both the result of an operation of God and subordinate to ‘faith’! 42 See ch. 2, n. 57.

Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance 141

from the “love for justice” and therefore presupposes faith, both Luther and Melanchthon consider this to be no more than an unfruitful scholastic battle over words,43 and, as Melanchthon writes to Justus Jonas in the aforementioned letter, Luther settled the debate with a compromise formula during the Torgau conference of 26–27 November 1527.44 After the church visitation, Luther and Melanchthon were rather concerned to keep all emphasis on the familiar concepts of ‘penance’, ‘commandments’, the ‘law of God’ and ‘God’s fear’, especially because of and for the ordinary people, who were simply unable to grasp Agricola’s theological subtleties, so that, precisely against this background, they might form a clearer understanding of the ‘faith that justifies and takes away sin’, compared to which ‘general faith’ is just a flimsy shadow. From then on, the dialectic of law and gospel would provide the foundation for the whole of Lutheran theology.

3

The influence of Luther and Melanchthon on Calvin

Sharing in the sweetness of the gospel As he writes to his teacher John Staupitz (c. 1460–1524) in 1518, for Luther penance had become a wonderful and sweet reality : “While in the past almost the whole Scripture contained no more bitter word than poenitentia, now to me there is nothing that sounds sweeter and lovelier than poenitentia.”45 Due to the tension between the proclamation of the evangelical freedom and obedience to 43 In his letter to Camerarius from 23 October 1527 Melanchthon writes that “piety (pietas)” has little to gain from these kinds of controversies. MW, vol. 7/2: Briefe, nr. 119, p. 31. On 17 October of the same year, Luther describes it as a “battle over words” to Melanchthon, to which he attaches little value, especially for ordinary people. LW, vol 6 (Rückert ed.), p. 204 = WA Br 4, pp. 271f. On 10 December 1527 Luther writes to Justus Jonas that the entire difference of opinion discussed at Torgau “hardly meant anything.” LW, vol 6 (Rückert ed.), p. 227 = WA Br 4, p. 295. Wengert: 1997, p. 116, correctly opposes the idea that this would mean that Luther at that time did not yet understand the significance of the controversy with Agricola. Wengert believes, however, that Luther merely meant to belittle Agricola, but this is unlikely. In reality, especially in Melanchthon, but also in Luther, the point is to keep a certain distance from such subtle scholastic distinctions. And in this case the views really were not all that different. 44 MW, vol. 7/2: Briefe, nr. 122 to Jonas, 20 December 1527, pp. 41f. Cf. UdV, art. 1. 45 Earlier on he wrote: “I remember, honorable father,” how we have heard you say like a voice from heaven “that there is no true poenitentia, except for that which begins with love for justice and God. And that this is rather the beginning of poenitentia, while they consider it the end and completion.” WA Br 1, Luther to Staupitz, 30 May 1518, 525–527. Cf. MC 1, n. 3 and Leppin, Martin Luther, 83. In this flashback Luther also extensively elaborates on the difference between the Latin poenitentia and the Greek metanoia. Cf. UdV, art. 7, Inst. 3.3.5f and, below, Calvin on not partaking in the sweetness of God’s mercy and forgiveness along the way of penitence; see e. g., OS 1, p. 41, p. 78 and p. 92.

142

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

the law, it had become clear that it was not without danger to preach God’s sweet mercy in Christ alone, without, in following the example of Christ, first preaching the law of the Old and New Testament and penance.46 Scholars commonly agree that the Lutheran view, more precisely as it was expressed in the Small Catechism of 1529, provided the point of departure for the first edition of Calvin’s Institutio religionis christianae of 1536. Preceding the discussion of faith, which is mainly characterised as a hope and firm confidence directed to God and Christ, is the discussion of the law, which, under God’s guidance, should bring us to true self-knowledge by means of a ‘non-feigned penance’. And this law keeps on accusing us throughout our lives, so that we must constantly continue to resort to the forgiveness of sins. But does, in this first edition, penance really precede faith? Already in the first edition of his Institutes, Calvin underwrites the opposition drawn by Melanchthon between an ‘evangelical penance’47 that brings the sinner to the comfort of the gospel, and a penance that is made up of attritio alone and therefore leads to desperation, and that both Calvin and Melanchthon illustrate with the characters of king Saul and Judas. Although in these matters Calvin follows the Lutheran viewpoint, he does not do so when the very division of penance is concerned, constituted on the one hand by sorrow over and knowledge of sin, and, on the other, by faith and the forgiveness of sins, as it can be found in Melanchthon’s Instruction and, consequently, also in article 12 of the Augsburg Confession.48 In Calvin’s opinion, penance and faith cannot be separated, but they still can be distinguished from one another. First comes penance, which Calvin here describes as the putting to death of the old man (mortificatio), and next comes faith, which brings us the forgiveness of sins and 46 See n. 15 above. The young Calvin justified himself as follows: “And […] as long as they dwell in the prison of their body, thus repeatedly and persistently they obtain that repentance. Not because their repentance is thus deserved, but it seemed good to the Lord, to show himself in this order to men that after they have divested themselves of all arrogance through recognition of their own poverty, have wholly cast themselves down, and have plainly become worthless to themselves, then at long last they may begin to taste the sweetness of the mercy which the Lord holds out to them in Christ. When this is perceived, they will recover their breath and take comfort, securely assuring themselves in Christ both of forgiveness of sins and of blessed salvation. On the other hand, those who do not strive by these steps to God will never attain this forgiveness of sins, which is the hinge of salvation.” OS 1, p. 92; see also OS 1, p. 41 and p. 78. The heading of paragraph 11 of Calvin’s 1536 catechism reads: “That the law is a step to get to Christ.” OS 1, p. 389. 47 For the influence of Martin Bucer with regard to terminology (poenitentia evangelica versus poenitentia legalis), see Schwarz: 1968, pp. 313f. 48 UdV, art. 7; BSLK, pp. 66f. In his Loci theologici from 1559, Melanchthon circumscribes poenitentia as “conversion to God (conversio ad Deum),” and divides this conversion into contritio and fides, which could be followed by the “new obedience” as a third part. As he had already stated, he does not wish to argue over terminology. See MW, vol. 7/2, pp. 541f.

Melanchthon’s Contribution to Innovating the Evangelical Understanding of Penance 143

‘vivification (vivificatio)’.49 In the first as well as in the later editions of the Institutes, we learn that the whole content of the gospel consists of two parts: penance and the forgiveness of sins. However, from 1539 onwards, Calvin precedes his discussion of penance by a section in which he seems to explicitly deny that penance precedes faith. Then we learn that those who defend this claim take the words of Matt 3: 2 and 4: 17 much too literally and do not pay attention to the context. After all, Jesus calls us to repentance exactly because the kingdom of God, that is to say, the forgiveness of sins, has come near. This means that no one can apply himself to penance without having first received grace. Penance, as he states, is the fruit of faith and therefore does not precede it.50 Should we understand from this that Calvin explicitly contradicts Melanchthon here? Presumably we will have to read Calvin’s discussion here in light of what he also argues in his commentary on Acts 20: 21 from 1554.51 There he remarks that penance is indeed brought up by Paul before faith, but that this does not mean that it precedes faith as a whole. This applies only to the beginning, i. e., the discontentment with ourselves which, when the fear of God’s wrath has come over us, urges us to seek his mercy. In all other cases, penance comes from faith and is its fruit. Here Calvin does recognise that there is a penance that precedes faith, but of crucial importance to him is the penance that determines the Christian life itself and consists of the mortification of sin (mortificatio) and the related renewal of life (vivificatio). This penance can only come from faith. It remains indisputable, however, that Calvin, unlike Melanchthon, for whom law and gospel always remained the leading motive, places greater emphasis on penance than on the sanctification of life which is born in communion with Christ and brought about by the Holy Spirit. Thus he states in his Institutes that ‘vivification’ consists not only in ‘consolation’ (consolatio) and the resulting joy, but also in the dedication to reach a holy and pious life which follows from regeneration.52 This is why one should deny oneself and dedicate one’s life to the service of God. Although Calvin places other accents than Melanchthon does, in his criticism of moral prescriptions apart from faith and regeneration, he seems to be concerned more with the penance preachers (whom he later on condemns in his commentary on Acts in their medieval manifestation) than specifically with Melanchthon’s theology. Where the latter is the case, as in the aforementioned passage from the Institutes (3.3.3), he assumes a much more moderate tone. Also when in book 3.3.5 Lutheran convictions are explicitly corrected, we hear that they remain correct 49 Maarten den Dulk incorrectly believes that Calvin, in 1536, had “lifted the concept of fides from the definition (of Melanchthon) and put it first.” Den Dulk: 1987, p. 34. 50 Calvin, Institutes 3.3.1 and 2 = CO 2, pp. 434f = OS 4, pp. 55f. 51 Recent edition of Feld: 2001 (Opera exegetica 12/2). 52 Inst. 3.3.3 (1536).

144

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

when taken in themselves, but that (according to Calvin) faith still should not be considered to be a part of penance. This does not alter the fact that Calvin, as we have seen before, fully remains in line with Melanchthon’s Instructions for the Visitors, when he explicitly ensures us, in the same context, that faith and penance should not be separated from each other and that without faith true penance is impossible. The Reformation as a protest against a sacramentally isolated penance Although there proved to be unmistakable differences between Luther and Melanchthon where penance was concerned, between the two of them and Agricola, and also between Melanchthon and Calvin, when considered as a whole, the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, should, in the history of church and theology, mainly be viewed as a protest against the manner in which the medieval church had attempted to gain increasing control over the Christian life through the sacrament of penance. Initially this was achieved by Luther’s ninety-five theses which freed up, as it were, penance from the sacramental isolation in which it had fallen, and restored its position at the center of everyday life. The Christian life was to be a life of constant penance. Therefore, in relation to Christ, the old man must be put to death (mortificatio) and the new man must come to life (vivificatio). Calvin does not want this vivification to be exhausted in justification by faith and in the consolation received through the absolution of the gospel, but he connects it also to the sanctification brought about by the Holy Spirit. However, in the end, these are all issues of terminology and difference in accent. What matters is that penance now bears on the renewal of life, born from faith, and that it has definitely been released from the clutch of the medieval sacrament of penance. Instead, as had been the case in the early church, penance was once again connected to baptism. Luther, ever since his work On the Babylonian exile from 1520, and in his wake also Calvin, beginning with the first edition of his Institutes in 1536, even mark baptism, in which we receive the promise and absolution of the gospel, as the actual sacrament of penance.53 Throughout his life, a Christian should revert to the forgiveness and renewal of life he received at baptism, even and precisely when he falls back in sin. In this view there is no longer room for a ‘second penance’, or a ‘second rescue board after shipwreck’, as medieval theologians had phrased it following Jerome. In fact, penance for the Reformers became the name of the Christian life as it has already been constituted by baptism and faith. But it appears that what brought them to give to penance such a prominent place in the Christian life was not their attachment to the late medieval awareness of sin and the accompanying fear of judgment, but rather their battle against the medieval sacrament of penance. 53 OS 1, p. 202. Cf. CO 2, p. 964 = Inst. 4.15.4 (1559). See also n. 12.

Chapter 6. Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence: Daily Practices of Life and Death

The Reformers on the whole considered the pastor to be responsible for the fate or salvation of the members of his congregation through the administration of the Word and the sacraments. The reform of the church was of great impact for the first generations of evangelical Christians in the sixteenth century, especially in matters pertaining to the certainty of forgiveness and eternal life. In the beginning in particular, the existing state was one of chaos, confusion, and even crisis. How should one now live and die? Where should one confess and meet God? In the medieval period, the church had been the micro-manager for each person’s life from birth to death; in the Reformation period, however, people were thrown back on themselves, and placed directly “before God’s throne of judgment (coram Dei tribunali).”1 And because human beings never completely fulfil their duty towards God, “we all deserve his curse, judgment, in short, eternal death.”2 It was only through the grace of God in Christ that someone could gain eternal life.3 But how does one receive reconciliation and peace with God for both time and eternity? The Reformers attempted to explain the new doctrines to the people, translating theory into daily practices. In 1524, for example, Luther translated into German a well-known medieval hymn entitled Media vita in morte sumus (“In the midst of life we are in death”; Luther’s famous version begins with ‘Mitten wir im Leben

1 OS 1, p. 469. 2 OS 1, pp. 37–40. 3 The foundation of our life and salvation is: “that by his death we are redeemed from the condemnation of death (a mortis damnatione) and freed from ruin, that we have been adopted unto him as sons and heirs by the Father (adoptati a patre), that we have been reconciled to the Father through his blood (reconciliati), that, by the Father given unto his protection, we may never perish or fall, that thus engrafted into him (inserti) we are already, in a manner, partakers of eternal life (vita aeterna), having entered the Kingdom of God (in regnum Dei) through hope.” OS 1, p. 63 = CO 1, p. 51.

146

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

sind’), a plea to God which sings of death, human misery (hominis de miseria), and the compassion of the Saviour (misericors Salvator).4 Three years later, in The Instructions for preachers5, Melanchthon stipulated that this Lutheran hymn on life and death should be taken up in funeral services. Furthermore, the Dutch poet Klaas Heeroma (alias Muus Jacobse) went on to adapt this song for the mystery of Holy Communion: Surrounded by death/ we are alive/ because Someone breaks the bread/ to live with us/ in death. Death is in our blood/ death facing us/ but He gives us courage/ that we might live/ with death in our blood. That from death/ we might rise to live/ eating from the bread/ that He gave us/ in death. Lamp for our feet/ light for our eyes/ give us courage/ with death facing us/ with death in our blood. Jesus, from death/ you rose to live/ be our bread/ that we might live in you/ surrounded by death. Be our wine/ that we might drink of you/ Be our pain/ that we might fall into you/ that we might be in you.6

In this chapter, I would like to draw attention to two issues related to the theme of preparation for death. These two issues were crucial in the Reformations initiated in Wittenberg and Geneva: the role and experience of penance and the Eucharist in the daily religious practices connected to the new teachings. The ‘continuous penance’ with which Luther initiated the Reformation in 1517 was repeated by Calvin, who described the resurrection of the Lord as a daily ‘dying of the old’ and simultaneously as the ‘revival of the new’ in every 4 Media vita in morte sumus; quem quaerimus adjutorem, nisi te Domine, qui pro peccatis nostris juste irasceris? Sancte Deus, sancte fortis, sancte et misericors Salvator, amarae morti ne tradas nos. (“In the midst of life we are in death: of whom may we seek for succour, but of thee, O Lord, who for our sins art justly displeased? Yet, O Lord God most holy, O Lord most mighty, O holy and most merciful Saviour, deliver us not into the bitter pains of eternal death.”). For Luther’s version see note 9 below. 5 UdV, art. 15. 6 “Midden in de dood/ zijn wij in het leven,/ want E¦n breekt het brood/ om met ons te leven/ midden in de dood. Dood is in ons bloed,/ dood voor onze ogen,/ maar Hij geeft ons moed,/ dat wij leven mogen/ met de dood in ’t bloed. Dat wij uit de dood/ opstaan om te leven,/ etend van het brood/ dat Hij heeft gegeven/ midden in de dood. Lamp voor onze voet,/ licht voor onze ogen,/ geef ons levensmoed/ met de dood voor ogen,/ met de dood in ’t bloed. Jezus, uit de dood/ opgestaan tot leven,/ wees voor ons het brood,/ dat wij in U leven/ midden in de dood. Wees voor ons de wijn,/ dat wij van U drinken./ Wees voor ons de pijn,/ dat wij in U zinken,/ dat wij in U zijn.” Dutch Psalter Hymnal (Liedboek voor de Kerken, 1973), no. 359.

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

147

person.7 Calvin drew a distinction between the two medieval definitions of penitential confession: on the one hand, ecclesiastical confession and penitential practices, which included an element of strict social control; and, on the other hand, the preaching of the forgiveness of sins. But as for the latter, more spiritual and internal side of penance, Calvin described it as a lifelong process, “a veritable conversion of our life to God. On this account, in my judgment, repentance is mortification of our flesh and of the old man, which true and pure fear of God brings about in us.”8 Calvin understood the same to be true in regard to the Spirit’s work to make the new man alive. Luther sings: 1. Mitten wir im Leben sind Mit dem Tod umfangen Wen such’n wir, der Hilfe tu’, Daß; wir Gnad’ erlangen? Das bist du, Herr, alleine! Uns reuet unsre Missetat, Die dich, Herr, erzürnet hat.

1. In the midst of earthly life Snares of death surround us; Who shall help us in the strife Lest the Foe confound us? Thou only, Lord, Thou only. We mourn that we have greatly erred, That our sins Thy wrath have stirred.

Refrain:9

Chorus:

As a movement, the Reformation set itself against the externalisation of religion. Luther introduced his theology of the cross (theologia crucis) for the sake of an internal and external penance encompassing all of life. Penitence was a program for entering life and death. This is evident, for example, from the very outset of his 95 theses of 1517. According to Luther, Jesus in Matt 4: 17 “does not purpose only inner repentance; indeed, the innermost repentance is nothing, unless it results in diverse outward mortifications of the flesh. And so the penalty remains as long as hatred of self (odium sui) – that is, true penitence within; penitentia vera intus – remains,” that is to say, a man’s whole life “until such a time as he enters into the kingdom of the heavens.” At the end of the disputation, Luther makes the connection with the practice of the imitatio Christi. A true Christian enters into the kingdom of heaven “through penalties, death, and hell,” through much tribulation, and not through the security of falsely preached peace.10 7 See for example Inst. 3.2.8, Inst. 3.3.3, Inst. 3.11.1, and Inst. 4.1.1, 9–10. 8 OS 1, p. 171. Cf. Inst. 3.3.5. OS 4, p. 60. 9 Heiliger Herre Gott, Holy and righteous God! Heiliger, starker Gott, Holy and mighty God! Heiliger, barmherziger Heiland, Holy and all-merciful Saviour! Du ewiger Gott, Eternal Lord God! Laß uns nicht versinken Save us lest we perish In des bittern Todes Not! In the bitter pangs of death. Kyrieleison! Have mercy, O Lord! The English translation of the whole hymn is taken from The Lutheran Hymnal (St. Louis, 1941), nr. 534. 10 See ch. 2.5.

148

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

The existing law of confession The Reformers resisted the papal law of confession because of its take on the significance of evil. As the famous first sentence of the confessional decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 put it: “All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year […] Let them reverently receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter.”11 However, time and again the complaint was raised that it was impossible “to list all sins.” In 1527 Melanchthon summed up the recurring complaint when he wrote the following words: “We do not need to abide by the pope’s decree to list all sins.” As we can read in Psalm 19, it is impossible to obey this law : “Who can detect his own failings? Wash out my hidden faults.” Still, Melanchthon, like Calvin would do after him, argues in his first church order that there are many reasons to encourage confession, especially when people are lost and “are in need of counselling.”12 Of course, the church’s law of confession could have been interpreted less literally by, for example, understanding the confession of all sins to refer to what could be called a “complete confession,” that is, a confession that includes all the essential elements of the sins committed. Throughout the 1540s, and even in the last edition of Calvin’s Institutes as it was composed in the late 1550s, this issue continued to be a point of discussion. Like Melanchthon, Calvin bases his argument on the Book of Prayers in the Bible, in which he finds evidence for his position that it is impossible for him to list all his sins. “From the depths of his evil deeds David cried out to the Lord: “I am overwhelmed, I am buried, I am choked, the gates of hell have encompassed me.” I am sunk down into the deep pit, may thy hand draw me out, weak and dying.” David understood “how great the abyss of our sins is (quanta esset peccatorum nostrorum abyssus),” and, referring to the apocalyptic beast of Revelation, “how many heads this snake has and how long a tail it drags behind it (quot capita ferret et quam longam caudam traheret haec hydra).”13 According to Calvin, this shows us what Scripture means when it speaks of ‘death’. As he understood it, “to die” and “to descend into hell” also included “alienation from God” and “depression caused by the judgment of God.” Such remedies as the enumeration of all one’s sins and the attempt to attain salvation through good works will not suffice. The result was a crisis for eternity, as the Reformation taught that even every good work is in fact a cardinal or mortal sin. On their own, humans are entirely incapable of doing any good and inclined to all kinds of evil. Spiritually dead and abandoned by God, we are lost without any 11 Tanner : 1990, vol. 1, p. 245. Cf. Mansi: 1960f, vol. 22, p. 1010. See also ch. 1, n. 11f. 12 UdV, art. 8. 13 OS 1, p. 182.

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

149

hope of saving ourselves.14 As Paul depicts our dire situation in Romans 7: “Who will rescue me from this body doomed to death?” 2. Mitten in dem Tod anficht Uns der Hölle Rachen. Wer will uns aus solcher Not Frei und ledig machen? Das tust du, Herr, alleine! Es jammert dein’ Barmherzigkeit Unsre Sünd’ und großes Leid.

2. In the midst of death’s dark vale Powers of hell o’ertake us. Who will help when they assail, Who secure will make us? Thou only, Lord, Thou only Thy heart is moved with tenderness, Pities us in our distress.

Refrain:

Chorus:

1

Penance and the Daily Practices of Life and Death

Within the stronghold of the Reformed camp, the big themes were the views on penance and communion, with competing visions at times colliding with each other. How could these new teachings be translated into daily religious practices (for life and death)? A constant attitude of repentance, in which one prepares for death, simultaneously served as the starting point for a new kind of life. In these reforms, then, the precise content of Christian penance was of great importance. In what follows, I will provide two examples. Melanchthon and the new practice In his 1527 Articles and in the Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony which followed soon thereafter, Melanchthon draws attention to the issue of penance in an innovative manner. Just like Christ preached penitence and the forgiveness of sins, the Articles claim, so “shepherds of souls should pass on knowledge of these things to the congregations. Now we preach a lot about faith. Faith, however, cannot be understood without penitence.” If there is no preceding penitence, if there is no fear of God and the law, so Melanchthon thought, then faith will be like pouring new wine into old wineskins, so that people grow used to “fleshly certainties (carnal security).” For Melanchthon, a major goal of preaching was to consider what God says to us and sends our way. In the visitation documents he sharply condemns onesided preaching. Also the law and the temporary and eternal punishment with which God threatens sinners should be preached. When God in this way “scares 14 Cf. Inst. 3.4.16. OS 4, p. 104 = CO 2, p. 469. Oberman: 1991, p. 22 and p. 24. WA 1, Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute 1518, p. 608. WA 8, Rationis Latomianae confutatio 1521, p. 93. WA 7, Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind 1521, p. 438 and p. 433.

150

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

the heart and brings someone to fear judgment,” he produces fertile ground for receiving the subsequent comfort of the gospel. Here penitence precedes faith, just like the preaching of the law precedes the preaching of the gospel.15 For those who preach both law and gospel, penitence in the sense of “killing the flesh” and “mortification of the old man” remains a vital part of their faith, as a Christian is simultaneously both righteous (or acquitted) and a sinner (simul iustus et peccator). The suffering which Christians experience in their lives also serves a purpose in moving them towards penance, so that the oppression that is part of “the teaching of the law” can serve as a punishment for their sins.16 However, in spite of the emphasis he puts on fear for the judgment and punishment of God, Melanchthon does not teach a medieval attritionism. In his view ‘the fear of a son’ (timor filialis), combines (time and again) a fear of God with faith in the forgiveness he offers.17 The dialectics between law and gospel is key – both in the ‘first penitence’, which prepares the outsider to receive the gospel, as well as in the ‘second penitence’, which will continue to be a part of the Christian’s existence for the rest of his life. Melanchthon juxtaposes the sacramental system of the late medieval period, with its focus on the sacrament of penance, with what he terms ‘true penitence’, that is, the inner conversion to a life in the service of God. And the sign and seal of this conversion is baptism. Baptism is in this view a penitential sacrament. Just like we are immersed in water, so we have to drown our old self. That is why the gospel preaches penitence: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is close at hand.” (Matt 4: 17). Melanchthon urged the pastors with an apocalyptic sense of urgency to preach what Jesus taught us, namely that “the time has come” and that “the kingdom of God is close at hand. Repent, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1: 14–15).18 Baptism also contains the promise connected to this command: “He who believes and is baptised will be saved” (Mark 16: 16). So those who believe will have to learn that baptism is a lifelong process of doing penitence and, at the same time, of believing in God’s forgiveness.19

15 AV, art. 1: Primum quid sit fides. 16 AV, art. 2: De cruce. The Heidelberg Catechism (32, 88) confesses that the two main parts of the Christian life (die wahrhaftige busz oder bekerung des menschen) are the mortification of the old man and the vivification of the new. For the influence of Melanchthon on the Heidelberg Catechism, see Visser : 1997, pp. 373–389. 17 See ch. 5, n. 30. 18 A key text in Melanchthon’s new vision on justification is Luke 24: 47, that in the name of Christ who has risen from the dead, “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” would be preached to all the nations. 19 AV art. 7: De Sacramentis.

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

151

With regard to Holy Communion, the 1528 polity compiled by Melanchthon and others states that believers should confess their sins and believe that the true body of Christ is in the bread and the true blood of Christ is in the wine. For thus reads the word of Christ in the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke: “This is my body”; “Drink of it all of you”; “This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” So also Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 10: “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Were this now taken to mean not the true body, but only the Word of God, as some interpret this passage, it would not be a participation in the body of Christ but in the Word and the Spirit alone. In this same epistle Paul also declares that this meal is not to be regarded as ordinary food, but as the body of Christ, and he judges those guilty who carelessly receive it as ordinary food.20 Preachers should warn their parishioners against the profanation or other abuses of the sacrament of Holy Communion: For Paul says in 1 Cor 11: “You are guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ,” and “You receive it to judgment upon yourself.” Also, “many of you are ill and many among the Christians have died.” For God declared in the second commandment: Whoever dishonours his name, he will not hold guiltless. Undoubtedly also this dishonour to the body and blood of Christ will not go unpunished.21 During the Holy Supper, we remember the death of Christ.22 Remembering his sacrifice makes us afraid of God’s anger against sin.23 True penitence exists not only in “sincere repentance and sorrow over committed sins,” but also in “true fear of God’s anger and judgment.” Fear of God’s anger results in a realisation of one’s guilt, repentance, and the killing of the flesh.24 Melanchthon threatens preachers with God’s judgment if they deviate from the proper ways of teaching the gospel and the sacraments. “Now we have already shown that it is necessary to preach penance, and to punish the fearless behaviour which is now in the world and has its origin, at least in part, in a wrong understanding of the Faith. For many who hear that they should believe, so that all their sins will be forgiven, fashion their own faith and think they are pure. Thus they become secure and arrogant. Such carnal security is worse than all the errors hitherto prevailing. Therefore, in preaching the gospel it is necessary in every way to instruct the people where faith may be found and how one attains it. For true faith cannot exist where there is not true contrition and true fear and terror before God. This is most important in teaching the people. For where there 20 21 22 23 24

UdV, art. 6. UdV, art. 6. UdV, art. 10. UdV, art. 6, 7, and 9. UdV, art. 7.

152

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

is not contrition and sorrow for sin, there also is no true faith. […] God himself says in Ezekiel 3 that if the preacher does not condemn the error and sin of those whom he teaches, God will lay the loss of their souls to his account. Such a verdict God pronounced upon that kind of preacher who comforts the people and says much about faith and the forgiveness of sins but nothing about penitence or the fear and judgment of God.”25 3. Mitten in der Hölle Angst Unsre Sünd’n uns treiben. Wo soll’n wir denn fliehen hin, Da wir mögen bleiben? Zu dir, Herr Christ, alleine! Vergoßen ist dein teures Blut, Das g’nug für die Sünde tut.

3. In the midst of utter woe All our sins oppress us, Where shall we for refuge go, Where for grace to bless us? To Thee, Lord Jesus, only. Thy precious blood was shed to win Full atonement for our sin.

Refrain:

Chorus:

Calvin and the new practice Like Melanchthon did in his first church order (which doubled as a confession), so Calvin too maintained the connection between penitence and the Eucharist. Calvin believed that excommunication or church-imposed penitence could not be seen considered apart from the Lord’s Supper or Communion. Neither was to be isolated from the other. He thus saw a need for a new, evangelical form of penitence and confession. In Calvin’s eyes, no one should participate in Holy Communion without preparing himself. One of Calvin’s lifelong projects was to establish measures regarding this sensitive issue, for as he wrote in 1541: “Now to pollute and contaminate what God has so sanctified is intolerable sacrilege. It is, then, not without reason that Paul passes such grave condemnation on those who receive it unworthily (indignement).” Nothing in heaven or on earth is of greater value and worth (dignit¦) than the body and blood of our Lord. Therefore, it is “no small fault to take it inconsiderately and without being well prepared.”26 Both Rome and the Reformation called congregants who participate in Holy Communion to “be present in holiness and awe.”27 In the sixteenth century, many churches of the Reformation took over part of the existing practices connecting Eucharist, confession, and penitence. Calvin, however, unlike Luther (and his followers), propagated a form of ecclesiastical pressure or discipline that could be imposed upon the members. It was not just up to the churchgoers 25 UdV, art. 7. Cf. AV: Introduction. See for Calvin his public letters of 1537 in COR 4/4, pp. 74– 78. 26 OS 1, p. 511 = CStA 1/2, pp. 456–458. 27 OS 1, pp. 369–370 = COR 6/1, pp. 157–158.

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

153

themselves to decide whether or not they could participate in the Eucharist, and the parishioners were frequently questioned in a private confession at home or in church. In the course of my research, it became increasingly clear to me that it is impossible to give a clear description of Calvin’s vision on confession without simultaneously discussing the Lord’s Supper. The close connection between the most holy mystery of Communion and what he called ‘Christian confession’ consumed his thinking, like the two foci of an ellipse, fused together in an inseparable bond. And both had to do with the maintenance of and preparation for life and death.

2

The Eucharist and Daily Practices of Life and Death

Because of the bold connection Calvin drew, he worked over the course of 25 years to develop a new penitential and confessional system in five stages. His new penitential and confessional system has to do with a fear of God in life and death. Five stages are to be distinguished in this process, where Calvin aligned himself with medieval practices of penitence and confession. In the first period or phase, Calvin linked the Lord’s Supper to supervision and discipline, argued for weekly communion, and proposed a deliberate emphasis on the obligatory gospel teaching with a view to admission to the table of the Lord. In the second phase, Calvin advocated a compulsory, private confession in the parsonage that was to precede every celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The third stage consisted in the introduction of the lay ministry of elders, and the establishment of a Reformed alternative to the medieval consistory, that is, a semi-ecclesiastical organ where public sins were sanctioned and corrected by barring perpetrators from the Lord’s Supper table and later granting them admission to it again upon repentance. In the subsequent phase, Calvin attempted to place the power of excommunication, which was traditionally the highest form of church discipline, in the hands of the consistory and to create the necessary ancillary system for the new system of confession. After several turbulent years and after threatening to resign, in the mid-1550s he at last succeeded in winning the right of excommunication for the consistory. This ushered in the fifth and definitive phase. Here the system of penance and confession had to be adjusted, so that those who were excluded from the Lord’s table on account of their sins – and during this phase such exclusions were imposed hundreds of times per year – were legally obligated to practice confession in the ‘new style’: i. e., to confess after they had completed their penance

154

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

for their sins (confesser et recognoistre sa faute), to publicly demonstrate their contrition (s’humilier — repentance), to receive absolution (pardonner and absoudre), thus obtaining reconciliation with God and the church, and officially to be admitted to the Lord’s table again as a contrite penitent.28 This last step completed Calvin’s confessional system, and he was proud of the end result. Late in 1561 he expressed the desire that his system of penitence and confession might become a shining example for the churches of the Reformation, and a testimony to the churches abroad.29 This five stages will be outlined briefly here, but receive a more comprehensive treatment in chapter 8 below. Calvin’s first attempt to reshape confession: Geneva (as of fall 1536) In the opening article of Calvin’s first Ordonnances Ecclesiastiques, he follows Luther in advocating a weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, arguing for its role in becoming one with our Lord in life and death: ‘It would be well to require that the Communion of the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ (que la communication de la saincte cene de Jesucrist) be held every Sunday at least as a rule,’ or even at every assembly, as he wrote in the Institutes. This will pay off, first of all because of the promise that “we truly become part of the body and blood of Jesus Christ and share in both his death (de sa mort) and life (de sa vie).”30 In his article on Calvin’s vision on pastoral care, Hans Scholl rightly notes that “three quarters of the 1537 church polity deals with the Lord’s Supper.”31 In the introduction to his 1537 church order, Calvin asks the council to pay attention to ecclesiastical penitence as it relates to Holy Communion: “Right Honourable Gentlemen: it is certain that a church cannot be said to be well ordered and regulated unless in it the Holy Supper (Cene) of our Lord is always being celebrated and frequented, and this under such good supervision that no one dare presume to present him self unless devoutly, and with genuine reverence for it. For this reason, in order to maintain the church in its integrity (integrite), the discipline (discipline) of excommunication is necessary, by which it is possible to correct those (par laquelle soyent corrigez) that do not wish to submit courteously (amyablement) and with all obedience to the holy Word of God.”32

28 Meticulously recorded consistory reports show in detail how this process played out on a case-by-case basis. 29 CO 10a, p. 92 = CO 21, p. 766. 30 OS 1 (Articles 1537), p. 370 = COR 6/1, ep. 31, p. 160. 31 Scholl: 1995, p. 119: “3/4 der Kirchenordnung von 1537 vom Abendmahl handeln.” See also Scholl: 2006, p. 123. 32 CO 10a, 5–6 = OS 1, 369, l.1–12 = COR 6/1, p. 157, l. 1f.

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

155

One of the proposals was for the council to elect several deputies, virtuous men “of good name,” who were to be divided over all the quarters of the city, who would have oversight “of the life and government of each of them; and if they see any vice worthy of note to find fault with in any person, that they communicate about it with some of the ministers.”33 In his evaluation of the first phase, Calvin states that he was especially concerned with the preachers’ problem of their conscience because they could share in the guilt of the profanation of the holy sacrament and, by extension, of the honour of God34 : “This is why we have been unable to secure peace and rest for our conscience, as this is only possible when those considered part of Christ’s people who want to gain access to the spiritual and holy meal, give Him their word.35 There was thus a separation, or distinction between people, that took place around the Eucharist or, more accurately, during the preparation for Holy Communion. Calvin’s second take on Christian confession: Strasbourg (as of spring 1540) For Calvin, it was absolutely necessary that a confessional investigation into the believer’s life and convictions be held prior to participation in the Holy Supper. He considered many students in the French refugee congregation in Strasbourg to be overconfident and arrogant. In the spring of 1540, Calvin therefore decided that it was irresponsible to celebrate Holy Communion without a prior confessional conversation with each and every member of the church. At Easter he explained that “no one will be admitted by me without first being submitted to an investigation.”36 In his letter to Farel from the end of March he wrote: “Many attended the Lord’s Supper with conceit. When I announced on Easter Sunday that we hoped to celebrate the Lord’s Super next Sunday, I also explained that I would admit no one unless he submitted himself to an examination (ad probationem). To show their displeasure over these prescriptions, they quit their studies. Because this is undisguised rebellion I decided I would not accept them. I would rather see them all leave than to have them remain here and to have the discipline of the Lord’s Supper sacrificed.”37

Calvin thus encountered difficulties when he attempted to find an alternative to the old penitential system. As the first pastor to this new evangelical church, Calvin compiled an ordre ecclesiastique which he “wished to follow closely.”38 The new polity stipulated that the pastor was to check each member, and that the 33 34 35 36 37 38

OS 1, p. 373 = CStA 1/1, p. 120. CO 10a, p. 8 = OS 1, p. 371. CO 5, p. 319 = OS 1, p. 429. Rilliet/ Dufour : 1878, p. 133. CO 11, no. 214, p. 31. Cf. Hermj., vol. 6, no. 857, Calvin to Farel on 29 March 1540, p. 200. Hermj. vol. 6, no. 857, (Calvin to Farel on 29 March 1540), p. 200 = CO 11, no. 214, p. 31. CO 11, no. 265, p. 130. Cf. Hermj., vol. 6, no. 925, p. 397.

156

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

participant was to submit willingly to a confessional investigation of his conscience (l’examen de conscience des communiants).39 The young Calvin’s third attempt to articulate his view of Christian confession (as of September 1541) In 1541, Calvin turned the former ecclesiastical court, which had become an organism of the state devoted to matters pertaining to marriage and morals (Ehegericht and Sittengericht), into an institution that would still be a state organism in the Protestant sense, and yet be endowed with greater power and authority in matters of penitence than its equivalent in the surrounding churches had. The consistory was composed of twelve assistants or elders, together with one of the four Genevan mayors (i. e., syndics) who chaired the meetings. The consistory met on a weekly basis, on Thursday mornings. For executing its visitation decisions, the consistory sometimes called upon a large number of the city’s supervisors (dizeniers) and police officers (officiers). The ministers were listened to in the consistory, and would go on to play an increasingly important role in the decision-making process. Due to this combination of measures, the consistory turned into an institution with a broad base of authority that was heard even in the often sensitive issues related to supervision and penitence. The serious manner in which the admonitions and judgments took place was reminiscent of medieval confession practices. The actual supervision of each citizen by a local minister and elder grew into an effective mechanism of social control, especially in the way in which it was combined with a system of door-to-door visitations systematically covering the entire city within the frame of a single year. The visitations took place in the weeks leading up to Easter, “so that the meal of the Lord would not be defiled (affin que la Cene du Seigneur ne fut profanee), and to encourage every person to fulfil his duty to God and to obey his holy Word (d’exhorter ung chascung — faire son devoir envers Dieu et — ouir sa saincte parole).”40 During these visitations, all 39 CO 11, no. 260, p. 121. Cf. Hermj., vol. 6, no. 917, Calvin to Parent on 26 November 1540, p. 376. “Que les pasteurs une fois l’an en chascune Eglise oyent leurs parroissiens par ordre, principalement les plus rudes et ignorans, les examinans de leur foy, et que cela se face au temple. […] Lors le pasteur doit admonester en prudence et gravit¦, mesme un chascun particulierement des choses qui sont requises, selon l’eage et conditions d’un chascun, enseignans les ignorans, de foy, des bonnes meurs et de l’usage des Sacremens. Et — celle fin que le peuple puisse venir — la Cene en bonne et paisible conscience. […] Car nul ayant en soy mauvaise conscience ne peult invoquer Dieu.” CO 5 (Actes de Ratisbonne), pp. 621–622. 40 RCP 2, p. 66. It was 12 March 1556 when home visitation was permitted for elders and ministers to better supervise the Genevan people. Six ministers, 25 dizeniers, and at least twelve assistants were available for visitation. During visitations four dizeniers and two

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

157

kinds of issues and sins would surface, and they often resulted in people receiving further instructions as to how to account for these sins. Often these issues would be framed in terms of the approaching celebration of Holy Communion. The issues that surfaced included: domestic conflicts, conflicts between family members or neighbours, marriage, superstition, persistence in erroneous or Catholic ways, a lack of understanding of the evangelical doctrines and lifestyle, not knowing the Lord’s Prayer, prayer to Mary, drinking, gambling, dancing etc. In addition to these visits, every inhabitant, whether an official or citizen, was required to keep an eye on the others and to report on any immoral behaviour he observed, as well as on blasphemy, theft, adultery, participation in Holy Supper without the consent of the consistory, failure in or infrequent church attendance, defilement of the day of Holy Communion etc. This accumulation of devices and measures resulted in the Genevan consistory growing out to become one of the most noteworthy aspects of Calvin’s approach to church life. The first chapter of Calvin’s church order of September 1541 may be called a handbook for pastors, or more specifically, a catalogue of sins reminiscent of a medieval book of confession for ministers to measure themselves as well as others.41 As a whole, Calvin’s 1541 polity is concerned with establishing a new system of penitence and confession. Many people found it difficult to get used to the new situation, and struggled with the religious laws.42 Of course, one could come for voluntary confession in the parsonage. However, the confession of assistants were assigned to each minister. Speelman: 2010, pp. 361f. Andreas Ryff, who lived in Geneva from 1560 to 1563, observed that home visits were even carried out on a quarterly basis, prior to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper : “It is the custom of the ministers of Geneva to go to each house every three months. They assemble the residents, young and old, from about six or eight houses, to interrogate them, to examine them, to make them give an account of their faith, and to catechise them before they partake of the Lord’s Supper.” Ryff: 1872, p. 415. 41 CO 10a (1541), pp. 18–19 = RCP 1, p. 3. OS 2, p. 333 = CStA 2, p. 246 = Niesel, pp. 45–46, art. 23; OS 2, p. 333 = CStA 2, p. 246 = Niesel, p. 46, art. 24. OS 2, pp. 333–334 = CStA 2, pp. 247–248. 42 To name a few examples: Collette Maillet, wife of the first secretary to the consistory, was accused in 1546 of saying that the new law was not like the other “and that since this law came, we have had nothing but bad times (que cest loy n’est pas semblables a l’austre, et que despuys que cest loys est venue l’on n’astz heu que mal).” Summoned before the consistory, Maillet declared that she had no objections to the Reformation, but that it was quite likely that several years ago, during the plague of 1543, she had said that “when the priests were in this city, the plague didn’t last as long as it does now (quant les prebstres estient en caste ville la peste ne duroyt pas tant que maintenant).” RC 2 (22 April 1546), pp. 53f. In 1548 Jaquema Lonnan was summoned before the consistory because she had reportedly said: “Back in the time of the Mass, we were as well off as in the time of the gospel (au temps de la messe l’on avoit bien autant de biens que aujourdhuy du temps de l’evangelie).” RC 4 (23 August 1548), p. 53. See also ch. 8, n. 42 and n. 49.

158

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

one’s sin and expression of remorse in the consistory, as well as the following process of restoration, all became mandatory. Here I would especially like to stress the central position of Holy Communion, and, with that, the communal and personal union with the death and resurrection of Christ. The preparation for life and death, as well as the on-going reception of union with Christ’s life and death, has an especially significant place at the beginning of the third book of the Institutes, which narrates how the life of Christians can receive mercy through faith, self-denial (abnegatio nostri), carrying the cross (tolerantia crucis), and meditation on the future life (meditatio futurae vitae). Although Calvin places greater emphasis on the element of mortification than vivification, his aim is clearly a forward-looking attitude directed to life and prayer in which the daily, earthly life should be “despised (contemptus).” After all, dying is like “moving out of this world […] into the true life,” but by nature people tend to “forget about death and mortality.” The special blessings we receive from him daily are as many confirmations of his fatherly care and love. By giving us a taste of “God’s goodness,” he prepares us for “the glory of the heavenly Kingdom.”43 The fourth stage and its focus on excommunication law (as of fall 1553) Calvin translated “several very important chapters (summa quaedam capita)” out of the Genevan church’s penitential law and confessional code (i. e., the disciplinae ecclesiasticae), which by then was already twelve years old, into the international Latin language with the purpose of informing the ministers of Zurich and the members of that city’s council about the regulations which applied in Geneva.44 His correspondence pertaining to these texts focused on the question whether the consistory was sufficiently qualified to exercise a power of excommunication. As Calvin put it: “This is the core issue: to whom does the right and the authority to excommunicate (ius et autoritas excommunicandi) apply?”45 In his translation, Calvin supplied further explanations for some issues, such as in article 155, where he replaced the nonspecific pronoun on (“one”) with le consistoire (“the consistory”). That same article states that the stubborn sinner should not be “separated from the church,” but be denied access to the Eucharist (ab usu coenae).46 It would take several years for the right of excommunication to be allocated to the consistory, but over the course of those 43 44 45 46

Inst. 3.9.1–4. OS 4, pp. 171–174. CO 14, no. 1859, p. 678. CO 14, no. 1859, p. 680. CO 14, no. 1859, pp. 678f. Cf. Niesel, p. 61 = OS 2, pp. 358f= CStA 2, p. 268. See also ch. 7, n. 30 and ch. 8, n. 55.

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

159

years there was a steady increase in the number of people who were summoned to appear before it, and in the number of cases which it tried.47 The definitive stage (as of fall 1557) We may well call Calvin’s Ordonnances ecclesiastiques a Eucharistic church and Eucharistic church polity. His consistent focus throughout was on the Lord’s Supper and on the preparations for it. On 12 November 1557, the council adopted several new clauses which pertained to attendance at the Eucharist, because “some had decided on their own not to attend the Holy Communion.” If that behaviour were to go unpunished, the penitential value of being denied access to the sacrament would, of course, diminish. Those who “separated themselves from the holy communion of believers (la saincte Communion des fideles)” were to be exhorted (exhortez) by the consistory. If that person’s absence from the table had to do with feelings of enmity, “he would be admonished to reconcile with his adversary (se reconcilier — sa partie).” If no change was shown after six months of consideration or reflection (pour mieux penser — soy), he would be sent to the city council “to see whether he will ask for forgiveness for his sin and will be prepared to make amends for it (demande pardon de sa faute, et soit prest de l’amender),” or whether he would have to be banished from the city for a year. If he confessed his sin, he would be “punished according to the judgment of the council members” for previously neglecting the consistory’s orders, and be sent back to make good the trouble (pour reparer le scandale) which his rebellion had caused.48 Another typical example from this last stage in Calvin’s penitential and confessional polity comes from article 163. In practice, most of the congregants who had been denied access to Holy Supper for one or more celebrations did not voluntarily return to the consistory to confess their sins, to promise change for the better, to receive forgiveness, and to engage in reconciliation with the church community, etc. “If someone is kept from participating in Holy Communion because of disobedience or persistent transgression and does not humble himself, but rather shows contempt for the church law, or if he does not voluntarily confess his sins in the consistory, he ought to be kept from the table for a period of six months. After that, he ought to be summoned, admonished, and forced to return. If he persists without correcting himself until the end of the year, he shall be exiled for a year, unless he asks the council for forgiveness, 47 In 1555 as many as 1233 people had to come to Geneva’s consistory, and a year later there even were 1518 who appeared before it. In the 1150 cases that were dealt with during these two years, excommunication was exacted as a punishment on 219 occasions. RCP 2, p. 68. 48 OS 2, pp. 359–360. Cf. CStA 2, p. 270 = Niesel, p. 61–62, art. 160.

160

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

confesses his sins in the consistory, and thus returns to Holy Communion.”49 There was thus no better preparation for death than the preparation for and participation in the Holy Supper. From the moment he joined the evangelical reform movement, Calvin tried, in very creative ways and with a constant focus on one’s mystical and Holy Communion with God (unio mystica), to help those who were burdened by their conscience and in danger of perishing, to attain true, Christian freedom and peace in life and death. 1. Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, Quæ sub his figuris vere latitas; Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit, Quia te contemplans totum deficit.

Hidden God, devoutly I adore Thee, truly present underneath these veils: all my heart subdues itself before Thee, since it all before Thee faints and fails

5. O memoriale mortis Domini! Panis vivus, vitam præstans homini! Præsta meæ menti de te v†vere, Et te illi semper dulce sapere.

O memorial of my Savior dying, Living Bread, that gives life to man; make my soul, its life from Thee supplying, taste Thy sweetness, as on earth it can.

7. Jesu, quem velatum nunc aspicio, Oro, fiat illud quod tam sitio: Ut te revelata cernens facie, Visu sim be‚tus tuæ gloriæ. Amen.

Contemplating, Lord, Thy hidden presence, grant me what I thirst for and implore, in the revelation of Thy essence to behold Thy glory evermore. Amen.50

3

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Daily Practices of Life and Death

The Heidelberg Catechism provides us with an example from the third generation of the sixteenth-century ecclesiastical reformation. In Lord’s Day 31, answer 84, for example, the catechism connects preaching and penitence in a special way : “When according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ’s merits.” Those who have not sincerely repented, the unrepentant “who are not truly sorry,” as well as the unbelievers, do not receive forgiveness, but are told that they stand under the wrath of God and are subject to eternal condemnation as long as they do not convert, “according to which testimony of the gospel, God will judge them, both in this, and in the life to come.” 49 OS 2, p. 360 = CStA 2, p. 272 = Niesel, p. 62 (art. 163). 50 This eucharistic hymn, to which the name of Thomas Aquino is connected, breathes a Reformed spirituality. (Translation by John O’Hagan.)

Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence

161

In answer 84 we thus read about the elements of confession (i. e., repentance, conversion, and mercy), but now not in connection with receiving absolution from the priest (who acts in the role of a confessor) but in connection with the true reception of the “promises of the gospel” from the preacher. The unrepentant, who do not feel remorse and refuse to repent, cannot be saved (answer 87). The true repentance or conversion of man exists in “the dying of the old nature and the coming to life of the new,” says answer 88. There are thus two parts: “the mortification of the old, and the resurrection (vivification) of the new man.” According to the catechism, the gates of heaven open and close depending on the way in which people hear, accept, and live God’s Word, and receive absolution. The kingdom of heaven is also opened and closed by a second key : the ecclesiastical penance of excommunication. Here the administration of the Word is, as it were, the new sacrament of absolution. This involves a very dynamic process, because every time – literally : ‘as often as’ – the hearer accepts the gospel as true, the kingdom of heaven opens and – as absolution is now described – all sins are forgiven in Christ. This sacral act did not just happen by itself, ex opere operato. A condition is attached; it only takes place when the promise of God is accepted in true faith.51 Exclusion from the Eucharist meant that people were also “excluded from the Christian church” (durch verbietung der heiligen Sacrament ausz der christlichen gemein).” And answer 85 even continues by observing: “They are separated from God himself and from Christ’s Kingdom” until “they promise and show repentance or amendment,” which in confessional terms is called ‘contrition’, ‘penitence’, and ‘conversion’. The Reformation emphasised that the church is where the gospel and the sacraments are rightly administered. It was considered important for both to be prepared for and received in a proper way. The congregation is also divided upon participating in Holy Communion.52 The entrance into God’s kingdom is connected to a continuous, faithful, and obedient unity with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in the administration of Word and sacrament. For this purpose, a penitential preparation was of crucial importance. Without repentance, the sinner would not be relieved from “God’s wrath and eternal judgment,” a judgment that would last 51 Calvin emphasised that God speaks in the Scriptures to the people who were willing and prepared to listen. OS 3, p. 68. De Kroon: 2004, p. 81. 52 Heidelberg Catechism (= HC) 30, 82 speaks about “the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and his apostles, to exclude, by the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” a sinful person until he should show amendment of life, because God could otherwise punish the whole congregation and because the covenant might otherwise be profaned.

162

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

both “in this as well as in the coming life.”53 In the administration of the Word of God and the holy sacrament, heaven opens its gates to humble, receptive believers, but not to those who continue to close their heart. The faithful are framed in an apocalyptic narrative in which they deal directly with God himself. Readily accepting and obeying is connected to entrance into the heavenly kingdom. This repeated existential confrontation with God is part of a continual preparation for death. Penitence was no longer a purely casuistic matter, but instead functioned as an integral part of life on earth. This article offers no more than an overview of the daily practices of life and death as they were established by the early Reformers and discussed in the documents issued by the Protestant communities. Examples of Lutheran, Melanchthonian, and Calvinist perspectives were presented in order to demonstrate how these practices were introduced in the early stage of the Reformation, and why they were so pivotal in the context of the practices of pre-Reformation Catholicism. In what follows, I will by way of summary offer some final conclusions.

Some Concluding Remarks The medicinally intended penitential system of the late medieval and early modern period aimed to direct believers towards an unceasing awareness of the solemnity of God’s omnipresence. The Reformation had placed the role of individual believers in the foreground of this process. Daily church life was no longer reserved for the clergy alone. According to this view, every Christian ought to be a ‘spiritual person’ (homo spiritualis) who obeys the gospel out of his personal faith and with ‘evangelical freedom’ (libertas evangelica).54 From the first half of the sixteenth century onwards, every believer’s regular participation in the sacraments, including a faithful, penitential preparation for them, became characteristic of this new set-up for Protestant church life. In doing so, every Christian shared in Christ’s death and resurrection. The more frequent administration and reception of the sacraments became a part of the 53 HC 31, 84. See also ch. 8, n. 42 and n. 49. 54 To the disappointment of the leading Reformers, however, this ideal proved to be too much for the majority of the people. Most appeared to fall short considerably in their Christian walk of life and in their personal faith. Due to their negative evaluation of what they saw around them, the Reformers could not resist externalising the system of penance to some degree, which earned them accusations of attempting to reintroduce Roman Catholic practices. See the anguished cry of Melanchthon in his 1528 Instructions, art. 1 = Speelman: 2013, p. 330, and of Calvin in the preface to his 1538 Instructions, OS 1, p. 428.

Some Concluding Remarks

163

rhythm of the life of lay believers, comparable to the rhythm of the liturgy of the hours as it had existed in the established church. Being strengthened in one’s penitence by God and thus sharing in eternal life so characterised daily life that it could be compared to the very act of breathing. For this reason, the church in Wittenberg and Geneva held dozens of assemblies per week.55 These were organised around a transcendent worldview and an aim to communicate openly with God. We saw that as Luther set the stage early on, in 1517, he meant that the believer’s entire life is one great act of repentance. His pupils, Melanchthon and Calvin, built on this statement. Traditionally, the sacrament of penance had had three basic elements in addition to absolution: repentance, confession, and atonement. In Melanchthon’s handbook of 1527, these were reduced to two elements: repentance from sin, and faith in the salvation wrought by Christ.56 Fear of God (timor filialis) and faith in God’s mercy were the crucial elements. In Luther’s life, the word ‘repentance’ became a delectable keyword, sweet and fruitful. In the theology of Melanchthon, a continual repentance preceded true faith. In the thought of Calvin, repentance was from the very beginning in 1537 something that preceded Holy Communion, which he thought should be celebrated as often as possible, in every service, which at that time meant almost on a daily basis, in a search to find unity with eternal life in Christ every day again. And also for the Heidelberg Catechism, entrance into the kingdom of heaven had to do with a frequent reception of God’s Word and Sacrament in a contrite and faithful manner. Because the present is in an existential way of speaking and in its entirety aimed towards the coming future, living in harmony with God through the Holy Spirit is of the greatest possible importance.57 It is a way of life for 55 In Wittenberg of the 1520s, communion was being administered on a weekly or even daily basis. In his 1529 Great Catechism (part 5: The sacrament of the altar), Luther discusses the “daily administration and dividing” of “such a great treasure”. BSLK, p. 715. Beginning in 1536, Calvin refers to Acts 2: 42 to argue that every assembly should be characterised by Scripture, prayer, communion, and almsgiving. OS 1, p. 149. See also answer 363 in Calvin’s 1542 Large or Great Catechism on the necessity of participating in the sacrament (and of the desire to do so). 56 Confession and absolution took place within that framework, Melanchthon believed. By connecting them in this way, he integrated the elements of a repentant life (poenitentia), that is, knowledge of the self, sorrow and grief, remorse and contrition (contritio), the confession of sins (confessio), and faith in God’s complete atonement (satisfactio). 57 Compare the central question: “What must I absolutely know to live and die in the joy of (in German: seliglich; in Latin: beate) this mysterious comfort?” (HC 1,2). At that time, more than now, one’s present daily life stood in the context of the eternal life of salvation. The basis for all comfort and assurance, the ground of all being, was elsewhere, in the heavenly realm in which Christians live because they belong to their “faithful Saviour (in Dutch: Salichmaker) Jesus Christ” (HC 1, 1).

164

Melanchthon’s Turn and Contribution

sharing in eternal life. It is the task of the church and its officers to help people to live and die in a Christian way. Man comes to church to be united with the Holy One and to be fed and sanctified by him. There is, as we saw, a lot at stake: entrance into God’s kingdom and eternal life. The aforementioned Lutheran-Calvinistic Heidelberg Catechism speaks of the opening and closing of the heavenly kingdom ‘as often as’ a human soul comes to Christ and accepts in faith the promises of the gospel. The Christian life is a process of falling and being lifted up again, of dying and being resurrected – it is a rhythm that comes with “intense joy in God” and an increasing “desire for and love of living according to His will” (Lord’s Days 31 and 33). The people of God look to him for the provision of all things, because no one in heaven and on earth loves us more and can teach us better how to die and live than our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Belgic Confession expresses it so powerfully for us (article 26). This makes them fully dependent on his administration. There is no better preparation for life and death than the preparation for and anticipation of the holy communion in the administration of Word and sacrament. This is both frightening and joyous news, because in him we stand – even when surrounded by death – in the midst of an abounding and eternal life. This new type of ‘soul care’ equipped the Christian with a spiritual peace with God for both time and eternity. It was experienced as a continuous holy reunion with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the most important preparation for death and life everlasting.

PART THREE: Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

Chapter 7. The Importance of Being Well-Prepared for Participation in Holy Communion in Calvin’s Geneva

1

The importance of being well-prepared for Holy Communion1

As in the Middle Ages, so also in the early modern era there was a broad spectrum of views on Holy Communion (from realistic to spiritualistic) and on the necessary preparation for it (ranging from a carefully directed ecclesiastical interrogation to self-investigation). From the beginning Calvin had been convinced of the specific responsibility of the preacher in the personal preparation of each participant and in the admission to and barring from the Eucharist, but in practice the administration of this tailor-made pastoral care proved to be too large of an assignment for one minister alone. In this chapter, we will investigate to what extent the system of preparation for the Eucharist in the church of Geneva as it was devised by Calvin differed from that in the Roman Catholic church. In the fourth century, the early church fathers Ambrose and Augustine entertained different views concerning the significance of the Eucharist and, in their wake, five centuries later two Augustinian monks from the monastery of Corbey, Radbertus and Bertramnus, would oppose each other on the same issue. In the eleventh century, a controversy concerning generally the same matter was played out between Berengar of Tours and Lanfranc, and in the sixteenth century the opposing views were expressed by people like Luther and Calvin. The problem was not the reality of the presence of Christ, because this was generally accepted. The debate was always about where and how Christ is present. There were two extremes: one pole put all the emphasis on the presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, while the other fully stressed the faith of the participants. The viewpoint defended by Ambrose came close to what during the Great Council of 1215 would officially be called the doctrine of transubstantiation, the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 1 See also ch. 3.2.

168

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

For Augustine the Eucharist was about spiritual enjoyment of the participation in Christ. In order to clarify the way in which Christ was present in the Eucharist, he employed Platonic thought: the earthly refers to the heavenly reality. His point of departure was the distinction between the sign (signum) and the object (res) to which the sign refers. The sacraments are not the celestial body of Christ himself, but an image (figura) of it. We spiritually receive him by accepting the spiritual meaning of this reception in faith. Ambrose sought the greatest possible objectivity for the this-worldly certainty of salvation, in which the clergy were to take care of our spiritual welfare. Augustine’s line opposed this externalisation (Verdinglichung), which suggested that communion concerned a piece of matter. However, the majority of Christians wished to keep their certainty of salvation tangibly in their hands, in the objectivity of the sacrament, as defended in the line of Ambrose. History continued and repeated itself. Although in the end the realistic view won the debate, Ratramnus discarded the massive realism of Radbertus and emphasised the Augustinian line of spiritual enjoyment. According to him, the elements transformed into the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual and not in a physical manner. The two viewpoints proved to be irreconcilable, and the unity of the church came under threat. A choice had to be made. The realistic view prevailed, as a result of which the sacrament turned into a ritual that lay in the hands of the office bearers on whom the people depended. Centuries later Berengar of Tours again protested against this situation. According to him, the elements of bread and wine remain unaffected. However, something new manifests itself in the consecration, namely the spiritual presence of Christ and the power of his work, while the body of Christ itself remains in heaven. In 1059 a synod in Rome demanded of him that he acknowledge and confess that, during the Mass, bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ not only as a sacrament, but also in a sensory manner. Berengar’s view was close to that of the later Protestants, but in those days it was the total opposite of the realism which was familiar and precious to the church’s majority and would later be referred to as ‘transubstantiation’. The bread and wine were seen as holy objects on the altar, which one had better not touch. For centuries people had indeed shuddered at the thought of taking part in the Eucharist, but by now this fear had become so strong that the Fourth Lateran Council decided that every person must go to confession and communion at least once a year. It became the practice of the church to leave the administration of the sacred, including the Eucharist, to the competence of the clergy. The priest decided who would be admitted or excluded. We might ask why the pope connected confession and Eucharist, while he at the same time introduced the doctrine of transubstantiation. One would expect

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

169

that a choice for the objective line, the realistic interpretation of Holy Communion in which bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ, would push into the background the subjective side of Communion, the personal preparation in the faith and acts of the receiving party. But this was not the case. Due to the confessional investigation that preceded the Mass, believers were questioned, evaluated, and judged to be worthy or unworthy of partaking in the celebration. The sanctity of the Eucharist had to be guarded now that all believers were to take communion. This was also the case for Calvin, partly because of his view on Communion. This is why in his mind, aside from the participant’s personal preparation, the church, which according to Calvin carried the final responsibility, also had to apply a process of selection. It was the ecclesiastical representatives’ task to approve of the believers, and an interrogation was one of the means through which this was accomplished. The issue was the communion with Christ in the Eucharist, in which one could only participate in faith and in a worthy manner. A sinful life was considered a profanation of the holy sacrament and of God’s name. It was blasphemy in the purest sense of the word, something which the church could not allow to go unpunished. In other Protestant churches other views were held, and participation in the Eucharist was not seen as an ecclesiastical responsibility but as a matter of the individual conscience. Thus Luther had recommended going to confession prior to Communion, but he had not made it compulsory. For Calvin Communion was a spiritual meal in the Augustinian sense. According to him we must not minimalise the signs, as in the symbolic view developed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius, nor maximalise them, as in the physical transformation of the elements in the Roman Catholic view, because in both cases we do the mystery of Christ an injustice. Central to Calvin’s conception of the Holy Supper is the true presence of Christ in the meal. Christ distributes himself in bread and wine. Our salvation lies only in him and in communion with him. This is what connects the Reformation to the early church. God’s mercy is no longer something that confirms our existence, but transforms us as it were into the new life of communion with Christ. He lives in us and we in him. In our faith we take part in his body through the powerful operation of his Spirit. In order to explain what it is to eat by faith, Calvin used such concepts as image (imago and figura) and power (virtus), sign (signum), and object (res)2, which he borrowed from Augustine, who had interpreted the meal with a certain distance to the elements. At the same time, he added “that by faith we embrace 2 Inst. 4.17.1, 10, and 11.

170

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

Christ not as appearing from afar but as joining himself to us that he may be our head, we his members.”3 In the sacrament we eat the bread and receive Christ, as an image. The signs are not hollow, because, through the operation of his Spirit, he as promised fills them with the holy communion of his flesh and blood, “by which Christ pours his life into us, as if it penetrated in our bones and marrow.”4 This is not just a symbolic unity, but a real unity with the body of Christ. In short, Christ is truly present in the Supper, and man partakes of him in faith through the power of the Spirit. All that is his, including eternal life, we can call ours. “This,” Paul says, “is a great mystery” (Eph 5:32). “It would be extreme madness to recognize no communion of believers with the flesh and blood of the Lord, which the apostle declares to be so great that he prefers to marvel at it rather than to explain it.”5 Calvin assumes the role of a guard who seeks to make sure that people will master (in a metaphorical or literal sense) the greatest and holy secrecy of the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper. I am not ashamed “to confess that it is a mysteriousness too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And, to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it,” Calvin writes. The marvel over, desire for, and enjoyment of Christ’s presence are for him the fruit of our continued relationship with him in the holy sacrament.6 These days some may call this form of spirituality an ‘eucharistic mysticism,’ but for Melanchthon and Calvin and many others in their days this clear experience of the real presence of Christ was an unproblematic eucharistic realism and formed the spiritual cornerstone of their very existence. Although someone like Bullinger held a different view on the relationship between church discipline and the Lord’s Supper, he saw the difference as one that played out on the mystical or spiritual level alone. There have always been different opinions among the Reformed in this regard, so Bullinger wrote, and the church in Zurich, which has never mixed the mystical meal of the Lord with church discipline, has never “for this reason, by anyone, as far as I know, been accused of impiety.”7 For Bullinger it was firmly established that the Eucharist had not been instituted by the Lord in order to have the just and the unjust, or the 3 4 5 6 7

Inst. 4.17.6. Inst. 4.17.10; the initial sentence of § 10 formulates the so-called extra calvinisticum. Inst. 4.17.9 and 2. Inst. 4.17.32, 5 and 1 Bullinger: 1570, p. 356: “Nunquam dociumus nos nullam in Ecclesia esse debere disciplinam: quam sane necessariam esse fatemur. De modo & ratione huis disciplinae, non vnum vel idem omnium est & semper fuit iudicium. Nostra Ecclesia nunquam disciplinae ecclesiasticae immiscuit coenam Domini mysticam. Neque ea de causa ab vllo vnquam, quod sciam, impietatis est accusata.” Compare Bullinger’s judgment of the disciplinary systems of Zurich and Geneva in CO 14, no. 1870, 13 December 1553, p. 698.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

171

worthy and the unworthy, separated from each other time and time again. The purpose of the mystical meal of the Lord is to join together, to be a place where sinners come together and are united. “And because we have no discipline of the Lord’s Supper,” he wrote in retrospect, “we also have no need for elders or for a ‘consistory’ (presbyterium) or government commission for ecclesiastical affairs by which the participants in the Lord’s Supper are to be investigated and admitted to Communion, or sinners barred from it.”8 As Bullinger saw it, Calvin’s new system of penance and confession focused not so much on the inner, mystical, and spiritual side, as on the social-civil and psychological side that concerned the improvement of a person’s mindset. Pointing to Scripture he wrote: “with regard to the main issue of the debate, this absolutely does not conflict with what I have written in my commentary on Matthew 18. For close to the end I say, among other things, that it was the purpose of God’s counsel (concerning discipline) that the wicked in the church (sclerati in Ecclesia) should be corrected and its offences (scandala) removed.”9 Bullinger believed the punishment and penalisation of “offensive sins” to have a salutary effect, and in the church of Zurich, so he wrote, this was attended to by the Christian magistrate, but elsewhere in a different way.10 Exceptional scandals of course needed to be dealt with, just like sickness has to be fought. On this point Bullinger did not differ from Calvin. But Calvin wanted more. For Calvin penance and confession also provided a medicine for everyday life, where there was to be room for admonition, repentance, and reconciliation. Yet the medicine par excellence that surpassed penance and confession, while nevertheless being closely tied to them, was communion with Christ at the Lord’s Supper. Intermezzo For centuries, a purely spiritual communion had been a recognised and popular practice. During the scholastic period it was legitimised theologically by Thomas Aquinas, who maintained it alongside a sacramental and spiritual eating (manducatio sacramentalis et spiritualis) and a purely sacramental eating. However, over the course of the late medieval period, the sacraments came to be referred to increasingly using a more sober language infused with Aristotelian terms. As an illustration, we will take a scholastic taxonomy of four categories concerning the ‘eating of Christ’ (manducare Christi) at the Lord’s Supper. Differences in the spiritual experience of the sacrament nevertheless show that a variety of interpretations of the sacrament existed. This may in

8 Bullinger: 1570, p. 356. 9 Bullinger: 1570, p. 359: “Ab his omnibus, quoad summam rei, nihil dissidet, quod scripsi in Comment. meis ad 18. cap. Matth. Sub finem enim inter alia dico, Finis consilii Domini est, (in negotio disciplinae) vt corrigantur scelerati in Ecclesia, & auferantur scandala.” 10 Bullinger: 1570, pp. 358–359: “vt scelera offendentia plectantur.”

172

1.

2.

3.

4.

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

turn help us to better understand the tight connection Calvin maintained between the Lord’s Supper and discipline:11 Eating of the sacrament, but not sacramentally (manducare sacramentum et non sacramentaliter). This is for the non-thinking (bruta) and unbelieving (manducatio impiorum). Although they receive the consecrated host and therefore also receive Christ, they do not receive the operation of grace (the res sacramenti). The sacramental, oral consumption of the sacrament (manducare sacramentaliter or manducatio oralis). This category subsumes all believers, the good as well as the wicked (manducatio indignorum). The inner or outer condition of the recipient is of no real importance here for the reception of the mediating operation of the sacrament. The third category concerns the spiritual eating of the sacrament (manducare sacramentum spiritualiter). In this third kind the participant must bind himself to Christ in faith, and approach the Holy Supper worthily in order to receive the sacrament. Faith inspired by God’s love (fides caritate formata) is a necessary condition. This is the category of spiritual consumption that Calvin’s view falls under as well. It constitutes a middle position between the Lutherans (category 2) and the position of the sacramentarians or Zwinglians (category 4).12 The fourth category is the spiritual eating of Christ’s body (manducare corpus Christi spiritualiter), without necessarily communicating sacramentally. Here too the effect is communion with Christ (communio cum Christo). Believing (credere) thus equals consuming (manducare).13 In this fourth kind, faith and the consumption of the sacrament coincide to such an extent that the administration and consumption of the sacrament does not add anything of essence. The desire for and the will to consume suffice to participate in the sacrament’s effects.

11 Oberman: 1986 (English ed.), p. 243. The Council of Trent made a later, tripartite distinction. Receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin (sacramentaliter), worthily and bearing fruit (sacramentaliter simul et spiritualiter), and out of desire (tantum spiritualiter). “He who says that the Christ administered in the Eucharist is merely spiritual and not also given sacramentally and in reality, shall be struck by the ananthema.” Denzinger : 1991, nrs. 1648 and 1658. 12 Oberman: 1986 (English ed.), pp. 244–245. Cf. A Kempis: 1441, 3.1.37. 13 Spiritual communion, whether or not from necessity (manducare Christum in voto), had for centuries been a wide notion and a recognised and popular practice. During the scholastic period it received theological legitimation from Thomas Aquinas. In his commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, he called it manducare Christum spiritualiter, as the first of several forms of manducatio, next to an act of eating that is both sacramental and spiritual, and an act of eating that is only sacramental. See ch. 11, n. 27. As representatives of reforms carried out in the centuries before the Reformation, spiritual leaders such as Gerard Groote and Wessel Gansfort had become supporters of a merely spiritual communion (tantum spiritualiter). This form of communicating consisted of a union with Christ in faith and love, in spiritual communion or personal communication, and was independent of the actual reception of the sacrament.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

173

Two kinds of consumption From the beginning Calvin had firmly opposed the possibility of discerning a twofold consumption (manducatio duplex) of the Eucharist. “That is absurd,” he wrote. The Roman Catholics “discern in the Eucharist two kinds of consumption, a sacramental consumption, which the good as well as the bad take part in, and a spiritual consumption, which is only reserved for the good.”14 To illustrate his disapproval of the medieval practice of penance and confession, he applied this duality in the consumption of the Eucharist to confession and then asked: “Why can they not imagine, that also grace is received in a dual manner?” – that is, an external absolution by the sacrament, next to an internal one. The sign and that which the sign stands for would then be separated from each other. In this way it became possible to speak of the visible sign of the sacrament without the external consecration and, vice versa, of an external consecration without an internal conversion. This is how different gradations or categories came to be formed.15 Does the effect of the sacrament depend on its recipient? One emphasised the sacrament itself, and the other the participant in the sacrament. In scholastic terms: one view stated that the effect of the sacrament follows from its own operation, due to which the administration of the sacrament was automatically effective, ex opere operato (‘from the work worked’); and the other stated that the effect depended on the receiver, ex opere operantis (‘from the work of the doer’). In the first case the sacrament functioned also in the absence of faith in the recipient; in fact, a receiving party was not even necessary. In the second group not only the effect of the sacrament in the life of the remorseful sinner was a factor, but also the spiritual and worthy manner in which the sacrament was received. Calvin was a typical late medieval man. He came from a world of order and unity, and at the same time he lived in the early modern world in which everything was changing. It was the interval in which scholasticism and humanism influenced each another. In this new world Calvin committedly, enthusiastically, and restlessly sought to introduce some order, in theory as well as practice. In doing so he distanced himself from his past in which he belonged to a church that was mainly controlled by the pope, governed by all kinds of coercive constructions and systems which threatened to suffocate man. As such Calvin, full of fire and

14 Inst. 4.19.16. Oberman: 1986 (English ed.), p. 243. 15 “Some ‘call in at Christ’ in order to receive the sacrament, and until they reach sanctification. The former is done by the good and bad alike, the latter is done only by the good.” Inst. 4.19.16.

174

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

creativity, made up part of the movement of liberation and renewal that we have termed the ‘Reformation.’ In order to understand Calvin’s thinking on Christian confession in the practice of the church’s life, we must remember that in those days widely diverging views on the Lord’s Supper circulated even within the Roman Catholic and the Protestant camps. Some stressed the objective sacrament, while others placed the emphasis on subjective experience; for some the manner in which one went to communion was less essential, for others it was crucial; for some it was a matter of Christ’s bodily presence in the bread and wine even if they were received without faith, while for others faith was of crucial importance in communion. The different points of view not only concerned the way in which the Lord’s Supper and the preparation for it were conceived and experienced, but also the frequency with which celebrations were held and the question whether or not participants had the obligation to attend. In the debate concerning the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, Calvin assumed a middle position, both when he addressed the different reform-minded factions, such as the Lutherans and Zwinglians, and when he addressed the Roman Catholic church. When circumstances allowed, he adopted a flexible and diplomatic stance.16 At the same time, he consistently steered his own course and, in the spirit of the established church, continued to insist against the Lutherans and Zwinglians on a tight connection between the Lord’s Supper and church discipline. This insistence followed from his view on the Eucharist and on the responsibility of those who administer it. With his first foray into the field of church polity in 1536, Calvin – together with Farel – cut straight to the point when he in the very opening line of the introduction17 clearly and powerfully presented the close connection between Lord’s Supper and church discipline, while at the same time responding to the papal law. In his mind the Lord’s Supper was not to be celebrated and participated in by all believers just once per year, at Easter, but, in line with the opening sentence of the first article, oftentimes (souventefoys) – “at least every Sunday (tous les dimenches pour la moins en usage)”.18 His proposal of a weekly celebration of the Eucharist, however, never did get accepted.19 16 Janse concluded: “If we were to sketch in a few key words this evolution of almost thirty years, we should say : Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper successively shows Zwinglianizing (1536–1537), Lutheranizing (1537–1548), spiritualizing (1549–1560) and again Lutheranizing (1561–1562) accents.” Janse: 2008a, no. 4, p. 16. 17 Frans van Stam believes it is plausible to consider Farel the leading editor of the Articles of 16 January 1537. COR 6/1, p. 154 and in Zwingliana 27 (2000), pp. 87–101. Beza and Colladon ascribed the Articles to Calvin. CO 21, pp. 30–31 and CO 21, p. 59. Hermj. 4, no. 602, pp. 165– 166. For the sake of simplicity, we will only mention Calvin’s name in connection with the Articles. 18 See ch. 6, n. 32.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

175

After this Calvin in the introduction to this first church order immediately established the connection between the Lord’s Supper, discipline and a good supervision so “that no one dare presume to present him self unless devoutly (sainctement), and with genuine reverence for it.” Next to the sanctity of the participants, the introduction stressed that no one should go to communion except “with genuine reverence (en singuliere reverence).” This coincided with the formulation of the papal law, in which it was determined that the communicant, after having made confession, could receive “the sacrament of the Eucharist with reverence (reverenter).”20 Private Masses were now replaced by communal Lord’s Supper meetings. Three quarters of the Articles discuss the Supper and how one should prepare for it. In the third sentence of the introduction, Calvin elaborates on this topic. For why “is the discipline of excommunication” absolutely necessary in this new ecclesiastical structure? “For this reason,” Calvin wrote, “in order to maintain the church in its integrity.”21 Later on, and exactly with a view to sanctification, he would say that ecclesiastical discipline is like “the nerve of the church.”22 Here, in this initial phase of the church’s new life since the departure of the bishop, there is on the one hand attention for the punishment of believers, that is to say, for excommunication in the form of a banishment or exclusion from the Lord’s Supper community, a disciplinary sanction as salutary penance, with a view to healing and improvement. On the other hand, Calvin struggled with the question as to what should be done with people who in their hearts were more 19 The most important change implemented by the city council in January 1537 concerned the decrease in frequency of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper from twelve to four times per year. COR 6/1, p. 154. 20 OS 1, p. 369. COR 6/1, pp. 157–158. Also in the initial line of the paragraph in his Sommaire from 1525/29, Farel had, in a classical manner, closely connected excommunication to the Holy Supper: “Excommunication or banishment is the rejection of the Supper of our Lord. (Excommuniement ou excommunication est rejection de la table de nostre Seigneur de celluy qui est en pech¦).” Farel: 1980 (Sommaire), p. 216. Further down in this paragraph on excommunication, Farel stated that the church people had to somewhat avoid an unconvertible, stubborn sinner with a view to the Eucharist: “And if someone wants to do nothing at all, one should not converse with him differently than one would do with an unbeliever with whom one would not want to share our Lord’s table, and also have nothing to do with him, while approving of his life and faith. But one should be drinking and eating with him in a very different way, in order to win and pull him in. This is how one should have contact with the excommunicated, in all love.” Farel: 1980 (Sommaire), p. 220. 21 OS 1, pp. 369–370. COR 6/1, pp. 157–158. 22 Inst. 4.12.1. Discipline was one of the pillars on which the Roman Catholic church was based, but it has “let them weaken.” OS 1, p. 467. Cf. OS 1, p. 479. This is why we insist, he wrote to Saleto, “that man begins with self-knowledge, not in its superficial, banal form, but in such a way that he appears before God’s judgment seat conscientiously. When he is sufficiently convinced of his injustice, he should also think of the severe verdict that awaits all sinners.” And after having thus been humbled, we realise that “Christ is our only justice.” OS 1, p. 469.

176

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

Roman Catholic than evangelically minded. In contrast to what happened in Bern and Zurich, Calvin was of the opinion that they should not be tolerated (ne doubent estre tollerez) in the ecclesiastical community of the Holy Supper, and should be forced to accept the new faith. The sinner who, with an eye to the Eucharist, did not wholeheartedly and obediently comply with God’s Word had to be admonished and corrected. But due to the other problem, namely that some had not yet consciously accepted the evangelical faith, a start first had to be made – with an eye to the unity of the Lord’s Supper community – with the Genevan church. Every believer without exception, men as well as women, would have to comply with the new doctrine and thus the new form of worship. Calvin’s proposal was for the people to make an individual choice of faith (in groups of ten). Citizens who refused to cooperate were “better off to move elsewhere.”23 Every inhabitant of the city community by virtue of his residence there belonged to the Christian church. Where Calvin did make a distinction was between those who “wanted to belong to the church of Jesus Christ” and those who did not cherish this desire. With this he meant the wish to participate (or not) in the Eucharist in the new, Calvinistic style – and that multiple times per year, and not just annually as under the established church.24 When we read that “several inhabitants of this city have not accepted the gospel at all”25 and that these inhabitants therefore “should not be tolerated”26 in the church community, this does not mean that they were not members of the institute of the church, since that was simply impossible in Geneva at that time. In the context of that time, the word eglise was regularly used to refer to the Lord’s Supper or to the community of the Holy Supper. 23 For Calvin religion was not merely an internal affair : “It is ridicule to say that it is sufficient that a man glorifies God within his heart, without concerning oneself with the outer affairs, because God does not pay attention to this.” Hermj. 6, no. 888, pp. 298–299. On 19 September 1537 the council report mentions that those who refused to swear an oath on the confession were advised to go live somewhere else (“lon leur dise quil allent vivre aultre part”) CO 21 (Reg. du Conseil, T. 31 fol. 61), p. 215. 24 OS 1, p. 374, l.25f. = COR 6/1, p. 167, l.197; see also OS 1, p. 373, l.35 = COR 6/1, p. 165, l.168. In part five of his Great Catechism of 1529, Luther wrote that he opposed obligatory participation in the Holy Supper, so that “no one should be driven or forced into it, under any circumstances, so that no new soul murder would again be committed.” At the same time, he was critical of people who had no desire to participate in communion: “[T]his ought to be known, that such people should not be considered Christians, who stay far away from the Supper for so long and abstain from it.” Just as in the church order of 1537, so in the 1541 church order the word eglise was not used to indicate an independent institution or the congregation, but rather – comparable to Rome – the church’s leadership and more specifically the church as the communion of the Lord’s Supper. On the meaning of the word eglise, see Speelman: 2014, ch 2. 25 OS 1, p. 374, l.19–20 = COR 6/1, p. 166, l.191–192. 26 OS 1, p. 374, l.35 = COR 6/1, p. 167, l.205.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

177

This is confirmed by the intervening passage, in which not eglise but assemblee was used and for which the inspiration was provided by the same train of thought. Here it concerned the possibility, if necessary, to “exclude” church members “by excommunication from the assembly (assemblee).”27 However, shortly thereafter it was said that these people, who had been excluded from the Eucharist through excommunication, had the duty to “attend the sermons (predications).”28 This means that the expression “to exclude from our assembly” was not meant to imply that people were to be banished from the city or would not be allowed to attend church services, but that they were excluded from participation in the Lord’s Supper.

Several lines further down, the punishment of the sins of believers through excommunication is addressed. A grave sinner was to be removed from the community of Christians, that is, from the Lord’s Supper community. “Not accepting in the church” a grave sinner not only meant that he was excluded from the Holy Supper, but also that his reputation was at stake, that his good name and honour as a citizen of the ecclesiastical city-state was violated, and in the end he could even lose his citizenship or be banished.29 The expression “to separate him from the church (qu’on le separe de l’Eglise)” thus referred to exclusion from the Lord’s Supper. Calvin translated this French phrase into Latin as “barring from the Lord’s Supper (ab usu coenae),” thereby rendering the word eglise as “Lord’s Supper”.30 Earlier on, in article 154, with a view to the sinner’s conversion, Calvin addressed the matter of a temporary refusal of “access to the Lord’s Supper (la communion).” For “when people stubbornly continue on the wrong path, after they have been admonished up to three times, they should be excluded.”31

2

The importance of good pastoral care by the office bearers

But who is to guard the holy sacrament if more is needed than self-examination? If the invitation is not unconditional and aims at a select group of people, who is to determine who may go to communion, and by what criteria? The papal law was very clear on this. So were Luther and Bullinger, although their view was on the opposite extreme of the spectrum: no selection was to be applied for the Lord’s Supper. But is participation in the most sacred merely a matter of con27 OS 1, p. 374, l.26 = COR 6/1, p. 167, l.197. 28 OS 1, p. 373, l.41–42 = COR 6/1, p. 165, l.173– p. 166, l.1. An excommunicated person was expected to keep on attending church services. He continued to be a part of the church, albeit at times with less rights. 29 OS 1, p. 374, l.35f. and l.39f. = COR 6/1, p. 167, l.205f. A seriously ill person sometimes has to go into quarantine because of the risk of infection. 30 OS 2, p. 358, l.29f. = CStA 2, p. 268, l.18f. Cf. ch. 6, n. 46. 31 OS 2, p. 358 = Niesel, art. 154, p. 61.

178

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

scious but personal consideration, or does it involve also a supra-personal responsibility? Calvin’s conscience would not leave him alone on this matter. He agreed with others that we must examine ourselves by the question whether we have a true repentance (vraye repentance) and faith in our Lord. We must acknowledge being dead in ourselves and strong in Him. We must know how great our misery is without his grace. He who knows the scandal of his sin and the misery of his being and condition (estat et condition) because he has been separated from God will be displeased with and condemn himself, and bemoan such great misery. Man “continuously sees before him” the judgment of God. While preparing for the Holy Supper the sinful conscience presses itself upon man, “with great fear, because it sees that it has no means of escape and nothing to answer in its defense.” If we, with such knowledge of our misery, are able to taste the goodness of God, we will desire to execute his will.32 To Calvin’s mind the episcopal overseer was a guardian, someone who would not sleep but stay on guard day and night. It is through his eyes that God watches his people. It is a great burden and exceptional responsibility to be called as guardians over God’s people (custodes populo Dei) and to watch over their salvation as overseers (speculatores). At the same time Calvin called this special service, “this serious and very honorable leadership (administratio),” the highest to be found under heaven.33 Here he once more referred to Ezechiel: “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me” (Ezek 3:17).34 In Calvin’s view the preachers had to care for those “whose blood will be demanded from us, if they should be lost due to our negligence. However, if this care should make us fearful in other times, it tormented and pained us most viciously, whenever the meal of the Lord was to be administered. Because although many a faith had been doubtful to us and even very suspicious, still all of them, without distinction, forced their way in. They would rather feed themselves with the wrath of God, than to be strengthened by the sacrament of life.”35 In this context, Calvin wondered whether the barring of a person from the Lord’s Supper table numbered among the pastoral responsibilities of a congregation’s minister : “Nevertheless, is perhaps not the shepherd himself, who applies no

32 OS 1, pp. 511–512 = CStA 1.2, p. 458. Q& A 357 to 359 from the Genevan Catechism of 1542 discuss our preparation for the Lod’s Supper and self-examination. Otherwise stated, the communicant must examine “whether he himself has truthful faith and repentance; whether he loves his next of kin with true love.” OS 2, p. 141 = CStA 2, p. 130. 33 OS 1, p. 333 = CStA 1.2, p. 312. 34 See COR 4/4, pp. 150–164, COR 6/1, ep. 57, p. 64, p. 75, and p. 85, and Inst. 4.3.6. 35 CO 5, p. 319, l.29–38 = OS 1, p. 428, l.38– p. 429, l.2.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

179

selection at all during the administration, expected to defile such great mystery?”36 The question remained who could and who could not be “admitted to the spiritual, holy festive meal,” and who could or could not be “counted as one of his people”?37 This is how early in 1538 Calvin formulated the problem of the conscience with respect to the execution of the pastorate, with which he thought the pastors struggled in the exercise of their function and for which they sought a solution. The Genevan pastors, he wrote, wanted to achieve “peace and quiet” on the matter.38 In January 1539, more than six months after his banishment from Geneva, Calvin looked back and sighed: some have “never understood what I actually wanted. My difficulty lay in my position.” In retrospect, according to Calvin, the problem was that no distinction was being made between the minister and the “ordinary church member”39, although the preachers did carry more responsibility than the ordinary church members did. Later he would assume a more nuanced position in this matter, not because he laid a claim on the magistrate’s power, but because “it is fitting, that a people should be governed with a more humane and loose form of discipline […], while the clergy practice a more strict censorship among one another, and are much less lenient towards themselves than they are to others.”40

Calvin supported a public and even obligatory form of the Lord’s Supper, but opposed a fully open table. The minister was in part responsible for admitting the recipients. Not everyone was to be admitted just like that. As we have seen, in this his opinion different from that of others.41 According to Calvin, the church was responsible for distinguishing at the Supper between the worthy and unworthy. But who was to execute this continually recurring selection, and whose responsibility was it? Which person or instance could take on such a difficult and encompassing assignment? To Calvin’s mind it was clear that to admit the wrong people was to violate the sacrament, and a “great insult to our Lord.” “For this

36 37 38 39 40 41

CO 5, p. 319, l.38–40 = OS 1, p. 429, l.2–4. CO 5, p. 319, l.38–45. = OS 1, p. 429, l.2–8. CO 5, p. 319, l.40f. = OS 1, p. 429, l.4f. CO 10b, no. 156, p. 309, l.31–35 = Hermj. 5, no. 764, p. 213, l.26–30. Inst. 4.12.22 (1543) = OS 5, p. 232, l.6–8. Cf. CO 10a, p. 18, l.38f. = OS 2, p. 333, l.4f. In 1540 Calvin harboured the intention to install a compulsory examination (examen) in Strasbourg, in which he instructed the people, and admonished and comforted them. This idea met with fierce criticism from his fellow brothers, however : “That with regard to the Supper, about which I have written to you, our dear brothers have their thoughts, does not surprise me at all. Because it is not new to me to see that there are good souls who are afraid to fall back into superstition or something that has a certain kinship or similarity with the papal fabrications.” Bullinger was extremely angry about this initiative from Calvin. Hermj. 6, no. 863 (13 May 1540), p. 223 = CO 11, no. 218, p. 41. CO 11, no. 292, p. 183.

180

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

reason,” he wrote, “did our Lord in his church install the mutual admonition and discipline (la correction et discipline) of excommunication.”42 Calvin had first directed the government’s attention to three motives for the execution of church supervision and discipline.43 In 1543 he would add to this the explicit comment that it was a part of the pastoral assignment of the preacher to admonish people in connection with the Lord’s Supper : “Because it is absolutely certain that he, who has been entrusted with the administration and who willy-nilly admits an unworthy person who he could have rightfully rejected, is as guilty of blasphemy, as when he had thrown the body of the Lord before dogs.”44 A regulation in the church order was needed in order to offer a solution. The first proposal was that the council would choose a number of representatives, virtuous men “of good descent,” from throughout all the city’s districts, who “could watch everyone’s conduct and movements, and when they discover an important vice (vice) about which they should be called to account, then they have to report this to one of the ministers (ministres).”45 Four years later he introduced the elder for this function, who also had the status of a council member.46 The necessity of a supra-personal examination also related to Calvin’s anthropology, as he had already revealed in the first edition of his Institutes. Man is not entirely able to judge himself honestly, “because, after all, in our nature we are prone to sanctimoniousness.”47 A person who is confronted with God’s law is prone to insincerity and to easing his conscience, for example by making a distinction between serious and less serious sins.48 “A man’s heart is swarmed with so many depths of self-satisfaction, so many recesses of deceit; his deceptive insincerity is so much hidden away that he continuously misleads himself.”

42 OS 1, pp. 371–372 = COR 6/1, pp. 162–163. 43 The three motives concerning ecclesiastical penance and discipline refer to the honour of God, the conversion of the sinful man, and the risk of contamination by wrong influences. CO 10a, p. 9, l.32–41 = OS 1, p. 372, l.27–34. The same three are found in Institutes CO 1, p. 76, l.5–12 = OS 1, pp. 89–90, the catechism CO 22, pp. 72–73 = OS 1, pp. 415–416, and the confession and CO 22, p. 93 = OS 1, p. 424. 44 Inst. 4.12.5 (1543) = OS 5, p. 215, l.21–24. 45 OS 1, p. 373 = CStA 1.1, p. 120. 46 The proposal of the preachers in the Articles of 1537 was that these deputies would inform the preachers where necessary, and that the preachers, in their turn, after they had given their approval to the judgment of the deputies, would pass on the information to the city council. The deputies had to be appointed by the magistrate since, after all, its office was the only one that was not contested. The deputies to be assigned to the preachers were to serve as their assistants. Calvin probably considered taking the deputies from the ranks of the council members, due to their office. In this way the new church would enjoy more authority and greater prestige among the people. OS 1, p. 373, l.23–27 = COR 6/1, p. 165. 47 Inst. 1.1.2 (1539) = OS 3, p. 32. 48 Inst. 2.8.58 (1559) = OS 3, p. 397.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

181

As far as self-examination and exclusion from the Lord’s Supper were concerned, hypocrites did not represent a problem for Calvin. For although what he says about the hypocrites whose hearts are not known and about the godless who display their unbelief in their actions shows great similarities, the minister cannot do anything of course with the hypocrites when it comes to their admission to the church as a communion of the Lord’s Supper.49 At the same time, Calvin talks about the sin of hypocrisy in everyone’s heart. For the church as God alone can see it has only one category, and this category is made up of the elect in heaven and on earth “who, by the grace of adoption, are God’s children and are true members of Christ through the sanctification of the Spirit.” The visible church, however, is mixed. It consists of “the whole community of people which is spread out over the earth,” who believe in God, have been baptised, and partake in the Lord’s Supper. “In it, also many insincere are contained, who have no more of Christ than the name and the appearance.”50

Coercion to a total acknowledgment of sin drives people to despair, robs them of a real understanding of their sins, and turns them into hypocrites.51 It is not right to prescribe a complete penance, and to exclude from the Lord’s Supper anyone who does not comply with this. For who could still go to communion then? Is there anyone who has no sin or weakness? The reason why all should pray and ask for the forgiveness of their sins on a daily basis is that there is no one who does not stumble often. Otherwise, the Lord’s Supper would be without purpose and even unwholesome if we were to come with a faith that is so complete and a life that is so perfect. We are allowed to participate in communion even with a less than clear conscience (provided that it does not accuse us too much), as long as we are not hypocritical and immediately fall back into sin. True repentance (and penitence) is steady and lasting. Calvin and Luther were both of the opinion that true penance does not consist of fixed rites performed at set times, but of a life-long repentance and continuous penitence. This is how Calvin formulated it in 1541: True penitence is not performed on one day or for one week, but it consists in knowing no end and in fighting a ceaseless battle against the evil that is in us.52

49 Inst. 4.14.7 = OS 5, p. 264. Impii and hypocritae constitute a word-pair. De Boer : 1993, p. 375. 50 Ten years later, in 1553, Calvin formulated his internal battle regarding this issue in his commentary on 1 Timothy (5: 24) as follows: “Considering that there is nothing that pains loyal servants of the church more than when they see no possible way of improving the ailments, when they are forced to tolerate the dissemblers whose meanness they notice, when they cannot exclude from the church the many who are harmful sources of pestilence and even cannot prevent them from disseminating their poison with secret artifices, Paul keeps Timothy standing with the comfort that it will happen, that one day they will be pulled before the court.” CO 52, pp. 320f. De Boer: 1993, pp. 377–378. 51 Inst. 3.4.18 (1536) = OS 4, p. 106. 52 Higman: 1970, p. 113, § 27 = OS 1, p. 514 = CStA 1.2, p. 462.

182

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

The sacrament is to be a medicine against our sin and weakness, against our imperfect faith and imperfect lives, a medicine that God offers to us as our rescue, that strengthens our faith and expands our love, and that makes us grow in all sanctification of life.53 This metaphor of the doctor and the patient in need of medicine was a well-known and familiar medieval image for the salutary operation of confession and preparation for the Eucharist. Calvin applied this same image to the saving power of the Lord’s Supper.54 Calvin is not concerned only with the fruits of the salutary effects of the Supper, but first and foremost with the communion with Christ Himself: “I confess, however, that only when we receive Christ Himself, do we partake in Christ’s blessings (bona). But we receive Him, this I stress, not only if we believe that He has offered Himself for us, but if He lives in us, if He is one with us, if we are members of His flesh: in short, when we (so to speak) become one life and one being (substantia) with Him.”55 A mere celebration of remembrance did not suffice for Calvin. He was concerned here with the real presence of and communion with Christ in the sacrament. We see Christ not with our own eyes, as we see the signs (symbola), but it is those signs that do in fact make him present to us: “He does not change places in order to be present among us, but He sends us the operation of his flesh from heaven.”56 Because Calvin was concerned with the real communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper and because Christ was not present in the bread himself, the manner of eating was of utmost importance to him. Therefore, according to 53 Higman: 1970, p. 113 = § 28. 54 See, for example, OS 2, pp. 360–361 = CStA 2, p. 272. 55 Commentary (1546) on 1 Cor 11: 24 = CO 49, pp. 487–489. The quote continues: “Furthermore, I point to the meaning of his words. Because Christ does not only offer us the blessings of his death and resurrection, but also the body in which he suffered and is arisen […] I reach the conclusion, that the body of Christ is given to us realiter (as is commonly said), in reality in the Supper in order to be salutary food for our souls.” 56 Idem, Comm. on 1 Cor 11: 24, pp. 487–489. “The Roman Catholics claim that the substance of the bread is gone, but only the accidents of the bread, the accidentia, remain.” The same ideas return in 1555 in different formulations in the Comm. on the harmony of the Gospels in Mark 14: 24 and Matt 26: 26, in which he also elaborately countered the Roman doctrine. He concludes that the signs of the bread and wine are not without meaning, but “that those who accept this promise in faith, will really partake in the body and blood of the Lord […] Because for us the question is not whether Christ offers himself to us in reality or only symbolically.” CO 45 (Gospel commentary), pp. 707–708. Janse explains that in the time when Calvin took on the debate with the Lutheran Westphal, he preached about the same texts, but used a more Zwinglian vocabulary. “All sacraments should be like ladders to us, which enable us to climb up to approach God more closely.” And through the Supper God wishes to make us into “companions of the angels,” “because through this sacrament we are united with them to be nourished by Jesus Christ, who is their as well as our life.” The only difference between the angels and the believers lies in the sacraments that we need to “pull us up.” Sermon on 1 Cor 11: 26–29 and 20–23 and 23–26. CO 49, p. 815 and p. 771 and p. 793. Janse: 2008b, pp. 59–60.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

183

Calvin, we should stand by each other as much as possible when, during our preparation for the spiritual meal, we come clean with God, ourselves, and our neighbours.57

3

A comparison between the papal system of penance and confession and Calvin’s system

When it came to the practice of confession, in Calvin’s days the Roman Catholic pastors and priests each in their own way shaped pastoral care in strengthening the weak, admonishing the sinner, and reconciling him with God and his surroundings. Their point of departure was an established system of thought and supervision, in which people assumed that the church had the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven to punish and forgive sins, referring in this context to (certain interpretations of) the words of Scripture, such as Matt 16: 18 and 18: 18 and John 20: 23. In this, the Roman Catholic church did not differ from the representatives of the evangelical movement. A major shift and, in the long run, even rupture arose when in the course of the years evangelical thinkers no longer departed from the traditional, sacramental, ecclesiastical power of the keys with regard to the forgiveness of sins. At a young age Bullinger had fought for and managed to keep the freedom of preaching, but he had fully placed supervision and discipline – and therefore the ecclesiastical power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven – into the hands of the magistrate. From the beginning Calvin reintroduced this spiritual and socialcivil element into Reformed Protestantism, and thereby restored also Christian, ecclesiastical confession. This had everything to do with his view of the church as a Lord’s Supper community. From 1536 onwards, he had introduced confession as a discipline of the Lord’s Supper into Geneva, thereby emphasising religious and practical-ethical sanctification.58 To this end he devised a system that in many respects was similar to the medieval network of supervision and discipline. At the beginning of the sixteenth-century Reformation, Calvin in Luther’s wake had departed from an anthropology in which man is so enslaved to sin that it is impossible for him to do or to will the good of himself: “Man is not able to 57 Everyone receives the sacrament, but only the elect receive “through the secret operation of his Spirit” what the sacrament signifies. This testifies of the conviction that in the adminstration of the bread and wine, the body of Christ is not received as a matter of course. The church does not determine who is elect, but it does decide who is allowed at the Lord’s Supper. Consensus Tigurinus, art. 16. OS 2, p. 250; OS 5, p. 393. 58 Spykman: 1955, pp. 230–258.

184

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

choose freely between good and evil, what is called free will.”59 All that is good by definition came from God’s side. Compared to the doctrine of the established Roman Catholic church, the new evangelical doctrine portrayed man as worse and God as more merciful. From the religious viewpoint that man was only sanctified in Christ rather than by his own merits, ecclesiastical society formed a unity and community of and with all the saints together.60 Departing from this perspective, Calvin’s new confessional system took shape, in which the church’s representatives carried the final responsibility. In the medieval period, people had at times been quite optimistic of their own abilities. This was also evident in their confessional practice. In order to receive forgiveness for sins, they themselves had to contribute by giving evidence of their sorrow, conversion, and penance. Forgiveness was not just a matter of grace. The fact that medieval man had a more optimistic view on life and did not see himself as radically depraved was formulated well by John Wolff, a pastor from Frankfurt am Main, who in his 1478 children’s confessional booklet submitted that it was much easier to love God than to sin.61 Where people have positive expectations, it is easier also to appeal to the goodness of man (or his will) and to his conscience. Although a different view on human free will emerged in the sixteenth-century Reformation, the layman’s own responsibility did also continue to be emphasised. It was not only expected from each individual that he should know the Christian values and norms, apply them in his life, and give an account of himself in this regard, as was usual in the existing confessional practice. During the Reformation times, every Christian was also expected to have a certain knowledge of basic religious affairs and to form his opinion about them so that it would 59 OS 1, p. 381, Catechism 1537, § 5. 60 CStA 1.2, p. 376 and p. 368. 61 “Es ist viel härter und schwerer, die Gebote zu brechen, als sie nicht zu brechen und zu halten. Darum ist es noch viel mehr härter, dem bösen Geist zu dienen für die ewige Verdammnis, des Feuers Qual und ewige Pein als dem allmächtigen Gott für das ewige Leben. Denn es ist viel härter zu schwören, zu fluchten, schelten, spielen, würfeln, tanzen, hauen, stechen, morden, ehebrechen, lügen, betrügen, Vater and Mutter nicht zu ehren etc., als diese Sünden zu unterlassen. Du kannst leichter Gott lieb haben über all Kreaturen und ihn anbeten, an ihn glauben, hoffen und ihn ehren als die Menschen oder Kreaturen. (It is much more hard and difficult to break the commandment, than not to break and to keep it. That is why it is even much more difficult to serve the evil Spirit into eternal damnation, the torture of the fire and eternal pain, than the almighty God into the eternal life. Because it is harder to swear, flee, scold, gamble, dice, dance, slash, stab, murder, commit adultery, lie, cheat, dishonor father and mother, etc., than not to commit these sins. It is easier to love God above all creatures and to worship him, believe in him, hope for him and honor him, than people or other creatures).” Wolff: 1478/1907 (Beichtbüchlein), p. 39. Angenendt: 2005, p. 652. Tentler : 1977, p. 161. Elders: 1992, p. 22.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

185

enable him to make the right choices. Furthermore, ordinary believers came to receive greater involvement in the religious activities during worship services. While the ecclesiastical reforms of the thirteenth century only required of laymen to go to confession and Communion once per year, Calvin raised the bar much higher. If people were able to examine themselves and annually to give an account of their faith and life, as the papal confessional law assumed, they also had to be supplied with the right information. Sermons called for inner and outward conversion, and for participation in the sacraments. For medieval man, direct communication between God and people was only to be found in the sacrament, where the main emphasis was on the fruits, the effects of God’s actions. During the Reformation period, preachers also sought to admonish, exhort, and encourage people by proclaiming the law and the gospel, and the hearers were to be convinced of sin, justice, and judgment, and to be stimulated to lead a virtuous, chaste, and holy life, but the use of the pulpit as a (didactic) place from which the people were educated increased considerably. What is more, the administration of the Word which, like the liturgy as a whole, took place in the vernacular language, was experienced less as something that belonged in the vestibule and would function increasingly as the very centre of the encounter and confrontation with God. Sermons were not only meant to incite people to good habits and a virtuous life, but opened the very doors of heaven and hell. They were seen and experienced as a highly existential and apocalyptic event in which the Lord revealed himself, and in which warnings were sounded for the kingdom of darkness. Listening to a sermon and obeying the voice of God constituted two sides of the same coin, and were seen as one and the same action. Both also related directly to the opening and closing of the gates of the kingdom of heaven.62 Here we also need to note that the episcopal responsibilities and, therefore, the management of the sixteenth-century church, usually came into the hands of the magistrate, who on the whole were laymen. Starting in the late 1550s, Calvin located the annual, obligatory investigation into the people’s doctrine and life, as conducted by the pastors together with their assistants in the districts under their care, in the weeks leading up to Easter. In this he joined the existing Roman Catholic tradition. The examination took place in the people’s homes, or in church, on one of the five Sundays preceding Easter.

62 Oberman: 1961, p. 225.

186

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

It partly took place in the form of an interrogation, similar to papal confession.63 “We have decreed” that everyone, men and women, will be visited in their own homes every year “to each be investigated individually and without much ado” on their faith and religious life with a view to the Lord’s Supper. The communicants need to know what the foundation of their salvation is, and “no one should go to Communion” without having been approved.64 Calvin had the city divided into districts, while the twelve yearly elected elders each had to live in one district65 and ensure that everyone was closely supervised (afin avoir l’oeil par tout). Throughout the year it was the task of the district’s own elder “to supervise over everyone’s life” and to “reproach in a friendly manner” those who had misbehaved and led a life of debauchery. If someone had committed a sin that deserved no more than a reproach, the elder of the district in question was to “incite change in a friendly manner,” so that he would mend his ways.66 Everyone, without regard to person, could be summoned before the consistory to be interrogated there, and the defendant had to account for his errors and confess his guilt. This happened regularly, and, after some time, even occurred hundreds of times per year. No more than the papal law did Calvin establish an explicit age limit. Children were only required to go to the Lord’s Supper and the confessional chair when they had reached “the age of discernment”. Calvin expected children from more or less the age of ten to participate in the Lord’s Supper and to prepare for it, and also that they would be questioned more thoroughly and, if necessary, be guided by the congregation’s pastor until their fifteenth year. This age limit, which was Calvin’s point of departure in his Institutes from 1536 onwards, was not set by law, however.67 In the papal system the priest could, where necessary, send someone on to the bishop or the pope. In Calvin’s system unrepentant behaviour was compulsorily followed by a unilateral appeal in the form of a referral to the city council, which in its turn could instigate a civil suit against the sinner in question.68 63 Archives d’etat de GenÀve, Archives Communales, Etat Civil, Genthod, 1, in Duke e.a.: 1992, no. 12, Concerning the interrogations which should take place before Easter Communion, pp. 52–53 and a Form of Interrogation before Communion, pp. 55–56. 64 OS 2, p. 357, art. 149 = CStA 2, p. 266. 65 OS 1, p. 428, l.38–40 = Niesel, p. 49, art. 49. 66 OS 2, p. 339 and p. 359, art. 48 en 158 = CStA 2, p. 254 and p. 268. 67 Inst. 4.19.13 = OS 5, p. 447. In the French edition this changed into “the child of ten years or so.” “Each ten-year-old child should present himself to the church with a view to confessing his faith,” Calvin wrote in 1536. OS 1, p. 169. 68 Niesel, p. 48–49, art. 48 and p. 60, art. 150–153. The civil court could sometimes also turn into a “place of confession,” If the admonition and exclusion from the Supper at the authority of the consistory had not brought about any changes, the sinner had to be referred on to the city

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

187

Another similarity between the two systems was the requirement that in some cases, such as those featuring a persistent sinner or a heretic, the name of the person in question was announced from the pulpit and the sinner was to be shunned by the other members of the ecclesiastical community. In some cases, sharing meals with and even greeting the excommunicated member was prohibited. Under the papal law this was exceptional, since papal confession was founded on absolute privacy and secrecy, and a violation of this rule from the side of the confessor met with severe punishment. In Calvin’s penitential law there were great differences in this regard. Both during the pastoral conversation at home and in the consistory, multiple people were present. In the consistory, in fact, more than ten of the city’s leading inhabitants would be in attendance, and a detailed written report was also taken down. And the public character of confession in Geneva was to increase even more at the beginning of the 1560s, when one of the official forms of penance was a public confession of guilt in the presence of the entire congregation. Intermezzo Calvin distinguished between public and private sins, and between serious and less serious sins, while in the medieval church a distinction had been made between mortal and venial sins.69 A difference between these two confessional systems was that the Roman Catholic confessional law also required people to confess private sins to the priest; the decree mentions ‘all sins’ and not just ‘public sins’. Through an interrogation people were helped to express their sins in words. In 1559 Calvin denounced the requirement of Roman Catholic confession to confess ‘all sins’, where he interpreted the law most literally, although its actual intention had been to incite the confession not of literally ‘all’ sins, but of both venial and mortal sins, and public as well as private sins. Calvin thus wrote: “Let the readers think here, to what extent it is possible to count all the actions of a full year, and to examine which sins they have committed on each day separately.”70 For the papal theologians the phrase ‘all sins’ was in fact a standard expression for ‘a full confession’. Nevertheless, Calvin was not alone in his criticism. The Protestant camp took the papal command to confess ‘all sins’ very seriously. In their view, it was an unattainable assignment, which for that reason left people in great uncertainty. The papal confessional law also stated that the priest could advise a penitent to ‘temporarily’ stay away from the Lord’s Supper, ‘for a good reason’. Calvin knew the principle of a temporarily imposed abstinence from the Lord’s Supper as means of humbling in order that the sinner might learn to understand his sin, improve his life, and not cause a scandal71, just as he too used certain penitential punishments to bring council to see whether he “asks for the forgiveness of his sin” in their presence. Niesel, pp. 61–62, art. 160 and 163. 69 Niesel, p. 46, art. 24f. and p. 61, art. 158. 70 Inst. 3.4.7 and Inst. 3.4.17 (1559) = OS 4, p. 93 and p. 105. Cf. ch. 6, n. 12 and n. 51. 71 Niesel, p. 60, art. 148–149; p. 61, art. 158–159; p. 61–62, art. 160; p. 62, art. 63.

188

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

about an improvement in life (correction et changement de vie) and with a view to healing. Yet in Calvin’s case this was a punishment and not a recommendation. The papal confessional law stated that the penitent had to fulfill the penance imposed by the priest as well as he could, and Calvin’s disciplinary laws likewise often mention the imposition of penitential punishments. In Calvin’s concept the duration of these punishments was to be set down, and never to last longer than a year, not even in case of banishment from the city.72 According to article 160 of Calvin’s church order, negligence of or contempt for the Lord’s Supper meant that God’s Word and human laws were being ridiculed. In this way someone isolated himself “from the holy community.” Both systems therefore severely punished contempt for the church’s penitential and confessional law, since in these cases not just the entire confessional system was at stake, but the very functioning of the holy gospel in church and society. In these cases, the papal confessional law threatened to no longer allow a person on sacred ground, which implied a ban on entering the church and receiving an ecclesiastical burial. In Geneva a person could be excluded from the Lord’s Supper and ecclesiastical functions, and be admonished and fined.73 The sinner who made light of the penitential and confessional laws had to be isolated with a view to the unity within the church. This implied, among other things, that it was prohibited to have contact with people who had been labeled grave sinners. Both systems used catalogues of sins. Calvin disapproved of the distinction between venial (venialia or levia) and mortal sins (mortalia or gravia), because this traditional distinction from the old system implied that mortal sins needed greater satisfaction than did the venial sins. According to him, every sin is mortal and can only be forgiven through the satisfaction of God’s mercy in Christ. But where the papal system distinguished between mortal sins and venial sins, Calvin drew a distinction between public and private sins. For example, according to Calvin there are sins that are totally inacceptable (crimes) and there are less serious sins (vices). He also mentions “commonly known and public sins” and “sins (fautes) that only deserve reproach.”74 Calvin made a classification along the degree of full or partial publicness or privacy of the sin, where public sins (peccata publica) in turn could be divided into less serious offences (delicta) and crimes or scandalous deeds (scelera vel flagitia). For Calvin also the reach of the sin had to be taken into account. Has only one person been offended, or an entire group? Different sins cause different amounts of offence. Sometimes a person himself could also become

72 From 1526 onwards, the rule in Zurich was that a stubborn sinner in the end had to be punished with a life-long banishment from the city. 73 Niesel, p. 46, art. 27; pp. 61–62, art. 154, 155, 158, 159, 162, and 163; p. 64, art. 171; p. 62, art. 160 and 163. 74 OS 2, pp. 332–334 (art. 22–29 and 158), p. 359 = CStA 2, pp. 246–248, p. 268. Inst. 3.4.28. Also the limits of freedom are concerned here. In his treatise De scandalis, Calvin makes a distinction between fools who are offended by the gospel, by human bluntness, ignorance, and curiosity, and – thirdly – offences that would be detrimental to the gospel, as is the case when slander and mockery are involved. OS 2, pp. 168, 194, and 220.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

189

a source of scandal.75 Calvin’s system of penance and confession had a compulsory character for the entire church population, and took place by coercion. It furthermore was not unusual to resort to coercive means in order to incite people to the confession of their guilt.76 A close eye was kept on everything and everyone, and every week again people were “separated from the church” by isolating them and excluding them from the Holy Supper. People had to be “brought to shame,” “to humble themselves,” to be led to “sorrow and repentance,” to confess their guilt in the consistory, “and to ask for forgiveness from God and his church.” Furthermore, public scandals were to be removed, and parties had to be “reconciled with each other.”77 Public confession of sin was seen as a healing form of satisfaction and also functioned as an example to others.

Neither the pope nor Calvin put the choice to participate in the Eucharist fully in the hands of the believers, as was indeed the case in other Protestant churches. The same held true for confession. Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council established that, as an exception, a person could abstain from the Eucharist after receiving approval from his priest and “for a good reason.” In Calvin’s view the preacher was the minister of Word and sacrament, and responsible for the salvation of the believers’ souls, the curator animorum. He spoke with and took decisions together with the elders about each sin and each sinner individually, and more specifically about admission to or exclusion from the Lord’s Supper. The consistory judged the sinner’s sin in the name of God, just like the priest did in the church of Rome. One of the central aims of confession was the forgiveness of sins and crimes. The papal decree spoke of absolution (solvere), the Genevan law of forgiveness (absoudre) and reconciliation (reconcilier),78 but they referred to the same thing: asking and receiving forgiveness, and bringing about reconciliation with God and fellow man. Pastoral assistance for the penitent with counsel and advice was also an essential part in both systems. The papal law mentions the priest’s tailormade advice on several occasions79, and Calvin’s consistory similarly admonished the penitent and gave him “council and advice.”80

75 Inst. 4.12.3 and 6. Cf. Inst. 3.19.11. 76 Kingdon: 1994, p. 8. 77 OS 2, pp. 357–363 = Niesel, art. 150–157, art. 160–163, and 172. A rough estimate was made of an average of 273 exclusions per year, but at the end of the 1550s this number appears still to be increasing. As a comparison, between 1578 and 1600 in Amsterdam there were 30 per year on average. Mentzer : 1994, p. 175. 78 Niesel, pp. 61–62, art. 160 and 163; p. 64, art. 171 and 172. For the relationship between the forgiveness of sins and the absolution of punishment in relation to confession and indulgences in the Middle Ages, see Angenendt: 2005, ch. 19 and 20. 79 The papal confessional law reads: Every believer must confess his sins and receive the sacrament of the confession at Easter, unless his priest gives another advice. The priest should be discrete and careful to […] meticulously enquire into the circumstances of the sinner and the sin in order to be able to give him the right advice. And if the priest is

190

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

For Calvin, and precisely with a view to sanctification, Christian confession and church discipline were “the nerves of the church.”81 Exclusion from the Lord’s Supper was one of the most drastic means intended to lead a sinner to repentance and remorse, and to bring about order in his life. With his system of penance and confession, Calvin had striven to bring the people of the church to the Christian freedom in which man leads a holy and peaceful life before the face of God.82 From the moment when, in the 1530s, Calvin had chosen his position in the debate between the different church factions, he criticised the notion of obligatory confession because the canonical decree was only three hundred years old. Some theological schools considered canon law to be divine law, but others did not.83 According to the Genevan preachers, public sins were to be confessed before the ecclesiastical court, the consistory. If a sinner had ‘real and serious sorrow’ and confessed ‘his sin’ before the church, reconciliation could take place and forgiveness extended. To them doing penance in public was a good tradition, founded on Scripture, and not a “mere human fabrication.”84 “The church should be of much greater importance than the individual. From this it follows that there exists no real and sincere remorse, when the one who has fallen, refuses to pay satisfaction for his violation.”85 No one in the Reformed world actually opposed a form of penance and discipline in the church. But where opinions differed was the shape ecclesiastical

80 81

82

83 84

85

uncertain about which advice he should give, he should carefully look for it. Tanner : 1990, vol. 1, p. 245 = Mansi, vol. 22, p. 1010. Compare ch. 12, n. 11–17. Niesel, art. 28 and art. 154. See n. 22. It is a misconception, he writes to cardinal Sadoleto, “that our sins could be fully paid for by punishment and doing penance.” The papal confessional law is not a “commandment of Christ” because, indeed, the pure conscience can only find peace when it is delivered from its painful duties and lives “in trust in God’s mercy.” OS 1, p. 472 = CStA 1.2, p. 384–386. The power of Christian freedom lies “in bringing peace to fearful consciences in the face of God, whether they are worried and concerned about the forgiveness of sins, or else are fearful about the question whether our imperfect deeds, which are also polluted by the flaws of our flesh, will please God, or whether our consciences are pained by questions about the use of things that do not matter.” Inst. 3.4.4 and 7. “We praise this practice of testifying penance in the presence of people (coram populo) and we deny that it is a frivolous or merely human fabrication.” Can anyone who has committed a serious sin be required to officially give testimony of his penitence at the authority of preachers and elders? That was the question of the preachers from Neuch–tel: “Quaestio nobis proposita est an haec disciplinae ratio consentanea sit verbo Domini, ut qui graviter peccavit cum publico ecclesiae offendiculo pastoris et seniorum authoritate cogatur ad solenne poenitentiae testimonium?” RCP 1, p. 142 (29 July 1552) = CO 14, no. 1641, p. 345. “Ecclesia vero longe pluris esse debet quam unus quispiam. Constat ergo non esse veram nec sinceram poenitentiam, cum is qui lapsus est satisfacere de offendiculo recusat.” RCP 1, p. 142, 29 July 1552 = CO 14, no. 1641, pp. 345–347.

The Importance of Being Well-Prepared

191

admonition and punishment had to be given in practice, and who ought to see to this disciplineout. Calvin, however, did not succeed in convincing everyone of the good and divine right of his penance and confession laws, but the same was true for the pope. Where Calvin did succeed was in uniting the church as a communion of saints with the church as an institution of salvation, where Word and sacraments were administered. As a communion of saints, the invisible church is the true church, the place where people structure their lives after God’s will and, as a community of faith, expect all of their bliss from Jesus Christ. According to the second description of the church as an institution of salvation, the church is the visible, officially managed church with its sacramental guarantees of God’s presence. Calvin brought the two together where the church’s existence has the communion of the Holy Supper as its spearhead, with the Lord’s Supper being celebrated every week if possible, and where an earnest preparation for the personal and communal reception and experience of communion with Christ in God forms an essential core. For Calvin, the century-old connection between the Lord’s Supper and discipline was an obvious point of departure for a healthy ecclesiastical piety.

Chapter 8. Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline and our Struggle to Understand his View

Introduction The question I want to address in the present chapter is whether or not the sanctification of men and society can be seen as an independent goal of Calvin’s church discipline. The medieval penitential law had tied discipline and the Lord’s Supper closely together : “All the faithful … should individually confess … to their own priest at least once a year … (and) reverently receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter.”1 Ecclesiastical discipline had partly declined in the late medieval period, been emptied of its meaning and secularised. With this, penance obtained an increasingly independent position, cut off from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This was also the case in Geneva.2 As far as I can see, it is difficult to provide a clear description of Calvin’s vision of confession and ecclesiastical discipline without simultaneously discussing the Eucharist. The more specific question I wish to address, then, is in what measure 1 Fourth Lateran Council, canon 21. Tanner : 1990, vol. 1, p. 245 = Mansi: 1961, vol. 22, p. 1010. Cf. ch. 1, n. 11f. 2 The synodical records of 1513 reveal that episcopal discipline in Geneva had been strict and formal after the papal interdict of 1482–1484, with little empathy and love. Sometimes ecclesiastical punishment was used in worldly matters to pressure people to pay arrears. In part because of the possible social ramifications, church discipline had obtained a negative reputation. See Naef: 1936, p. 185–188, Bohatec: 1937, p. 341, and Plomp: 1969, p. 142–143. Because of their dissatisfaction over the way church discipline was being carried out, Zurich and Bern decided to enact rigorous reforms in the church, including the assignment of the responsibility for church discipline to the civil government. Although it has long been argued (also by renowned Calvin scholars like Willem F. Dankbaar, Walter Köhler, Doede Nauta, Johannes Plomp, and Otto Weber) that Calvin was opposed, this was not the case. Quite recently also the noted Calvin specialist Peter Opitz wrote that Calvin’s intention had been to fully separate church and state and “ein Konsistorium zu schaffen” which was to function “als rein kirchliches Gremium.” In that line he concluded that Calvin’s ideas could be more readily applied in churches that were less closely dependent on the state. Opitz: 1997, pp. 233–234. For another account of Calvin’s view on the relationship to church and state, see Speelman: 2014 (Calvin and the Independence of the Church).

194

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

did Calvin align himself with late-medieval penitential practices, and to what degree can his view of confession be considered apart from his position on the Lord’s Supper and the way he looked upon a society in which a Reformed magistrate is in power? But what was Calvin’s view of restitutional or retributive penitential church discipline – a matter that he would reflect on for more than twenty years? Did he see it above all as a spiritual matter, as one element within the whole of his view of penance and confession, or was his primary concern for the way people acted in light of an ideal he is supposed to have entertained of a holy church or a society composed of better members? William Bouwsma support this latter understanding when he wrote that Calvin “yearned for a pure church, a visible and exclusive community of saints.”3 According to Robert Kingdon, whose views I will engage further down, the early Calvinistic discipline meant “a serious attempt to control human behaviour in all its variety.” The church had not only a responsibility to present true Christian doctrine, “but also to shape true Christian behaviour.”4 For Calvin church discipline had to safeguard the glory of God, to induce repentance of sinners, and to protest the purity of a community5. But is this pursuit of holiness as church discipline to be considered a separate mark of the church, as especially later Calvinism would formulate it? Based on his analysis of the 21 volumes of registers from the Genevan consistory between 1542 and 1564, Kingdon argued that the consistory had three basic functions: “it served as an educational institution, as a compulsory counselling service, and as a kind of court.”6 From this he concluded that Calvin sought to influence the way people acted, among other ways by examining and

3 Bouwsma: 1988, p. 217. Later Calvinists spoke of a “church […] without stain or wrinkle” (cf. Eph 5: 27) as an ultimate ideal. Woltjer: 1971, p. 26. Cf. also Mentzer : 1991 which describes the moral and social aspects to discipline in the French Reformed churches and emphasised moral control as the most important function of the consistory. Many years ago Jong-Sook Lee concluded similarly concluded that the ideal Calvin envisioned for discipline was “to make a holy Protestant city by means of strict discipline,” but later on drastically adjusted her view : “For sinners consistorial discipline […] becomes a reminder or a warning signal to acknowledge that their salvation is at stake […] Therefore, excommunication is designed to be pastoral support to correct and cure sinful souls.” Lee: 1997, p. 186 and Lee: 2016, p. 37. 4 Kingdon: 1994, p. 22. Jung-Sook Lee also refers to Kingdon, who, echoing William Monter’s observation that the consistory of Geneva played a critical role in the transformation of Geneva into a socially ordered and morally advanced city, said that the consistory of Geneva was “an effective tool for social and political control in Geneva.” Kingdon: 1993, p. 523. Lee: 2016, p. 37, n. 5. 5 Inst. 4.12.5. 6 Kingdon: 1994, p. 24.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

195

educating them.7 One might ask, however, whether the functions listed by Kingdon in fact also numbered among the basic elements of the spiritual supervision exercised by the priestly confessors in the medieval period. In fact, would they not simply be what one would expect from a biblical penitential and confessional system as it could be found in Geneva, which was more or less based on existing civil legislation as well as ancient traditions or remnants of canon law? Thomas Tentler summarises as we have seen, that in the late Middle Ages the “first function of ecclesiastical penance […] is discipline, or social control. The penitent was accepted by society and in turn was expected to accept and conform to society’s rules. The second function is directed more to the individual: it is the cure of a guilty conscience.”8 On numerous occasions Calvin heavily criticised the existing penitential law of 1215 as well as the practice of penance9, but in the course of time he would still attempt to recast external as well as internal aspects of it in his own system – both the social, pastoral and educational side, and the more specifically spiritual side of comforting the troubled conscience and the related process of the sinner’s restoration through a movement from sorrow, to repentance, to forgiveness, and finally to reconciliation. Beginning with the thirteenth-century reforms, there was less emphasis on sin and more on the sinner. This change was reflected in the practice of the sacrament of penance and confession by the greater amount of attention directed to (the examination of) the sinner’s intentions and his repentance from the errors he had committed. The same line can also be observed in Calvin, although through the institutions he created with a view to forgiveness and reconciliation 7 Kingdon: 1995, p. 4. The Reformation undeniably also meant a radical change to Genevan church life as an “anti-clerical revolution,” as Kingdon called it. Kingdon: 1984, p. 51. The clergy had been sent packing, and the Mass was abolished. All who continued to meet in secret and celebrate the Mass were subject to severe punishment. Rilliet: 1878, p. xiv. 8 See ch. 1, n. 13. Referring to Tentler’s study, Jeffrey Watt recently also drew the conclusion that the “Consistory of Geneva in effect served the same function” as the system of the late medieval confession. Watt: 2013, p. 118. 9 About the existing penitential law (see n. 1) Calvin wrote: “I shall sum up what sort of law this is. First, it is simply impossible; therefore it can only destroy, condemn, confound, and cast into ruin and despair. Then, depriving sinners of a true awareness of their sins, it makes them hypocrites, ignorant of God and of themselves. Indeed, while wholly occupied with the cataloguing of sins, they in the meantime forget that hidden slough of vices, their own secret transgressions and inner filth, the knowledge of which ought particularly to have brought home to them their own misery.” OS 1, p. 183. Cf. McKee: 2009, c. 5, p. 288, and Inst. 3.4.18 = OS 4, pp. 105f. Calvin further described the papal confessional as a “tyrannical law,” Inst. 3.4.24 = OS 4, p. 113. He considered auricular confession an altogether erroneous, impracticable rule, which turned people into hypocrites. See Speelman: 2010, pp. 60–69.

196

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

he also demanded attention for the consequences of sin in the desecration of God’s name, the sacraments, and the church community. Was this not the reason why, in his Ordonnances ecclesiastiques, he treated moral matters together with the process of forgiveness and atonement? Overview Calvin’s thinking was consumed by the close connection between the holy mystery of communion and what he called ‘Christian confession’, which were like the two foci of an ellipse, fused together in an inseparable bond. Calvin opposed the way church discipline had been made into a loose and independent element, as was at times the case in the established church.10 From the very moment he joined the evangelical movement of reform Calvin, ever focused on that mysterious communion with God, sought new ways to help those who were burdened by their conscience and in danger of perishing to attain true, Christian freedom. I have distinguished five stages in the development of Calvin’s reflection on ecclesiastical discipline, a process where Calvin aligned himself with medieval practices of penitence and confession. In what follows we will track the development of Calvin’s system of penance and confession across the five steps, which were briefly outlined in chapter 6 above11, stopping at times to compare his system with the system in place in neighbouring Protestant churches as well as the established Roman Catholic church.

1

First phase: Calvin connects discipline to the Lord’s Supper

From the very beginning of his stay in Geneva, Calvin pointed to the importance of oversight and discipline in the context of the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, he argued that those who were worthy to partake of the sacrament were to be distinguished from those who were not worthy. For example, in the Articles on the organization of the church and worship in Geneva, approved on 16 January 1537, he stated12 : 10 In considering why Calvin did not identify discipline as a third mark of the church, Kingdon proposed several suggestions but in the end remained uncertain. He suggested that Calvin may have refrained from doing so with a view to contact with the Lutherans and Bullingerians who did not include discipline as one of the marks of the church, or else may have been afraid he would end up fuelling Anabaptist tendencies. Kingdon: 1999, 122–123. 11 See ch. 6.2. 12 The Articles were offered to the city council on 10 November 1536 and approved with only one modification by the City Council, namely the frequency of the celebration of communion, which the city council reduced to four per year. Cf. COR 6/1, ep. 31, pp. 157–170, p. 154.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

197

“But the principal rule that is required, and for which it is necessary to have the greatest care, is that this Holy Supper, (ordained and instituted for joining the members of our Lord Jesus Christ with their Head and with one another in one body and one spirit) be not soiled, polluted and contaminated by those coming to it and communicating, who declare and manifest by their misconduct and evil life that they do not at all belong to Jesus. For this profanation of his sacrament our Lord is gravely dishonoured.”13

Together with his Genevan colleague Farel, twenty years his senior, Calvin informed the government that it was above all to see to it that the Holy Supper was not profaned, lest the celebration of the sacrament be to the detriment of the glory of God. The very first paragraph of the Articles in fact addressed the need to deal with those who did not prepare themselves for the sacrament in a worthy manner and did not obey God’s Word in all things.14 In connecting the Lord’s Supper with penance, Calvin actually followed the existing tradition of the established church. His ideal of the church as a communion of holy men and women early on implied a division in the church by which those who were worthy of the Lord’s Supper were set apart from those who were not.15 For that reasen he needed a ‘team’ of ecclesiastical laboureres, each of whom worked in his respective district in the city.16 In Geneva’s new Reformed confession from early 1537 we read about the separation of unrepentant sinners: those “who are openly idolaters, blasphemers, murderers, thieves, adulterers, false witnesses, rebellious, quarrelsome, contentious, drunkards, spendthrifts, after being appropriately admonished and if no amendment is observed, must be separated from the communion of believers (separez de la communion des fideles), until they have demonstrated signs of repentance.”17 This practice was comparable with the existing tradition of the Roman Catholic church.18 13 OS 1, p. 371. 14 See ch. 6, n. 32. Since for all citizens and residents of Reformed cities, such as Basel and Geneva, attendance at and participation in the Lord’s Supper was required to be a good citizen, excommunication was seen as a severe punishment which sometimes also had social consequences. This punishment frequently meant more than being barred from the table, and could damage a person’s standing in society. The registers speak of corrections and “spiritual punishment.” Registres 2, p. 50. OS 2, p. 359 = CStA, vol. 2, p. 270. CO 14, no. 1859, p. 681. 15 In the 1537 Articles, the meaning of the term ‘church’ includes ‘the Lord’s Supper’. See Speelman: 2014, pp. 47–51. 16 See ch. 6, n. 33f. 17 OS 1 (Confession 1537), p. 425 = CStA, vol. 1/1, p. 220. Rilliet/ Dufour : 1878, p. 118. 18 On topics such as sanctification, identifying and punishing sin, and the necessity of separating sinners from the congregation of believers, the views of Rome and Calvin were comparable. ”Thus, the doctrine of God’s law is protected, so that the kingdom of God not only excludes unbelievers, but also believers who are “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, abusers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, or revilers, or swindlers” (1 Cor 6: 9–10),

198

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper included also his conviction that it ought to be celebrated frequently ; people should partake of the Eucharist on a very regular basis. He further described the custom of the established church to require men and women to communicate no more than once a year as “an invention of the devil.” Accordingly, after the introduction the very first sentence of the Articles on the Organization of the Church demonstrates that he followed Luther in advocating a weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper : “It would be well to require that the Communion of the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be held every Sunday at least as a rule.”19 Calvin supported his ideal of weekly communion with an appeal to the practice of the apostolic church as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:42. In fact, he went so far as to argue that “there should be no meeting of the church without the word, prayers, and the communion of the Supper.”20 As such, Calvin too maintained the feeling of dread accompanying participation in the sacrament which had been so characteristic of the medieval period, but at the same he also argued that the Lord’s Supper ought to be celebrated as often as possible. As a result, and once more entirely in line with the late medieval tradition, he considered both personal preparation for the Holy Supper and a Eucharistic discipline of the church to be absolute necessities. The congregants were to partake and all others who have committed mortal sins (letalia peccata), from which, they can, by the help of divine grace, refrain, and on account of which [sins] they are separated from the grace of Christ.” With this the Council of Trent would later endorse the doctrine of the established church. Decretum de Justificatione, c. 15 (13 January 1547), see Schaff: 1983, vol. 2, pp. 106– 107. The article on penance and confession (25 November 1551) reviews contrition, confession, absolution, and satisfaction, see Schaff: 1983, vol. 2, pp. 139–169. Tanner : 1990, vol. 1, pp. 703f. Vorgrimler: 1962, vol. 4, pp. 168–196. 19 OS 1, p. 370 = COR 6/1, p. 160. In the Middle Ages, lay people did not participate frequently in sacramental communion, and practised a spiritual communion instead. It was recommended that churchgoers partake of communion at the three high feasts (Christmas, Pentecost, Corpus Christi), and from 1215 onward the lay members were under a stringent requirement to partake of the Eucharist at least once a year. Never before had a pope, bishop, or synod demanded frequent participation of the sacramental celebration for the laity. On the contrary, those who partook too frequently in communion aroused suspicion. Such avoidance of the Eucharist was related to its perceived sanctity. This was especially so if, if following Augustine, one believed that spiritual union with Christ was also possible without participation in the sacrament, and thus could be experienced daily through faith. In the 1520s, the Lutheran tradition established that churchgoers were not required to partake, but the people were still encouraged to participate regularly in the Lord’s table. If possible, the sacrament was served weekly to the congregation. In his Large Catechism of 1529, Luther critically notes in chapter five that many people hear the gospel but sometimes do not approach the Lord’s table for several years, adding that “such people should not be regarded as Christians.” Cf. Angenendt: 2005, pp. 509f, who refers to Augustine, Johannis Evangelium 25, 12. Oberman: 1986, p. 243. 20 Inst. 4.17.44. OS 1, p. 130. Cf. Calvin (1561), The clear explanation of sound doctrine concerning the true partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in Reid: 1954, p. 310.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

199

not only on a regular basis, but also in a worthy manner, and this too was a responsibility of the church.

2

Second phase: Calvin insists on confession before the sacrament

Following his experiences in Geneva (which ended with his expulsion from the city), Calvin put his mind to a new system of confession when he arrived in Strasbourg. He concluded that every member of the French refugee church there ought to make confession of his or her sins before him every time before the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated. He considered an examination of the conscience (l’examen de conscience des communiants) an absolute necessity, and thought the church to be entirely within its rights to demand such confession.21 In a letter he wrote to his former colleague Farel on 13 May 1540, Calvin explained his position: “That our good brothers have reservations about our examination (examen illud nostrum), of which I have written to you, comes as no surprise. For it is nothing new to me that there are good people who are afraid of falling back into superstition (in superstitionem) or into something that is somewhat related or similar to the papal inventions.”22

An incident from April 1539 illustrates how Calvin looked for creative ways to recast penance and confession with a view to protecting the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper. As in Geneva, so also in Strasbourg Calvin encountered difficulties over the Eucharist. After the Lord’s Supper had been celebrated for the first time in the city’s refugee church on 3 November 1538, Calvin introduced a new form of examination and discipline. His hope was that he would be able to break the obstinacy of sinners with a “severe mildness,” and was therefore glad that another fourteen days would pass before the Lord’s Supper would be celebrated 21 “For how shameless would it be to consider the church unworthy, to approve your faith, with whom you still desire the communion of the Lord’s Supper? And how miserable the condition of the church would be if it were to admit to participation in such a great mystery people whose inward life it does not know or is suspicious of!” Hermj. 6, no. 863 (Calvin to Farel, 13 May 1540), 224 = CO 11, no. 218, 41. Cf. Hermj. 6, no. 857, (Calvin to Farel, 29 March 1540), 200, note 9, where Herminjard observes that such an examination of the communicants would have taken Calvin some four or five days. In the French refugee church of Strasbourg, the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated at least once a month. Hermj. 5, 145. 22 Hermj. 6, no. 863 (Calvin to Farel, 13 May 1540), 223 = CO 11, no. 218, 41. Bullinger reacted sharply, and it is entirely possible that Viret was critical as well. CO 11, 292, 183. Augustijn: 1994, 174. However, given such a form of eucharistic discipline, it was difficult to avoid the close link between confession and Eucharist which the Roman Catholic Church maintained as well.

200

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

again so that he would have the time to see whether they really felt remorse over their sin.23 On Easter Sunday 1540 Calvin announced from the pulpit that from then on no one would be admitted to the Lord’s Supper celebration unless he had subjected himself to an examination in a confessional conversation to be held with the pastor or his replacement. Some of Calvin’s own friends felt uneasy about this, fearing that he was returning to the oppressive papal practices. Calvin disagreed with his critics and was convinced that the church was entirely within its rights to institute an examination of the believers’ doctrine and life. Several weeks later he wrote a letter to Farel in which he offered a powerful defence of the introduction of obligatory confession in Strasbourg’s French church: “I have often testified to you that it did not seem profitable to me for the churches to abolish confession without replacing it with what I recently instituted.”24 Calvin clearly considered the introduction of a confessional practice to be a top priority, and saw it as quintessential for the proper functioning of pastoral care. According to the new regulations, whenever the Lord’s Supper was approaching, Calvin would announce that those who wanted to partake would have to see him “so that those who are unformed (rudes) and inexperienced (imperiti) in our religion may be better educated; moreover, that those who need special admonition may receive it; and finally, that, if there be any who are burdened by 23 Similarly insightful is the example of “that pest (pestis illa)” in Calvin’s church who failed to come to the worship services for a month after Calvin had admonished him in preparation for Easter to give an account of himself, warning that he would otherwise be barred from the Lord’s Supper. This man led a sinful and offensive live filled with gambling and drunkeness “as in a public market.” Rumour also had it that he visited brothels. Nevertheless, he would still have participated “in that most sacred mystery (ad sacrosanctum illud mysterium), had I not barred him.” Before this Calvin had told him that he had to confess his guilt in his presence and to promise to amend his life. This man facetiously retorted by way of an intermediary “that he left confession to the papists (Papisti).” Calvin’s response to this was that there is also “a form of Christian confession (genus confessionis Christianae).” In the end the man did ask to be received again in grace. Hermj. 5, no. 784, Calvin to Farel, late April 1539, p. 294 and p. 291 = CO 10b, no. 169, p. 342 and p. 339. See ch. 6, n. 36f. 24 Hermj. 6, no. 863 (13 May 1540), pp. 223–224 = CO 11, no. 218, p. 41. In the frequent correspondence Calvin and Farel maintained with each other in the years following their banishment from Geneva, the issue of (the application of) eucharistic discipline was regularly broached. Just like Calvin was looking for something to replace the old practice of confession as it had been linked to the Eucharist, so he also looked for a way to replace profession of faith as it had been connected to baptism with an official approbation of the Reformed confession. In the preface to the Latin edition of the Genevan Catechism he wrote: “Since it is proper for us by every means to endeavour to make that unity of faith shine forth among us which is so highly commended by Paul, the solemn profession of faith which is joined to our common baptism (quae Baptismo communi annexa est) ought to be directed chiefly to this end. It might therefore be wished, not only that there exist a perpetual consent by all in pious doctrine, but that there be also a single form of Catechism for all Churches.” OS 2, p. 72, l.5–11.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

201

their conscience, they may receive comfort. And because there is also the danger that a church that does not sufficiently know to distinguish the yoke of Christ from the rule of the anti-Christ may imagine that a new slavery is being imposed on it, I at the same time also counter such doubt.”25 The right course of events, according to Calvin, is not only that people allow themselves to be examined by their own minister, but also that they test and examine themselves in preparation for the Lord’s Supper.26 In his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper Calvin also addressed how those who live in public sin ought to be treated, whether it is lawful or “allowed to eat the common bread with those who call themselves brothers but lead a dissolute life.” Calvin responded that one ought not to partake of the bread of the Lord with such sinners, since it “has been sanctified to represent and offer to us the body of Christ.”27 The responsibility to keep them from the Lord’s Supper does not, however, rest with individuals, but with the church or its leadership: “It is not the office of each individual to judge and discriminate, in order to admit or reject as seems to him good; seeing that this prerogative belongs generally to the church as a whole, or rather to the pastor with the elders whom he ought to have for assisting him in the government of the church. […] Moreover, it will most frequently happen that sins are not so notorious as to justify going the length of excommunication. For though the pastor may in his heart judge some man unworthy, yet he has not the power of pronouncing him to be so, or of interdicting him from the Supper, unless he can prove it by an ecclesiastical judgment (par iugement ecclesiasticque).”28

Enriched by these experiences from his Strasbourg period, Calvin upon his return to Geneva would apply all his legal creativity beginning in September 1541 to institute an effective discipline of the Lord’s Supper and thus an entirely new system of penance and confession. This represents the third phase of his development.

25 Hermj. 6, no. 863 (13 May 1540), p. 224 = CO 11, no. 218, p. 41. 26 Higman: 1970, pp. 103f, §§ 7, 8 and 21–29. Calvin saw the human conscience as the place where individuals share knowledge with God (con-scientia) and where they are placed directly before the judgment seat of God. Time and again there was the torment of being left with one’s own repentance. In the established church, one’s peace of mind was in the hands of the church, which governed these things. At the same time, Calvin maintained that a continuous battle in conscience and in faith was characteristic of the pious life. Inst. 3.4.17. Cf. Inst. 3.2.17 (1539). Bouwsma: 1988, pp. 56f. 27 Higman: 1970, p. 115, § 31 = OS 1, p. 516. 28 Higman: 1970, pp. 115f, § 31 = OS 1, p. 517.

202

3

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

Third phase: Calvin requires confession before the consistory

Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin began the third phase of his development by creating a totally new structure for church life in the city. Earlier the city council had already expressed its wish for a consistorium or court to deal with moral matters, as such an institution could also be found in other Protestant cities in Switzerland. Calvin created an institution that indeed was a state committee in a Protestant sense, but in several respects his consistory was still different from what the neighbouring Protestant churches had. To mention only one example here, the Genevan consistory would be considerably bigger in size.29 This consistory was to be an executive committee with authority as well as a clearer ecclesiastical identity. In other Protestant churches the consistory occupied itself primarily with marital affairs and with policing those who “live badly,” and did not concern itself with the forgiveness of sin or reconciliation.30 Several months later Calvin described the committee he had created for spiritual supervision and punishment as “a court of elders (presbyterorum iudicium).”31 In Calvin’s mind, the practice of discipline and confession was closely tied to the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.32 Shortly after his return to Geneva, Calvin explained to the church that the consistory was instituted “to deal with the censure of morals, to investigate vices, and to be charged with the exercise of the office of the keys.”33 In 1543 he wrote: “Discipline (disciplina Ecclesiae) depends for the most part upon the power of the keys (potestas clavium) and upon spiritual jurisdiction (spiritualis iurisdictio).”34 Calvin argued that the power of the keys (i. e., the power to forgive and to bind) had a central place within the various forms in which confession manifests itself in pastoral practice, “either when the entire church with solemn recog29 The Zurich marriage court (Ehegericht) included four laymen and two pastors. The Genevan consistory consisted of twelve elders appointed each year during the annual council elections, one of the city syndics, and all of the urban pastors. The number of pastors grew from nine in 1542 to nineteen in 1564, several of whom served in the surrounding villages and were not always present in the consistory. 30 RConsist. I, pp. xviii–xxi. In Geneva there was also a completely different predecessor to the consistory as arbiter of disputes. In 1527, the city created a powerful Peace Council which met on Thursdays, just like the consistory, whose job it was to settle disputes among individuals. The Council functioned only two years, in which it heard almost 300 cases. Grosse: 2009, pp. 29–63. 31 Hermj. 7, no. 1100 (Calvin to Myconius), pp. 439–440 = CO 11, no. 389, pp. 378–379. See also the passage in the main text at ch. 6, n. 40ff. 32 This applies also for the administration of the Word: “We conclude that in those passages the power of the keys is simply the preaching of the gospel.” Inst. 4.11.1 (1536). OS 5, p. 197. 33 Inst. 4.11.1. OS 5, p. 195. 34 Inst. 4.12.1 (1543). OS 5, p. 212.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

203

nition of its faults implores pardon or when an individual, who has by some notable transgression committed a common offense, declares his repentance, or when one who needs a minister’s help on account of a troubled conscience discloses his weakness to him.”35 It was the duty of every believer, “if he be privately troubled and afflicted with a sense of sin, so that without outside help he is unable to free himself from them, […] not to neglect what the Lord has offered to him by way of remedy. Namely, that, for his relief, he should use private confession to his own pastor ; and for his solace, he should beg the private help of him whose duty it is, both publicly and privately, to comfort the people of God by the gospel teaching.”36 On one specific point, however, the Genevan structure differed from that maintained by the Reformed churches in the surrounding territories: Calvin considered Christian penance (confession, or the discipline of the Lord’s Supper) a ‘mixed matter’ (res mixta), a common responsibility of church and state.37 As such elders, who were to be chosen from among the members of the city council, became what one might describe as state functionaries for the church. Elders were not set apart or ordained in an office of the church with an ecclesiastical blessing, although as functionaries of the civil magistrate they did bear responsibility for a specifically ecclesiastical task, and at their appointment they had to swear an oath of allegiance to the city council.38 At the beginning, there was little support in Genevan society for these new ecclesiastical functionaries charged with the responsibility for supervision and discipline. Above all else elders had to be “of a good and upright walk of life, blameless and free from all suspicion, and especially God-fearing and spiritually mature.”39 As assistants to the pastors, the elders therefore had to be men who were to act both in a pastoral manner and with authority, just like the former assistants to the bishop who, ever since the thirteenth century, had obtained power as priests for enforcing the new penitential law and were charged with the responsibility to

35 Inst. 3.4.14 (1543). OS 4, p. 100, and, for the three kinds of confession, Inst. 3.4.10–13 = OS 4, pp. 97–100. Cf. Luther (Grosser Katechismus), BSLK: 1930, p. 727, Melanchthon, Loci communes (1521), pp. 153–154, and Lang (on Bucer): 1972, p. 181. Beza spoke of a six-fold function of confession; see Beza: 2009, pp. 295–296. 36 Inst. 3.4.12 (1543). OS 4, p. 99. Cf. art. 7 of Calvin’s Consensio mutua with Caroli (1539), although this document mentions only a confession made in the presence of the pastor. Hermj. 6, no. 822, p. 45. 37 So too the issues treated were mixed (causae mixtae) and had a spiritual side to them aside from the legal aspect. In the late medieval period there was repeated conflict over which type of sin fell under whose jurisdiction (i. e., church or civil judge). 38 OS 2, p. 304. 39 OS 2, p. 339.

204

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

oversee all residents, while there were judicial vicars (Latin: officiales) who represented the bishop in the papal Sendgericht or consistorium.40 One of the elder’s tasks was to examine the faith of all the inhabitants in the weeks leading up to Easter by going door to door throughout the entire city, which had been divided into different wards specifically for that purpose. For “on account of the papal confusion there are many who were not educated in their youth and grew up into men and women without knowing what Christianity is. For that reason we have decided that all homes will be visited every year for the purpose of conducting a simple examination of the faith of all people so that at the very least no one will come to the Lord’s Supper without knowing the fundamentals of his salvation.”41

The purpose of these visits was to help people to prepare themselves in a fitting manner for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper on Easter and throughout the rest of the liturgical year, and also to decide whether or not someone ought to be allowed to partake of the sacrament. A note in the registers from the 1550s records the purpose of the home visit, which was in the first place to get to know the communicants “so as to prevent the Lord’s Supper from being desecrated (pour cognoistre les personnes affin que la Cene du Seigneur ne fut prophanee).”42 40 Canon 10 of the Fourth Lateran Council = Tanner : 1990, vol. 1, p. 240. Beginning in the ninth century, the Sendgericht (‘synodal court’) functioned as an ecclesiastical institution in which the spiritual representatives were joined by seven lay members. Its goal was to oversee the laity. In the late medieval period the word consistorium referred either more broadly to an ecclesiastical assembly, or in a more restricted sense to the ecclesiastical court. At this time the bishops exercised supervision over their spiritual subjects by regular visitations. There were also yearly sessions (Sendgerichten) held in different places of the episcopal territory, where people were required to appear and court was held over all public sins commited against the laws of God and church. If their diocese was too great, bishops would sometimes entrust a part of their secular rule to their ‘archdeacons’. Towards the end of the medieval period the bishops attempted to regain control of their original powers and reinstated the practice of visitations which they either carried out themselves or had their respresentatives perform—namely, the judicial vicars who acted as the head of an ecclesiastical court or consistorium. Du Cange, Consistorium 2. Holböck: 1961, vol. 6, p. 477. Feine: 1964, p. 371. 41 OS 2, p. 357, art. 148 = CStA 2, p. 266. The numbering for the articles was introduced by Wilhelm Niesel in his edition of the 1561 text. Niesel, pp. 42–64. Calvin wrote to Bullinger that the former, apostolic discipline ought to be restored: We were unable to restore “this pure and holy exercise of discipline” which required the division into parishes of the too densely populated city : “For with this confused administration most people know us more as preachers than as pastors.” Hermj. 4 (21 February 1538), p. 367 = COR 6/1, no. 61, pp. 329– 330. Calvin considered that, as pastor and overseer, he was responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the church’s membership as a whole and individually. 42 The second reason for visitation was to spur on each person individually to perform the religious duty he owes God and to obey the sacred Word (d’exhorter ung chascung — faire son devoir envers Dieu et — ouir sa saincte parole). Home visits were led by the parish pastor, who was joined by several dizeniers and two assistants. RCP 2 (March 1556), p. 66. These officials were also to check whether or in what measure a person showed remorse for the sin committed. According to Calvin public admission of wrong-doing, together with public penance

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

205

This was the reason why Calvin sought to develop the best alternative to the existing Roman Catholic institution of examination and visitation. Because elders received no ecclesiastical ordination, they remained laymen and accordingly could rely on their election as councillors, and as civil servants they also enjoyed a position of authority in society. They were responsible for admonition and discipline.43 These ‘ecclesiastical’ or ‘pastoral’ responsibilities pertained to the new form of what Calvin had earlier referred to as ‘Christian confession’44 – a somewhat sensitive term which had earned him reproach in Strasbourg when he attempted to execute his ideas. Although he did avoid this term in the new Genevan church order, the consistory reports still frequently and restoration, were pure, biblical values. Inst. 3.4.10 (1543). OS 4, p. 97. Accordingly, as of early 1560 public admission of sin and the display of remorse became more common as a form of restoration, although to some degree similar forms had already been practised before then. Monter: 1967, 139. For examples of required ecclesiastical rites of restoration and reconciliation, see Kingdon: 1997, pp. 23 and 30f. For examples of public confession prior to 1560, see Kingdon, Transcription XIII, 37f. and XIV, 3. See also n. 51. Five years after Calvin’s new ecclesiastical structure had been set in place, advisory regulations were drawn up which included a catalogue of sins with matching forms of penance. The civil and ecclesiastical institutions cooperated closely ; in some cases people were referred on to the consistory so as to obtain a more ecclesiastically-oriented closure to the situation by way of admonition, etc. RCP 1 (Ordonnances sur la police des eglises de la campagne, 16 May 1547), pp. 14–19 = CO 10a, pp. 51–58. For cursing and blasphemy, see also CO 10a (Ordonnances sur les jurements et les blasphemes, 1551), pp. 59–63. The catalogue of sins included the possession of statues of saints, the making of pilgrimages, the celebration of the papal feasts, and participation in the Mass. Such forms of idolatry were punishable by imprisonment and fines. Blasphemy was punishable by kissing the ground for a first offence, a fine of five sous for a second offence, and incarceration for an hour at a third offence. A person who denied God or his baptism was put on bread and water for nine days, while second and third offences were punished with a more severe physical punishment (punition corporelle). Intoxication was subject to a fine and referral to the consistory. The same applied—after a three-day imprisonment—for singing vulgar songs and for inappropriate dancing. Punishments were also prescribed for usury, public disturbance of the peace, and fornication. RCP 1, pp. 16–19. Another four years later a supplementary regulation appeared for swearing and blasphemy, with even more severe prescriptions for penitential punishment. In the matching article on blasphemy, for example, we read not only of fasting, fines, and imprisonment, but a person could also be required to go down on his knees and beg God for forgiveness (demandant a Dieu pardon). CO 10a, p. 62. The Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques also include a catalogue of sins for the pastors, “lest God’s Word be dishonoured or scorned by bad reputation of the ministers”. As such, they are somewhat reminiscent of medieval penitential books. RCP 1, pp. 3f. = OS 2, p. 333, art. 23f. = CStA, vol. 2, p. 246. The ministers were to promise “to set a good example of obedience to all.” OS 2, p. 332 (17 July 1542), art. 19 = CStA 2, p. 244. 43 “Their task is to watch over (prendre garde) each person’s life (sur la vie d’un chacun) and to admonish in a friendly manner those they see stumbling or leading a profligate life.” Where necessary they are to report on the situation to a wider circle so that the sinner might be dealt with communally. OS 2, p. 339 = Niesel, pp. 48–49, art. 48. 44 “Respondi esse quoque genus confessionis Christianae”. Hermj. 5, no. 784 (Calvin to Farel, late April 1539), p. 291 = CO 10b, no. 169, p. 339.

206

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

speak about ‘confessing’ (confesser) and also use other common terms derived from the classical penitential tradition, such as pardon (pardonner), absolution (absoudre), reconciliation (reconcilier), etc.45 Calvin used similarly familiar terms from the tradition when he unfolded – or explained – the new penitential and confessional structure in the 1543 edition of his Institutes.46 It is clear that Calvin strongly favoured a form of confession made in the presence of the pastor. In his view the pastor continued to occupy a central place, also after he devised the idea of the elders as the pastor’s assistants in matters pertaining to supervision and discipline.47 What was new, however, was his view that private confession, which most resembled the traditional practice of auricular confession, did not necessarily have to be performed in the presence of an office bearer. After all, in Calvin’s theology confession was not a sacrament and any person could offer his fellow man forgiveness of sins in God’s name. Yet for the clergy’s responsibility Calvin just like the papal law referred to the prophet Ezekiel: “By this inviolable constitution we decree that prelates of churches should prudently and diligently attend to the correction of their subjects’ offences especially of clerics, and to the reform of morals. Otherwise the blood of such persons will be required at their hands (Ezek 3 and 33).”48 45 See, for example, the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, Niesel, p. 61–62, arts. 160 and 163 and p. 64, arts. 171 and 172. Discussions in the consistory could concern any matter and were reported on using traditional penitential terminology. Accordingly, the registers speak of someone who confessed to having danced (“confesse avoir dans¦”) or another who confessed that the child was his (“A confess¦ estre vray que c’estoit sons enfant”). At times a person was exhorted to admit his error and to confess his sins (“— confesse[r] ses offences”). RC 4, xiii. The registers commonly speak of granting someone free access to the Lord’s Supper (“Advis qu’on luy libere la cene”), giving him or her permission to partake (permettre), granting absolution but on the condition of penitence (“L’on l’a absol avec penitence”), etc. Kingdon, Transcription X2, 32. Lee: 1997, p. 249. For other examples, see RC 4 (1548), pp. 7–8, 17–18, 25, 31, 45, 60, 69, 112, 116–117, 133–135, 137, etc. 46 Millet: 2008, vol. 1 (c. 5), pp. 721–812. McKee: 2009, c. 5, pp. 271–317. 47 During the 1540s, however, the Protestant pastors were in fact “powerless public servants, without citizenship or secure juridical status, without property or financial resources, without any military power. All these attributes of Catholic clerical status had been irrecoverably lost.” Kingdon: 1984, 58. When the pastors in the 1550s had obtained a more respected and independent position with “more effective authority than their Catholic predecessors”, this resulted among others from the fact that these French intellectual leaders through their abilities and prevalence exercised greater influence on the common opinion regarding religion, morals, and foreign affairs. Kingdon, l.c., 58. This does not mean that Calvin in the 1550s consciously sought to obtain more power with a view to increasing the church’s independence. See Speelman, The Independence of the Church, c. 2. The ministers did their utmost to obtain some influence as refugees, and they succeeded in this as their authority increased. 48 Tanner : 1990, vol. 1 (canon 7), p. 237. Inst. 4.3.6 (1543). OS 5, p. 48. See also ch. 6, n. 25. Many viewed Calvin’s plans as a new form of papacy, in which true freedom was hard to find. For instance, the antipathy towards this policy of strict supervision and discipline was noticeable by late 1537 and early 1538. Time and again in the ministers’ discussion, the

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

207

As described in the registers, the Thursday morning meetings of the consistory usually passed as follows. People summoned before the consistory were often asked, especially in the beginning, to answer questions about their faith, to say their prayers, and to recite the Creed, as evidence of their commitment to the Christian faith. After that they were informed of the reasons for their summons and were given the opportunity to respond. Then followed the consistory’s deliberations, words of admonition and advice, as well as its decision, unless it was thought that the matter ought also to be treated in a later session. In many cases the penitent had already been subjected to punishment from the civil judge as well.49 If someone who had been excommunicated demanded the right to argument regarding administrative responsibility and the question of the conscience in connection with the administration of the Lord’s Supper in Calvin’s view came up. For Calvin, this was primarily a question of the conscience for those who administer the sacrament: “This concern sometimes made us fearful, but it in fact stung bitterly and caused us the greatest anguish whenever the Lord’s Supper was to be distributed. For, although in our opinion the faith of many was doubtful, even highly suspect, yet all rushed forward indiscriminately. They actually prefer to feed on the wrath of God, than to be strengthened by the sacrament of life.” In addition, Calvin considered that ministers must take special care for those “whose blood will be demanded of us, if they are lost by our negligence,” as he had insisted with repeated appeals to Ezekiel 3 and 33 in an extensive letter published in 1536. CO 5, p. 319, l.29–38 = OS 1, p. 428, l.38 – p. 429, l.2. COR 4/4, pp. 74, 75, 77, 83 and 93 = OS 1, pp. 334–340. For his conviction that especially the minister is responsible for the acts of believers, Calvin appealed to the following biblical texts: “Your leaders […] keep watch over you as those who must give an account” (Heb 13: 17) and “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel […], [since] I am entrusted with a commission.” 1 Cor 9: 16. Inst. 4.3.6 (1543). OS 5, p. 48. 49 This can be illustrated with several examples from 1548. During the consistory’s session of 23 February 1548, Pierre Tornier from the village of Peney was accused of fornication. By that time he had already been incarcerated and put on bread and water for several days, and was now required to confess his guilt and to show remorse for his offensive sin. Calvin then admonished him, saying “that a Christian ought not to fornicate and ought instead to be chaste in body and soul.” That same session saw the appearance of a very young man, Jean Frochet, who had been referred on to the consistory by the syndic because, instead of faithfully doing his work as a tailor, he had squandered his time by drinking excessively with profligate men. Calvin admonished him by noting “that a young man ought to be chaste and modest, serving his father and mother, and ought not to drink with vagabonds.” He advised him to return to work and “to live with his father and mother in a Christian manner.” That same day FranÅoise de Calegny, a woman from Burgundy, was accused of misconduct with a dog for having suckled a puppy when, upon the death of her child, she had become febrile and suffered pain in her breast. After Calvin admonished her severely “because it was scandalous and unfitting to give to a dog what is meant for a child,” she begged the consistory for forgiveness of sins and showed remorse. A week later, on 1 March 1548, the hatter Marquet and his wife were summoned before the consistory because of a domestic dispute, in the course of which he had struck his wife with a whip for wasting her time in the company of another woman, the wife of a certain Phocasse. His wife claimed that she had not heard her husband’s admonition, and had fallen sick because of the beating. Calvin admonished him because “a Christian ought not to treat his wife in that manner,” and warned her that she “ought not to visit the wife of Phocasse if this is against her husband’s will.” The next week,

208

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

appeal, it could very well be that Calvin and the other ministers refused it because, without a formal pardon from the consistory, they would not serve communion to anyone who had been excluded from the Lord’s Supper.50 In the late medieval period the charge and the admonition or remonstrance were meant to humble the sinner and formed a part of the practice of penance and confession as an institution meant to maintain social discipline within the ecclesiastical community. The same applied in Calvin’s system. If the person charged humbly accepted the reprimand and gave evidence of true sorrow without protesting, he or she was sent home and that was the end of the matter. The consistory had the power to admonish the penitent in less serious matters and, where necessary, to work to restore relationships in separate reconciliation ceremonies or otherwise.51 The penitential and confessional discussions that were held in the consistory were closed by a ritual in which forgiveness was extended to the sinner. This ritual also represented a formal act by which the church once more included the penitent sinner in its bosom. He or she was now reconciled with God and church. The purpose of penance was to bring the sinner to shame and sorrow, and to help him or her to improve in life. This often was a difficult process that not infrequently involved some degree of coercion. Especially in the later parts of the church order we read prescriptions by which people were forced to acknowledge their sins publicly and to seek reconciliation with their fellow man. As such, the punishment enacted also functioned as a deterrent and served to protect fellow citizens.52 on 8 March 1548, Claude, the widow of Andr¦ Dhatena, was summoned before the consistory because she had committed sexual immorality with a young man who thereafter left the city. She had already been condemned for this by the civil court and imprisoned for eight days. In his admonishing words Calvin remarked that God expects from “a woman who has committed sexual immorality that she show Christian remorse for her sin.” After that she was sent away in peace with the warning not to fall prey to the same sin again. RConsistorie: pp. 4–11. Kingdon: 1997, pp. 24f. For examples from different years, including forced reconciliations between marital partners both inside and outside the consistory meetings, see Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, pp. 116f. It is clear that the consistory partly functioned with a view to the social order and public peace, but as such it was not cut off from the wider spiritual context of one’s eternal salvation. For examples of causes for excommunication in Geneva in the years after 1564, see Benedict: 2002, p. 104. 50 Naphy : 1994, p. 184. 51 For many examples of reconciliation ceremonies as a part of the system of public peacemaking, see Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, pp. 115–121 and Kingdon: 1997, pp. 22–23. See also n. 30. In the more serious and conspicuous affairs the consistory functioned more as an inquisitorial ecclesiastical court. However, that was the exception rather than the rule, as emerges from a reading of the consistory registers. This differs from the perception that long ruled the day, resulting from the fact that scholars like Walter Köhler described only the exceptional cases. Kingdon: 1997, p. 26. See n. 80. 52 Cf. Niesel, art. 154ff. For the goals and motives of church discipline: OS 1 (1536), pp. 89–90, OS 1 (1537), p. 372, pp. 415–416, pp. 424–425 and Inst. 2.12.6 (1559). OS 2, p. 443. Cf. CO 52

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

209

From the articles on discipline in the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques53 one learns that a number of different ‘spiritual’ measures were available to the consistory to achieve the aforementioned goals, such as subpoenas54, admonition55, and ex(2 Thess 3: 14), p. 216. In his 1559 confession Beza described the first goal of ecclesiastical discipline as the protection of the purity of the church (que l’Eglise soit pure) and, entirely in the spirit of Calvin, meant with this the “prevention of the defilement and desecration of the sacraments.” Beza, Confession 5.43 (Que c’est qu’Excommunication), 219. Beza: 2009, p. 263. 53 The original French text of articles 154–165 can be found in OS 2, 358–362 = CStA, vol. 2, pp. 268–272 = Niesel, pp. 61–62 = CO 10a (1561), pp. 117–119. The Latin translation of the “most important parts” of the Ordonnances can be found in CO 14, no. 1859, pp. 680–682 = RCP 2, pp. 49–51. 54 “As for crimes which merit not merely remonstrance in words but correction by chastisement, the judges of the consistory (consistorii iudices) shall be informed of this so that he who has fallen shall be excluded from the Lord’s Supper for a brief, specified period of time.” Here Calvin distinguishes between “notorious and public sins” (manifesta et famosa peccata; vices notoires et publics) and moderate errors (mediocre delictum; fautes) “for which an admonition suffices” and which “are not to be pursued any further by the elders of the consistory (consistorii seniores).” More serious sins (gravius flagitium; crimes) were said to be deserving of a more severe punishment, but here too the punishment is something spiritual. In an address of 8 September 1553 the punishment exacted by the “judges of the consistory” is described several times as a “spiritual chastisement (chastiement spirituel).” RCP 2, p. 50. OS 2, pp. 358–359, art. 156–158. CO 14, no. 1859, p. 679. In any case, a summons to the consistory was a harsh measure, even if the semi-private sessions in the consistory were not open to the general public. Not only was it a humbling experience, but the delinquent also had to pay the costs of the penitential process (i. e., for the assistants and secretary). RC 1, p. xxiii. RC 35, 430f. In the medieval church, required payment for confession was a rather sensitive issue. Tentler : 1977, p. 63 and p. 71. 55 In the Latin translation of 1553, art. 154 reads as follows: “If there be anyone who dogmatizes against the received doctrine, he must be admonished in an amicable and brotherly manner. If he listens to reason, he is to be granted forgiveness without scandal of dishonour. If he be opinionative, he is to be seriously admonished, until the consistory judges that measures of greater severity are needed. Then he is to be interdicted from the communion of the Supper and reported to the magistrate.” Here the indefinite pronoun on of the original French text has been replaced by “the consistory” as subject. The original text read: “If there be anyone who dogmatizes against the received doctrine, conference is to be held with him. If he listens to reason, he is to be dismissed without scandal of dishonour. If he be opinionative, he is to be admonished several times, until it is seen that measures of greater severity are needed. Then he is to be interdicted from the communion of the Supper and reported to the magistrate.” Peter Opitz understands “qu’on le recoive” to refer to admission to the congregation instead of the Lord’s Supper (“man soll ihn in der Gemeinde behalten”), and he does the same in the next article (“man soll ihn aus der Gemeinde ausschliessen”). Such a rendering is not without import, however, given that it needlessly dissociates discipline from the Lord’s Supper. CStA, vol. 2, p. 269. What strikes one about the 1553 text for art. 155 is that the notion of ‘church’ is understood in terms of the Lord’s Supper : “If anyone is negligent in coming to church, so that a noticeable contempt of the communion of the faithful is evident, or if any show himself contemptuous of the ecclesiastical order so that by their example the communion of believers is made worthless and is destroyed, he is to be summoned before the consistory and admonished and if he prove obedient dismissed in friendliness. If he persevere in his evil way, after being three times admonished, he is to be denied participation in the Lord’s Supper (ab usu coenae) and reported to the magistrate.” In the 1541 edition this article reads: “If

210

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

clusion from the Lord’s Supper56 ; other means included isolation57 and referral to the city council58. Those who did not attend worship services faithfully were to be “summoned to the consistory (ad consistorium) for admonishment. Those who showed themselves to be ready to listen and compliant were to be sent home (remittatur donum) in peace.”59 The Discipline ecclesiastique further notes that, if the case concerns “a more serious disgrace (gravius flagitium) deserving of a more severe punishment (severior poena) than words alone, the judges of the consistory (consistorii iudices) will take note of this so that he who has fallen so deeply will be kept from the Lord’s Supper for a short but specified period of time.”60 The decision was to be communicated to the magistracy, since the consistory was only a semi-governmental instance and not fully governmental in

56

57

58 59 60

anyone is negligent in coming to church, so that a noticeable contempt of the communion of the faithful is evident, or if any show himself contemptuous of the ecclesiastical order, he is to be admonished, and if he prove obedient dismissed in friendliness. If he persevere in his evil way, after being three times admonished, he is to be separated from the Church and reported.” Exclusion from the Lord’s Supper is repeatedly mentioned as a heavy punitive measure; see, for example, articles 154, 155, 157, 158, and 159. In the 1553 translation of the church order we read that if anyone “persevere and, although convicted by lawful witnesses, respond with obstinacy instead of begging for grace, he is to be excluded from the Lord’s Supper until he listens to reason” (art. 157), and in the next article: “If there is no sign whatsoever of sorrow, he is to be severely chastised. But if he persists to the scandal of the church, he must be excluded from the Holy Supper as one who scorns God until he give proof of his sorrow.” The French text adds “if over the course of time no profit is derived from it” (si — la longue on n’y profitoit rien). The Lord’s Supper was not to be defiled, and this understanding was what necessitated the purging of offences. “If there is no sign whatsoever of sorrow, he is to be severely chastised (repetatur seria obiurgatio). But if he persists to the scandal of the church, he must be excluded from the Holy Supper as one who scorns God until he give proof of his sorrow.” CO 14, p. 670. Cf. OS 2, p. 359, art. 158. A summons to the consistory could be detrimental to a person’s reputation, if only because he was discredited. Another possible consequence of the negative publicity was social isolation. A change introduced to the church order in the 1560s not only warned of the possibility of such a form of quarantine, but also established it legally. Anyone who refused to conform was placed in isolation. This measure too was intended to bring sinners to repentance, to help them “to humble themselves” and “to better understand their error.” Niesel, 62, art. 163. The Latin translation of art. 159 reads: “If a crime has been committed that is more serious and merits not merely remonstrance in words but correction by chastisement, the judges of the consistory shall be informed of this so that he who has fallen shall be excluded from the Lord’s Supper for a brief, specified period of time, so as to humble himself before God.” This punishment is also seen as a spiritual chastisement, “to humble himself before God and to acknowledge his fault the better.” Cf. OS 2, pp. 357f = Niesel, p. 60, art. 148–149; p. 61, art. 158 and 159; pp. 61–62, art. 160. Another threat facing sinners was the possibility of a civil trial. For if the consistory decided to proceed to excommunication, this had to be reported to the magistrate, comme — noz superieurs. RCP 2, p. 51. Arts. 154 and 155. OS 2, p. 358, art. 155. CO 14, p. 679 (ad breve aliquod tempus). Cf. OS 2, p. 270, art. 159 (pour quelque temps).

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

211

its nature and composition.61 The final responsibility for discipline lay with the city council, also in the structure Calvin had devised for ecclesiastical and spiritual matters related to oversight and discipline.62 The confessional system for Strasbourg which Calvin introduced in 1540 seemed to be more in line with medieval confessional practice than the system he would introduce a year later in Geneva. In the former the pastor did not yet visit the people together with an elder as his assistant-overseer, but the people would come to the pastor – who functioned here as confessor – for a pastoral conversation and heart-to-heart. Eighteen months later, Calvin created his third confessional system, now adapted to the situation in Geneva. Here too we encounter many parallels with the early medieval tradition, although Calvin now also took account of the extent to which it could be exercised in the Genevan context. Private confession in the pastor’s manse continued to be practiced, although a form of confession that was carried out in the homes was now added to it. With this the element of supervision and admonition was bolstered, and was now closely intertwined with the pastoral, educational, and spiritual aspects that had been part of the medieval penitential system from its origins. The third form of confession (i. e., at home and in the consistory) took the form of a private or semi-private pastoral conversation63 about one’s life and thus eternal salvation. In the consistory this conversation actually took place in the presence of tens of people, and was chaired by one of the four annually elected syndics (mayors). As such, this form of confession took place in the presence of a semiecclesiastical committee composed of twelve lay members, who functioned as ward elders, to whom were by then added almost as many Genevan pastors, 61 See arts. 154 and 155. 62 See Speelman: 2014. Over the course of the 1550s the political balance of power shifted in Calvin’s favour when a greater number of fellow Frenchmen won seats in two of the three Genevan councils. Membership in the third council (i. e., the Small Council) was reserved for those who were born in Geneva. Kingdon: 1993, pp. 527f. For a comparison with the practice of discipline in the surrounding cities, see Appendix 3. 63 It would be an understatement to say that confession—in other words, the penitential discussions that took place before the consistory in the presence of several dozen people— was hardly a secret matter. In Geneva confession functioned as a semi-private ritual. At a later time, when the consistory was no longer an institution of the state (as in the clandestine Reformed churches in France), the consistory would begin to function differently. Accordingly the French church order distinguishes between public and non-public punishment, where “non-public” meant the limited confines of the consistory. See art. 30 of the first French church order : “Those who have been excommunicated shall come to the consistory to seek to be reconciled to the church again, which will then render its judgment over the remorse they show. If they have been excommunicated publicly, they must also show public remorse; if they have not been disciplined publicly, they will only have to do so before the consistory.” Pannier: 1936, p. 166.

212

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

whose spokesman in that time was Calvin. This public confession was added to the existing confessional practices in the Genevan church, and as of 1555 could even lead to excommunication.64 This indeed was truly new.65 The sinner was expected to speak openly – kneeling, seated, or standing – to this body of ecclesiastical representatives about personal matters, what he had done and why. The accused was picked up from his or her home by the officer assigned to that district, and then brought before what Calvin had described to his Zurich colleagues as ‘an ecclesiastical court’. As such the pastoral or interrogatory examination looks to have been more ‘Catholic’ than the papal form of confession itself – at least in its form! Whether this impression is correct and whether it was in fact what Calvin intended will become apparent when we consider the new forms the consistory would receive.

4

Fourth phase: Calvin arranges confession at home and claims the power of excommunication for the consistory

On behalf of the Genevan pastors Calvin informed the pastoral corps in Zurich of the way the consistory had been regulated ever since his return. On 27 November 1553 he sent them “some of the most important parts” of the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, that is to say, the articles on church discipline.66 While the people in Geneva complained about an “exaggerated strictness,”67 so Calvin noted, the real issue concerned the power of the consistory to excommunicate, with the underlying question being whether or not his system of penance and confession was fitting and expressed God’s intentions, or whether the way things were done in the Swiss sister churches was in fact better. In a strictly confidential letter he sent to his colleagues in Zurich, Calvin wrote that that “most important thing” for the people in Geneva would be to see in Zurich’s 64 Kingdon: 1993, pp. 527f. 65 At the height of Calvin’s career there were a total of ca. 19 pastors, a number of whom had charges outside the city and were not always present in the consistory. As a result, lay members and clergy were often quite equally represented in the consistory. Kingdon: 1997, p. 22. Kingdon: 1995, p. 9. Cf. note 29. In the 1550s Geneva had some 17,000 inhabitants, which works out to about 1000 members under the care of one pastor, or about 1500 souls per elder. 66 See n. 53. 67 CO 14, no. 1859, p. 681. Severity, so Calvin wrote, must be joined with moderation, mildness, humaneness, mercy, and gentleness. Inst. 4.12.8–13. OS 5, p. 218, p. 220 and p. 223. Cf. Inst. 4.1.13. OS 5, p. 17. Discipline may indeed involve punishment, but it is at the same time meant as a remedy. Inst. 4.12.1. OS 5, p. 213. Inst. 4.1.16. OS 5, p. 20. Calvin in this context refers to Chrysostom who described penance as “a medicine that wipes out sin, a gift given from heaven, a wondrous power, a grace surpassing the might of laws.” Inst. 3.4.1 (1539). OS 4, p. 85.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

213

response that the way things were done in Geneva could not be changed “without departing from the command of Christ.”68 In this letter Calvin was particularly insistent on the consistory’s authority : “The point of contention is this: to whom does the right and authority of excommunication (ius et autoritas excommunicandi) belong?”69 Twelve years earlier, in 1541, the question had not so much been about who is to perform excommunication (i. e., the consistory, city council, or another institution), but rather the pastoral matter of “who ought to be kept from the Lord’s Supper,” or, to put it another way, the distinction between those who “deserve it and those who are not able (capables) to receive it.”70 In this matter, Calvin sought the advice – of all people! – of his colleague Heinrich Bullinger. From the very beginning of the Swiss Reformation, different views had been circulating on the exercise of church discipline. As we have seen, in Basel, for example, the former priest Oecolampadius strongly favoured a type of church discipline that was independent of the magistrate71, while Bullinger, who in December 1531 succeeded Zwingli at the age of 27, supported the notion of a discipline that was carried out by the magistrate and had no interest in any form of ecclesiastical discipline. In 1536 Geneva had not made a clear choice yet, but by late 1541 it, under Calvin’s leadership, adopted a mediating position by which church and state would have to cooperate in ecclesiastical or eucharistic discipline.72 The Genevan councils agreed, but only time would tell how the new regulations were going to be received in practice and would function. The Reformed city states were agreed that there had to be a certain form of discipline in the church. Most Protestant regimes, such as the Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Anglicans, refused to give their churches a general power of excommunication. The same was true for the Swiss churches that Geneva would solicit for advice. In view of the totality of his penitential and confessional system, and because it did not yet enjoy sufficient support in the Genevan context and functioned deficiently there, Calvin increasingly favoured the idea of entrusting the power of the excommunicatio minor to the consistory. Anyone who was not ready to admit his wrongdoing before the consistory when asked to 68 69 70 71

CO 14, no. 1858, p. 676 and p. 678. CO 14, no. 1859, p. 680. RCP 2, p. 49. In Basel Oecolampadius had already instituted a eucharistic discipline as early as 1526, which called for the exclusion of those “die durch das wort Gottes verbant seyn und die da schmaehen den leyb Christi als ungesunde und dürre glyderen.” Pahl: 1983, vol. 1, p. 204. 72 To illustrate this point I note only the rule that the inhabitants of Geneva summoned before the consistory were to be collected “by one of our officers (un de nos officiers),” and if anyone did not cooperate and refused to appear, “the city council will be informed of this so that it may take appropriate measures.” OS 2, 258, art. 153 = CStA, vol. 2, p. 268.

214

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

do so and to improve his life could be directly forbidden by the consistory to participate in the Lord’s Supper. It should further be noted that excommunication was a special punitive measure and could have ramifications also on the people close to the accused.73 Calvin considered his proposals to be altogether reasonable. There can indeed be no discipline without pain, but discipline ought also not to be overly harsh since then it will backfire and come up short of its purpose.74 Calvin argued that discipline was to be combined with the meekness, mildness, humaneness, and mercy of the gospel.75 For although discipline does include the element of punishment, it is also intended as a medicine.76 Quoting Chrysostom, Calvin called discipline a gift from God, “a medicine that wipes out sin” and “a gift given from heaven, a wondrous power, a grace surpassing the might of laws.”77 Here Calvin conceived of discipline in its broadest sense, including a process of questioning, punishment, and the begging for forgiveness. Aside from this healing or therapeutic aspect of penance, there was also to be reconciliation – both internal and external. This had applied in the medieval tradition just as it did in Calvin’s Geneva.78 Even today the image persists of a very strict Calvin.79 This image was partly the result of the selective summaries and partial transcription of the registers of the Genevan consistory provided in the nineteenth century by Fr¦deric-Auguste Cramer, whose work would form the basic source material underlying the standard work on the Genevan consistory which Walter Köhler published nearly 100 years later. The result was a skewed picture of the deepest intentions of this important institution, as if to suggest that Calvin’s spiritual court was only interested in imposing punishment rather being concerned about the spiritual

73 For the question as to who should have the power of excommunication in a Protestant society, see Appendix 4. 74 Inst. 4.12.8. OS 5, p. 219. In the early and medieval church, the punishments exacted sometimes lasted several years or even a lifetime. Cf. Inst. 4.12.10. OS 5, p. 222. 75 Inst. 4.12.8–13. OS 5, p. 218, p. 220 and p. 223. Cf. Inst. 4.1.13. OS 5, p. 17. 76 Inst. 4.12.1. OS 5, p. 213 and Inst. 4.1.16. OS 5, p. 20. 77 Inst. 3.4.1 (1539). OS 4, p. 85 = CO 2, p. 456 = CO 4, p. 104. Chrysostom, Homilies on Repentance, hom. vii, 1 (MPG 49, 338). See for the conception of penance as medicine for sin also Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541): “that there be no rigour by which anyone may be injured; for even the corrections are only medicines.” OS 2, pp. 360–361 = CStA, vol. 2, p. 272. And McNeill: 1951, pp. 44f, 114, 119, 134, 179, 315. 78 Angenendt: 2005, pp. 644f. 79 In a paper entitled “Calvin – A Man of Law and Order” (Pretoria, August 2013), Peter Opitz corrected and nuanced this persistent image.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

215

process of sorrow for and repentance from sin that was inextricably tied to this punishment.80 The medieval penitential law had already tied discipline and the Lord’s Supper closely together : “All the faithful … should individually confess … to their own priest at least once a year … (and) reverently receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter.”81 Just like medieval confession stood in the context of admission to communion with Christ in the Eucharist and was thus inextricably tied to it, so Calvin maintained the same close connection between church discipline and the sacrament. This is most clearly visible in the many people who were excluded from the Lord’s Supper by the consistory during the late 1550s; they were readmitted to this communion when they asked the consistory for absolution.82 Care was thus taken for the unity of the church community and for the eternal salvation of the communicants. According to the ecclesiastical ordinances, the consistory had no civil jurisdiction whatsoever (nulle jurisdiction civile) and only bore the spiritual sword (glaive spirituel) of the Word of God. All the same, the consistory was consistently referred to as a (spiritual) ‘court’, and its reports were called sommaires des interrogatories and procÀs-verbaux. The consistory might therefore best be called a mixed form between a pastoral court (un corp judiciaire) and a confessional (or pulpit) with Holy Scripture as its main weapon.83 In order to demonstrate that Calvin’s proposals for Geneva in the mid- to late1550s were accepted, we need only point to the well-known words of the former priest John Knox, who was residing in Geneva at the time and wrote in a letter that nowhere on earth had he seen the Christian life maintained so well as in Geneva. Knox considered the city “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.”84

80 In 1853 Fr¦d¦ric-Auguste Cramer, an antiquarian bookseller from Geneva, first published excerpts (about 5 %) from the consistory registers under the title Notes extraites des r¦gistres du Consistoire de L’Eglise de GenÀve, 1541–1814. In his transcriptions, however, Cremer limited himself to the extraordinary cases. In the first half of the twentieth century, Walter Köhler would base his work on these excerpts provided by Cremer. It goes without saying, however, that the result was a skewed picture of the Genevan consistory, whose legal side was now highlighted at the expense of the spiritual, although the latter was in fact its primary concern. See n. 51. 81 See n. 9. 82 For lists of suspensions of the Holy Supper in Geneva from 1542–1563f., see Grosse: 2008, p. 297. See also n. 89. 83 RC 1, pp. xxii–xxiii. Kingdon: 2005, p. 69. Langbein: 1977. 84 Knox to mrs. Locke on 9 December 1556, in McNeill: 1954, p. 178 and p. 181. Kingdon: 1990, p. 167.

216

5

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

The final phase: Calvin demands that penitents return to the consistory to seek forgiveness and to be restored

Over the course of the 1550s, Calvin gained sufficient power over the Genevan situation to be able to realise the final necessary step for tightening the church order or confessional system, which he considered not yet to be functioning quite as it should. Few men or women at the time returned to the confessional in order to bring closure to the matter by receiving forgiveness and achieving reconciliation.85 For that reason Calvin thought it should be possible to demand of every person that he or she return to the consistory to be subjected to further admonition, or to receive absolution and reconciliation. Moreover, just as the state supervised a person’s first appearance before the consistory, in his mind the state ought to do the same for any additional sessions if a person gave no sign of sorrow or repentance in spite of the imposed punishment.86 85 During and after Calvin’s life, a substantial part of Geneva’s population was summoned before the consistory at one time or another—between five and seven percent of the entire adult population every year. Only 16.6 % of the 271 men and women who were excommunicated in the years 1555 and 1556 came to the consistory to seek restoration. Of those that did, 10.7 % were accepted. Lee: 1997, p. 237. Kingdon argued that in the course of the 1550s people did do their best to be readmitted to the Lord’s Supper and to the city’s religious life: “People excommunicated by the Geneva Consistory tried strenuously, even frantically, to be allowed again to take communion. In the end most of them reconciled themselves with the Consistory and were allowed to receive communion within three months, at one of the four times a year it was offered in Calvin’s Geneva. If they could not so reconcile themselves, they generally left the city completely, abandoning family, friends, and property to go into exile. Excommunication became an uncommonly effective sanction.” Kingdon: 1993, p. 522. In that period the population increased by several thousand inhabitants, mostly through an influx of religious refugees, but this was still not in proportion to the number of excommunications. To illustrate: four people were excommunicated in 1551, four in 1552, sixteen in 1553, 50 in 1554, 100 in 1555, almost 200 in 1557, well over 200 in 1559, 300 in 1564, 400 in 1566, and 535 in 1569. RC 4, xiii. Monter : 1976, pp. 476f. Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, p. 21. 86 Before absolution could be requested and extended, the penitent had to give evidence of true remorse and show that he intended to improve his life. This applied in Genevan practice just as much as it did in the Roman Catholic church. In the late medieval period it was not uncommon for church and state to cooperate closely in disciplinary matters. And because both in Geneva and in the established church much attention was devoted to the preparation for the Eucharist, it can be assumed that the parish pastors or parochial priests knew a thing or two about their parishoners’ lives. A third point of convergence between Geneva and the established church relates to pastoral care, and is evident in the new Genevan visitation regulations from 1556 which state that someone who is sick must inform his pastor of this so as to receive instruction and to be comforted. The sick, prisoners, and the dying were to be comforted, encouraged, and, where necessary, admonished from Holy Scripture. In both systems pastoral care was closely allied with tight social control with a view to the people’s spiritual well-being. Another commonality I would like to mention is a certain form of compulsory attendance. In 1550 Calvin defended the position that the Genevan inhabitants ought to be required to attend the weekday services, arguing that the Sabbath commandment applied also during the rest of the week. The council decided

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

217

On 12 November 1557 the council adopted a number of new regulations related to the sin of withdrawing from the Lord’s Supper, given that “it has been observed that some are refraining from participation in the Lord’s Supper by their own decision.” If no measures were taken, the threat of excommunication could of course very well end up becoming insignificant. For that reason the council decided that anyone who failed to participate in the Lord’s Supper, “who cut himself off from the holy communion of believers,” would be summoned before the consistory.87 For Calvin, the value of his total penitential system was at stake if this behaviour should be tolerated.88 Some of those who were summoned were reinstated after a second visit to the consistory, while others had to return several times before they received absothat people ought to come to church “especially on Sundays and on days of prayer (principallement les dimanches et le jour de la priÀre).” Rivoire: 1927f (Les sources du droit du canton de GenÀve), vol. 2, p. 530, l.25–29. Cf. Inst. 2.8.32 and CO 48 (Comm. on Acts), p. 57. In both the Genevan and the medieval penitential systems, people were with the best of intentions questioned as to their personal failures, given punishment, and helped in their abasement. The prescribed manner in which sorrow had to be demonstrated, such as begging God out loud for grace or kissing the ground, was also similar in both systems. Similarly, instruction in doctrine and life as well as admonition were common penitential markers. In Calvin’s thought it was in most cases not necessary to confess and discuss in the presence of the consistory those private sins that were not visible to all. The main difference between Calvin’s view and that of the established church was that he did not view penance as a sacrament, but alongside baptism as a “second rescue board after shipwreck.” For in baptism sins are not wiped out, but rather through baptism, which testifies of our reconciliation in Christ, believers are to their comfort called to penitence, sorrow, and repentance in order that they might obtain absolution. OS 1, p. 202. Given the notion of penance as a “second baptism” in the early church, many did not want to be baptised until their deathbed to be certain of the forgiveness of sins. For Luther on baptism as a second rescue board and his criticism of Jerome’s interpretation, see WA 6 (De captivitate), pp. 526–530. 87 OS 2, pp. 359–360, art. 160 = CStA, vol. 2, p. 270. The notion of ‘offence’ was a significant one for Calvin, and referred to acts or demeanour that impeded the faith of others. CStA, vol. 2, p. 271. Cf. also article 163: “If anyone out of rebellion or because he persists in his sin or because he shows himself to be unworthy of the communion of the Lord’s Supper is excluded from it, and, instead of humbling himself, shows that he despises the order of the church (l’ordre de l’Eglise), and if he does not willingly confess his sins in the consistory shall, after being excluded from the Lord’s Supper for six months, be summoned and admonished to humble himself. If he persists until the end of the year without allowing himself to be corrected through the admonition, he will be excommunicated for a year as an impenitent, unless this can be prevented when he asks for forgiveness from the councillors and confesses his sins in the consistory so as to be admitted to communion (communion).” OS 2, p. 360 = CStA, vol. 2, p. 272. True Christians, so Calvin argued like Luther, also participate in the sacrament or at the very least long to do so. But before entering into communion with him, Christ must first be (actively) present in his life; he must “possess Him.” As such exclusion from communion is more than a punishment, but also a sign that communion with Christ has been broken in that person’s life. At that moment he does not belong to the body of Christ. See e. g., Higman: 1970, p. 107 and pp. 101f = § 17 and §§ 3, 11, 13, 30 and 50; and n. 102. 88 See also the passage in the main text at ch. 6, n. 48.

218

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

lution. The accused first had to show that they had heartfelt sorrow over their sin, and that they recognised and admitted the importance of the new process of reconciliation and restoration effected through the consistory. For some the measures were very humiliating and even had great social ramifications, but for the greatest majority the process of confession was completed in a single session beginning with the admission of sin, then admonition from the Word of God, evidence of true sorrow, the promise of improvement, and finally the granting of absolution and restoration. In most cases the interview did not last very long, not much more than five to ten minutes.89 The fifth stage consisted also in an annually recurring examination of one’s faith held in the homes. In this way the consistory observed the changes in the person’s attitude and lifestyle through its regular home visitations, which were first instituted in Geneva in 1556. Not long afterwards the practice of yearly home visitation, which took place in the weeks leading up to Easter, “so that the meal of the Lord would not be defiled, and to encourage every person to fulfil his duty to God and to obey his holy Word,” was established by a number of articles that were added to the Genevan church order.90 The purpose of such visits was to examine people at home with a 89 For example, in the year 1556, when the consistory met 55 times, a total of 1518 people were summoned before the consistory in 730 cases. Those who were excluded from the Lord’s Supper had to return for a second interview after receiving their punishment. Both the Roman Catholic and the Genevan penitential system undeniably involve a psychological element. Those who are confronted with their sins and the consequences thereof must not simply confess them. Their restoration also implies that the sinner or ‘patient’ must come to terms with himself and his neighbour or neighbours, and this includes his return to society. The individual must accommodate himself to the community. When the Neuch–tel pastors asked Calvin and his Genevan colleagues for advice in 1552 concerning the relationship between the community and the individual with regard to the Lord’s Supper, they responded—entirely in line with the spirit of the additions made to the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques in 1557—that anyone who had disgraced the church by his bad example and shown himself to be truly sorry had to confess his sins before the church (coram Ecclesiam, which meant the consistory ; the ministers of Neuch–tel spoke of giving “an official testimony of his repentance (ad solenne poenitentiae testimonium)” so as to seek reconciliation (reconciliet): “We laud this custom of giving proof of repentance in the presence of people (coram populo), and we deny that it is an ill–considered idea of pure human invention.” RCP 1, p. 142, 29 July 1552 = CO 14, no. 1641, pp. 345–347. As important as selfexamination (cf. 1 Cor 11) was to Calvin’s mind, it was not enough. Cf. n. 5. Whenever an offence in Geneva involved two or more people, as in a domestic conflict or disagreement between neighbours or businessmen, the respective parties were assembled two days after confession in the consistory for a formal rite of reconciliation that took place in the parish church. This rite was presided over by two members of the consistory, one layman and one pastor. Calvin was often requested to fulfil this role in restoring the relationship between the parties and with the Christian assembly as a whole. See n. 51. 90 See also the passage in the main text at ch. 6, n. 40f.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

219

view to their admission to the Lord’s Supper : “Accordingly we have decided that visits (visitation) will be made to the homes each and every year in order to examine (examiner) all people over their faith in a simple manner, so that at the very least none shall come to the Lord’s Supper without knowing the foundation of their salvation.”91 Such home visits were carried out by the minister together with an assistant “in order that they may be able to deliberate together […] as to whom they consider altogether unworthy of the Lord’s Supper or who are acting wickedly.”92 The main concern was that no one was to be admitted without first having been approved (devant qu’avoir est¦ approuv¦).93 All Genevan inhabitants were required on a yearly basis to undergo a critical examination, and if necessary this first interview would be followed up by a second examination in the consistory. According to the registers, at the meetings held for reconciliation following excommunication, the sinner begged to be “set free from excommunication from the Lord’s Supper” or requested “permission to be allowed to receive the Lord’s Supper.” Such a person could only be freed from excommunication after it had been verified that there were signs of true repentance.94 91 OS 2, p. 357 (1561) = CStA, vol. 2, p. 266 = CO 10a, p. 116 = Niesel, p. 60, art. 148. In the established church there had been the custom of regular visitations by the bishop, as well as the yearly court sessions at which the entire population was expected to appear for the purpose of having the public sins judged. Feine: 1964, pp. 217f. Luther and Melanchthon had initiated such visitations in the 1520s and 1530s in Germany, first for the clergy and later also for the local churches. These visitations proved to be an effective means practised in many Protestant regions in Germany as of 1526, leading to numerous church orders and/or visitation regulations that were produced on the authority of the magistrate. Petegree: 2000, pp. 156f. The remarkable, new element in Calvin’s system was the fact that not simply the clergy or entire churches, but individual believers were visited in their homes. The sheep did not come to the shepherd, but the pastors rather went out systematically to look up their sheep, especially with a view to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and to examine each person’s faith life. 92 OS 2, pp. 357–358 (1561) = CStA, vol. 2, p. 266 = CO 10a, pp. 116–117 = Niesel, p. 60, art. 150. 93 OS 2, p. 357 (1561) = CStA, vol. 2, p. 266 = CO 10a, p. 116 = Niesel, p. 60, art. 148. As he had done in the small refugee church in Strasbourg, so in Geneva’s ‘city church’ Calvin attempted to maintain “a good disciplinary order (police) in the church” by having each and every person—as in the Roman Catholic practice—give an account of him- or herself by “examining every person (examiner chacun),” including the newcomers such as servants, chamber maids, wet nurses, and foreigners. Niesel, p. 60, art. 148. 94 The registers commonly speak about allowing a person free access to the Lord’s Supper (“Advis qu’on luy libere la cene”; “Lequel prie qu’on le libere de la cene”), approving him (“Lequel require luy admette — recepvre la cene”), or granting absolution (“L’on l’a absol avec penitence”). Other frequently occurring terms include forgiveness (pardonner), absolution (absoudre), permission (permettre), offering (offre). Kingdon, Transcription X.2, 32 and 37f. See Lee: 1997, pp. 241f. and p. 249. Cf. n. 45.

220

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

This process of examination took place in the consistory, which accordingly might be compared to a hospital – although many of Calvin’s patients did not visit it of their own volition. Continuing with this analogy, excommunication could be seen as an operation. Patients were treated for some time at the Intensive Care Unit and, as occasionally happens with a life-threatening illness, were sometimes even put in quarantine or isolation. In such a model the medicine – in other words, ‘excommunication’ – was not meant as restitution for wrong-doing, but was rather intended to humble the sinner and achieve repentance with a view to healing his participation in the communion of the Lord’s Supper with Christ and his people. This aspect of the penitent sinner’s spiritual restoration, where improvement was sought for (aside from the other problems the sinner or ‘patient’ faced) his relationship with his Lord and his people, has for long received insufficient attention in studies on Calvin’s view of supervision and discipline. Kingdon has noted that this service of reconciliation was more than social control, it was also meant as social help and is a “neglected side of Calvin’s career.”95 This is also why I have chosen to speak of the consistory as a ‘Reformed confessional’. The convicted sinners were to be induced once more to live in accordance with God’s will, with the help of the internal work of the Holy Spirit and with the pastoral care extended by the ecclesiastical office bearers so that, upon penance, sorrow, and confession of guilt, their sins would be forgiven and they could seek further reconciliation. By now we can identify several points of agreement between the papal system of penance and confession and Calvin’s system. Both departed from the assumption of a close connection between act and thought in church and society, and both recognised the social-civil and pedagogical importance of confession. Both also assumed that the church had the right to examine people in doctrine and life and to require them to cooperate in all forms of social control, whether it be at home or before an ecclesiastical committee or court, and to participate in religious activities like the holy sacrament. Both proceeded from the assumption of the importance of preparation for the Lord’s Supper by means of Christian confession, and of the spiritual benefit and positive right of ecclesiastical penance, which both saw more as a pastoral-medical intervention than as retribution for errors committed (with excommunication as the ultimate measure). Both systems understood it to be the task of the church, and especially of priest or pastor, to reconcile people with God through confession and to restore broken human relationships. 95 Kingdon: 1997, p. 23 and pp. 30f.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

221

The early church’s penitential practice had in the medieval period not only grown out to the practice of confession, but had also created a new kind of church discipline in which the pope occupied the position as the highest judge. By means of regular visitations the bishop maintained supervision over his spiritual subjects. In Calvin’s view the city council, together with the consistory, assumed the task of combatting, punishing, and seeking penance for sin; of the examination, admonition, and comforting of the sinner ; and of the reconciliation and restoration of relationships between perpetrators and victims – responsibilities which up to that point in time had resided with the bishop. In Calvin’s thought, like in the medieval church, the point was to show the sinner the way back to communion with God and, where necessary, to reconcile him with the people around him.96 The consistory focused on the more spiritual measures, such as exclusion from and admission to the Lord’s Supper, as well as reconciliation with God and the church community ; its focus was not on punishment as such. This emphasis on the at times difficult process of sorrow, forgiveness, repentance, and conversion comes to clearer expression in the consistory records than it does in the church order, since they offer us a better view of the way the consistory functioned as a kind of confessional booth.97 Robert Kingdon has correctly pointed out that this practice which took place in the consistory can be compared to what happened in the established church when the sinner received absolution: “It can be compared to the absolution administered by a priest to a forgiven sinner in the Catholic confessional, and no doubt filled a similar psychological function.”98 The consistory registers commonly refer to ‘excommunication’ with the verb d¦fendre rather than excommunier, whereas the latter concept was more common in the literature of the medieval period. The verb d¦fendre always requires an object, and because in the Genevan context excommunication was primarily about exclusion from the Lord’s Supper, the members of the consistory and those who were being punished were reminded every time excommunication was referred to using the word d¦fendre that it pertained to the Lord’s Supper. The most commonly expressed used was la Cene luy (leur) soit deffendue, “he/she was forbidden the Lord’s Supper.” Because this prohibition on eating and 96 Hermann Schmitz summarised the primary goal of the medieval penitential and confessional practice as follows: “Der Busse ist als des Mittels der Aussöhnung mit Gott und mit der kirchlichen und bürgerlichen Gemeinschaft.” Schmitz: 1958, vol. 2, p. 89. 97 See n. 80. 98 Kingdon: 1997, p. 27. Jeffrey Watt rightly draws this line also to the system of home visitations in Geneva, because “these visitations can be viewed as an alternative, non-sacramental form of auricular confession.” Watt: 2013, p. 106.

222

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

drinking the body and blood of Christ and thus on exclusion from the Lord’s Supper community was only meant to humble a person temporarily, the registers often note that the exclusion applied only to the next celebration of the sacrament. Some who were warned and forbidden to partake of the Lord’s Supper until further notice had to demonstrate true sorrow for their sin to their pastor and show that they had improved their lives before they were admitted again. Others had to return to the consistory for the purpose of restoration and reconciliation. In some exceptional cases the sinner was given the choice, and did not need further approbation from the church to participate in communion.99 One of the things that was added to the existing regulations was a rule relating to those who withheld themselves from the Lord’s Supper by their own decision, and to the degree to which people could decide of themselves whether or not to participate in the Lord’s Supper. If someone was forbidden to partake only a single time (pour une fois seulement) “because of some scandal committed,” this did not mean that he or she could decide to refrain from participation the next time the sacrament was celebrated as well.100 In Calvin’s eyes the Lord’s Supper was not something about which an individual could decide at his or her own whim or will. It was a matter of the church, a sacred matter, in which believers were not free to decide to participate as they themselves saw fit. This nonvoluntary nature of participation received further emphasis in the gradually heavier punitive measures that applied for grievous sins, such as exclusion from the Lord’s Supper and even banishment from the city for a year. According to the new articles in the regulation, if a sinner failed to show respect and reverence for the church as embodied in the consistory and ignored the earlier admonitions, he was to be subjected to extra punishment as reconciliation for the offence committed.101 This line was developed ever further in 1560. That year it was decided that “from now on those who have been excommunicated by the consistory and do not repent after being admonished” will be declared to have been cast from the flock “until they come to confess their guilt and reconcile themselves with the whole church.”102 Intermezzo Yet was Calvin’s confessional system in form little more than a minor modification of the Roman Catholic sacrament of confession, albeit with a slightly stricter code of conduct? Was the structure he had established for church discipline, where church 99 Lee: 1997, pp. 168–176. In 1556 such freedom was granted on only one occasion, on 31 March: “luy laisser la cene — sa conscience.” Kingdon, Transcription XI.1, 13f. 100 OS 2, p. 360, art. 162 = CStA 2, p. 272. 101 OS 2, p. 360, art. 162 = CStA 2, p. 272. Cf. OS 2, pp. 359–360, art. 160 and art. 161 = CStA 2, p. 270. See also Inst. 4.12.3 and 6, and Inst. 3.19.11. 102 OS 2, p. 363, art. 171 = CStA 2, p. 276.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

223

members were measured by norms established by the city council, primarily a system of moral and social control? Was Calvin’s system of penance and confession therefore in reality like the first function of medieval confession as a means of social control, given that also the Genevan consistory devoted much attention, time, and energy to counselling the people in their walk with God and fellow man? For our comparison between Calvin and the Roman Catholic confessional system, we took our point of departure in the new penitential system of 1215 because the influence this law had in the late medieval period can hardly be overestimated. Moreover, in his Institutes Calvin had fiercely attacked the Roman Catholic penitential law, such that the papal regulations were hardly his primary source of inspiration. On top of it all, his critical attitude towards the existing penitential system was common knowledge. In spite of this, Calvin in his own system of penance and confession sought to recast important elements of the medieval practice of confession, including a proper preparation for communion. As such, it was impossible for him not to point implicitly to the existing Catholic tradition.103 Both systems addressed aberrant behaviour. Believers were required to confess their sins and had some form of penance imposed on them by the representative or representatives of the church. In case of serious sins or rebellion where the sinner refused to confess sin or showed no sign of sorrow, he was excommunicated. In both systems the overseers of the church played an important role. Of course, there were also many differences. The late medieval penitential tradition was built above all around the element of private confession, while other Roman Catholic institutions were in place to address public sin. The Catholic penitential law was based on annual confession, even though sinners were encouraged to make confession more than once per year and many indeed also did so more frequently. Calvin, who in his criticism of the Roman Catholic practice attacked especially its once-a-year character, argued for a frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, for daily conversion, and for a matching exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. Instead of the minimal demand made by the papal system, Calvin understood life to be permanently marked by an attitude of penitence and penance and at the same time – given the inseparable connection between penance and the Lord’s Supper – a continuous communion with Christ through the ministry of Word and sacrament, favouring the ideal of weekly or even daily communion (i. e., whenever the church assembled).104

Medieval confession had two primary markers. It was a sacrament or – if we drop the sacred language – ‘institution’ for forgiveness, but above all also an ecclesiastical means for exercising supervision and discipline in social, ethical, and communal questions. Luther had recast confession in a new way according to the first function (i. e., forgiveness) when he chose to maintain the sacramental status of confession.105 103 See n. 40f. 104 See n. 19f. 105 Luther observed in this respect that a sacrament must include a visible sign and that, according to this definition, confession is not strictly speaking a sacrament since it only includes the promise of the forgiveness of sins. See, for example, WA 1 (Sermo de poeni-

224

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

At the same time he abandoned the second or church-political function of medieval confession and with that also the ecclesiastical system for social control by which to force people in a systematic way to seek the church’s help to improve their lives as was deemed proper in the Christian west. It is possible that Luther, perhaps because of his view on the Eucharist, was less interested in a churchpolitical system to support eucharistic discipline as the proper ecclesiastical form for making sure that people prepared themselves carefully for the holy sacrament. In that respect, Calvin steered a totally different course. Just like Zwingli, he was convinced of the close relationship between church and society, at the same time he felt himself to be responsible for giving a more ecclesiastical character to the social responsibilities of the church and to religious life in a broader social sense, as had been the case in the established church.106 But, as noted, his attention was focused primarily on the church in the more restricted sense and on the supervision and discipline of all the inhabitants of the city’s ecclesiastical community, who were all expected to belong to the one community of the Lord’s Supper. In contrast to Luther, he decided to take away from confession its sacramental status, and at the same time looked for a new form to give expression to the wider application of confession in its civil-social sense, namely the control of believers both communally and as individuals. Aside from this, Calvin continued to support the notion of private confession and had in fact managed to maintain it in a recast form, but in his new regulations he concentrated especially on the first function of medieval confession: the guarding of the holiness and unity of church and society through discipline and social control.107

tentia uit 1519), p. 317. The Formula Missae (1524) and Confessio Augustana (1530) insist on the necessity of confession, especially in preparation for the Eucharist: “Confession has not been abolished in our churches. For it is not customary to administer the body of Christ except to those who have been previously examined and absolved. […] Therefore confess to the Lord God, the true judge, […] in your conscience.” BSLK (CA, art. 25), pp. 97f. 106 In the new structure he devised for the Genevan church, Calvin therefore appointed deacons, one of whom was charged with responsibility for the sick (hospitallier), and four others who bore responsibility for the possessions that were available for the care for the poor in the city as well as for the actual care for the poor (procureurs). His church order further instituted the function of teachers (doctores) with a view to education, which in the medieval period had been a task entrusted to the church. 107 See n. 8.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

225

Conclusion As we have seen, Calvin was aiming to make a tangible connection to the Roman Catholic tradition of confession, more so than the Reformers from Wittenberg and Zurich had done, and more than has been assumed in scholarship up till now. The yearly visitations that were instituted for the time leading up to Easter, together with the establishment of the Genevan consistory which basically functioned as a ‘confessional’ and had strict requirements for confession, illustrate this intention. Calvin was critical of the many misunderstandings that had arisen from the existing penitential practice. In the Protestant view penance and repentance were indeed no longer considered meritorious, and yet Calvin did understand them to be necessary for the process of a person’s healing. With the pursuit of holiness and the related element of discipline, Calvin did indeed think of the believer’s salvation and his entrance into God’s kingdom with a view to the ministry and reception of Word and sacrament – but he did not entertain an entirely independent pursuit for “a pure church, a visible and exclusive community of saints,” as scholars would later argue.108 Since in the course of time discipline would come to be viewed as a third and independent mark of the church, the aforementioned interpretation of Calvin’s system of discipline and confession seemed indeed to find support. Thus Kingdon and Lambert, together with many others, proceed from the assumption that also Calvin, for whom it was so important that the people in the church sought to live a Christian life, understood discipline as a third and separate mark of the church. In its first edition, the Belgic Confession noted that the purpose of church discipline was “to correct one’s shortcomings (pour corriger les vices),”109 but some years later, as the church assumed a position of independence, it appropriated a power for itself and changed the language of the confession accordingly. Of church discipline as a third mark of the church we now read that it “is exercised in the punishing of sin (om de sonde te straffen).”110 In order to support 108 See n. 3. 109 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, p. 124, l.21 and p. 125, l.24–25, art. 29. 110 Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, pp. 10–11. It seems logical to compare what happened in Calvin’s Geneva with the Protestant communities in France, although they were in a very different position from the community in Geneva because they did not enjoy the powerful and consistent support of the state. Because the French churches were living under a government that was hostile to them, the consistories tried to supervise the lives of church members to the degree that this was possible. (Philippe Chareyre and Raymond A. Mentzer have studied also the registers of the Consistoire de N„mes.) But did this also mean that consistorial discipline as Calvin had instituted it in a ‘city church’ like that of Geneva “could be exercised only within the congregation of believers” and “not within the entire population of a community”? Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, p. 23.

226

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

his position on Calvin’s view of discipline, Kingdon cites the later, revised edition of the confession. But for Calvin punishment for sin was not something isolated, as a satisfaction for wrongdoing, but it was closely related to the notion of communion with and in Christ and, as such, with the ‘public’ confession of guilt, display of sorrow, and effecting of repentance. Calvin’s consistory sought to return the sinner to the Lord, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.111 For that reason the penitent had to be made aware of his error. In order for this realisation to be achieved, a longer period of time often was necessary, that is, multiple visits to the consistory. Nevertheless, there were regularly also men and women who repented after being excluded from the Lord’s Supper for a single time.112 Calvin’s concern was for “the internal renewal of the conscience” which produced true improvement of life, in contrast to the confessional practice of the established church, where he thought there was much talk about sorrow although in his eyes it remained purely an outward show.113 According to Calvin sorrow and repentance were above all a matter of the heart, although he thought the inner side ought also to be visible in its fruits. According to the reformational teaching people are freely justified, but they at the same time also remain sinners (simul justus et peccator).114 For this very reason a new system of supervision and oversight was necessary in Calvin’s eyes, where believers would constantly be stimulated to repentance and to continual penitence with a persistent attitude of humility and awareness of their guilt as an 111 A ‘good repentance’ had to do with remorse and a change of life. When the consistory denied the request for restoration it was because of educational reasons, the explicit recognition of their faults or a visible sign of penitence. Jung-Sook Lee notes in this regard: “Unlike Monter and Kingdon’s argument, in Geneva people were rather indifferent, ignorant or even careless about the necessity of restoration.” Lee: 2016, p. 40, n. 9. Shortly after the discussions held with Calvin on 30 January 1560, Geneva’s Great Council enacted a number of new laws again on 9 February 1560. First of all, “that supervision (la superintendence), which belongs to the church, serves to bring all (tous!) Christians to obedience and to true worship of God and to prevent offensive behaviour and to correct it.” OS 2, p. 362, art. 168 = CStA 2, p. 274. Once more this article does not simply point to a person’s moral duty to keep the law, but deals with the topic in the context of a sinner’s readmission to the Lord’s Supper. 112 Monter: 1967, p. 477. Kingdon: 1993, p. 522. See n. 72 and n. 2. The expressions that the consistory used in permitting restoration spoke about the necessity of a good repentance, whereby someone had to be aware of his mistakes and gave a sign of repentance, which could be shown from 1560 in a liturgical public confession when the City Council adopted the public ceremony of confession and repentance as a part of the restoration procedure. Monter: 1967, p. 139. 113 Inst. 3.4.1. OS 4, p. 85 and p. 86. Cf. OS 1, p. 172. 114 WA 56, p. 269 and p. 272. Cf. WA 2, pp. 496–497. WA 39/1, p. 492. WA 39/1, p. 563 etc. The simul is the gift of faith, a bold venture that must be concretised again and again. Aside from the dialectical aspect of a person remaining a sinner while he at the same time is justified by God’s goodness, there is also the temporal aspect. He is both at once, now and later: “sinner in reality, righteous in the future (peccator in re, iustus in spe).”

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

227

alternative to the Roman Catholic practice of a once-a-year confession. Luther had given a first impulse when he referred to Matt 4:17 in the first of his 95 theses (1517), and made it clear that confession is not a one-time thing and that the Christian life is rather about continuous penitence and conversion (see chapter 6 above) Calvin adopted this notion, but because he understood the church to share in this responsibility and also because he knew that people are not naturally inclined to self-examination and self-criticism, he created a locus poenitentiae. For Calvin it was important for people to feel upright sorrow over their sins and to change from the inside out. It was partly for this reason that he devoted so much time and energy to this pastoral work as carried out either by the individual or the consistory. Kingdon finally concludes that the most decisive proof for his argument that discipline functioned as a third mark of the church in Calvin’s view “is not to be found, to be sure, in Calvin’s own Institutes,” but that an important root for this view is to be found in “Calvin’s Geneva,” especially “in his creation and defense of the Consistory.”115 Yet if that were true, it hardly makes sense to conclude from the way in which the consistory functioned in Geneva “that consistorial discipline could be exercised only within the congregation of believers, not within the entire population of a community.”116 For, as was the case for Zwingli in Zurich, so Calvin too equated the Genevan church with the city.117 In this line 115 Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, pp. 11–12. 116 Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, p. 23. Cf. Opitz: 1997, p. 234, see n. 2. In the first 24 months of the consistory’s existence, a total of 843 people were summoned before it, and this out of a population which early in the 1540s numbered less than 12,000. Of the 843, some 86 were witnesses, while 46 were only accused. As a rule the consistory met once a week, although special sessions were sometimes held, especially in the week leading up to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. RC 1, p. xiii. Beginning in July 1556 witnesses were heard under oath so as to prevent false accusations and testimonies. Over the course of the years, the number of people summoned before the consistory gradually increased. A total of 1233 people were summoned in 1555, and 1518 in 1556. A third of them were women. The above numbers concerned 420 and 723 cases respectively, of which 77 and 142 led to excommunication. A secretary kept careful record of what passed in the consistory, offering us a good perspective on the proceedings. RCP 2, p. 68. Lee: 1997, pp. 184f. 117 In the introduction to his commentary on Jeremiah, Zwingli wrote: “A Christian is nothing other than a faithful and good citizen, and a Christian city is nothing other than a Christian church.” ZW 14, no. 6, p. 424. This view, according to which all inhabitants of a Christian republic like Geneva must be considered to belong to the church, “even if in reality they are outside of it […], until they are excluded by a public judgement (publicum iudicium),” was one that Calvin shared with Zwingli. Inst. 4.1.9 (1539). OS 5, p. 14. People were considered to belong to the visible manifestation of the church in a specific city state, so Calvin argued. For that reason everyone could be held accountable for the Christian faith as it was confessed and experienced in that city, even if some of the inhabitants actually held a different view on some points. And if some of them really ought not to be considered members of the church because of their doctrine or life, even then, so Calvin wrote in 1539, we “leave to them such place as they occupy among the people of God.” Inst. 4.1.9 (1539). OS 5, p. 14. In

228

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

Calvin also formulated the objective nature of the Holy Supper : “This is the integrity of the sacrament […] that the flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God’s elect believers […] He [God] is ready to give to the unworthy what they reject, indeed, offers it freely.”118 Both in his small refugee church in Strasbourg as well as a short time later in the great city-church of Geneva, it was important to maintain “a good disciplinary order (police),” which was to ensure that all adults – i. e., all who had reached the age of discretion – were examined at home in Geneva by their pastor together with the district elder in the time leading up to Easter, and throughout the year in the pastor’s manse and in the Genevan consistory as a kind of ‘confessional’ quite similar to the Catholic practice of confession.119 In this chapter I have attempted to demonstrate that it is very plausible to argue that Calvin opposed an entirely independent form of church discipline, given that he could not see discipline in isolation from the ministry of Word and sacraments. Many scholars have been surprised by how many of the city’s inhabitants in Calvin’s Geneva were summoned before the consistory, including the eminent Calvin-expert Kingdon who observed in the last work he produced at the end of his life: “I do not know personally of any other institution of the period that was so intrusive.”120 The goal of the institutions of penance and confession that Calvin developed in Geneva, including the monthly duty of confession in Strasbourg, the yearly visitation in Geneva carried out in every home, and the Genevan consistory whose waiting rooms became fuller by the week, was in my opinion not the creation of a holy church or an optimally Christian society – although, of course, moral improvement was indeed an added bonus for Calvin. No, his primary intention for these institutions related to the preparation for that great mystery of communion with God, of which the Lord’s Supper was the sign and seal.121 The consistory’s work was aimed at the attainment of forgiveness and reconciliation, and in Calvin’s mind this divine blessing could not be achieved along the road of

118 119 120 121

practice this meant for him that every inhabitant was strictly bound to the duties of religious life, including attendance at the worship services and participation in the Eucharist, and that everyone without exception stood under the supervision and discipline of the consistory, was visited at home with a view to partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and could further be summoned to appear before the consistory in case of misconduct. In Geneva the latter happened hundreds of times per year, and the number of people summoned only increased with every passing year. Inst. 4.17.33. OS 2, p. 357, art. 148 = CStA 2, p. 266. Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, p. 21. As we have seen, Calvin from the very beginning insisted on the right of the church’s officebearers to be allowed to investigate the life of every person in church (i. e., the ecclesiastical society) with a view to their participation in Holy Communion; see n. 21 and n. 48.

Calvin on Confession: His Struggle for a New Form of Discipline

229

a communion of an infinite number of pious people who all lived a holy life. On the contrary, in his eyes men and women, also in the church, were by nature so corrupt and inclined to evil that they constantly needed correction and help. This was also clear from his death-bed speech. For although Calvin at the end of his industrious life as pastor was very content with the definitive version he had achieved for his system of penance and confession, he was sober enough to realise that the people in church had not changed in any fundamental way but remained “bad, corrupt, and evil.”122 Also the Holy Supper was in his view not instituted “for the perfect, but for the weak and feeble, to awaken, arouse, stimulate, and exercise the feeling of faith and love, indeed, to correct the defect of both.” When people are concerned with worthiness of a moral order then “this is worthiness –the best and only kind we can bring to God– to offer our vileness and (so to speak) our unworthiness to Him so that his mercy may make us worthy of Him.”123 What Calvin had changed was not the people but –in view of the preparation of the mystical communion and union with Christ including the separation between worthy and unworthy for which the church was partly responsible– the system of penance and confession across the different redactions of the Ordonnances ecclesiatiques which we, with a play on the title of his most famous work, might well call the Institutio christianae confessionis. The Genevan city council thus determined that all believers, both men and women, at least once every three years had to swear an oath of allegiance to the “institutes of Christian confession” – that is, to the new penitential law. Also in this demand we hear echoes of the familiar tradition according to which church people were to be reminded once every three years from the pulpit of the legal agreement that “all the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them.”124 What Calvin had failed to achieve 25 years earlier for the Genevan confession he did obtain at the end of his life for the city’s new form of discipline and penitential practice to which every resident had to swear an oath. 122 OS 2 (28 April 1564), p. 402 = CStA 2, p. 296. See n. 114. 123 Inst. 4.17.42. Calvin does not asks of the communicant a perfect faith or a perfect moral life. “It is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required […]. But if you aspire to the righteousness of God with an earnestness of purpose, and humbled, in view of your misery, you completely lean upon Christ’s grace and rest upon it, know that you are a worthy guest to approach that table.” CR 49, p. 493. 124 Aside from subscription to the Genevan confession, the people were also required publicly to express their agreement with the Genevan disciplinary order in an act that was to be repeated very three years on the first Sunday of June with a promise to comply fully with the new penitential law (ceste police). This promise was renewed by an oath sworn on that law. OS 2, p. 364, art. 173 = CStA 2, p. 278. Cf. n.9.

Chapter 9. ‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper1

For Calvin, the 34 year-old French refugee, it must have been a spiritual and intellectual tour de force to write an intelligible but short treatise on such a complex issue as the Lord’s Supper. In doing so he was to take into account the many things that had been written and said about the matter by both likeminded and dissident theologians. The result was a handy, pocket-sized book, written pastorally and somewhat diplomatically, which kept the middle ground between a catechism and a manual on the Holy Supper, in which the author unfolded his views in a popular manner for a wide audience. It was one of the first writing that Calvin published in the French colloquial language. Theodore Beza would later describe it as a valuable treasure, un livre d’or. Due to the great disagreement over the meaning of the Eucharist, ordinary laymen were not only confused about how they should think about the matter and whom they had to believe, but they were above all uncertain about their his salvation and burdened by their conscience. The dispute was not about whether Christ is present in the Eucharist, but how. With this treatise the Frenchman Calvin was to make a name for himself as a Reformer among the so-called luth¦riens in his home country. Still, it took fifteen more years before the evangelical movement in France was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the Calvinistic tradition illegally on a more or less large scale, in small, locally organised underground churches. Calvin’s treatise consists of five chapters on respectively the aim, use, and practice of the Supper (§§ 3–32), on the differences vis-—-vis the Roman Catholic view (§§ 33–52), and, to conclude, a

1 I largely confine myself in this chapter to an introduction to Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of the Lord. The famous seventeenth chapter of book four in Calvin’s Institutes (on the Holy Supper) is composed of material that originated from the various earlier editions of the Institutes. In structure and order that chapter is independent, but its contents are very much comparable to and in line with the Short Treatise. Cf. McNeill: 1960, vol. 2, p. 1359, n. 1.

232

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

chapter in which Calvin presented a proposal on how to overcome the existing impasse among the Protestants (§§ 53–60).2 A highly sensitive and complex subject Calvin chose to describe his own position in the first three chapters not as his own among the many others, but as a description of the facts.3 In the battle for the people’s hearts and thoughts he did not address the clergy, but the ordinary church people; accordingly, he used a clear and direct writing style, and wrote in the French vernacular rather than the Latin of scholars. As we have already noted, it was a risky business to make his own contribution to the discussions over the Lord’s Supper, a complex issue over which so many people had already racked their brains. Yet Calvin succeeded in briefly conveying Luther’s views (§§ 55 and 58) and those of the Zwinglians (§§ 56 and 58), and to justify himself in these respects. He elaborates on the Roman Catholic Mass (which takes up about two-thirds of the treatise), and he does so in a somewhat joking and polemical fashion, at times also using ironical expressions such as “sheer aping and play-acting” (§ 47). But because Calvin as a pastor had discovered the need to help ordinary church people, in his treatise he first sought to connect to reality with questions about the benefit and meaning of the Supper. In Calvin’s Petit traict¦ de la saincte cÀne the heart of the Lord’s Supper is Christ, who offers himself to those who are his. The participant receives him respectfully and in faith. “In the first place,” Calvin writes, it is “necessary that He Himself is given to us in the Supper,” so that the effects of this communion can be materialised in us.4 “For this reason I am used to saying that the matter (la matiÀre) and substance of the sacraments are the Lord Jesus and that the blessings and gifts of grace are its effects” (§ 11). Calvin starts his treatise pastorally. First he asks attention for some practical matters, such as the aim and use of the sacraments, and for the consequences of the new doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, as in the liturgy. All throughout the 2 See ch. 3, n. 7. 3 Nowhere does Calvin write “I think” or “I am of the opinion that”, but he rather chooses to use simple phrases such as: “In the Supper we truly receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ, because …” (Higman: 1970, p. 107 = § 16; idem, p. 30. 4 Calvin was not satisfied with the translation of koinonia as societas or consortium, because we do not “socialize with Christ” or “consort with him.” We in some mysterious way, “participate in him” and are made one body with him. Thus he preferred to refer to a ‘communion’ in Christ, “because that better expresses the force of the Greek koinonia.” CO 49 (1 Cor 1: 9), p. 313. The believer’s ‘communion in Christ’ as a translation of the Greek ‘koinonia’ is for Calvin the profound en singular connotation of “mutual indwelling,” not through a system of external relations but through “something like relational fields that interpenetrate, form and participate in each other in countless real though often elusive ways.” Hunsinger : 2000, p. 257. Canlis: 2010, p. 166 and p. 153.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

233

treatise on the mystery of the Eucharist, a dominant place is attributed to one’s participation in the true body of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.

1

Aim and use of partaking of Christ’s true body5

Calvin takes a practical starting point when he begins with the question of the meaning of the Eucharist. First, he names the sealing of God’s promises. Second, it teaches us about God’s great goodness which we learn to value, and thirdly, the Supper inspires us to live a holy life (§ 6). Because of the many different reforms it was often unclear for ordinary people what they had to believe. This is why Calvin emphasises that God, through the holy sacrament, wishes to offer assurance of salvation and comfort to those who find themselves burdened by their conscience and in mortal fear. Through their communion with the body and blood of Christ, people receive an assurance that they do not receive in any other way. In this respect Calvin is mainly concerned with what happens between God and the communicant on the basis of an existing bond with Christ, and not with the two impersonal elements of bread and wine which are offered to the believer. When he partakes of the sacrament, the communicant receives assurance that he is a child of God and his trust in God is strengthened (§§ 5 and 15). When we at the Lord’s Supper table hear that well-known phrase: “This is My body for you,” what does the word ‘is’ really mean? Does it only point us to Christ’s body, or is his body also actually present in one way or another in the sacrament that we consume? Otherwise stated, what exactly happens during the Lord’s Supper? For Calvin in the sacrament the invisible substance of the body of Christ is closely tied to the visible signs: “Like the bread is offered to us in our hand, so also the body of Christ is communicated to us,” and God and man are united. This means that, simultaneously with the eating and drinking of the bread and wine, the substance of the body and blood of Christ are received. Further on we read: “And when nothing more is added to it, we have good reasons to be pleased that we understand that in the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ gives us the proper (propre) substance of his body and blood, so that we may fully possess him, and, possessing him, may partake in all his blessings.” In this regard, Calvin further notes that we also partake “in his humanity, with which he has exercised full obedience to God his Father for the atonement for our faults” (§§ 17 and 13). The adjective ‘proper’ emphasises that it concerns the entire God-man Christ, but without his spatially conceived fleshly body. 5 Higman: 1970 (see ch. 3, n. 7), pp. 105ff, 125, 130 = §§ 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 30, 51, and 60.

234

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

A new balance in the liturgy between Word and sacrament God communicates with us through language, verbally and non-verbally. In the Lord’s Supper several senses are addressed and, partly because of this, the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament is of essential importance. God’s presence is incomprehensible for our limited human understanding and cannot be conveyed in words. It is a great mystery, Calvin says, that we can experience better than we can understand it.6 Calvin calls the elements of the Lord’s Supper “visible words (verba visibilia)” in which the gospel promises and Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and his resurrection are depicted “as in a painting”7 The spoken word enters through the ears, the visible word through the eyes. At the same time Calvin, continuing with the image of the meal, does not refrain from saying that an actual eating and drinking of Christ’s body takes place.8 At the (symbolically) lavishly served meal, the heavenly Father gives us the best of foods (§ 4), and makes us participate “in all the blessings and riches of our Lord Jesus” (§ 10). It is precisely at this holy table that God cares for and nourishes his children with this exceptional spiritual food,9 since it is only in him, who is offered and granted to us, that we live, and “we should not think that there is life anywhere else except in God” (§ 4). For Calvin the administration of Word and sacrament belong together and complement each other. They also have a similar function, which is to “offer and introduce Christ to us, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace.”10 The sacraments make the Word visible, while they at the same confirm the divine promises to us and seal them to give us assurance of eternal life.11 It was to become a typically Calvinistic manner of speaking to refer to the sacraments as “signs and seals” of God’s promises (§§ 6 and 37).12 Calvin furthermore criticises the mumbling of the priests at Mass, and the absence of a clear proclamation of the Word: “The sacraments derive their operation from the Word, when it is preached in a comprehensible manner. Without the proclamation of the Word the designation ‘sacrament’ has little 6 In his treatise Calvin uses the word mystÀre eleven times for the sacrament. Cf. Inst. 4.17.32. Cf. Confessio fidei et eucharistia COR 4/4, p. 127, l.106. 7 Calvin, Inst. 4.14.6 (1536); here he refers to Augustine’s On the Gospel of John 80, 3 (MPL 35, Paris 1841), p. 1840. Melanchthon similarly adds that Augustine calls the sacrament a visible word in order to “incite us to faith.” AV, art. 8. 8 In his treatise Calvin appears to use the phrases communication de Iesus Christ and communication au corps et au sang de Iesus Christ interchangeably (§ 5). 9 One of Calvin’s favorite images is that of the shepherd (pasteur), and of the sheep that find pasture (pasture) and leadership with him (§§ 4, 31, and 44). 10 OS 5, Inst. 4.14.17 (1536), p. 274. Cf. OS 5, Inst. 4.14.10 (1539), p. 267. 11 OS 5, Inst. 3.14.3 (1536), p. 260. 12 See also Smith: 2013, pp. 145f.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

235

meaning” (§ 48).13 With this view on an order of worship that the people must be able to understand, Calvin and others contributed in a substantial way to the changing of the liturgy. In his search for more unanimity on the Eucharist, Calvin argued for a wellordered, sober, and understandable liturgy of the Holy Supper, in which teaching assumes a central place.14 In his attempt to create more clarity, and while trying to maneuver between the cliffs, he could not avoid having to say different things at the same time. But however nuanced his choice of words, he in the final chapter makes his central message clear in all its simplicity for the reader, who sometimes feels like a tight-rope walker constantly at risk of losing his balance. Most leading Protestant contemporaries of Calvin agreed that Christ comes to us in the Lord’s Supper. But what was their view on how this takes place? In answering this question, Calvin assumed a middle position and rejected two extremes. On the one hand he rejected the possibility that the signs of bread and wine are identified with the body and blood of Christ, as the papal theologians and Lutherans want us to believe. On the other hand he wanted to rule out that they are empty signs. The bread, he says, is called ‘body’, not only because the sign ‘represents the body of Christ’, but also because it offers us the body of Christ (§ 15). Time and again he insists that we hold it to be true and certain “that the Lord gives us in the Holy Supper what he depicts in it, and thus we really receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ” (§ 52). The importance of a good preparation With a reference to the apostle Paul, Calvin warned the people not to go to communion in an unworthy manner (§ 20; see 1 Cor 11: 27f). For the Lord’s Supper to be celebrated properly, the people must examine themselves and also submit to an examination by the church’s office bearers prior to the celebration of the sacrament (§ 31). Partly due to the greater role the communicant obtained in his theology, Calvin also understood a sound personal preparation for the sacrament to be of great importance. The participant is called upon to examine in himself whether and, if so, to what extent he renounces himself and repents in obedience to God’s law. Because true repentance and a true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ are two aspects that are so fully intertwined that one cannot exist without the other, they are two sides of the same coin (§§ 21, 22, and 24).15 13 Cf. OS 5, Inst. 4.14.4 (1543), p. 261. Augustine comments on John 15: 3 that baptism without the Word is nothing but water. Calvin appeals to this in order to support his view that the sacrament must be accompanied by instruction. 14 Calvin valued a well-structured church, and was also a proponent of a sound liturgy. Van Veen: 2010, p. 1632 and p. 1635. 15 Cf. Melanchthon in the Articuli visitationis and Unterricht der visitatoren; see Speelman/ Korteweg: 2013.

236

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

The main reasons adduced by people when they refrain from participating in the Lord’s Supper are their own unworthiness or that of others, or the lack of personal motivation (§§ 30–32). However, when we first experience “the taste of sweetness” of this spiritual bread, we start to long for it more and more, and will partake of it every time it is offered to us (§ 32). This recurring and increasing desire for communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper is typical of Calvin. According to him, our soul constantly needs bread from heaven, just like our bodies cannot go without earthly food. He is certain “that it is the intention of our Lord to use the Holy Supper often; otherwise we will not fully experience the blessings which are granted to us in it” (§ 29).16 The need already to belong to Jesus At the heavenly table the existing relationship with Christ is strengthened, and the promises of the gospel are sealed. It would be very unfitting to go to communion without being housemates of the heavenly Father. Likewise, it is not fitting to “call upon God as our Father, if we are not members of Jesus Christ.” And we cannot truly be members of his body, Calvin continues, as long as “the substance and the reality of the Lord’s Supper” have not been materialised in us ahead of time. But if we possess this reality, we are all the more entitled to partake in the Holy Supper.17 Calvin makes a connection here between the relationship to God, which a participant must have beforehand, and the necessity of the desire to maintain that relationship. Someone “who does not want to receive the Supper” also cannot “pray to God,” he concludes (§ 30). It is typical for Calvin that he claims here that the receiver is not offered something new in communion, but something he already has. The Lord’s Supper, to which God’s children are invited, represents a relationship with Christ; the believer is supposed to testify to this relationship openly and publicly, through his frequent attendance at the Holy Supper. All our meals refer to this one very special meal, in which a miraculous exchange takes place between Christ and the communicant.18 This, Calvin says, underlines the importance of participating regularly in the meal.

16 See ch. 3, n. 49. 17 Cf. Institutes book 3 “On the manner in which Christ’s mercy is received”; People remain outsiders “as long as Christ is external to us (extra nos est Christus) and we are separated from Him.” Christ’s humanity remains useless and without meaning to us as long as he has not become ours (nostrum fieri) and does not live in us. OS 4, Inst. 3.1.1 (1559/1536), p. 1. 18 WA 2, Ein Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sakrament des heiligen wahren Leichams Christi (1519), pp. 743f. Cf. Inst. 4.17.2 (1543): “[T]hat, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power ; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

237

In order to remember Christ in this biblical sense and to establish his presence in our lives, we need a prior connection to him. In other words, Holy Communion stands for a relationship with God through Christ. With this point Calvin expresses his distance from the doctrine according to which also unbelievers receive the body and blood of Christ – i. e., the notion of a so-called manducatio impiorum.19 The bond of faith with Christ is a gift of God, and it bears an implicit relationship to predestination20 : only the elect – that is, those who already possess Christ – receive Christ and his blessings at the Eucharist.21 This happens, after all, on the basis of an existing relation offered to the believer by God’s Spirit, who instils in him a desire for a stronger connection to the Other. If we claim to belong to Christ, we come to him “with true repentance when we aim to make our lives identical to the example of Jesus Christ” (§ 24). We must realise that we are mortals for whom it is highly necessary to receive the Holy Supper as a divine medicine. God has given this to us “to aid us in our weakness, to strengthen our faith, to increase our love for our neighbour, and to cause us to progress in all sanctification of life.” In this context Calvin treats the excuses that some adduce for not attending the Lord’s Supper. Some feel that they come up short ‘in faith’ or ‘an honorable lifestyle’, but, so Calvin points out matter-offactly, we also do not ignore a medicine because we are ill: “The weakness of faith, which we feel in our heart, and the imperfection in our life, should on the contrary encourage us to attend the Lord’s Supper, because it is an exceptional means to improve it” (§ 28). Nevertheless, it is impossible to partake in his body if this substantial reality (la substance et verit¦)22 of the Lord’s Supper is not materialised in us. This is where the Lord’s Supper also differs from baptism and the preaching.23 Someone

19

20 21

22 23

iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.” Cf. OS 1, p. 137. Because Calvin with his treatise intended not only to reveal his view on the Lord’s Supper but also to resolve existing conflicts, he at certain points avoids addressing sensitive issues. In his view unbelievers only receive the outward signs, and thus in communion receive neither Christ nor his benefits. CO 1, Inst. 1539, p. 1015. Later, in his 1559 Institutes, Calvin would treat the manducatio impiorum at greater length, as well as the reception of Christ and his salvation as a believing member of the body of Christ. See Bizer: 1972, pp. 294–299 and Ewerszumrode: 2012, pp. 263–269. In 1539 Calvin described election as being a “member of Christ.” Neuser : 2008, pp. 353–365 and Link: 2009, pp. 33–54. “[W]e may say, that Jesus Christ is there offered to us in order that we may possess him, and in him all the fulness of grace which we can desire” (§ 17). Cf. §§ 9, 13, 30, 50 etc. See also Calvin’s claim to the support of Augustine, saying he is “wholly ours (totus noster est)”. CO 8, p. 266. Inst. 3.22.8. According to Wim Janse these two concepts have an almost identical meaning in Calvin. Janse: 2009, p. 389. Faber : 1999, p. 310.

238

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

is only “entitled to receive the sign” when he possesses Christ and his truth, and is counted among his members. According to Calvin, it is only then that a person can also pray to God as his Father (§ 30). This life from and the connection with him should be maintained well and ought to grow.24 In relation to the bond with Christ that exists prior to participation in the Lord’s Supper, Calvin speaks of the necessity to go to communion in a worthy manner and the examination of one’s own conscience and life, in which an important role is played by one’s own sinfulness and weakness, the desire for God’s justice (as illustrated by self-renunciation, daily conversion, and obedient imitation of Christ), and love (§§ 20–29). Common and personal Because the Reformed strongly opposed private Masses, which were often held for remuneration, they emphasised that the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated publicly in the setting of the congregation. Calvin adds to this that attendance at the Lord’s Supper is a kind of repeated public confession of faith, in which the participant publicly testifies in doctrine and life of his faith in Christ (the socalled testimonium publicum, § 18). Yet for Calvin the Holy Supper is mainly marked by the strengthening of the personal bond between Christ and the individual believer.25 In Calvin’s theology the recipient of the Supper plays a crucial role. The sacrament does not take effect on its own, and grace also does not automatically ensue from participation in the sacrament. In this regard Calvin reproaches the papal and Lutheran teachings. In order to guarantee the objectivity of the Eucharist, they attempt to detach the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ as much as possible from the condition of the participant. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are not enclosed in the transient elements of bread and wine, although they are indeed present in both species. This principal difference between offer and reception makes the Lord’s Supper something personal for him, seeing that Christ must be received in faith.26 Without faith, Christ is not received in the Eucharist. Although in his treatise Calvin barely touches upon the role of personal faith, his view on the matter is in 24 For the function of spiritual growth through participation in the Supper in Calvin’s theology, see Ewerszumrode: 2012, pp. 137–143 and pp. 205–220. 25 See Ewerszumrode: 2012, p. 82. 26 The sacrifice of the Mass does involve the notion of reciprocity. In the opening constitution of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, the established church declared that the main point is “to receive this mystical union from God, which He receives from us (quod accepit ipse de nostro),” after God has changed the substance of the bread and wine. During the Council of Trent, this was to be confirmed as a part of the church’s teaching. Tanner : 1990, vol. 1, p. 230.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

239

the end still made clear. For it is only when we “receive the sacrament in faith” that are we truly made participants of the true substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ (§ 60; cf. §§ 38 and 51). This makes faith a constitutive element of the sacrament, an organ for receiving Christ for our salvation. The necessity of faith for partaking in the mystery of the Holy Supper for our salvation therefore confirms the personal nature of Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist. The same can be said about the call for participants to lift up their hearts (sursum corda). Yet this does not result in an independent doctrine of participation in Calvin, or, in other words, in a doctrine in which man plays a part of his very own. Indeed, otherwise the acts of the receiving party would not be the result of the secret operation of God’s Spirit. Salvation is sealed in Christ, and the communicant is strengthened in his faith through the operation of the Holy Spirit, and over and over again he is assured of his relationship to God and of eternal life.

2

Communion effected by the Holy Spirit

In the sacrament the Spirit is the connecting factor between Christ and the believer27 In a sermon from the church father Chrysostom, published by Erasmus (1469– 1536) in Basel in 1530, Calvin read about the Holy Spirit as a connecting factor in our union with Christ in the holy sacrament.28 Calvin appropriated this idea for himself and gave it a central place in his theology of the Eucharist and, in 1541, in his proposal for settling the dispute on the meaning and use of the Lord’s Supper (§ 60).29 27 Higman: 1970, pp. 106ff and p. 130 = §§ 13, 14, 19, and 60. 28 Calvin took over the characterisation of the Spirit as the uniting factor of our unification with Christ in the holy sacrament from Erasmus, who in turn was inspired by Chrysostom. Erasmus pleaded powerfully for the spiritual side of religion and the reduction of its ceremonial side, which always ends up locating God in one thing or the other. For him religion is above all a matter of the heart, as accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Erasmus: 1968, vol. 1, pp. 204–206. Erasmus: 1530 (Chrysostom’s Opera), vol. 5, p. 379. See also Wendel: 1950, p. 268. Carbonnier-Burkard: 2010, p. 247, Augustijn: 1996, pp. 82–86, Janse: 2008b, pp. pp. 43–44 and p. 50, Muller: 2009, pp. 51–52. 29 The young Calvin adopted this idea of the Spirit as a bond-maker in the sacrament early on, for example in the plea he made during the Lausanne Disputation on 5 October 1536, in which he described the work of the Spirit as “a spiritual communication (une communication spirituelle) through whose power (vertu) and efficacy (efficace)” we partake in the grace of his body and blood “through the bond (le lien) of his Spirit,” in COR 4/4 (De Boer/ Van Stam ed.: 2009), p. 133, l.255f. Cf. COR 4/4, p. 127, l.106. See also his Catechism from 1537 (art. 41). In his Confessio fidei de eucharistia from September 1537 Calvin confesses: “That is why we acknowledge that His Spirit brings about the connection of our unification with Him. He makes it so that we are truly nourished into immortality and through the participation in him, He restores us to life.” OS 1, p. 435. In 1539 Calvin writes: “The connecting factor, due to

240

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

A year after the treatise was published, he had the teacher in his new catechism ask how our union with Christ, in which we partake during the Lord’s Supper, can take place while the body of Christ is far away in heaven and we are on earth. The student answers that this is possible “due to the incomprehensible and secret operation of his Spirit, for whom it is not difficult to unite those who are separated spatially and removed from each other.”30 Calvin had a spatial conception of heaven. In his mind, the great distance between Christ in heaven and people on earth is bridged by the Holy Spirit. Yet in this respect the Supper for Calvin does not merely revolve around a spiritual unification, but also concerns bodily communication with his people.31 A divine mystery In order to prevent the sacrament from remaining limited to matter and from being conceived as something human, Calvin demands explicit attention for our mystical union with Christ (unio cum Christo) and prefers to use the word ‘mystery’ to refer to the sacrament. Calvin opposes the sacramental realism of Luther and the papal theologians, in which the miracle is explained all too much, but he also opposes the Zwinglian view, in which the sacrament is limited to a symbolic sign. According to him, the sacrament is like a tool. To be sure, a distinction must be made between the externally visible and the internally invisible aspect of the sacrament, but it is impossible to separate them. Again and again Calvin returns to the idea that God works in an invisible way by means of external signs. We should not think, he writes in one instance, “that our Lord warns and incites us and kindles our hearts. Because the main issue is that he, internally and with his Holy Spirit”

which the union with Christ comes into being, is therefore the Spirit of Christ. Through the connection He makes, we have communion with Christ and the Spirit is, as it were, the channel through which everything that is Christ Himself and what He has, comes unto us.” OS 5, Inst. 4.17.12, p. 355. 30 The Catechism of Geneva, Q& A 354, OS 2, p. 140 = CO 6, p. 129; the French text from 1542 is a little more compact than the Latin text from 1545. 31 Although in the flesh we are spatially separated from each other, “the body of Christ, which is located in a far away place,” does come to us as nourishment through the secret operation of the Holy Spirit. In this last passage, Calvin is concerned with the secret of being nourished by the sacrament, through which “Christ truly becomes one body with us (fieri nobiscum Christus vere in unum coalescat) and invigorates us by letting us eat His flesh and drink His blood.” The incarnation of Christ was for him not merely a moment in time, as in Zwingli, because also throughout the times “Christ unites himself into one body with ours” when he nourishes us with himself and we have coalesced into one body with Christ. As soon as Christ becomes our nourishment, he becomes one with us. OS 5, Inst. 4.17.10 (1559), p. 351. Cf. OS 5, Inst. 4.17.2 (1543/1536), p. 434. Cf. Wandel: 2006, p. 160.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

241

does his work in us (§ 19). The external signs function as tools that are used by the Spirit at the very moment when they are consumed by the believer.32 Calvin’s conception of the Lord’s Supper may strike the modern-day reader as very complex, especially because he on regular occasions paradoxically discusses two matters at once. For example, in order for Christ to be present everywhere as both God and man, his body does not have to leave heaven.33 Here the divinity and humanity of Christ after his glorification remain undivided and unmixed. For the Lord’s Supper this means that we do not consume the flesh of Christ in a material-historical sense, but that believers in the Lord’s Supper truly receive his whole person in soul and body in an invisible, spiritual manner through the God-man Christ. A real communion happens, according to Calvin, in the Holy Supper, in spite of the great distance separating Christ from the believer in a spatial sense. Furthermore, Calvin approaches the concept of substance positively in his treatise, in contrast to his earlier letter to the French king of August 1535 as well as the first edition of the Institutes of March 1536, where he had explicitly rejected a locally and materially conceived concept of substance.34 As a spiritual substance, Christ’s body and blood are at least as truly present as they are in a spatially conceived concept of substance.35 Therefore, with his internal-spiritual concept of substance, Calvin does not intend in any sense to weaken its degree of reality. Here we see how Calvin in a highly subtle way assumes a middle position in which he provides a spiritual as well as a substantial interpretation of Jesus’ words of institution: “This is my body, which is given for you,” which in the liturgy are spoken right before communion. The first indication mainly connects to the Zwinglian tradition, the second to the Lutheran tradition. To Calvin it is very real that Christ’s body and blood are offered to us in the Lord’s Supper, which means that it cannot be conceived in a material-substantial sense, but rather in a spiritual-substantial sense. We must not remain fixed on the earthly and transient elements, which we see with our eyes and touch with our hands in 32 Calvin scholars generally assume today that Calvin was mainly interested in practice. This is why they speak of the instrumental character of Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper. See, among others, Campi: 2009, p. 16 and Busch: 2005, p. 127. 33 See ch. 3, n. 94f. 34 In his letter to King Francis I from August 1535 and in the Institutes of 1536, Calvin still spoke negatively about the concept of substance; in the aforementioned confession of faith on the Eucharist of 1537 and in the Institutes of 1539 he already changed his view on the matter. CO 1, p. 1003. 35 In this treatise Calvin introduces his interpretation of loaded terms such as ‘substance’ and ‘participation’ in order to make it clear that the main point for him is that the believer truly receives Christ in the Supper, invisibly and spiritually, which does not mean that it is less real. See also Muller : 2008.

242

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

search and worship of Christ, as if he is confined in the bread and wine (§§ 41, 43, 52, 56, and 60). A year after the treatise was published, Calvin elaborated on the matter in the liturgical form he wrote for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (La maniÀre de c¦l¦brer la cÀne). Our soul must be ready, fueled by the substance of the body of Christ and restored to heavenly life, and enter into the kingdom of God.36 To emphasise the reality of Christ’s presence, Calvin wrote in his Petit traict¦ de la saincte cÀne that Christ in the Holy Supper is offered “as substance and foundation of everything.” Believers take part in his substance and can feel his operation through this (§ 11 and 18).37 As he also does in his Institutes, Calvin explicitly draws our attention to the fact that communion is not nourished by remembrance of the cross of Christ, but literally and substantially by Christ in the Holy Supper. The real and also sublime presence of Christ was, according to his understanding, paradoxically slighted by the emphasis on spatial presence. In spite of this, he does not refer to Christ’s substantial presence exclusively in terms that express God’s power (vigor, vis, virtus).38 It is not always easy to understand the apparent paradoxes with which Calvin attempts to prevent the “reduction of the holy mystery” (§ 60). For example, he may say that Christ comes to us in the Lord’s Supper to be united with his people, but he also says that Christ in the Supper and through his Spirit leads us to him in heaven.39 Similarly he may insist with full conviction that the body of Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper and that it is offered to us there, but he at the same time also states that the body of Christ is not connected to the elements of the Supper in a material or spatial sense, since his body is in heaven and cannot be in several places at the same time. Calvin often mentions the substantial eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, but at the same time claims that he does not mean this in a fleshly but a spiritual sense. Again and again he concludes that “the secret and miraculous operation of God’s Spirit” can bring about what we cannot understand, but can experience (§ 60).40

36 See also ch. 3, n. 34f. 37 See Van Geest: 2014, pp. 8–10. 38 Speelman, 2014, p. 117, n. 6, 120, n. 22 and 121, n. 24, 25, and 27; p. 124, n. 5, p. 126, n. 2, p. 127, n. 4. 39 In 1543 Calvin refers to Augustine, who wrote in The City of God 16, 37: “Just as the other sacraments, this sacrament is performed by a man but under the authority of God, from heaven but on earth.” OS 5, Inst. 4.17.32, p. 390. 40 Two years after the treatise was published, Calvin would write in this regard that if anyone was to question him about the manner in which he speaks of God’s secrets in paradoxes, “then I will not be ashamed to recognize that this is a secrecy of such an exalted nature that I am unable to grasp it with my intellect or to put into words. And to be frank about it: I experience it better than I understand it.” OS 5, Inst. 4.17.32, pp. 389–390.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

243

Calvin did not want to break with the tradition in east and west. This is evident from his confession that he actually cannot find words to describe the way in which Christ is truly present in the Supper. As early as the very first edition of the Institutes, he writes that the Lord’s Supper is “a mystery of communion with Christ’s body” And a year later he composed the Confessio Fidei de Eucharistia, in which he wrote that no one can convey the dignity of the sacrament in words.41 Therefore, also in the Reformation traces can be found of a ‘negative’ theology. Elsewhere Calvin stated that God did not reveal to man what God is (quid sit), but only how God is for man (qualis sit). In order to quash all useless or frivolous speculation about God’s revelation, he obviously took great pains to make clear that “something more true” is hidden behind it and that this “trueness” of God is impenetrable to our human understanding.42 For Calvin what counts for God also counts for Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper. The dissimilarity between creature and Creator is greater than their similarity.43 Just so, the dissimilarity between the true presence of Christ and the true presence of an ordinary man is greater than their similarity. For Calvin, as for Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, and many, many others, our ignorance concerning the manner in which God is truly present is, paradoxically, a way of attaining knowledge about this presence.

3

Calvin’s response to other views on the Lord’s Supper

The subject of the Holy Supper is Christ In Rome and Wittenberg attention was mainly demanded for the Christ who offers himself and, therefore, for the objectivity of the holy sacrament. In Calvin’s view, the Zurich Reformation approached the sacrament too subjectively by demanding an all too one-sided attention for its signifying nature. Calvin specifically points out that the signs truly represent the truth to which they are connected. According to him, Zwingli and his companions should “have declared that they do not want to detract from the true union which the Lord offers us through this sacrament with his body and blood” (§ 58). Here Calvin distances himself from a sacramental theology that consists mainly of symbolics, in which not Christ but the celebrating congregation is the subject of the Eucharist as a meal of thanksgiving or commemoration. For him God is the source and subject of the Lord’s Supper. It is not so that Christ deceives us by only giving us 41 COR 4/4, p. 127, l.106. 42 Van der Kooi: 2002, pp. 119–120. 43 Cf. Denzinger: 1991, p. 806: “inter creatorem et creaturam non potest similitudo notari, quin inter eos maior sit dissimilitudo notanda.” (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

244

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

bread and wine and keeping the spiritual reality from us, he writes (§ 16). Otherwise, the mystery of God’s secret operation in the sacrament would move to the background or even disappear. Exactly because the sacraments are supported by God’s work and are not an empty display,44 they are able to offer us assurance of our salvation. Calvin opposes two extremes. On the one hand he argues against a material identification of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, and, on the other hand, against the removal of the mystery of the sacrament. In his solution, the sacramental symbols of bread and wine not only refer to another reality, but also truly offer this reality.45 Life is hidden in Christ Always present in the background is Calvin’s distinction between the offering of the sign of the presence of Christ and the reception of his body and blood. The sacrament is like a tool, and the participant does not automatically receive Christ when he eats the bread and drinks the wine. Here too we find a subtle distinction related to the role of the office bearer and that of the believer. For from the moment when the pastor speaks the words of institution and offers the bread and wine, it is Christ himself who does so and comes with his flesh and blood to the one who is communicating.46 Through the mouth and hand of the minister, Christ himself comes to the communicant. By partaking of the sacrament, believers receive Jesus Christ and his blessings through the power of God’s Spirit. This is how it is confirmed again and again that “our actual life (nostre vie unique)” exists in him (§ 4). In this divine event of offering and receiving eternal salvation by means of the holy sacrament, God the Holy Spirit plays a hidden, intervening role. He melts together the lives of Christ and the believers, just as he sees to it that people come to faith in Christ and obedience to him, receive assurance of eternal life, and become and remain hungry for this unique union with Him. Without the Spirit, the hearing of the 44 In paragraph 14 Calvin refers to God’s visible presence when John the Baptist saw a visible appearance of God’s Spirit in the shape of a dove during the baptism of Christ: “In realization that this vision was not a vain display, but a clear sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit, he does not hesitate to say that he has seen Him.” Cf. Luther in WA 26 (Vom abendmahl Christi), p. 442–443. 45 Brian Gerrish characterises this view of Calvin as “symbolic instrumentalism.” Gerrish: 1982, p. 128. In the wake of Gerrish, also Wim Janse circumscribes Calvin’s view as instrumental symbolism. According to Janse, it was Calvin’s response to, on the one hand, Luther’s sacramental realism, and, on the other hand, the pure sign symbolism of Zwingli and Bullinger. Calvin wanted to avoid both extremes at all costs. Janse: 2008c, pp. 195–197. 46 Nicholas Wolterstorff calls this a “double agency action,” comparable to what in Calvin’s view happens in the preaching. When the preacher proclaims God’s word, it is God himself who is speaking. Wolterstorff: 2014, p. 109 and idem: 1995, ch. 3.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

245

Word and the physical eating of the bread of the Holy Supper cannot bear fruit.47 “What is said of the Word, equally applies to the sacrament of the Supper. The Supper is the instrument with which the Lord brings us into communion with Jesus Christ” (§ 5). The Spirit anchors God’s promises in our consciences, lets us tangibly partake in God’s salvation, and thus makes us into his thankful and cheerful housemates (§§ 3 and 6). The recipient eats the bread and drinks the wine in faith, but this does not of itself lead to the reception of the body and blood of Christ. Although in Calvin’s view a special role is assigned to the participant in the Lord’s Supper (i. e., to receive the elements in faith), it is the Holy Spirit who brings about the spiritual effect. Some assume that it suffices to believe in Christ, and in this respect the actual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ at the Holy Supper is not viewed as something really necessary for our salvation. But it is Christ’s intention to teach us something that is even more impressive than the recommendation to eat his flesh. We truly “partake in him” by eating and drinking the bread and wine, and it restores us to life.48 It is as if Christ “pours his life into us” and he “penetrates into our bones and marrow.”49 This miracle of invisible union with Christ is “an incomprehensible secret” that has to be visualised in order to strengthen our faith, even though it surpasses our human understanding.50 To clarify what happens in the Holy Supper, Calvin emphasises that two actions take place: one on the side of Christ, and another on the side of the participant. A divine celebration The different Protestant factions are agreed that the Eucharist is a liturgical act of thanksgiving and worship, in which Christ’s sacrifice on the cross assumes a central place. According to the Reformers, changes in ecclesiastical practices must be biblical. Measured by this norm, some ecclesiastical practices had to be abolished or revised.51 Calvin in his treatise therefore assigns a central place in the liturgy to the traditional call from the early Christian liturgy to lift up our hearts to heaven, and gives it a new meaning. We should not focus on the visible elements and worship Christ in them, but look up to Christ who is seated in heaven at God’s 47 Hesselink: 2008, pp. 339f. It is for this reason that Brian Gerrish claims that for Calvin man is “eucharistic man”; it brings “assurance and certainty.” Gerrish: 1993, p. 50. Inst. 3.2.14. 48 OS 5, Inst. 4.17.5 (1539), p. 347. In 1547 the Council of Trent was to decide that the sacraments are indeed necessary for salvation (Canon 4). 49 OS 5, Inst. 4.17.10 (1539), p. 352. 50 OS 5, Inst. 4.17.1, p. 342 and OS 1, Inst. 1536, p. 118. Cf. Inst. 4.17.7 and 18. 51 The liturgy of the Mass was not only translated into French, just as Luther had translated it into German complemented it with hymns, but all kinds of elements were also removed by Calvin, such as the Introtus, Kyrie eleson, Gloria in exelsis deo, Halleluja, Sequenties, Sanctus, and Agnus dei.

246

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

right hand. He repeats this liturgical call to lift up the hearts several times, the socalled sursum corda (§§ 42, 52, and 60), an action that is only apparently initiated by the believer.52 In the context of the Lord’s Supper liturgy, Calvin asks the children of God as citizens of heaven to lift their hearts up to heaven in order to be united with him and to worship him there. Through Christ’s coming unto us and through his incarnation we no longer need the Old Testament ceremonies that served to foreshadow him (§ 50). And, through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit we can come to him. Although Calvin uses strong words to oppose the excess of external ceremonial practices (§§ 35, 47, 49, 50, and 52), he still does set great store by a wellordered liturgy.53 The papal liturgy of the Mass, however, with its many symbolic actions he compares to a theatrical performance. What he misses in it is the balance between the administration of the Word and the sacrament. According to him, the established church’s preference goes out all too one-sidedly to the external, visible signs at the cost of instruction from Scripture (§§ 34, 40, 47, and 48). Aside from a divine experience, the Lord’s Supper is a necessary complement to the preaching, but at the same time it has for Calvin a place in the liturgical framework of a substantial preaching, among others to avoid any association with magic (§ 52). The differences with the Roman Catholic doctrine In the fourth chapter of his treatise Calvin makes a comparison between the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of the Eucharist. Calvin discusses four specific topics: the rejection of the sacrifice of the Mass (§§ 34f), the doctrine of transubstantiation (§§ 39f) and the doctrine of the locally and materially imagined presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements (§§ 41f), the consumption of only one species, a single time per year (§§ 45f), and the many liturgical ceremonies (§§ 47f). At the end, he draws some conclusions for his followers (§§ 51f). a. The Roman Catholic church interprets Jesus’ words to “do this in remembrance of me” in such a way that his sacrifice needs to be repeated by the priest again and again. Protestants see this differently. The altar is now replaced by a Lord’s Supper table. The Reformers reject the doctrine of the established church, since Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is a unique and one-time event, and 52 Sacramental reality has a christological and pneumatological side to it. The exact distinction between the presence of Christ and the Spirit in the Supper cannot be pinpointed. It is a dynamic event. We also see this dynamic returning in the liturgy, on the one hand in the call to lift up the hearts to Christ in heaven, and on the other hand in the epiclese, the prayer for the presence of the Spirit in the Holy Supper. 53 See n. 14.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

247

cannot be repeated during the Mass in the here and now. However, according to Calvin, this accusation is countered from the Roman Catholic side when it is claimed that the Mass concerns an application of the sacrifice of Christ. In his commentary Calvin states that the argument the Roman Catholics advance, namely “that the Mass is not a new sacrifice, but merely an application of the one sacrifice,” is an attempt at evasion (§ 37). In the administration of the new covenant, the office of the priest has become redundant. For, says Calvin, the office of Jesus Christ is ascribed “to they who are called priests, that is, those who bring sacrifices to God and who, by making sacrifices, mediate between God and man and obtain grace and forgiveness for our sins” (§ 36). But Christ’s sacrifice is unique and cannot be repeated, he says with a reference to the letter to the Hebrews.54 The established church furthermore assumes that the churchgoer partakes in the sacrament just by being present during the act of the sacrifice, and that this mere “going to Mass” is a meritorious work.55 We, however, claim that we must receive the mercy of the cross of Christ with empty hands. “Thus it is clear that nothing is more contradictory to a correct understanding of the Supper, than to make a sacrifice of it,” so Calvin concludes (§ 38). b. The next issue Calvin tackles is the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which the substance of the wafer is transformed into the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into his blood. In Calvin’s view, this essential change amounts to the destruction of the substance of the sign. In fact, it contravenes the essence of the sacrament, in which the visible sign keeps its own substance so that it can refer, as a sign, to something or someone else.56 Therefore, in the Lutheran

54 Like the other evangelical scholars of his era, Calvin emphasises the uniqueness of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, which cannot be repeated by a human ritual (§§ 34–38 and 51). But for Calvin the sacrifice functions differently than it does for Zwingli or Oecalampadius. He agreed with them that Christ’s human body was in heaven, but insisted that precisely because of Christ’s sacrifice man could be nourished with his body and blood. “Thus we see what the blessing of this sacrament aims for ; that is, it wishes to ensure us that the body of the Lord was sacrificed for us once, so that now we can eat from it and by eating it we may perceive the power of this singular offer in us, and that His blood was shed for us once so that it may be an everlasting drink.” Inst. 4.17.3 (1543). 55 Higman: 1970, p. 18. The Council of Trent decided on this issue in 1547 that every sacrament has different consequences for those who receive it (Canon 9). They are not ‘empty rituals’, but actions that have effects on the lives of those who do in fact receive it! 56 In this context Frank Ewerszumrode wonders whether we could speak of a conversion (conversio) of the elements of bread and wine in Calvin, while recognising that he does speak about the conversio substantialis in a different way than does the Roman Catholic tradition. After all, the signs of bread and wine receive another function in Calvin’s thought as soon as they become instruments to transmit the body and blood of Christ to us. It has become bread from heaven by then, food that represents another reality. In this respect, Ewerszumrode also refers to a more recent account of the Eucharist in the Mysterium fidei-encyclical from 1965.

248

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

doctrine of the Eucharist (i. e., the doctrine of consubstantiation), the sign does not undergo a change of essence (cf. § 55).57 The Reformers insist that the doctrine of transubstantiation is of the church’s creation and has no foundation in Holy Scripture. This is why it must be reconsidered. c. From the beginning of the Reformation, the Protestants have assumed the position that, in contrast to the practices in the established church, the Lord’s Supper should be offered to the people under both species of bread and wine. This ought not to be a privilege of the priestly class or for the clergy in general. When only the bread is offered to the poor believers, they are “deprived of their grace, because if it is not a small benefaction to communicate through (de communiquer au) the blood of the Lord as our pasture, it is an all too large cruelty to take it from those to whom it belongs” (§ 44). d. Calvin calls the many forms, gestures, and human customs involved in the celebration of the Mass a liturgical performance, and insists that one cannot appeal to the Old Testament in support of them. For although before the birth of Christ the Old Testament sacrifices were performed with great adornment and ceremony, these had a meaningful significance. Everything was “aimed at instructing people and inciting them to piety.” These days, however, the rituals and practices of the established church merely serve as useless entertainment (§ 49). A proposal for compromise In the last chapter of his treatise on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin assumes the position of a mediator to attempt to bring together the Protestant churches of Germany and Switzerland on the point of the Eucharist. As we have seen, the dispute revolved around the question how Christ is present in the Holy Supper, and how we take part in him and his salvation. After briefly tracing out the views of Luther, Zwingli, and the Basel reformer Oecalampadius (1484–1531) and commenting on them, Calvin formulates a short confession in the hope that it may suit both parties, since, “after all, we all confess with one mouth, that we, when we receive in faith the sacrament as it was instituted by the Lord, have truly been made participants in the proper (propre) substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ” (§ 60). Ewerszumrode: 2012, pp. 232–237. For Calvin’s criticism of scholastic theology, see Inst. 4.17.11–15. 57 The doctrine of consubstantiation on the one hand means that the substance or nature of the elements of bread and wine does not change, but on the other hand also that the glorified body of Christ is invisibly present in a physical sense, at once substantially and essentially real, in the elements, with them, and under them. Luther illustrated this with the image of an iron that is put into the oven. The substance of the iron does not change, although it does receive all the qualities of the heat. For Calvin’s criticism on the Lutheran doctrine, see Inst. 4.17.16–31.

‘One with Christ’: Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper

249

Some years later, when Luther read the first three pages of the Latin translation of Calvin’s treatise in a bookshop in Wittenberg, he was impressed. One witness recalls that he remarked that “if Oecalampadius and Zwingli had at the beginning discussed the Lord’s Supper in a similar manner, it would never have become such a lingering issue.”58 In the concluding lines of a marvelously reconciliating nature, Calvin makes clear once more that he sees the Lord’s Supper not just as a symbolic sign, but especially also as a holy mystery in which God works through “a secret (secrette) and miraculous operation (vertu miraculeuse).” Because the Spirit of God is “the connecting factor (lien)” in this union with Christ, Calvin calls participation in the substance of the true body and blood of Christ a spiritual union. A confession that leaves room for both parties For the followers of Zwingli Calvin emphasised that the sacrament must be “received in faith” This means that it is a matter of faith. In this statement we again hear his criticism of the locally conceived presence of Christ, which ensues from the Roman Catholic and Lutheran doctrine as he interpreted it and in which the connection between Christ’s body and the sacrament is erroneously conceived. Again he repeats his call to lift up the hearts to heaven to find Christ there, and not in the transient elements of bread and wine. Christ’s human body, he insists, is in heaven. In doing so Calvin expresses a certain approval of Zwingli’s view.59 For, so he goes on to state, it is not without danger to think that Jesus Christ is confined to bread and wine “without us looking up to heaven (au ciel)” (§ 42). In a powerful statement he concludes that we must “shut out all fleshly fantasies” and “lift up our hearts to heaven and not think that the Lord Jesus has humbled himself so much as to have confined himself to some transient elements” (§ 60).60 In the final paragraph, which he formulates like a confession, Calvin directs himself to the Lutherans by using the concept of ‘substance’: we truly participate 58 Higman: 1970, p. 38, n. 3. At that time it was, however, already too late. Zwingli had died ten years earlier, and Luther would die the next year. Four years later the circumstances had changed to such an extent that Calvin did succeed in reaching and agreement on the Supper with Zwingli’s successor, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575). 59 Already in the Institutes of 1536, Calvin used the argument that we also encountered in the treatise (§§ 42 and 56), namely that Christ could not be present in the bread and wine in a spatial sense, since he is at the Father’s right hand. CO 1, p. 123 and p. 125. But in doing so, he did not deny the presence of Christ in the sacrament. CStA (Calvin’s response to Sadoleto from 1539), vol. 1.2, p. 384. Cf. Inst. 4.17.26. 60 See for the sursum corda or “lever les coeurs en haut” also §§ 42, 52, and 60. Cf. OS 2, Catechism of Geneva, A. 355, p. 141 = CO 6, p. 130: “in order to possess the truth of the sacrament, we have to lift up our hearts to heaven, where Jesus Christ is in the glory of His Father and whence we expect Him for our salvation; we must not search for Him in the transient elements.”

250

Calvin’s Turn and Contribution

(participer vrayement) in the proper and real “substance of the body and blood of Christ.” With these words he seeks to connect to the phrasing used by Melanchthon and Bucer in their Wittenberg confession.61 In the end, Calvin seems to side more with Luther than with Zwingli. Luther had depicted the Zwinglian doctrine of the Lord’s Supper with the negative stereotype of ‘an empty sign’ Calvin takes this over in his treatise. We are not concerned with ‘an empty sign’ (une figure nue), but with “a sign that is united with the truth and substance to which it is connected” (§ 15). And in many instances Calvin uses words like ‘communion’ (communion), ‘communication’ (communication), ‘to offer’ (offrir, presenter, representer), and ‘to receive’ (recevoir) so as to indicate the dynamics between heaven and earth and between Christ and his people in the holy mystery of the sacrament. But the question remains whether Calvin really intended to take sides with this confession formula. His intention was to build bridges and to bring parties together wherever possible. In this respect his theology of the Lord’s Supper, as he introduced in this treatise, is less of a compromise formula; rather, Calvin sets out on a direction of his own, emphasising the practical effects of the Supper in a person’s life, such as his growth in assurance, thankfulness, and obedience, and demanding attention for a certain mysticism. To Calvin’s mind the main point of the sacrament is, after all, for the believer to be united with the Triune God through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The kingdom of God is also internal, and this is why Calvin calls upon us not to linger upon the external signs, since we are “made members of Jesus Christ in the sacrament, and incorporated in him and united with him as our head,” for in it he gives us “the proper substance of his body and blood.” For the main point of the powerful effect of the sacrament in our lives, he then says, is that God “takes care of us internally (int¦rieurement)” through the Holy Spirit and by means of this instrument. At the Lord’s table we are made participants of the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in an invisible and spiritual manner through the miraculous work of God, who operates in our lives through this sacramental mystery.62

61 In contrast to Calvin’s Petit traict¦ de la saincte cÀne, the First Helvetic Confession written by, among others, Bullinger, Myconius, and Grynaeus, and to which also Bucer and Capito contributed, limits itself to the union with the fruits of Christ’s body (art. 22). The Wittenberg confession dates from the same year (1536). Both confessions can be found in Faulenbach: 2006, vol. 1.2, pp. 44–68 and pp. 86–88. 62 Higman: 1970, pp. 107f and p. 130 = §§ 17, 19 and 60. See also ch. 3, n. 7.

PART FOUR: The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Chapter 10. Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

Introduction There was much that renaissance, humanism, and the Protestant Reformation overturned in Europe, and one such thing was the structure of the church. For example, through reforms introduced to large parts of the German empire beginning in the 1520s under Charles V, church life increasingly came under the control of the civil authorities at the expense of the empire’s religious unity.1 Similarly, under the leadership of the civil government, several Swiss cantons opted for a radical renewal in church life. And in the 1530s during the rule of Henry VIII, the Act of Supremacy cut the church in England off from Rome and the French royal house, which at first had been open to change, but with the shock of recent events increasingly opposed the new teaching in a desperate attempt to safeguard the unity of church and society. Through the influence of Protestantism, religious diversity slowly grew in the early modern period. Church and state applied numerous measures in an attempt to channel the developments, but failed to stop the process of change in its tracks. This resulted in a number of violent conflicts, such as those in Germany in 1525 and 1547, in Switzerland in 1529 and 1531, and in France with the wars of religion beginning in 1562. Over the course of this same period, numerous religious dialogues were held among Protestants as well as between Protestants and Catholics, but they rarely concluded in a satisfactory manner. In this chapter on Calvinism and the origins of religious plurality in Europe, we will first consider the early period of the Wittenberg Reformation (1), and then turn to the second phase of the Reformation which emerged from Paris and examine how the desire for the independence of the church served to promote religious plurality (2). I will end with some concluding remarks on the effect for other countries in Europe and beyond. 1 Speelman/ Korteweg: 2013, ch. 2 and 3, pp. 29–110, about the beginning of an evangelical church life in the late 1520s. See also Appendix 2.

254

1

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

The Reformation movement as a catalyst for Christian freedom and emancipation

Luther’s ideal raised the bar. While in the medieval period the church protected its members through the sacramental system, in the Reformation era each individual believer was supposed to fight on his own in the battle against sin and the world, aided only by his baptism and the Holy Spirit. A true believer had to be a spiritual person (homo spiritualis) emancipated from the authority of the church and from the world by both personal faith and “evangelical freedom (libertas evangelica)”2 But the changes started already in the time leading up to that. In the late medieval period, we find an increasing number of accounts in which inner penance threatens to undermine the importance of the actual sacrament of penance. We have spoken already about Wessel Gansfort and his new view of the sacrament of penance. Once sins have been completely forgiven because of a sorrow born from love, there is no need anymore to pay for them through ecclesiastical punishments. In this way, inner penance or conversion to God and a crucified life in imitation of Christ worked to push the external sacrament of penance to the sidelines and thereby to reduce human dependence on the church as an institution.3 Another example is the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the inner spiritual communion and not the external sacramental communion was popular.4 The established church lost its power over the consciences of many believers, but after the Peasant Wars new ecclesiastical regulations curtailing the individual’s freedom were established.5 Still we could say that the Reformation was a movement with the ideal of a church with less externality, more freedom, and greater personal responsibility on the part of the church people.6 The Reformers changed the power of the church in their lives radically and gave them both through a more direct communication with God. The pursuit of their doctrine was above all to bring about a personal faith and renewed life inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2

The formation of religious plurality in France

Now that we have seen how the Reformation movement worked as a catalyst for freedom and emancipation, in this second part we will consider how the new 2 3 4 5 6

See the paragraphs of ch. 2, after n. 3. See ch. 2, n. 33. Caspers: 2006, pp. 158–172. See for example ch. 2.3 and ch. 2, n. 35f. See, for example, ch. 2.5.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

255

concept of ecclesiastical plurality came to be shaped by the position which the leadership of the rapidly growing Reformed movement in the kingdom of France assumed. Leading figures in France no longer avoided the confrontation When the Paris minister Antoine de la Roche-Chandieu was in Poitiers around the turn of the year 1558–1559, he received the commission (possibly from a provincial synod of Poitou) to consider the possibility of convoking a first national synod with the Parisian church. The preparations were undertaken in the greatest of secrecy, since this plan amounted to a conscious transgression of the government policy and would elicit a sharp response if it were to become known.7 Soon it emerged that the French Reformed (i. e., the Huguenots) were intent on establishing an ecclesiastical organisation of their own, a national synodical alliance, without the approval of the state. The Huguenots saw no better way than that of a mild, diplomatic confrontation. Calvin, however, disagreed altogether with the course events were taking. In his mind, it was of primal importance for the churches in France to retain their clandestine character until the tides should turn. This amounted to a clash between two competing views on church and confession. The desire for the end of isolation At this time, the number of those who converted to the Reformed confession was growing rapidly, and the clandestine meetings on occasion assumed a somewhat provocative form. After all, the new generation of Huguenots wanted their voice to be heard, for example through the meetings organised in the evening hours from 13 to 16 May 1559 at the Pr¦-aux-Clercs in Paris, where some 4,000 Huguenots held Psalm-singings “with the king of Navarre [i. e., Antoine de Bourbon] at their head … and under the protection of the nobles and their servants.”8 7 Beza: 1883, 1, p. 200. 8 Léonard: 1961, vol. 1, p. 98. Similar meetings had been organised a year earlier outside of the Saint-Antoine and Saint-Victor gates, but this meeting in May 1559 was better organized. CO 17, no. 2869, p. 167 and CO 17, no. 2875, pp. 177–179. Calvin encouraged Antoine de BourbonVendúme, who had been king of Navarre since 1555 through his marriage to Jeanne d’Albret, and first prince of the blood in France after the king, to publicly act as a Protestant at the court and to defend the Reformed confession. God wants to thoroughly examine “how great your love is for Him; and if it is the case that until now you have remained silent, then now every excuse to do so no longer is, because God takes you by the hand, so to say, and demands of you that you become His witness. I know very well how important your confession can be and that it may damage you in your personal position, your Royal dignity, your honor and possession. But be it as it may, you are to hold out.” Sire, “He bends the heart in obedience to Him, or He may only temper his wrath, so that your confession becomes a protective shield for an uncounted flock of believers, who are hoping for you.” Calvin also continued to encourage his younger brother, Louis de Bourbon-Cond¦, to openly admit to the Reformed confession and

256

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Those who participated in these peaceful manifestations were not driven by a revolutionary spirit. Rather, they were motivated by their desire for the freedom of assembly and for the end of the persecutions which in those days were only increasing. Late in May 1559, a first French national synod met in the greatest secrecy in Paris for some four or five days, only two months after France and Spain had decided to join hands in the effort to wipe out Protestantism.9 The Catholic sovereigns of these two kingdoms wanted to be rid of them and to join forces in the fight against the Calvinist heresy, a plague which was quickly spreading “to all levels of society.”10 In spite of the strict measures they had imposed, the French and Spanish state had until then been unable to control the problem represented by this powerful new movement which, if anything, seemed to be growing stronger rather than weaker with the new and stricter measures and therefore ever more difficult to root out. When the Peace of Cateau-Cambr¦sis was agreed upon on 3 April 1559, it represented an immediate threat to the Protestants living in France. By the end of the month, the French king enacted new laws envisioning the persecution of the heretics. The French state was thus increasingly applying a policy of direct confrontation. In fact, France and Spain pondered the possibility of a joint attack on Geneva in an effort to turn the tides and to restore unity to church and state.11

principles. Quote from Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1962, vol. 2, pp. 70–71, letters from 7 May and 13 September 1563. 9 Higman: 1992, p. 233. The treaty of Cateau-Cambr¦sis of 3 April 1559, was sealed by two marriages in July, but during a jousting tournament organised for this occasion King Henry II was hit in the eye by a lance, and died shortly thereafter. 10 Thus spoke the Venetian ambassador in 1561; quote from MacCulloch: 2005, p. 311. The house of Valois and the house of Habsburg opposed each another from 1521 to 1526, from 1527 to 1529 and again from 1536 to 1538, from 1542 to 1544 and, to conclude, from 1551 to 1557. This means that they were at war with each other during most of the sixteenth century. 11 In September 1557 the northern French city of Saint-Quentin was occupied by Spain and England with 11,000 horsemen and 37,000 infantry. A year and a half later, in April 1559, the peace negotiations were cut off. After having been at war with each other for a century, the two super powers Spain and France decided to fight the evangelical heretics together. They plotted a common war against Geneva. In 1558 Jean Macar wrote: “If peace is reached, then the two monarchs have promised to supply soldiers to the duke of Savoy for an attack on the mother city and foster-mother of all errors.” Concerning the impending danger Calvin wrote: I do not know for how long we will remain safe and free, “for as far as I can think it will be our turn soon.” Letter to a prisoner from 13 November 1559; quotes from Cottret: 2000, p. 241 and p. 246. Cf. Roget: 1870, vol. 5, p. 193. CO 17, no. 3131.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

257

The Protestant nobles’ first move: the presentation of a new confession and Calvin’s objection Calvin was convinced that the plans to present a confession to the king, as the Reformed church of Paris had done earlier in 155712 but now wanted to do on behalf of all the French churches, arose from fear for the growing persecutions. He pointed his French brothers to the example of Isaiah instead, who had offered a different kind of advice: “Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way” (Isa 35:3).13 Yet, so Calvin was convinced, fear is a bad counselor, it would not be wise to provoke the government so soon. In the spring of 1559 FranÅois Morel, minister of Paris, had written to ask Calvin for advice, but received no response. He complained of this in April 1559, and on 8 May addressed himself in a letter to Calvin’s right hand man, Nicolas Colladon, with the request that the Genevan Reformer send the French churches a draft confession as well as his advice. It is unlikely that Calvin simply was unaware of the plans entertained by his coreligionists in France for the establishment of a confession and church order at a national synod.14 As he saw it, no group of people could simply bypass the government and declare itself to be the church. Yet Calvin had been unable to head the French churches in another direction, nor could he continue to ignore what was happening. The plans for the synod went on, and it became clear to him that the very least the Calvinists wanted from him was a confession. The only thing he could do was to warn them of the dangers that their actions could arouse. Calvin thus responded to the request from the French churches in a letter addressed to Morel on 17 May 1559. In this letter he left no doubt that he did not support the presentation of a confession under the current circumstances.15 Calvin spoke rather sharply in that part of his letter where he dealt with the plans harboured by the French churches. He wrote: “While some are being fired 12 Beza: 1883, 1, p. 146. CO 9, pp. 715–720. Pannier: 1936, p. 83. 13 CO 17, no. 3056, 526. Calvin used the word trepidare, which in this context pointed not only to ‘impatience’ or ‘haste’ but also to ‘concern’ and ‘fear’. CO 17, no. 3056 = Pannier : 1936, p. 90, n. 1 and p. 147, n. 5. 14 On 8 May 1559 Morel turned to Calvin’s right hand man, Nicolas Colladon. He asked for a deputation, for a draft confession from Geneva, and for advice “in order that your view might be made known.” CO 17, no. 3045, p. 506, l.1–9. The letter to Calvin from earlier that spring appeared to have been lost somewhere along the way. Beza: 1883, p. 200, n. 1. 15 The issue is not “that Calvin opposed a plurality of confessions in general,” as Bakhuizen van den Brink claims. Calvin did not oppose a plurality of confessions as such, but rather a French confession with this aim and under these conditions. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, p. 9 and p. 10. Calvin did ascribe to the French confession “a formal, non exclusive authority,” although he did not dismiss it, so Bakhuizen van den Brink writes. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1962, vol. 2, p. 44. Only from 1559 onwards did the Reformed confessions take on a church-constituting function. Speelman: 2009.

258

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

up with great zeal to publish [or : ‘to present’] a confession of faith, we nevertheless witness before angels and men that this desire displeases us.”16 Nevertheless, now that his back was against the wall, he consented as their adviser to send them a draft confession – but under protest.17 By the time Calvin’s letter arrived, the synod was already in full swing. The church order had already been drawn up and approved during the synod so as to offer the scattered churches some form of a church-political structure, and the synod composed its own confession from Calvin’s draft which arrived during the synod. Nevertheless, the synod did not plan to present it to the king or to publish it, except in “extreme need”.18 At the synod, some of the ministers delegated by their churches came from the low nobility ; these men were prepared to follow Calvin and to refrain from publishing or presenting the confession. Yet the upper Calvinist nobility had no intention of waiting any longer for the reform of the established church, and appear to have had other intentions for the confession. The day after the synod, in May 1559, Admiral Gaspard Coligny, a highranking Calvinist nobleman, met with the English ambassador Throckmorton in Paris.19 As early as 7 June rumours had been circulating “about a plan to present a

16 CO 17, no. 3056, p. 526. The word edere does not only mean ‘to print’ or ‘to publish’, but can also mean ‘to display’, ‘to deliberate’, ‘to present’ (produire). Benoit: 1959, p. 114, n. 33. The synod, at which members of the French low nobility were present, expressed that it was willing to follow Calvin and not publish or present the confession. The Calvinists of high noble stock, however, appear to have had other intentions with the confession. 17 CO 17, no. 3056, p. 526. On 17 May 1559 Calvin wrote to Morel that he in the given circumstances would write a confession, although he had heard too late of the approaching synod in Paris. His words ne essemus asymboli cannot refer to the French church or the synod of Paris; he is, after all, speaking in the first person. Pannier incorrectly suggests in his translation of Calvin’s wordplay (“afin que nous ne restions pas sans formuler une confession de foy”) that he stated his agreement with the synod. The situation was rather such that Calvin did not want to fail in his position as an adviser. Pannier: 1936, p. 147. Cf. Benoit: 1959, p. 113, n. 32. 18 CO 17, no. 3065, p. 540, l.14–15 = Pannier: 1936, p. 149, l.15–17. Poujol: 1959, p. 52. Morel used the verb ‘offerre’, which means ‘to display’, ‘to offer’ or ‘to present’. This letter does not refer to the publication of the confession. For some members of the synod, this amounted to a concession on their part to Calvin. 19 Forbes: 1740, vol. 1, p. 115. Throkmorton wrote about this meeting with Coligny on 30 May 1559 in a letter he sent to Knight from Paris: “The said Admyrall, in conducting of Mr. Wotton and me to the churche of Nostre-dame, toke occasion to question with me toching the state of religion in England”; he had been absent at the Mass, but “was ready after to bring us home againe.” Forbes: 1740, vol. 1, p. 115, l.14–20. Poujol: 1959, p. 50 and p. 51. Speelman: 2014, ch. 3 (Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church from 1559 to early 1562), pp. 142–207, esp. pp. 152ff. The French admiral Gaspard de Coligny (1519–1572), who was released from Spanish imprisonment in Sluis (The Netherlands), made a radical choice for Reformed Protestantism that year.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

259

confession to the king,”20 and on 13 June the English ambassador sent Queen Elizabeth a copy of the new French confession, reporting that “a nobleman” had attempted “to exhibit to the King their confession.”21 In other words, shortly after the end of the synod, the confession was no longer a secret document but circulated in the upper levels of society.22 The growing Calvinist movement in France thus chose to unite itself in a structured organisation in order to survive these times of heavy persecution. Implicit to this organisation was the assumption that these federated churches constituted a lawful church in spite of the absence of government recognition.23 In the tense month of May 1559, the synod had no realistic prospect whatsoever for better times, and yet the Huguenots were convinced that they could no longer simply stand by and watch.24 20 CO 17, no. 3062, p. 535. 21 It was not until 13 June 1559 that Throkmorton sent a copy of the confession to Knight, the Queen’s secretary, from Paris: “that forasmuch as the multitude of Protestantes, being spred abrode in sundry partes of this realme in diverse congregations, ment now amiddes of all these triumphes to use the meane of some nobleman to exhibit to the King their confession, (wherof your Majest¦ shall receive a copie herwithal) to th’intent the same mighte have bene openly notified to the world.” Forbes: 1740, vol. 1, p. 128, l.8–12. Baird: 1879, vol. 1, p. 332, n. 1. 22 Rumours about plans to present a confession to the king were even already circulating prior to the convocation of the synod. This is clear from a letter which Nicholas Throckmorton, the English ambassador to France, sent to William Cecill Knight, the Quene Majeste’s Principall Secretary, on 15 May 1559 in which he reported of a confession which thousands of French Calvinists would subscribe, and of their plans to present it to the king: “I Am certainly enformid, that about the number of fifty thousand persones in Gascoigne, Guyen, Angieu, Poictiers, Normandy, and Main, have subscribed to a confession in religion conformable to that of Geneva; which they mind shortly to exhibit to the King. There be of them diverse personages of good haviour.” Forbes: 1740, vol. 1, p. 92, l.1–5. The rumours about a confession were therefore already circulating before the synod met at the end of May. Poujol: 1959, p. 52. 23 In regard to this same point, there is a difference between Calvin’s draft and the confession as it was drawn up by the synod. As has been noted, Calvin opposed the creation of a French national Calvinist church. He wanted to build the church by establishing local churches (cf. pour dresser les Eglises de nouveau), while the Gallican Confession envisioned the establishment of a national church (cf. pour dresser l’eglise de nouveau). Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, p. 128, n. 138. Calvin consistently avoided speaking about a French national church, as for example in a letter to the French dating most likely from the end of September 1559. 24 What the synod did not know, however, was how the government would react. For that reason, the French Calvinists sought to cover themselves by keeping records of baptisms and marriages, for which the 1559 synod gave extensive prescriptions because of the official status that these rites had in society. Article 34 of the 1559 church order treats the baptismal register. Marriages, too, were to be registered officially ; article 33 prescribes that, when a marriage request is made, “the marriage certificate drawn up by the public notary” must be presented. Article 35 discusses marriages with blood relations, with the synod keeping the right of decision for itself. The 1559 church order is printed in Beza: 1883, pp. 215–220.

260

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

In 1559 the leaders of the French churches had a specific goal in mind, and also in the following years they stayed their course, namely, to obtain from the Roman Catholic government recognition for two churches and two confessions within a single state. Although in Calvin’s mind it was simply unthinkable for two churches to exist side by side in one state, the solution of the Reformed in France would prove highly influential in large parts of western Europe. The Huguenots address the king and are ready for a modest, subordinated place What the French Protestant spokesmen were leading was thus a new church. Their assumption was that their cause was not only religious but also political, and felt that they shared in the responsibility for the nation’s peace and calm. This is what they showed at the court in Amboise (March 1560), shortly after the famous first edict of toleration that was promulgated on 11 March 1560. This edict announced that the persecutions would to stop, such that the Reformed in France would receive a certain status of toleration. From their side, the Huguenots were to abandon the clandestine character of their organisation. The first edict of toleration gave an enormous boost to French Calvinism, which received another boost later that same month from the victory won by the Protestants in Scotland.25 Reformed Protestantism became an increasingly selfassured and well-organised movement. That same month – ten months after their first synod – the leading Huguenots presented their confession to the court.26 The letter to the king which served to introduce the printed confession of the newly formed French church did not simply fall from the sky, but must be read as the official French Protestant response to the new law and to the king’s decision to announce in disguised terms that they accepted his offer. The royal edict and the Huguenot response thus announced the arrival of a new era. The king was starting to change the earlier policy of persecution, and in the eyes of Pannier : 1936, pp. 164–167. Niesel, pp. 75–79. The church order did not appear in print until 41 years later, in 1596. Pannier, l.c., p. 106. 25 Baird: 1879, vol. 1, pp. 362f. 26 An additional motive for Calvin to publish the confession may have been that in the summer of 1559 the Augsburg Confession was being recommended to the European courts. Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate, Count Wolfgang von Zweibrücken, and Duke Christoph von Württemberg in a letter from 12 August 1559 written from Augsburg to King Francis II of France appealed for intercession for those Christians who sought to live “according to the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, and according to the confession of Augsburg which is based on it, and who confess the true Christian religion.” On the same day, these same princes called Catherine de Medici to move her son so that “the Christian religion, which agrees with the confession of Augsburg, might be taught and tolerated in France.” Kluckhohn: 1868, vol. 1, no. 68, p. 90 and no. 69, p. 91. The wide distribution of the French confession in both French and Latin was then likely intended to draw the attention away from the Augsburg Confession. This suggestion seems all the more plausible in light of the fact that the colloquy of Poissy of September 1561 between papal and Calvinist theologians was undertaken at the hand of the Augsburg Confession rather than the French confession.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

261

the French Reformed churches he had made a small opening for the resolution of France’s religious controversies. This is evident from the way the Huguenots opened their letter : “Sire, we give thanks to God because, while in former times we had no access to Your Majesty at all […], he has now shown us that you are ready to give heed to the merit of our cause, as is evident from your last edict of March of this year.”27 With carefully chosen and sufficiently vague terms, the Huguenots requested freedom of assembly as well as the convocation of a national council. In return, they declared that they were ready to accept a minority position in French ecclesiastical and political life, notwithstanding the fact that Calvin was fiercely opposed to such a course of action. Regardless of Calvin and his wishes, it was becoming increasingly clear that the leading Huguenots were no longer willing to suffer their martyrdom in silence anymore. They had abandoned the hope that the French church would see restoration as a whole. Now other matters occupied their agenda, including the release of their prisoners and the pursuit of religious freedom. The more tolerant among the civil and ecclesiastical leaders were rather open to the Huguenot proposal for the convocation of a national council. They sought ways to promote religious unity, and envisioned a meeting between the leading spokesmen of the established church and the Calvinist church, as well as the assembly of the Estates-General at Orl¦ans. At a meeting of the French nobility in Fontainebleau, admiral Coligny expressed the wish on behalf of “those who want to live according to the gospel” for religious freedom, and the right to meet as Calvinists, in part with a view to the nation’s interests through the rest and peace it would create throughout the entire kingdom.28 A decision was thus made to convoke the Estates-General at Orl¦ans in the month of December. At the great assembly of the French nobility in Fontainebleau in August 1560, the moderate bishop of Valence, Jean Montluc, proposed that, under the leadership of the crown, a national council be held with erudite Protestants in order “to dispute with each other and to deliberate whether there would be a way to come together.”29 At Fontainebleau, Charles de Marillac, the archbishop of Vienna, showed that he like Coligny supported the convocation of the EstatesGeneral.30 Accordingly, it was decided that the Estates-General would assemble 27 28 29 30

CO 9, p. 737 Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 323–324. Baird: 1879, vol. 1, p. 422. Buisson: 1950, p. 175. Sutherland: 1977, p. 275. In Fontainebleau, admiral Coligny expressed the wish on behalf of “those who want to live according to the gospel” for religious freedom, and the right to meet as Calvinists, in part with a view to the nation’s interests through the rest and peace it would create throughout the entire kingdom. Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 323–324. Baird: 1879, vol. 1, p. 422. Buisson: 1950, p. 175.

262

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

at Orl¦ans in December 1560. The significance of this decision can hardly be underestimated; for by that time, the estates had not met in over fifty years. The moyenneurs In Orl¦ans, Chancellor Michel de l’Húpital presented himself as one of the leading spokesmen of the moyenneur party. For him it was unthinkable for two opposing religions to be able to live together in peace.31 He is well known for his remark that a Frenchman and an Englishman with the same religion can understand each other better than two citizens from the same city but of a different religion. L’Húpital’s use of France and England to illustrate a matter of religious unity was not motivated by the close ties between French and English Protestants alone.32 His statement also confirmed the commonly held view that a kingdom ought to be united in religion. At that time, France was not a real political unity. France was, after all, partly in British hands, and further included a number of independent kingdoms. The maintenance of religious unity was thus of prime importance with a view to the unity of the French nation as a whole. What is more, France would be the first kingdom or empire, whether small or large, that had two officially recognised churches.33 In the great German empire, which was made up of many small states, every prince had been free since the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to choose between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. But the ruler did have to make a choice between one of the two. The chancellor’s statement at the assembly of the Estates-General in France, in which he highlighted the importance of religious unity for the entire kingdom, must be understood among others against this background. The French government did not want the kingdom to crumble along the lines of religious confession as had happened in the German empire. In Orl¦ans, the moyenneurs therefore attempted to bring the various groups together in order to seek unity in the church and to restore the kingdom. This position of reconciliation and toleration assumed by the moyenneurs found many supporters among the nobles, politicians, and intellectuals. In their ranks we even find some leading members of the French court such as the queen mother, Catherine de Medici, and the king of Navarre, Antoine de Bourbon. The supporters of religious unity likewise included representatives of the established church, such as the aforementioned bishop of Valence, Jean Montluc.34 The moyenneurs on the whole felt quite involved in the situation of the French church. They took notice of the problems experienced by the church in those 31 32 33 34

Baird: 1879, vol. 1, p. 455, n. 2. Beza: 1883, vol. 1, p. 465. Buisson: 1950, pp. 181–182. Dufour: 1970, p. 137. Dufour: 1980, p. 122, n. 8,

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

263

days, and felt internally compelled to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. The religious climate in France was increasingly being set from a basis in Paris, rather than Rome and Geneva, by a group of moderates composed of moyenneurs and a number of the leading Calvinists. A political organisation Early in 1561, the Huguenots were quite popular among the people and enjoyed a good reputation at the court.35 Full of confidence, they struck out on a course for their goal. This was evident not only in January 1561 in Orl¦ans, where their requests included their own church buildings, but also from the fact that they held a second national synod in Poitiers in March of that year. At this synod, they formed a political organisation that was to defend their interests. From a political perspective, therefore, this second synod was at least as important as the first. Just as a national church was instituted at the first synod of 1559, a national political organisation was formed at the second synod in 1561. There were now two bodies that represented the French Protestants: the synod, and the provincial deputies to the court. The provincial deputies, who were paid by the churches, were to exercise influence at the court. Yet because the Huguenot deputies did not represent a recognised political party, they had to deliberate and report back to their constituencies in secret.36 The mother church in Geneva, led by Calvin, was not involved in the appointment of these Huguenot political representatives.37 After the organisation of the first national synod, the Huguenots grew not only in confidence, but also in numbers and in their awareness that they had indeed chosen for the right course of action at the first national synod in Paris.38 The road that they had embarked upon was consciously followed in March 1561 by a decision to exert pressure on the government in a more professional and better organised form. A month later, the provincial synod of Montauban reflected the existing situation when it said that it would be desirable for the power over the church to be restored to the civil government in places where the power was in the hands of a Reformed government.39

35 36 37 38

CO 18, no. 3397, 465–468. Sutherland: 1977, p. 282, n. 3. Aymon: 1710, vol. 1 (second pagination), p. 21 and p. 22. Kingdon: 1956, p. 86. The number of Reformed believers grew quickly, on nearly every level of the population. By the end of 1561, there were three million Protestants in France, or even substantially more, out of a total population of twenty million. In the fall of 1561, there were 2150 churches. On the number of the churches, see Benedict & Fornerod: 2009. At the first national synod in Paris a couple of years earlier, only twenty-seven churches were represented. According to some recent statistics, at least 33 % of the French in the 1560s were Protestant. 39 Kingdon: 1956, p. 86.

264

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

The Huguenots continue to exercise political pressure With the explosive growth of the Calvinist church, its sense of self-worth mounted as did the awareness that it had indeed chosen for the right course in May 1559, but this growth also meant that the political tensions, both internal and external, would reach new levels. As a result, the opponents to the Reformation felt themselves under threat. On Easter 1561 (6 April), they joined hands and formed an anti-Protestant triumvirate composed of the duke FranÅois de Guise, the conn¦table Anne de Montmorency, and the marshal Jacques d’Albon de Saint-Andr¦. This triumvirate was now organising violent repercussions, as when the peaceful public manifestations at which Psalms were sung and sermons preached were disrupted.40 Early in April 1561, fierce opponents of the Calvinists carried out a massacre in twenty different places, including Beauvais and Longjumeau.41 The situation became increasingly grim, and less and less favourable to a peaceful diplomatic solution. In the spring of 1561, Calvin advised the Calvinist leaders not to participate in the Council of Trent which was set to open on Easter, 6 April 1561 (although it did not actually begin until 18 January 1562).42 The pope, who may have been afraid that another schism would take place as in the Church of England under Henry VIII, did not want his prelates to enter into discussion with the Calvinists. Accordingly he thwarted the plans for a national French council. At the same time, the unrest grew in various quarters of the kingdom, making the prospect of a peaceful, diplomatic solution less likely than ever before. The negative position vis-—-vis the Huguenots came out in the edict proclaimed on 11 July 1561, the last day of the meeting of the Estates-General in Pontoise, when their request for permission to assemble in freedom until the convocation of a council or religious colloquy was voted down.43 Every assembly 40 At the synod of Poitiers of 10 March 1561, it was asked whether public meetings could be held in places where the civil government had not given permission for them. It was decided that, in view of the exceptional times, the main concern was to maintain public peace; nothing was to instigate further disturbances. Duke e.a.: 1992, p. 77, art. 27. 41 CO 18, no. 3396 (Beza to Bullinger, 24 May 1561), pp. 463–465. 42 CO 18, no. 3346, pp. 376–378 43 Buisson: 1950, p. 191. In June 1561, shortly before the opening of the assembly at Pontoise, the Huguenots presented a petition to the government in which they requested a chance to defend their confession at a free and national council. They further petitioned the king to end the persecutions, to offer protection against violence, and to free those who were imprisoned for their religion. The petition also included the request to be allowed to meet in public, and to have church buildings of their own. The Huguenots also proposed to the government that the king’s representatives attend their worship services so that everyone could see that nothing of a rebellious spirit was being said or prepared in the Protestant services. Sutherland: 1977, p. 284. Baudrier summarises four petitions from the Protestant deputies: two are from 8 and 17 June, the final two are undated. Baudrier : 1895f, vol. 4, p. 329.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

265

that did not follow the Roman Catholic tradition was forbidden, and transgressors faced the prospect of banishment.44 The Huguenots did not have a majority backing them among the members of the estates that met in Pontoise, in spite of the moderate leading members at the French court. Regardless of this July edict, Catherine continued together with her advisers to make plans for a religious colloquy. The highest members of the court, including the queen mother, Catherine de Medici, and the king of Navarre, Antoine de Bourbon, maintained the hope that the sting of the religious controversies might be removed in a peaceable manner. The French court was aware that the nation was “so terribly divided” by the different confessions that it threatened to fall apart into two groups and to divide church and state. According to De l’Húpital, the consequence could be the “total destruction and fall of this kingdom.”45 For that reason Catherine de Medici and her advisers persisted in their plans to organize a meeting in the form of a religious dialogue under the leadership of the king, yet without the status of an official council. At the same time, Calvin did not cease to demand attention for his view on the developments in the Reformed church in France and on the status of the Reformed confession there, and to warn his coreligionists that they should be wary of holding such wily discussions with the opponents of “the true religion”.46 When iconoclastic activities were undertaken in Sauve, Calvin pointed them to the example of “Daniel and his companions […], and many others who were most zealous […]. As long as they were in captivity in Babylon they resigned themselves to the offence of the idols without usurping for themselves a power that was not theirs.”47 In the preface to his commentary on Daniel, written shortly after Beza had left Geneva for Poissy on 16 August 1561, Calvin pointed the French Calvinists to the prophet as an example. In the dedicatory epistle addressed to “all the pious worshippers of God […] in France,” Calvin showed how he viewed the situation and what moved him in his work: I constantly exert myself for “the inhabitants of France all together.”48 Like Daniel, we too must not 44 Soldan: 1855, vol. 1, p. 428. Baird: 1879, vol. 1, p. 483. Beza: 1965, vol. 3, no. 183, p. 128 and p. 129. For the text of the edict of Orl¦ans, see Bulletin Historique et Litt¦raire, no. 23 (1874), pp. 78f. 45 Beza: 1883, vol. 1, p. 557. 46 CO 18, no. 3485, p. 616, p. 619 and p. 620. 47 CO 18, no. 3461, p. 581, l.19–25. 48 CO 18, no. 3485, p. 615, l.17–18; I translate publicÀ as ‘all together’, although it literally means ‘publicly’ or ‘commonly’. Daniel had met great resistance during the 70 years that he lived in exile with the people, but his concern was for “the general welfare of the church” rather than “his own rest”. In what he wrote to the people of France, Calvin also stood up for himself after it became known that he would not receive an invitation to participate in the colloquy of Poissy. He wrote that he would not leave his post, and that he had “no desire” to return to

266

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

allow ourselves to be detracted from coming out for our faith. The prophet did not try to escape from the lion’s den “by perfidious dissembling”;49 in just the same way, we have a “free and peaceful confidence in Christ”50 that the “pure religion” might flourish without unrest and violence.51 The kingdom that raises itself up in battle against God will be destroyed by “a stone” not made with human hands, as the prophet reveals to us. And God caused this “unpolished stone” to grow slowly but surely into a “great mountain”.52 Calvin noted that it would not upset him if the dialogue were to be cancelled, for “the time is not yet ripe for the pure religion to flourish” with the assent of the opposing party.53 With this reading of the events, he in the days leading up to the Colloquy of Poissy once more expressed his fear of what would happen if the great evangelical movement were to be sacrificed for the sake of some agreement. The colloquy of Poissy in the fall of 1561 The long-awaited religious dialogue took place in the Dominican priory at Poissy, and passed through three phases. Theologically, the colloquy of Poissy was a failure, and it is entirely possible that the conservative Roman Catholics consciously aimed to effect such a failure.54 All the same, Poissy was not without effect for the Calvinists. In the course of these weeks, much national and international attention had been directed to their cause. They were given an opportunity to plead their case before a forum of high-ranking nobles and bishops, and the speeches held by representatives of both sides were immediately published. Both sides turned Poissy into a large scale propagandistic campaign. For the Calvinists, Poissy meant that their cause received the attention for which they had been longing. In

49 50 51

52 53 54

France. CO 18, no. 3485, p. 616, l.49–51, p. 617, l.7, p. 624, l.3–4, p. 615, l.7–8. Calvin wrote the preface on 17 August 1561, but the commentary on the book of Daniel would not appear from the press until December. Beza: 1965, vol. 3, no. 190, p. 150, n. 10. CO 18, no. 3485, p. 616, l.20–26. CO 18, no. 3485, p. 623, l.13–20. “It will be no fault of mine if the kingdom of Christ does not present itself calmly and without violence.” Calvin was of the opinion that the French Calvinists must “continue to hope” even as dangers threatened, just as our Saviour continually urged the disciples “to persist in their patience”. CO 18, no. 3485, p. 619, l.52 and p. 620, l.1–2 and 8–15. CO 18, no. 3485, p. 620, l.9–13. CO 19, no. 3573, p. 56 = Beza: 1965, vol. 3, no. 201, p. 189. It is possible that Rome sent a special delegation to Poissy – consisting of four Jesuits, and one renowned Italian preacher, led by the superior general of the Society of Jesus J. Laynez – in September 1561 with the purpose of breaking off the colloquy while it was still in session. Romier : 1924, p. 228; Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 666f. On 15 August 1561 the conservative cardinal Tournon expressed the reservations of the conservative Roman Catholics in a letter to the queen. The French Calvinists, so he stated, were out to shape the French kingdom “after the model of the Swiss cantons,” an ideal that had to be fiercely resisted. Romier : 1924, p. 206, n. 2.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

267

their perception, the entire world was tensely awaiting its outcome. Beza witnessed of this perception in the oration he held before the queen on 26 September 1561, when he remarked that he spoke “in the name of a million people in this kingdom, in Switzerland, Poland, Germany, England, and Scotland, who are all waiting in expectation for a good outcome from this assembly.”55 This national assembly represented a final attempt on the part of the political leaders and representatives of the established church, together with the Calvinists, to seek a common solution to the existing religious conflicts and, if at all possible, to maintain the unity of the French nation. To that end the government invited the opposing parties to seek a way to restore unity within the church “in order to reunite them to the church of Rome” (de les reunir — l’Eglise Romaine)56 and Antoine de Bourbon spoke in a letter from 12 August 1561 of “supplying a contribution for the formulation of a good agreement,” so that a solution might be found to France’s growing religious problems.57 The official spokesman of the moyenneurs, Michel de l’Húpital, observed on the first day of the colloquy that all means – with or without violence – for preserving the unity of the French church had been exhausted. But the nation was “so terribly divided by the diversity of views” that it threatened to fall apart into two separate groups and to tear church and state apart. The final outcome could be the “complete ruin and subversion of this state.”58 If the disputation failed, it might mean that the prospect of reconciliation between the established church in France and the French Calvinist movement was further removed than ever before. This would in turn imply that the Huguenots had been right when they claimed that the government had no other feasible option than to give the Calvinist church some degree of religious freedom, and to recognise it as a second church in France aside from the established church. The moyenneurs wanted to avoid such a break at all costs. They were most anxious for the Huguenots to lend their full cooperation, and for a peaceful solution to France’s religious problems with the unity of the church remaining intact. In the experience of the Huguenots, a peaceful solution was closer at hand than ever before. The hopes for recognition in the form of an agreement with the government were increasing. Beza expected that “at the very least the justice of 55 Beza: 1883, vol. 1, p. 659, l.16–30. Romier : 1924, p. 218. 56 Beza: 1883, vol. 1, p. 521 = CO 18, no. 3441, p. 554, n. 3. 57 CO 18, no. 3477, p. 606, l.29 – p. 607, l.1. CO 18, no. 3477, p. 606. At that time there were three great dynasties in France: the De Bourbons in the west, Montmorency in the centre (to whom De Coligny also belonged), and the De Guises in the east. Higman: 1992, p. 234. MacCulloch: 2005, pp. 310–311. Mentzer : 2000, pp. 325f. 58 Beza: 1883, vol. 1, p. 557, l.5–11.

268

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

our cause” will be recognised.59 With this, the ideal harboured by the Huguenots of obtaining a certain recognition from the government, as well as some religious freedom accompanied by a certain form of independence, seemed to be closer within reach than ever. Calvin announced that he was not pleased with the developments at Poissy. He informed Beza of this as soon as the news of the agreement had reached his ears: “I would not be all too upset if the colloquy were in some way broken off by our opponents. For the time is not yet ripe for the pure religion to flourish with their assent.”60 Calvin was convinced that the Calvinist movement had to continue operating clandestinely for the moment. He was no proponent of a religious dialogue, and had no interest in a compromise with the established church or the ruling government.61 For Calvin it was entirely unthinkable that a Roman Catholic government would recognise two churches within a single kingdom and allow them to exist side by side. However, this was one of the few remaining solutions to the French dilemma that had not been attempted yet. The French Calvinists had found themselves confronted with this realisation for a number of years already. In the fall of 1561, a radical change occurred at the French court under the leadership of l’Húpital. When the colloquy of Poissy was still in session, it was not clear whose ideal would be implemented. Would l’Húpital win or Coligny, the moyenneurs or the Huguenots? When, several months after the close of the colloquy, l’Húpital came back from his earlier insistence on the impossibility of the parallel existence of two churches within one kingdom, the way was finally paved for an agreement with the Calvinists.

59 Beza: 1965, vol. 3, no. 197, p. 178, l.32–33. Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 606f. Geisendorf: 1949, pp. 161f. 60 CO 19, no. 3573, p. 56, l.16–18 = Beza: 1965, vol. 3, no. 201, p. 189, l.9–10. 61 CO 18, no. 3346, pp. 376–378. Calvin had no use for talks with the French prelates, and in the spring of 1561 advised the Calvinist leaders not to participate in the Council of Trent which was set to open on Easter, 6 April 1561 (although it did not actually begin until 18 January 1562). CO 18, no. 3346, pp. 376–378. The leaders of the French Calvinist church persisted in their request for a meeting with the representatives of the established church, however. With this, they took on a viewpoint that differed from that of Calvin. The convocation of the Council of Trent on 29 November 1560 to meet later on that year in the end closed off the possibility for a national French council. The pope did not want his prelates to enter into discussions with the Calvinists. It is entirely possible that he feared that another schism would take place as in the church of England under Henry VIII. On 23 June 1561 it came became known that Philip II of Spain had indeed agreed on a general council to be held in Trent; with that, the hopes of the French prelates for a national council were dashed. Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 429f. The court persisted, however, and decided that a colloquy should still be held. The moyenneurs and Huguenots both agreed that a compromise had to be sought for the growing religious problem in France.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

269

L’Húpital had made a radical turn in his thinking on religious policy, and now inclined to the position of the party of Coligny. In the wake of the colloquy of Poissy, it had become clear that the original pursuit by the moyenneurs to keep the different religious currents together within a single church was no longer feasible. Thus, after Poissy they were ready to seek a solution to the religious conflict that was more in line with the Huguenot proposals. This solution implied that the government would have to recognise the Calvinist church, and that two churches would exist side by side in the kingdom of France. The new edict of toleration, which followed soon thereafter, would be an important step on the way to this religious pluralism. The beginning of religious plurality at Saint-Germain in January 1562 In January 1562, Michel de l’Húpital stated that “a person is a Frenchman regardless of his confession.”62 On the same occasion he proposed that the solution to the religious controversies in France was not to be sought “in a religious measure, but in a political one”63 This would show itself to be an important first step worldwide on the road to confessional and ecclesiastical plurality. On 17 January 1562 the Edict of Saint-Germain was signed.64 According to the terms of this agreement, the Reformed could remain Reformed in a Roman Catholic country. This final agreement clearly differed from what the moyenneurs had initially envisioned, for there would no longer just be one church in the kingdom of France. The January edict was an agreement allowing two churches to exist side by side under one government. It was a unique arrangement, because nothing like it could be found in any other European country ; in Germany and in certain Swiss regions, some territories had gone over to the Reformation, while others did not.65 In France the people could, as of January 1562, go to different churches without fear of persecution. A citizen remained a citizen even if he were excommunicated by the church, as l’Húpital remarked. The way was now open for citizenship to be unhinged from membership in a church. The letter of the ministers and the Calvinist deputies in Saint-Germain was addressed to the “most beloved brothers”66 and dealt with the promise that the king and the governments would protect all who subscribed to the confession. This protection was the greatest single gain for the Calvinist churches that resulted from this edict.67

62 63 64 65 66 67

Nürnberger: 1948, p. 132, cf. P. 131. Buisson: 1950, p. 196. Nürnberger : 1948, p. 131. Amphoux: 1900, p. 240. Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 752–762. Speelman: 2014, 200f. Dufour: 1970, p. 137. Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 760–762. Beza: 1883, vol. 1, p. 760.

270

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

The great price paid for this limited degree of freedom and for government recognition of the Reformed church, however, was the end of religious unity in church and state. Calvin had been unable to thwart this inevitable process. After all, he had not been involved in the negotiations that took place with the French court in Saint-Germain. In his view, the most these discussion could deliver was some space within the established church (and Calvin had no interest in that), or a modest place for the Reformed alongside and apart from the existing church (and in Calvin’s mind this was simply absurd). In this line, there is no indication whatsoever to suggest that he ever approved of the agreement that had been hammered out in January 1562. On Sunday, 1 March 1562, the soldiers of the Duke de Guise attacked a group of Huguenots in Vassy during a worship service. More than thirty Calvinists lost their lives, and many more were wounded.68 Shortly thereafter – and partly as a result of this massacre – the first French war of religion broke out. The accord of 17 January 1562, for which Beza had mobilised himself in order to prevent the very anarchy that was now breaking out, expired within a short time due to these catastrophic events. And yet, the unique accord that had been reached on that day was not without importance for the French churches and for Europe as a whole. For the first time in history, there was a government that recognised two churches more or less alongside each other ; the Calvinist church was tolerated aside from and in addition to the established state church. In the end, after several wars of religion, the Edict of Nantes would be promulgated in 1598 without essential differences compared to the edict of toleration from January 1562. Also in the Edict of Nantes, the Calvinist church would not receive full recognition, but still be accorded a legally defined place of exception.69

Conclusion While in the medieval period the church guarded the lives of its members through the sacramental system, in the Reformation period individual believers had to hold their own in the battle against sin and the world. A true believer had to be a spiritual person, able to emancipate herself from the authority of church and world through personal faith and in ‘evangelical freedom’. During the Saxon church visitations, Luther and Melanchthon were forced to realise that this new 68 Beza: 1883, vol. 1, pp. 809–810. 69 The place of the Calvinist churches in France would be defined definitively on 8 April 1598 in Nantes under Henry IV. A structural religious freedom was granted to them on that day, guaranteed by the power of government which the Protestants held in the parliaments and courts. Heussi: 1971, p. 339, § 89 h. See articles 27 and 34 of the Edict of Nantes. Duke e.a.: 1992, p. 122.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

271

view of human and Christian identity could not be fully realised. Other Reformers like Calvin had comparable experiences. A new penitential system, customized visitations, and clarity in doctrine and education were among the innovations they helped to realise. ‘Religious plurality’, or two religions competing side by side in one area, was still unthinkable for these early reformers. In the early 1560s, however, Michel de l’Húpital headed a movement that departed from the conviction that an empire needed religious uniformity. By introducing a new way of thinking in which individual responsibility was key, the Reformers from the beginning contributed to an environment that now enabled an increase in diversity. European society and church life would never be the same again. The point of no return The decision taken by the first national synod of Paris late in May 1559 to establish a national confession without approval from the state formed a turning point in all of this. Such a situation, in which a church established itself without the involvement of the government, was entirely unique. The Anabaptists may indeed have done so, but their movement constantly placed itself outside of society. From then on the Reformed confessions would begin to function as church-constituting documents.70 The new French confession not only stood at the basis of the formation of the Protestant church in France, it also formed a great motive for the European Calvinist movement of other countries to establish independent national churches, as would indeed happen in Scotland, the Netherlands, and Hungary. Calvin did not support a situation in which the government was to allow a second church to exist aside from the existing church. On this point, however, his followers in France struck out on a course of their own. After the political climate underwent certain changes in light of the death of Henry II in July 1559, Coligny asked the new king in March 1560 on behalf of the Reformed believers to grant them some religious freedom and to organise a religious dialogue. The queen mother, Catherine de Medici, as well as the chancellor, Michel de l’Húpital, together with many others who numbered among the moyenneurparty, were open to the proposals of the Huguenots. The moyenneurs and the French Calvinists were both interested in seeking a solution to the growing religious controversies in France along the path of dialogue. L’Húpital did not look upon the Reformed as heretics, “since the entire difference is that they want to reform the church in the spirit of the early church.”71 However, while the moyenneurs wanted to bring the differing religious currents together so that they 70 Speelman: 2009, pp. 62ff. 71 Buisson: 1950, p. 189.

272

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

could continue to function within a single ecclesiastical structure, the Huguenots no longer considered this a feasible option. Concretely this meant that the Huguenots sought some form of recognition on the part of the government, that is, a modest place in society alongside the large state church. The road of dialogue failed, however. The final outcome of all of these discussions was that l’Húpital came to realise that church unity was no longer possible. Both at Orl¦ans as well as at Poissy he had failed to bring the different groups together. The unfeasibility of ecclesiastical unity in a single church represented a political reality for him. After Poissy he therefore opted for another foundation to his religious policy. It had to be possible “to live in freedom with those who do not observe the same ceremonies as we do”72 L’Húpital made a radical turn in his thinking within a short span of time, and now no longer sought a solution to the religious conflicts “in a religious measure, but in a political one.”73 He did not think in terms of a religious compromise anymore, but a political one. He thus proposed a modus vivendi, a realisable agreement that would make it possible for the two churches to dwell alongside one another in peace.74 On 17 January 1562, the Edit of Saint-Germain offered the Reformed some space, a modest form of religious liberty.75 The Huguenots had thus been able to convince l’Húpital of their vision.76 Accordingly, an exception was created for the new church in the laws of the French nation. The Calvinist churches now enjoyed the protection of the state, and this protection included some form of official recognition. From then on, French society would tolerate a second church in addition to the official state church. Under the leadership of the statesman l’Húpital, the policy of persecution against the Calvinists as heretics was brought to an end. In its place came a largescale Roman Catholic propagandistic offensive that received a boost from the Council of Trent, which met once more beginning in January 1562, and by the wars of religion, the first of which would break out in March of that same year.

72 73 74 75 76

Doumergue: 1927, vol. 7, p. 272. See n. 63. Nürnberger: 1948, p. 131, n. 154a. Condé-Bourbon: 1743, vol. 1, p. 743, pp. 606f. Nürnberger: 1948, p. 133; Baird: 1879, vol. 1, p. 576; Doumergue: 1927, vol. 7, p. 272. Chatherine was not convinced and, late in January 1562, she made one final attempt to realise the position of the moyenneur-party by trying to arrange for a continuation of the colloquy of Poissy. However, she failed in these plans. Kingdon: 1956, p. 89, n. 80. On 18 February 1562 the Paris parliament refused to cooperate in trying to reach an agreement. Buisson: 1950, p. 198.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

273

The Eucharist as the place of religious unity That two officially recognised Christian churches with very different confessions would exist side by side in a single kingdom was altogether unique.77 The French state did not want the kingdom to be divided into various territories according to confession, as had happened in the German empire in 1555. The high price that was paid for freedom and for state recognition was the end of religious unity in church and state. What makes this so painful is that it was not only in the sixteenth century specifically the Eucharist or sacrament of the altar, the very symbol of peace, unity, and reconciliation, that functioned like a ‘fission fungus’ at religious colloquies like Marburg in 1529 (among Protestants), as well as Regensburg in 1541 and Poissy in 1561 (between Protestants and Catholics), but that also some five hundred years later it has still proved impossible to achieve a rapprochement on this critical point. According to Ren¦ Benoist, a later opponent of the Reformer, Calvin removed the presence of Christ from the material realm and confined it to a transcendent spiritual or conceptual realm. Whereas Calvin could only conceive of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper in non-local terms, for someone like Ren¦ Benoist a radically metaphysical conception of the Holy Supper was absurd, a communication beyond the world of sense experience that can take place with his body in heaven but not on earth with the bread. For Benoist the peace and welfare of church and state could not be founded on a presence of Christ removed from the material realm and confined to a transcendent spiritual realm. Calvin’s view of the Eucharist, where the physical body of Christ remains in heaven and is not present in the bread and the wine, appears “to all persons of good and sound intelligence more absurd and inept than the vain Ideas of Plato ever were.”78 Benoist’s reference to the Platonic Ideas was meant to accuse Calvin of proffering a vision of reality in which the ultimately real lies only in a conceptual realm, beyond the world of sense experience. Indeed it is true that Plato’s concept of participation is in a way to be recognised in Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments. The sacraments are outward signs of the invisible goodness which God has toward his people. Calvin argues, as I have said, for sacramental communion and does not favor only a so-called unilateral eye communion. However, “the believer, when he sees the sacraments with his own eyes, does not halt at the physical sight of them, but indeed by those steps (which I have indicated by analogy) rises up in devout contemplation to

77 Beza: 1883, vol. 1, p. 465. Buisson: 1950, pp. 181f. Speelman: 2014, p. 186. Dufour: 1980, p. 137. 78 Benoist: 1564, Seconde epistre — Jean Calvin, f. 19f. Elwood: 1999, pp. 141–142.

274

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

those lofty mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.”79 Plato would recognise in these words the doctrine of a true disciple. On this crucial point to Paul’s question ‘Is Christ divided?’ (1 Cor 1: 13), Catholic thinkers like Benoist and Antoine du Val answered affirmatively : “[W]e say that he is divided when his body which is the church, is cut and separated, or when the head is divided from the body, or when the members, who are the Christians, are divided and separated among themselves.”80 Plato’s conception of participation applied to the Christ in the Eucharist caused a separation. Pointing to the Lord’s Supper, the Catholics applied the metaphor of the body also to the church as the basis of unity. Calvin did the same thing. The rift in the church and in ecclesiastical society which came to be in 1562 not only had as a consequence that the bond between church and society became a looser one, but the symbolic efficacy of this Supper as the meal of common union in Christ was also restricted to one’s own party. The result was that one person might openly denounce the doctrine and life of another [person] although both belonged to the same race, nation, people, town, or family. Those who lived in the same street were raised in different ways, and engaged in numerous different practices in life, for example, in regard to the observance of the Sunday or of holidays. Protestants visibly no longer celebrated holidays like the Feast of Corpus Christi, and did not kneel as the procession passed in front of their homes which they failed to decorate.81 The official recognition of ecclesiastical and confessional plurality meant the undoing of an existing bond in society that for many centuries also had a communal religious basis. Application to today The consequence of (this kind of) religious plurality was the increasing individualisation of religion. This individualisation can be understood both positively and negatively. The fact of the matter is that the commonly accepted Christian truths and values came no longer to be shared and experienced by everyone. With a view to this Brad Gregory observes that Christianity has never succeeded in retaining unity, and with a touch of scepticism asks what faith in the nature of God, the incarnation, or the Eucharist still has to do with ‘real life’. He points to the seventeenth century rational philosopher John Locke, who in 1667 already asserted that “purely speculative opinions” such as “the belief of the 79 Inst. 4.14.5. 80 Du Val: 1567, f. 60r : “Mais alors nous dison iceluy estre divis¦ quand son corps (qui est l’Eglise) est coup¦ et separ¦, ou quand la teste est divis¦e du corps, ou quand les members (qui sont est Chrestiens) sont par entr’eux divisez et separez.” Elwood: 1999, p. 138, n. 122. 81 Elwood: 1999, p. 154.

Calvinism and the Origins of Religious Plurality in Europe

275

Trinity, purgatory, transubstantiation” and the like are without “any influence on my actions as I am a member of any society.” Locke demoted the religious truth to ‘purely speculative opinions’ and sharply separated doctrinal claims and forms of worship from “opinions and actions” that were neither good nor bad “but yet concern society and men’s conversations one with another.” These in turn he severed from opinions and actions that were “good or bad in their own nature,” namely “moral virtues and vices.”82 In other words, by implication, society and ethics were separable from religion. So too were politics and religion, state and church, as Locke puts it in his famous Letter Concerning Toleration (1689): “The Commonwealth seems to me to be a Society of Men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of their own Civil Interests,” like liberty, health and the possession of outward things, whereas “a Church then I take to be a voluntary society of Men, joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the public worshipping of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the Salvation of their Souls.”83 Through a person like Locke, the view of the secular state was given a full expression on the basis of natural rights, whereby the starting point of his political thought was not the state, but the individual. Every person is born with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The authority of the state is derived from the consent of the governed, for example through social contract, and is not subordinate to ecclesiastical power. The state was created by individuals “for the public good” and all laws are always accountable to the citizens.84 Locke came to a positive evaluation of religious plurality in societies. Religious liberty and tolerance is rooted in the rights of individual persons.85 Another shift took place in the view of the church toward a voluntary church, comprised of persons voluntarily committed to Christ, rather than a Christendom, in which membership in the church and the community or state were virtually made conterminous. At the same time it must be said that religious life in society has an extra-personal element in a relationship that at times is not without its tensions. Western states’ control of religion in the early twenty-first century is a latterday extension of the sixteenth-century control of churches by states.86 The

82 Locke: 1667 (An Essay on Toleration). Goldie: 1997, pp. 136–137. Gregory : 2012, p. 165. 83 Locke: 1689/1983 (A Letter Concerning Toleration), p. 26 and p. 28. Gregory : 2012, pp. 165– 166. 84 Locke: 1689/ 1960 (Two Treatises of Government), bk. 2, ch.1, sec. 3, l.4–6 and bk. 2, ch.7, sec. 90, l.3. Wood: 1996, p. 474. 85 Locke: 1689/ 1960. Cf. Spinoza: 1670. Johnson: 1996, p. 70. 86 Gregory : 2012, p. 154.

276

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

process of disenfranchisement of religion is still continuing and it is still necessary to fight for the right to religious liberty as a fundamental right. Five centuries after the beginning of the Reformation we have to conclude that the Constantinian era really has ended. It is hard to think of even a single country in which one might encounter Christianity as a state religion, where the church enjoys a special bond with the state. But there is no lack in the diversity of churches. And religious plurality cuts right across churches. Paraphrasing Michel de l’Húpital, we might say that there is sometimes greater unity today between believers with different church backgrounds but the same spirituality, than there is between believers who belong to one national church or church federation but have different convictions or spiritualities. Christianity in Europe is fragmented and nowadays experiences even more pressure from contemporary secularism than it does from the ongoing process of religious diversity, whose roots stretch back some 500 years. In any case, the church slowly but surely lost its influence over the soul of Europe, a development that some may consider to be positive.87 At the same time, Europeans are concerned with the question of what it is that connects them. Therefore, framed in rather theological terms, one might compare the current religious and ecclesiastical plurality to the earlier diversity of tongues, which originally was a punishment for human pride (as related in Genesis 11) but then became a means of blessing as on Pentecost, so that all European nations might be recalled to a reunited, more or less Christian identity for Europe.

87 Lodewijk Pessers, for example, states that “Christendom has made Europe crumble,” but he interprets this as a “constructive destruction,” and not as something negative. Pessers, “De succesvolle mislukking van Europa (The successful failure of Europe).” Pessers: 2014, p. 39.

Chapter 11. Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

In the second part of this book on the Protestant penitential and eucharistic piety in the early modern period we zoomed in on the new insights Melanchthon gained during his visitation experiences in the summer of 1527, and on the special attention he had for the all too one-sided view on Christian freedom – the more bitter or stricter side of penance, that is, which he discovered to complement Luther’s thought, who had just discovered and elucidated the sweeter side of penance, where in practice the emphasis had shifted to faith and freedom. Thereafter we in part three discussed Calvin’s new penitential and confessional system, which he needed to accommodate his view on what it means to be church. In the fourth section we elaborated on the enormous impact of the evangelical movement, which by that time had established itself definitively in large parts of Europe. In this last chapter we will offer a summarising assessment of the book, and examine how the evangelical doctrine brought about a turn (1) after Luther’s agreement with Melanchthon’s corrections and (2) after Calvin’s eucharistic piety had taken shape. After years of criticism on the externalisation of church life in the established church, at the end of the 1520s it was time for more unity in doctrine and liturgy and for greater clarity on the content of the new evangelical spirituality. The administration of Word and sacrament became the new focal points of Protestantism, somewhat similar to the ideal that someone like Thomas a Kempis had had many decades ago for the lay believers: a regular communication with God through Word and sacrament. Furthermore, we will (3) consider Calvin’s desire for a very frequent celebration of the Holy Supper and (4) why a church-led preparation for the Lord’s Supper was so important to Calvin. To conclude, we will (5) examine how the new doctrine on the aforementioned issues took shape in the Low Countries.

278

1

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

How an evangelical penitential piety took shape

Luther’s agreement with Melanchthon’s ‘Instruction to the Visitors’ In the course of the Middle Ages the practice of penance was tied to confession, which was first made mandatory once a year for all believers in 1215 and formally declared to be a sacrament as late as 1439 at the Council of Florence. In the late medieval period, however, we find more and more reflections in which inner penance threatens to take the place of the actual sacrament. Thomas Aquinas, for example, had already made the distinction between an outer and inner penance, and the latter, which consisted in sorrow over a committed sin, had also taken its place in the life of the perfect. Earlier we also saw the developments in Wessel Gansfort, and how Luther put the importance of the sacrament of penance into perspective.1 Because the leadership over typically ecclesiastical matters, such as supervision and discipline, now also shifted to the civil magistrate, the age-old concept of a European Christendom under the guidance of the church, whose pastoral care and ritual practices structured and disciplined all of life (i. e., the corpus christianum), was slowly coming to an end. As Luther saw it, this had turned into a system of coercion, from which the true Christian must distance himself and which at best can serve as a means of punishment for the godless masses. According to Luther one does not become a true Christian by birth or by infant baptism as a sacramental act in itself, but by virtue of a conscious acceptance of the promise sealed in this baptism and thus obedience to the gospel.2 Church and state each had their own sphere, and from the very beginning of the Reformation Luther had not favoured a close intertwining of religion and politics. For him this meant that the magistrate did have the right and duty to protect the church externally, but that internal, typically ecclesiastical matters (the spiritualia) such as the examination of faith during church visitations and “the instruction and government in the spiritual domain,” as he formulates it in his foreword to Melanchthon’s Instructions to the Visitors, ought not to fall under the authority of the government.3 Forced by the circumstances, Elector John and Luther combined their efforts in the course of the 1520s. On this occasion Luther referred to Emperor Constantine the Great, who, as a worldly authority, managed to prevent discord and rebellion among the people: “While His Electoral grace is not obligated to teach and to rule in spiritual affairs, he is obligated as temporal sovereign to so order things that strife, rioting, and rebellion do 1 See ch. 1, n. 33ff and ch. 5.1. 2 See the Introduction of ch. 2. 3 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 151 = LW 40b, pp. 263f.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

279

not arise among his subjects; even as the Emperor Constantine summoned the bishops to Nicaea since he did not want to tolerate the dissension which Arius had stirred up among the Christians in the empire, and constrained them to preserve unity in teaching and faith.”4

Thus Luther indicated the foundations and limits of the new form of church visitation in January 1528. Church and religion had to be protected from heresy and radical opinions and practices. At that time, the necessary inspections were temporarily carried out under the authority of the elector. “Christendom is confused, scattered and torn,” he wrote. On the side of both Catholics and evangelicals, fanatics were roaming about in city and countryside. Next to the moderate middle group with less pronounced preferences in one or the other direction, it seemed that others were prepared to take up arms. Fast and decisive action had to be taken against those who did not wish to conform to the new doctrine and who did not abide by the new ecclesiastical rules. The unity of state and church was at stake, as well as the continued existence of the pure preaching and of the church’s revival, and thus of the people’s salvation. After the Peasant Revolts Luther’s authority had decreased somewhat, but he still was the undisputed leader of the German Reformation. Although he had entrusted the leadership over the visitations to the elector, it was not his intention to place the church under the definitive authority of the state. Partly on the basis of his foreword to the Instruction to the Visitors, Luther’s view on the relation between church and state was to be reinterpreted again and again for centuries to come. At the end of the 1520s, and much to his regret, an episcopalian church government was simply not realistic yet. “[W]e would like to have seen,” says Luther, “the true episcopal office and practice of visitation re-established because of the pressing need. However, since none of us felt a call or definite command to do this, and St. Peter has not countenanced the creation of anything in the church unless we have the conviction that it is willed of God, no one has dared to undertake it. Preferring to follow what is certain and to be guided by love’s office (which is a common obligation of Christians), we have respectfully appealed to the illustrious and noble prince and lord, John, Duke of Saxony, First Marshall and Elector of the Roman Empire, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, our most gracious lord and prince, constituted of God as our certain temporal sovereign, that out of Christian love (since he is not obligated to do so as a temporal sovereign) and by God’s will for the benefit of the gospel and the welfare of the wretched Christians in his territory, His Electoral grace might call and ordain to this office several competent persons.”5 4 Sehling, vol. 1, p. 151. 5 Sehling, vol. 1, pp. 150–151. With a reference to Luther’s Foreword and to this passage, Berhard Lohse states that “there is no doubt at all about the fact that Luther wished to retain an episcopalian form of church government.” Lohse: 1987, p. 84.

280

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

As a conclusion, from the end of the 1520s onwards, the church visitations gave the magistrates more control over unity and peace within their borders, as well as the ecclesiastical and social developments in the land. They also received many ecclesiastical possessions and all kinds of powers that had until recently accrued to the bishop. This radical turnaround in the ecclesiastical structure began in the summer of 1527 in Saxony, slowly spread out and did not come to a halt until four centuries later, partly due to the First World War.6 Melanchthon’s and Calvin’s teaching Like Melanchthon, the young Calvin was concerned with unfolding the sacred doctrine around the matters that were most familiar to the ordinary people, so that it would become clear how, in light of the new doctrine, the merciful God intends the law and gospel to be interpreted by his people. Like Melanchthon had done earlier on in his Instructions of Pastors, Calvin’s main concern in his 1536 Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was to become his chef d’oeuvre, was the question regarding the appropriation of salvation. How do we partake in salvation in Christ? All kinds of traditional practices had disappeared, or their meanings had changed. Parts of the age-old ecclesiastical institution were criticised or undermined, and new alternatives had to be found.7 For the young Calvin, following the example of Luther and Melanchthon, the exposition of the principal matters in Christian teaching must follow the central line that runs from law to faith, from self-knowledge to knowledge of God. We people first need the law to bring us to knowledge of ourselves as sinners, so that we may then accept Christ in faith. We are restored to life. “From this knowledge of ourselves, which shows us our nothingness if it seriously lodges in our hearts, is provided a ready access also to a truer knowledge of God.” The law is first presented to us: “When the Lord therefore establishes this first step for all those whom he deigns to restore into the inheritance of heavenly life, in order that they, wounded with the consciousness of their own sins and wearied by their weight, may be aroused to fear him, he sets forth his law first of all for us, to exercise us in that knowledge (of sin).”8 6 Leppin: 2006, pp. 267–276. See Appendix 2. 7 Karl Barth noted in this context that the young Calvin, “wie Melanchthon 16 Jahre früher […] mit den Problemen der Heilszueignung und nicht mit deren objectiven Voraussetzungen beschäftigt war.” Barth: 1932f. KD 1/1, p. 438. 8 Calvin’s Instruction et Confession de Foy of 1537, ch. 7: “How We Are Restored to Salvation and Life,” OS 1, p. 382 = CStA 1/1, pp. 144–146. Calvin began his Confession with a discussion of the big themes of justification and sanctification. Beginning in 1539, however, the priority of the appropriation of salvation shifted somewhat to the background, due to Calvin’s new focus on a systematic exposition, away from practical necessity. In the definitive version of the Institutes (1559) the appropriation of salvation would be treated in the lengthy third book as the work of the Holy Spirit, under the heading: “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

281

The later Calvin taught his followers that the necessary fear must be aroused in our conscience, and only then will the sinner learn to value the reconciliation acquired for us by the precious blood of Christ.9 In their views on the church’s task, Melanchthon as well as Calvin heavily emphasised instruction and preaching. Calvin remarked that a “short and easy main sum of the Christian faith” was necessary because of the church people’s “great deprivation and ignorance” with regard to the content of Christian teaching.10 Now that justification and the forgiveness of sins was detached from the mandatory good works performed by people, both Reformers sought new ways to incorporate various elements of the medieval penitential practice in doctrine and church life.11 “We should not pour the new doctrine into old wineskins,” Melanchthon had stated in 1527, while he still impressed a form of penance and the preaching of the law on the people, so that they would not fall into “an attractive false sense of security.”12 In their common view, Reformed preaching, as it was formulated in the initial phase, first concerned the accusing function of the law as a zucht- or schulmeister13 (‘discipline teacher’ or ‘school master’) who had to lead to Christ, for the purpose of which knowledge of one’s own sinfulness and sorrow was stimulated, and only then ought it to touch upon God’s merciful forgiveness in Christ.14 In his Institutes Calvin wrote in 1536:

9 10

11

12 13 14

Christ (De la maniÀre de participer — la grace du Christ).” See also ch. 3, n. 50. For both Calvin and Melanchthon the appropriation of salvation was closely tied to their view on the penitential practice of the established church, and responded to it. Beginning in 1537, Calvin no longer treated the central elements of our participation in salvation in the chapter on the law, but under the heading ‘On faith’. CO 18, no. 3485 (18 August 1561), p. 622. Cf. CO 18, no. 3161 (Letter from February 1560 to Blaurer). Cf. HC 23, answer 60. OS 1, p. 376 = CStA 1/1, p. 126. In this respect, Calvin complained in the introduction to his church order about “the ignorance of the people” and about the turmoil and confusion that caused it, just as Luther and Melanchthon had done before him. OS 1, p. 370 = CStA 1/1, p. 114. In relation to this, Calvin wrote in 1536: “not to refrain from doing good works or to deny the good works that are there, but to prevent that we should start to rely on them, glorify them and attribute power of salvation to them.” OS 1, p. 63. Our good works may no longer be meritorious, but this does not mean that the good and pious life should not receive any attention in another way. This is why, in the second edition of his 1539 Institutes, Calvin consciously included the discussion of justification and good works in one and the same chapter, while nine years earlier Melanchthon had still treated these issues separately in the Augsburg Confession, by raising the first issue in the beginning (article four) and the second issue further on (in article twenty). AV, introduction. Cf. ch. 2, n. 60. Spitz: 1974, p. 303. The law had a denouncing, punishing, and renewing function. Calvin adopted this thought from Melanchthon, although he changed the order by switching the first two functions around. First, there was the denouncing function (usus paedagogicus, theologicus or elenchticus) of the law. “In the first place, that by displaying God’s justice, that is to say the

282

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

“[B]ut it seemed good to the Lord, to show himself in this order to men that after they have divested themselves of all arrogance through recognition of their own poverty, have wholly cast themselves down, and have plainly become worthless to themselves, then at long last they may begin to taste the sweetness of the mercy which the Lord holds out to them in Christ. When this is perceived, they will recover their breath and take comfort, securely assuring themselves in Christ both of forgiveness of sins and of blessed salvation. On the other hand, those who do not strive to God by these steps will never attain this forgiveness of sins, which is the hinge of salvation.”15

Not only the cognitive process was concerned, because teaching (docere) was not conceived apart from what it brought about (movere).16 Therefore, the instruction was meant “for all persons zealous for piety,” as Calvin phrased it.17 The many kinds of teaching inside and outside the liturgy functioned as tools for offering the comfort and admonition of the law and gospel in a tailor-made justification that God demands of us, it reminds each person of his own injustice, makes him aware of it, and, to conclude, convinces him of it and condemns him.” The human soul is blind and drunk with self-love, full of weakness, impurity, and vanity, but man does not discover this by himself, through the measure of his own judgment. God’s law teaches man to discern his own value. The second function of the law is that of the usus politicus or civilis. It coerces those in society who refuse to listen sincerely. This is how people are controlled through their fear of punishment.Thirdly, through the law the new man becomes better acquainted with God’s will, and learns to obey and love it. This is the third function of the law (the tertius usus legis), the function it takes in the life of those who have been regenerated, the usus in renatis or normativus. Later on, Calvin was to call this third function of the law its principal function. In its third function the law is no longer external (externa legis doctrina); rather, it is intended for those who have been renewed internally by the Holy Spirit. In the catechism of 1537, this tertius usus legis was praised as “the law’s peace.” Thus the law is no longer a denouncer or accuser, but a lamp, our wisdom, and discipline. This is why for Christians the use of the law is very different compared to those who have no faith, “because where the Lord has inscribed in our hearts the love for His justice, there the external teaching of the law, which at first could only accuse us of our weakness and our errors, has now become a source of divine wisdom, that protects us and restores us to life.” OS 1, pp. 393–394, § 17 = CStA 1.1, p. 164 and p. 166. Calvin succeeded better than the other Reformers in calling into life and maintaining a somewhat ecclesiastical instance, next to the civil institutions, that upheld the law. 15 OS 1, p. 92; see also OS 1, p. 41 and p. 78. The heading to paragraph 11 in Calvin’s 1536 catechism reads: “That the law is a step to come to Christ.” OS 1, p. 389. 16 Millet: 1992, p. 215. From the very beginning of the Lutheran movement, the point of departure was the “sacrosanct Gospel of God’s glory and mercy” as “the word of salvation, the word of grace, the word of solace, the word of peace, the voice of groom and bride,” Luther explained in 1518 in the Resolutiones. This is how the true church can be recognised. Three years later, he refined this statement by emphasising that he had intended to refer more to ‘the spoken gospel’ than ‘the written gospel’. WA 1, p. 236 and p. 616 and WA 7, pp. 720– 721. Cf. the Bekenntnis der ostfriesischen Prädikanten (Confession of the East-Frisian Preachers) from 1528 in which during the preaching the necessity of the power of the Holy Spirit was professed “inder herten (in the hearts).” What matters is that it is God who speaks, “dat is Hi prediket.” Art. 2 and 6. Tukker : 1984, p. 123. 17 OS 1, p. 19 (Subtitle of the Institutes of 1536).

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

283

fashion, and for helping people to apply this in their own lives and to give shape to it in Christian society.18 Applied to the new form that Calvin had given to the Lord’s Supper and penance, this implied that every citizen had to be made familiar with the new doctrine and way of life, and had to agree with them. This ideal was to dominate Calvin’s life for the next quarter century, especially with a view to admission to the Holy Supper. He found the ecclesiastical penitential discipline to be “one of the most useful and salutary means granted by the Lord to His church,” since specifically they had degenerated into “one of the most pernicious and damned matters in the kingdom of the pope.”19 In Melanchthon’s and Calvin’s view, penance and forgiveness were closely connected.20 According to Calvin, a possible consequence of their separation was that confession of guilt and sorrow would be preached without the announcement of grace: “If we were only to preach penance and would leave aside the forgiveness of sins, what would be left for us to say? We could only stand perplexed.”21 Conversely, preaching forgiveness through faith without penance would be unbiblically one-sided. Sincere remorse and repentance are closely connected to the grace of the forgiveness of sins. Christian penance ensues from the gospel, and for Calvin it has an internal and external aspect. Calvin, who was sometimes immensely irritated by the style and content of the confessional 18 CO 1, pp. 704f. and CR 21, p. 494. Pitkin: 2004, pp. 278f. Hausammann: 1974, pp. 225–240 (Die Busse im Zusammenhang der Heiligung bei Calvin). In our description of the consistory as the replacement for the Roman Catholic confessional chair, it may seem that we have muddled several separate elements, such as confession, justice, supervision, discipline, counseling, pastoral care, punishment, admonition, etc. But in Calvin’s Geneva, all of these aspects were inseparably intertwined. This explains the impact which the confessional chair and excommunication had on the individual and on society. It was impossible for a person to live outside of this system, to be a full citizen or a good Christian. 19 OS 1, p. 372 = CStA 1.1, p. 120. According to Calvin, the third goal of discipline is the protection of the congregation, and this is related to his view on the risk of contagion. Furthermore, the Lord can punish a whole people for the sin of one person. This is how God’s wrath came down on all of Israel because of Achan’s looting, Calvin stated. In the absence of discipline, the danger arises “that the whole body is infected with evil and polluted,” which, according to Calvin, was the case in the papal church. CO 49 (1 Cor 5: 2), pp. 378–379. Vodola: 1986, pp. 42–43. 20 “We are to connect to each other (conjoindre ensemble) these two matters (penance and forgiveness). More specifically, that we are embarrassed about ourselves and that we then know that God does not want to make us accountable for our errors, because He receives us in the name of and by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. His obedience provides for everything we lack. Should we be godless and unhappy, Jesus Christ will take all of this away, because He is the source of all power. Were we to have only sin, He is justice.” We do not have to fear “that we will lack anything, when we have joined Him. Behold that we should not separate penance (la penitence) and forgiveness at all.” “We may not separate penance (penitence) and forgiveness (remission).” SC 8, p. 25 (sermon on Acts 2: 38). 21 SC 8, 24. Cf. UdV, art. 1–9.

284

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

literature and the related practice, worked ceaselessly to develop good and feasible alternatives for pastoral care with the right balance of inner sorrow and outward duties. Internal and external penance From the viewpoint of the history of religion, early Christianity as a whole can in retrospect be characterised as a baptismal or penitential movement. In light of the imminent day of judgment, converts, before being baptised, had to do penance while fasting and praying, confessing all of their earlier sins and then renouncing the devil and all his works and promising to persevere in a life without sin. Medieval penance and confession had an internal and an external function. They were related to the care for the guilty conscience and ecclesiastical supervision, or, in other words, for social control.22 In the sixteenth-century Reformation, the forgiveness of guilt and punishment became above all a matter of the preaching the gospel, and they were less one-sidedly connected to the sacraments. More than Luther and Melanchthon had done, Calvin drew attention to the external side of penance and confession, in relation to the preparation for the Lord’s Supper, but like them he was to circumscribe the internal side of penance as a life-long process, “a true turning of our life to God, a turning that arises from a pure and earnest fear of him; and it consists in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man, and in the vivication of the Spirit.”23 The more external and practical side becomes clear to us especially through the manner in which Calvin gave shape to penance and confession in Geneva, for example in the task he gave to the consistory as a place for the confession of sin and the exacting of penitential punishment, where forgiveness followed after evidence was given of sorrow and repentance. Luther assumed that the pure administration of Word and sacrament could not remain without fruit. Calvin fully endorsed this view, but for him this meant that in practice the effect of God’s grace and sanctification somehow had to become visible; in other words, for him also human and ecclesiastical responsibility were involved.

22 See ch. 1, n. 13. 23 OS 4 (Inst. 3.3.5), p. 60. For the permanent battle against sin in our lives and the continuous penance or repentance that is necessary in the Christian life, see also Inst. 3.3.9 and 10. Here Calvin follows Luther’s line. True penitence consists in a life-long conversion and continuous penance, not just of rites performed at fixed moments. This is how Calvin formulated it in 1541: true penance is not done for one day or one week, but it is characterised by being endless and by fighting a continuing battle (sans cesse) against the evil that is in us. See ch. 2, n. 42.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

285

When Melanchthon introduced the distinction within penitence between the mortification of the old man (mortificatio) and the vivification of the new man (vivificatio), Calvin could fully agree. But, he stated, in that case it must involve a true renewal of life, not just the inner peace of the conscience but also actual piety.24 For Calvin it was part of the task of the church’s office bearers to guide believers in this process. The internal and external functions of confession were viewed as necessary and experienced as salutary, and, according to Calvin, they were related to the mortification of the flesh and the vivification by the Spirit. Calvin called this process of penance, sorrow, and forgiveness the principal content of the gospel. After all, penitence comprises “one’s entire conversion to God.”25 The Reformation had come about after Luther came to view poenitentia as something positive, an attitude that must continuously characterise the life of each and every believer. Ten years later Melanchthon would again draw attention to the stricter side of penance, which ensued from the fear of God, as timor filialis; it therefore belonged to contritio, and was not merely negative as a form of attritio.26 What followed was the ideal of daily conversion. Calvin was not only fully to endorse this view, but he also gave more external shape to it, in part through the tight connection he drew between a well-organised and disciplined form of preparation for the Holy Supper. And while the former monk in Wittenberg had introduced a weekly administration of the Supper, Calvin, much to his regret, was unable to do the same in Geneva. Luther and, in his wake Melanchthon, strove for a constant penitence of the believer, but Calvin’s spirituality was additionally characterised by a persistent desire to live in Christ through the sacramental union of the Holy Supper, which in his view was to be consumed by the believer as often as possible. The importance of participation in the Lord’s Supper Already in the early scholastic period it was somewhat common to speak of the eating of Christ (manducare Christum), for example in Augustine. Also Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, names manducare Christum spiritualiter as the first of three kinds of eating.27 This eating amounts 24 CR 21, p. 215 and pp. 489f. and CO 1, pp. 687f. Inst. 3.3.5. Calvin was careful not to view faith too much as a part of penance. Pitkin: 2004, pp. 275–286. In her article Pitkin focuses primarily on the second edition of Calvin’s Institutes (i. e., on §§ 1–13 and 23–29) and on Melanchthon’s Loci communes from 1535 and Calvin’s Foreword to the French edition of the Loci eleven years later. Inst, 4.1.1, p. 9 and 10; see also Inst. 3.11.1; 3.2.8 and 3.3.3. 25 OS 4 (Inst. 3.3.1), p. 60. Similar is Luther’s thesis in 1517 WA 1, p. 207, p. 233 and p. 238. Hausammann: 1974, pp. 98f. 26 See ch. 5, n. 30 and ch. 6, n. 17. 27 Sent. IV d.9 q.1 art.2 cq.4.

286

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

to union with Christ in faith and love, in spiritual communion or personal communication. It is independent of the reception of the sacrament.28 The Reformed tradition would follow this view. For Zwingli as well as for Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is a spiritual meal. Zwingli emphasises the reception of communion with Christ in faith, which for him does not necessarily depend on the consumption of the sacrament. Zwingli stresses that the sacrament does not work of its own accord: “the one and only way to heaven [is] the firm belief in the Son of God as the infallible pledge of our salvation.”29 The subject of the celebration, in Zwingli’s view, is the congregation. They are made into participants of God’s salvation. According to Zwingli, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper should constantly remind the congregation, as the body of Christ, of Jesus Christ’s one sacrifice and of their duty to live as freedmen.30 In Zwingli’s view of the Eucharist, the emphasis rests on the ethical consequences for the congregation celebrating the Supper, because “those who trust Christ, must walk as he walked.”31 According to him, the celebration of the Supper, like the sacrament of baptism, is intended as a response to God’s actions. It makes a special appeal to the believer to live a Christian life. For Calvin, it is rather God who is the subject of the celebration. A central place is taken in not by man with his weak faith, but by God’s hidden power through the Holy Spirit. Through the holy sacrament, he causes man to partake in the mysterious union with Christ’s person and his work of salvation. Through this most sacred intervention of God during communion, Calvin also places great emphasis on preparation for a worthy and spiritual communication with God. The effects of the Lord’s Supper, such as the confirmation of faith, the gratitude for and assurance of eternal life, are for him mostly fruits of the continued operation of the Holy Spirit. For Calvin the body of Christ must be received in the sacrament in order to gain his benefits. Thomas Davis is entirely correct to ask why this is so. In answer to this question, Davis himself concludes that it is because of the role of Christ’s natural body in salvation.32 Within the context of a social-spiritual discussion in 1 Cor 10 and 12, Paul says that we have to discern the body (1 Cor 11: 29). For Luther this means one first had to discern the natural and true body of Christ. In 28 Eijk: 2010, p. 160. 29 “[U]nam ac solam esse in coelum viam, qua dei filium firmiter credo salutis nostrae infallibile pignus esse.” Zwingli: 1914, p. 785, l.4–6. 30 Zwingli: 1914, p. 807. 31 “Qui ergo eo [sc. Christo] fidunt, debent ambulare, sicut et ipse ambulavit.” Zwingli: 1914, p. 807, l.23f. 32 Davis: 2008, p. 164.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

287

other words, physical eating has to precede spiritual eating.33 For Calvin “discerning the body” means also in the first place the natural body of Christ, not the social and spiritual body of the church. Our salvation is fully connected to the sacrificed and glorified body of Christ.34 And this glorified body is now in heaven. For Zwingli that settles the case.35 For Luther and Calvin, however, that is not the case. For Luther the body was the guarantee of the certainty of God’s promises of forgiveness.36 His eucharistic theology was incarnationally-centred. For Calvin too Christians must substantially participate in the body and blood of Christ through union with His body in the present rather, than the remembrance of a past act. Although Christ’s natural body must remain in heaven (as Zwingli insisted), in Calvin’s eucharistic theology the Christian must be lifted up to heaven since Christ’s body is there.

33 WA 18, p. 136 = LW 40 (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525), p. 146. Cf. Gerrish: 1988, p. 379. Before 1520, the early Luther had a different view on the spiritual/social role of the church in the sacramental reception of the Eucharist. See for example his 1519 sermon “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods.” WA 2, pp. 742–758 – LA 35, pp. 50f. Indeed, Christ’s sacrifice of his body on the cross epitomized the significance of the social and spiritual body of Christians together in the eucharistic context: “I leave you this sacrament as a sure token of all this, in order that you may not forget me, but daily call to mind and admonish one another by means of what I did and am still doing for you, in order that you may be strengthened, and also bear one another in the same way.” WA 2, pp. 745–746 = LW 35, p. 55. Writing on 1 Cor 11: 29 (on discerning the body), Luther explained in this 1519 sermon the process of discernment, not in relation to the natural body of Christ, but in terms of 1 Cor 12, the spiritual/ social body of Christ: “Therefore take heed. It is more needful that you discern the spiritual than the natural body of Christ; and faith in the spiritual body is more necessary than faith in the natural body. For the natural body without the spiritual profits us noting in this sacrament; a change must occur [in the communicant] and be exercised through love.” WA 2, pp. 742–755, p. 749 and p. 751 = LW 35, p. 59 and p. 62. By 1520, Luther began to emphasize more the individual rather than the social aspect of the Eucharist. Therefore he didn’t related any longer Paul’s call to discern the body in 1 Corinthians 11 to the social body material of chapters 10 and 12. Luther made a shift toward individuality in the Eucharist, whereby the individual directs the social. Davis: 2008, pp. 152–156. 34 Gerrish: 1988, p. 395. 35 Concerning discernment, Zwingli stated: “What Paul has in mind here [1 Cor 11: 29] is that we must all go to the Supper worthily, that is, with a true faith, for those who do not go with a true faith are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not the body which we eat, but the real [natural] body which Christ gave in death.” Faith in Christ’s sacrifice created the bond that united Christians in one body, and by discerning Christ’s bodily work, one was then led to the ethical imperative to discern the social/ spiritual body : “Therefore, if we are members of his body,” Zwingli averred, “it is most necessary that we should live together as Christians, as Paul says.” Zwingli: 1526, p. 231 and p. 235. See also Davis: 2008, pp. 158–159. 36 Cf. Harnack: “The Eucharist must be conceived of as the parallel to and guarantee for the Incarnation.” Harnack: 1976, p. 263.

288

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Intermezzo Zwingli placed the emphasis on the reception of the communion with Christ in faith, which for him did not necessarily depend on a frequent consumption of the sacrament. To Zwingli, the Supper was the notion of an inward eating that controlled whatever meaning the outward celebration of the Eucharist would have. Inward eating and drinking provides for proper understanding and appropriation of the outward act of eating and drinking, and the inward must proceed the outward. What it means that Christ suffered for us is seen by those who have been taught inwardly by the Spirit to know the mystery of the divine goodness.37 As early as 1523 Zwingli used the notion of widergedächtnis (“remembrance”) in order to emphasise that the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is not repeated during the Lord’s Supper.38 When the church celebrates the Lord’s Supper, it remembers the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is important to remind ourselves here, however, that remembrance in faith means more for Zwingli than simply recalling that sacrifice to mind. Rather, it means also a renewed actualisation of the meaning of Christ’s death in those who partake of the sacrament. It is not about the past, but about the present of the congregation as the body of Christ.39 Accordingly, Zwingli understood the Lord’s Supper primarily as a “eucharist”, a thanksgiving.40 The church gives thanks to God for his grace and delights in redemption. Yet forgiveness is received not through the celebration of the sacrament, but through faith. And the eating of the sacrament leads to participation in and care for the social and spiritual body and its activities. Zwingli’s concern is thus more for the effect of the Lord’s Supper than the preparation for it. In celebrating Communion, the congregation obliges itself to act as a redeemed church community.41 The communicants are made participants of God’s mercy. As such Zwingli draws a social-ethical connection between the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper

37 Zwingli: 1531, pp. 258–261. 38 ZW 2, p. 111 (art. 18), l.30f. Plasger: 2001, pp. 105–114. 39 Gottfried W. Locher emphasises that widergedächtnis (“remembrance”) for Zwingli does not simply cause association “of the past, but of the present.” locher: 1969, p. 260. 40 ZW 8 (CR 95; Zwingli to Wyttenbach), pp. 84–89, p. 85, l.7. Cf. ZW 2 (CR 89; De canone missae epichiresis), pp. 552–608, p. 586, l.16. In his Commentarius he writes that Christ “wollte dass man mit diesem Abendmahl sein frohes Gedächtnis feiere, dass man ihm damit öffentlich danke für die Wohltat, die er uns gnädig erwiesen had.” ZW 3, p. 775, l.24–26. For Calvin the Supper is a gift, and the “gift is Jesus Christ himself.” Higman: 1970, p. 105, par. 11. Cf. Confessio fidei de eucharistica (1537) in OS 1, pp. 435–436 and Inst. 4.17.7,9. The human response to a gift is thanksgiving, that is why it is called the Eucharist, in opposition to the Mass, which instead is an atoning sacrifice that the people pay : “The sacrifice differs from the Sacrament of the Supper as widely as giving differs from receiving.” Inst., 4.18.7. gerrish: 1993, pp. 136f. 41 ZW 4 (CR 91; Aktion oder Brauch des Nachtmahls), pp. 1–24, p. 15, l.10–15: “Und so dise widergedächtnuss eyn dancksagung und frolocken ist dem allmechtigenn gott umb die gutthat, die er uns durch sinen sun bewisen hatt, unnd, welcher in disem fäst, mal oder danksagung erschynt, sich bezügt, das er deren sye, die da gloubind, das sy mit dem tod und blut unsers herren Jesu Christi erlöst sind.”

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

289

and daily life, for “they who trust Christ must walk as he himself walked.”42 This presumes a relationship between the work of Christ in the past and the celebrating congregation in the present as the subject of the celebration. At the Lord’s Supper those who belong to him are made contemporaries of God’s history, and participants of the death and resurrection of Christ.43 It is not the accomplished work that must be repeated or imitated, but the members of the congregation must rather be helped and confirmed in their faith in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. The believer must be reborn and “transformed,” so Zwingli explained in 1523. Even if we are in Christ, we walk in the flesh and sin, but faith in Christ causes him to live in us.44 The Lord’s Supper is an act in which our thankfulness is apparent, as well as our readiness to renew our lives.

Calvin emphasised above all that the Holy Spirit bridges the distance so that believers on earth can be joined to that life-giving body in heaven. But where the order is not closely guarded, Calvin warns, there lurks the danger of error, as when Zwingli focused in an overly one-sided manner on the fruits. In Calvin’s description of the mystical event of the Lord’s Supper as a metaphor of the Christian life we constantly hear, as an antiphony, the refrain that He must live in me and I in Him. Calvin understands this intimate bond not only spiritually, but also bodily. We might call this communion with Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper a returning double incarnation in which he shares in our humanity and we in his divinity. This may be why early on Calvin insisted on the term ‘substance’ in order to explain his view on the Lord’s Supper. “What we have said will be clearer if we consider that the office of Mediator is not a common thing – that is: to restore us to God’s grace in such a way that we are made His children, we who were the children of people; to make us heirs of the heavenly kingdom, we who were heirs of hell. Who could have done that unless the Son of God had been made Son of man and had taken our condition so as to transfer to us (prins nostre condition qu’il nous eust transfer¦ la sienne) what was His properly by nature, making it ours by grace? So we have confidence that we are God’s children, having the guarantee that the natural Son of God took a body from our body (prins corps de nostre corps), flesh from our flesh, bone from our bone (chair de nostre chair, os de noz os), to be united with us. What was properly ours, He accepted into His person in order that what was properly His might belong to us, and thus He had in common with us (communement avec nous; in commune ipse nobiscum) that He was Son of God and Son of man. For this reason we hope that the heavenly inheritance is ours, cause the unique

42 ZW 3, p. 807, l.23f.: “[D]ie also, die Christus vertrauwen, müssen so wandeln, wie er selbst gewandelt ist.” 43 locher: 1969, pp. 260f. 44 ZW 2 (Auslegung des 13. Artikels), pp. 72–73: “[W]ürt der mensch durch sinen Geist zu im gezogen und in inn verwandlet.”

290

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Son of God who completely deserves it, has adopted us as His brothers. Now if we are His brothers, we are His co-heirs.”45

This notion of participating in Christ’s flesh and bones in a non-spatial sense would continue to mark the Reformed experience of the Eucharist.46 We must be transformed bit-by-bit every day (journellement de plus en plus) into one substance (une mÞme substance) with Christ until he is fully one with us.47 In our desire for, and the necessity of, a substantial unification with Christ in this life, for Calvin the continuing renewal of our lives plays an important role. This transformation process was set out in the well-known 1549 consensus document on the Lord’s Supper created by Bullinger and Calvin: “Christ, being the eternal Son of God […] assumed our flesh, to communicate to us (afin de nous communiquer) by right of adoption that which he possessed by nature, to make us sons of God (fils de Dieu). This is done when ingrafted by faith into the body of Christ.”48 How exactly this happens is hidden from our sight, since Christ’s body is in heaven and we are on earth. It is the Holy Spirit who draws us and bridges the immeasurable gap for us. And to speak more plainly, Calvin says, “I rather experience [this mystery] than understand it.”49

2

Eucharistic piety especially in Calvin

From approximately 1200 onwards, two developments brought about a new ‘eucharistic piety’. In the course of the eleventh century, this new, eucharistically-centered piety developed from a Cistercian milieu by its orientation towards the person of Christ, a pursuit to unite oneself internally with Him.50 In the late Middle Ages the participant could communicate externally, but also in a purely internal manner.51 During the external sacramental communion the host was consumed, while ‘spiritual communion’ was understood as a purely internal act of faith, without consuming the host and independent of time and place. Theology took on an increasingly nuanced position with respect to the actual presence of Christ in the sacrament. In the liturgy the elevation of the host was 45 IRC 2, p. 617, l.3f = mckee: 2009, p. 223, l26f. Cf. Inst. (1559) 2.12.2 = OS 3, pp. 438f. 46 Inst. 4.17.17. Cf. Genevan Catechism, answer 345. 47 CO 1 (1545; De Fide 5.17), p. 463; somewhat further down this page we read: “Il s’unit journellement de plus en plus — nous en une mÞme substance jusqu’— devenir entiÀrement un avec nous (Latin: donec unum penitus nobiscum fiat).” 48 CstA, vol. 4 (Consensus Tigurinus; 1549), p. 14, art. 3 = OS 2, p. 247. 49 Ch. 9, n . 40 and see also ch. 3, n. 88. 50 See ch. 3, n. 27 and n. 28. 51 The differences in the spiritual experience of the sacrament at the same time show us the variation that exists in views on the Supper. See ch. 7.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

291

introduced during Mass, when the officiating priest raised the consecrated host over his head, so that the people would worship Christ while kneeling and looking at this elevation above the altar. In an intense desire for union with Christ, Thomas A Kempis prayed that his heart might be elevated to Christ in heaven: “Raise my heart to You in heaven (Erige cor meum ad te in celum) […] for You alone are my food and drink, my love and my joy, my sweetness and my total good.”52 As we have seen in chapters 3 and 9, Calvin in his own way agreed with the spirituality of this prayer. Time and again he draws our attention to the fact that we should not focus and linger on the earthly, visible, and transient elements and search for Christ and worship him there, as if he were enclosed in the bread and wine. Instead, we should look to Christ who is seated in heaven at God’s right hand: “But be this as it may, we must, to shut out all carnal fancies, raise our hearts on high to heaven, not thinking that our Lord Jesus Christ is so abased as to be enclosed under any corruptible elements.”53 Calvin gave this traditional call to prayer from the early Christian liturgy to lift up our hearts to heaven a central place and a new function in the Reformed liturgy of the Lord’s Supper. In the liturgy, the words of institution no longer sound during the prayer of consecration, but as a proclamation right before communion. The call to lift up our hearts to heaven is for him in fact a prayer, in which the Holy Spirit is asked to lead our souls into the kingdom of God (entrer au Royaulme de Dieu). For that is where he lives, and we are “nourished and restored to life through his substance.”54 Both central acts in Calvin’s view of the Supper (i. e., the offering and reception of the substance of Christ’s body) are done by God. This also applies to the elevation of the believer’s heart.55 A mystical union Similar to Thomas A Kempis, also in Calvin a melting with Christ takes place, a unification in which one dissolves into the other and in which the religious partaker ceases to live independently : He lives in me and I in Him, we repeatedly read in his form for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper which he drew up shortly after his treatise.56 In the eating and drinking of his body and blood, the communicants receive the whole Christ and through the operation of the Holy Spirit they partake in his death and resurrection and in the comfort of the forgiveness of sins and the assurance of eternal life. The connection between 52 A Kempis: 1441, 4.16.8–11. 53 Higman: 1970 (see ch. 3, n. 7), p. 130 = § 60; see also idem, pp. 121f = §§ 41, 43, 52, 56; cf Col 3: 1 and A Kempis: 1441, 1.1.20. 54 See ch. 3, n. 34. 55 See ch. 9.3. 56 See ch. 3, n. 33.

292

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

heaven and earth and between the visible and invisible world is, according to Calvin, brought about in the heart by the Holy Spirit and embodied, signified, and sealed by means of the holy sacrament. In Calvin’s view it is only in receiving the sacrament in faith that “we are truly made partakers of the real (propre) substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” This more or less turned faith into an organ for receiving Christ and his salvation.57 That Christ offers himself in the sacrament is one thing; that we truly receive him is another. Christ’s offering of his body and blood do not depend on faith, but their reception does. But also this faith is not a meritorious contribution from our side, Calvin says, just as little as the elevation of our heart up to God in heaven is, but it is rather the work of the Holy Spirit. Thomas too believes that we are united with Christ through faith alone.58 Then, as we have seen, a turn takes place. The Beloved receives the task to make “a big lavishly served dinner table” of his heart (cenaculum grande stratum), because we belong together, and you therefore give yourself to me: “I am He to Whom you should give yourself entirely, that from now on you may live, not in yourself, but in Me (non in te, sed in me), with all cares cast away.”59 For Calvin the mystical union with Christ does not only happen in the future, but also in the present during the celebration and, according to him, it can take place in heaven as well as on earth. Paradoxically it seems that there first has to be some kind of “union with Christ” before participation in the unio mystica in the sacrament is possible.60 The miracle of invisible union with Christ is an “incomprehensible secret” that needs to be visualised in order to strengthen our faith, but it surpasses human comprehension, Calvin writes. “As the bread is distributed by hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us, so that we are made partakers of it.”61 In its emphasis on a spiritual celebration, the Reformed eucharistic spirituality of Calvin would develop along the trajectory of a spiritual form of communion that was not totally independent of the reception of the sacrament. Calvin’s experience of the Lord’s Supper betrays a deep connection with currents from the aforementioned eucharistic spirituality, although he did have his own understanding of it. One might think, for example, of the threefold way (De triplici via) of one’s personal relationship with God as described by the Franciscan monk Bonaventure (d. 1274), for whom unification with Christ formed the final goal of spiritual life. In order to achieve this goal one had to – 57 58 59 60 61

Higman: 1970, p. 130 = § 60; cf. idem, p. 118 and p. 125 = §§ 38 and 51. A Kempis: 1441, 3.11.5–9. A Kempis: 1441, 3.12.3 and 23. See ch. 3, the passage after n. 38f. OS 5, Inst. 4.17.1, p. 342 and OS 1, Inst. 1536, p. 118. Cf. Inst. 4.17.7 and 18. Higman: 1970, p. 107 = § 17.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

293

with the assistance of the church – walk the via purificativa and the via illuminativa, a way of purification and discipline. In his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper Calvin placed the final goal of unio mystica cum Christo up front, and located the two other viae in the preparation for the Holy Supper that was indissolubly tied to it the Eucharist – that is, the testing of one’s own conscience in combination with an examination carried out under the guidance of the church with a view to the sanctification of act and thought, whereby the process of church discipline and purification came to be closely tied to the Lord’s Supper.62 For Calvin the test of one’s own conscience prior to the celebration of Holy Communion was a required element: “Each individual in his own place ought to prepare himself to receive it whenever it is administered”.63 “Never will we lift up our hearts enough in him unless they be previously cast down in us.”64 Yet we must first be aware that it is “all our good to be in him, ourself to be nothing apart from him […] in him we become God’s children and heirs of the heavenly kingdom,” and that, “if we partake of Christ, in him we shall possess all the heavenly treasures and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which lead us into life and salvation.”65 “Through him we are reborn, wrested from the power and chains of the devil, freely adopted as children of God, sanctified for every good work. […] Through him we are renewed from day to day, that we may walk in newness of life and live for righteousness.”66 According to scholastic theology, communion was a ‘sacramental unification’ with Christ – not an immediate unification with God, but a mediated one. Immediate unification would only be possible in heaven.67 In this way, there was an upper limit to the degree of mystical unification that could be achieved during communion.68 In his theology of the Eucharist, Calvin combined the sacramental-mediated and spiritualunmediated unification with God in a strikingly dialectical way.

Calvin’s dialectical line of reasoning In chapter 3 we noted that for Calvin a paradoxical tension plays an essential role in his thinking with regard to our union with Christ in communion. Transubstantiation destroys the healthy tension: sign becomes signified. Without spiritual union the mystery is gone. Calvin formulated a dialectical solution to keep 62 For these three steps (purification, illumination, and union) in Calvin, see Inst. 3.7.1f. The beginning is the denial of ourselves (sortir de soi), that is, believers are ‘to present their bodies to God as a living sacrifice (en hostie vivante), holy and acceptable to him (Rom 12: 1) and in this consists the lawful worship of him.’ Inst. 3.7.1. 63 Higman: 1970, p. 114, § 29. 64 OS 1, p. 60. 65 OS 1, p. 41. 66 OS 1, p. 40. 67 Denzinger/ hünermann: 2001, nr. 1000, pp. 406–407. 68 The Brabant mystic Jan van Ruusbroec argued that unification with God in Communion does not have the perfection it will have in heaven. caspers: 2006, p. 166.

294

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

sign and res signified together as a transcendent mystery without identifying any material or finite locus with God, and he also attempted to preserve both distinction and conjunction, distance and proximity, in explaining the relationship between Christ’s body and the sacramental signs. It is necessary to go beyond the wine and bread because they are signs and not the reality. So Calvin can say that the Eucharist is the presence of Christ in a physical sense, and that it is not. The sacrament has reality and validity to the degree that the earthly sensible signifies the heavenly intelligible. The mysterious communion is in his view both immanent and transcendent, sacramental and spiritual, practical and mystical, ecclesiastical and personal. The holy communion takes place in heaven and on earth. In the sacramental communion, the union between God and man happens when the communicant consumes the visible signs, but in reality the most important part is hidden behind those signs. Calvin applies this notion of the presence and absence of Christ to the Lord’s Supper.69 The communion with the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper “is a spiritual mystery, which cannot be seen by the eye, nor comprehended by the human understanding.” Sign and signified must be distinguished; this “is not only good and reasonable but wholly necessary. But to divide them so as to set them up the one without the other is absurd.”70 For many, however, Calvin’s theology of the Eucharist still seemed to offer too little support. In Calvin’s opinion, the Eucharist does not concern the historical body of Christ, but rather the mystery of the body of the God-man Christ. The sacrament connects the visible and the invisible world, and at the same time binds people on earth. The communicant is intensely and actively present, but at the same time as participant he is not active at all.71 The communion, which according to Calvin should be received as often as possible, and the constant preparation for it, is not just an internal matter in which the mystical union with Christ takes place, but it also has an external,

69 The fact that man is created tragically reveals the natural limitations of space and time, especially through death, which signifies human incapacity par excellence. “[T]he relation between man and God [is] as one of presence-in-absence,” concludes the orthodox priest John Zizioulas. Zizioulas: 2006, p. 249. 70 Higman: 1970, p. 107, l.7 = § 15: Ainsi en est il de la communication que nous avons au corps et au sang du Seigneur Jesus. C’est un mystere spirituel, lequel ne se peult veoir — l’œil, ne comprendre en l’entendement humain. […] De les distinguer — ce qu’on ne les confonde pas, non seulement il est bon et raisonnable, mais du tout necessaire. Et de les diviser pour constituer l’un sans l’autre, il n’y a ordre. 71 Cf. ch. 3, the passage between n. 90 and n. 92.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

295

substantial side, as Calvin had already emphasised since 1537.72 For Calvin the Lord’s Supper had to be both spiritual and substantial. The fact that Christ’s body and blood are offered in the bread and wine is very real to him; it cannot be conceived in a materially-substantial manner, but must rather be thought of in a spiritually-substantial manner, and yet we should not linger on the transient elements.73 This is how Calvin responded to the all too one-sidedly spiritual view of the Zwinglians, as well as to the all too materiallysubstantial view of the Lutherans and the papal theologians. For Calvin, the Lord’s Supper was a communal event. It was to be celebrated in the liturgical setting of a service in the midst of the congregation. During the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass, on the other hand, usually only one or two people were present and no one, not even the priest, actually had to participate in it. The Protestants changed this. They referred to the meal of the Lord and celebrated the Eucharist in the midst of the congregation out of principle. In Calvin’s view, everyone who had reached the age of discernment and who was not under discipline was to participate. The same duality of the communal and individual can be found in the preparation for the Lord’s Supper. It is clear that Calvin opposed the existing tradition with its endless celebrations without participants, or rather even with spectators at a distance (Augenkommunion, or “eye communion”).74 In the established Roman Catholic church the liturgy centred around the moment of the consecration, even when the people communicated in a spiritual sense alone, and did not communicate or hardly ever communicated sacramentally. After the Reformation had declared its opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation, it was the consumption of the elements of the sacrament rather than the consecration that occupied the centre stage. At the same time, Calvin acknowledged that the Holy Supper is a mystery that can be experienced better than it can be understood.75 Like Luther in Wittenberg, Calvin from Geneva defended a frequent, preferably weekly celebration of the sacrament during the service. 72 Different from Luther, his followers introduced the term ‘consubstantiation’ later on. For Luther the “Christ that is present in the Supper” is “not a ‘substance’ that is located in the host, but the omnipresent Christ who wishes to commune with us in external signs here and now.” Kooiman: 1962, p. 150. 73 The spiritual presence of Christ is, for Calvin, as true as the bodily presence, but referring to it as a spiritual presence does better justice to the “truthfulness and glory (waarachtigheid en heerlijkheid) of the human nature of Christ,” Bavinck concludes. Bavinck: 1887/2009, pp. 115f. Cf. Higman: 1970, pp. 120ff = §§ 41, 43, 52, 56, and 60. 74 Caspers: 1995, pp. 83–97. 75 See ch. 9, n. 40.

296

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

In the established church, the sacrifice of the altar and its related prayers were mainly seen as a gift of man to God, but now the Eurcharist was restricted to God’s gift to man. Also the relationship between the administration of Word and sacrament underwent a change. For Calvin it was important that church people, wherever possible, understood the meaning of the acts, and he was critical of the many inessential rites in the established church that he described as aping (singerie).76 “For the proper and chief substance of the Supper is lacking, that the mystery be well explained to the people, and the promises clearly recited, instead of the priest muttering to himself apart without sense or reason.”77 But although it was important to Calvin for the meaning and use of the Lord’s Supper to be clearly explained, his eucharistic spirituality also had mystical streaks. With the communal celebration of the Lord’s Supper he followed the practice of the early church, where believers gathered daily for instruction, prayer, the breaking of bread, and communion. At the heart of the set prayers of Calvin’s Lord’s Supper liturgy is the salvation of the individual believer, so that the communicant may be nourished by the power of God’s Spirit and experience communion with Christ individually and in communion with all saints. The Reformers considered it important that the sacrament was administered in the midst of the church, and was not celebrated in private Masses or with only the priest communicating (and sometimes not even him!): “Where there is no communal table for all believers, where they are not invited to a communal breaking of the bread, and where finally believers do not share amongst each other, there one falsely speaks of the Lord’s Supper,” says Calvin.78 As such, the Lord’s Supper obtained an increasingly obligatory character for Calvin, together with the prayer for unification in that one, holy communion. Yet with a specific interpretation of the “communion of saints” as the communion of the members of the (local) church, the Reformed eucharistic spirituality would go on to obtain a more horizontal significance. Calvin interpreted the element of communion diaconically, so that the ecclesiastical gatherings not only had a purely spiritual aspect, but also a social aspect.79 It can be argued that Calvin emphasised the communal aspect of the Lord’s Supper, since in his view the community was shaped in the celebration.80 76 Higman: 1970, pp. 123–124 = §§ 47 and 48; he also speaks of ‘acting’ (bastelerie) and ‘sorcery’ (sorcelerie). 77 Higman: 1970, p. 124 = § 48. 78 CO 49 (1 Cor 11: 24), p. 485; See Speelman: 2010, p. 539. 79 In his commentary on Acts Calvin describes communicatio in terms of “mutual association, alms, and other duties of brotherly fellowship.” McKee: 1984, p. 79. Especially when the sacrament is celebrated, “we mutually obligate ourselves to each other as if by contract, for all the duties of love/charity, so that none of us may do anything by which he may wound his

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

3

297

Calvin’s desire for a very frequent celebration of the Holy Supper

When he first came to Geneva Calvin immediately introduced a proposal to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at least every Sunday, and he continued to harbour this ideal throughout his entire life.81 With this ideal of a weekly communion he followed the former monk Martin Luther from Wittenberg, as well as the former priest Martin Bucer in Strasbourg, who both – in contrast to the former priest Ulrich Zwingli in Zurich – had introduced in the 1520s the possibility for every believer to participate in communion every week again. The notion of a weekly lay communion was nothing less than a revolutionary liturgical renewal. Since there appear to be little to no indications at all in Calvin for his desire for a very frequent communion for laypeople in their liturgy and life, his pursuit must be explained from his view on the Lord’s Supper, since the frequency of celebration depends on “the end for which our Lord intended it.”82 The passage where Calvin makes this statement treats the necessity of a valid excuse for absence from Communion: “As to the time of using it, there can be no certain rule for all. For there are certain particular impediments which excuse a man for absenting himself. And besides we have no express command, constraining Christians to make use of it every day it is offered to them. However, if we have careful regard to the end for which our Lord intended it, we should realize that the use of it ought to be more frequent than many make it. Therefore, the custom ought to be well established in all Churches, of celebrating the Supper as frequently as the capacity of the people will allow.”83

80

81 82 83

brother.” It is necessary that, “without exception, no assembly of the church was held without the word, or almsgiving, or participation in the Supper, or prayers.” McKee: 2009 (Calvin’s Institutes), p. 568. See also n. 121. See Schrage’s extensive commentary on the first letter to the Corinthians (1999) at 1 Cor 11: 29, EKK VII/3, p. 51: “The central notion is the orientation of the Eucharist to the congregation as the body of Christ constituted by the supper.” In this same line Reformed theologians like Conrad Mönnich and Gerrit van Niftrik, pointing to Karl Barth, argue that the Lord’s Supper is about “the sacred marriage between Christ and the church as his bride.” For, as they see it, the Lord’s Supper means “that the church in its earthly form of a Religionsgemeinschaft already is God’s dwelling-place among humankind, the Bride of Christ.” For this reason the Lord’s Supper must have for them, as a matter of principle, a place in every worship service. Yet the reality is that “we in Protestant churches now have a proclamation of the Word that has extracted itself from the sacraments.” Mönnich/ Niftrik: 1958, p. 71, with a reference to Barth: 1946, KD 2/1, pp. 179f. See ch. 6, n. 32. Higman: 1970, p. 114, § 29. Higman: 1970, p. 114, § 29.

298

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Just like the established church, so also Calvin emphasised the obligatory character of the Lord’s Supper.84 It is only as an exception that someone may have an excuse for not participating in communion. Although scholarship has paid little attention to Calvin’s motives, his insistence on a weekly communion runs like a red thread throughout his work. In our consideration of the reasons that have been given for Calvin’s insistence not on an annual celebration, but rather on a celebration of the Lord’s Supper that is at least weekly and is held every time the church assembles, some are more plausible than others. A number of good reasons for celebrating the sacrament, its communityshaping or unifying effect, the sanctification of church and society, and the valuable ethical and social-civil fruits of communion, do not sufficiently explain why Calvin favoured a weekly if not daily Communion.85 On the basis of his theology of the Holy Supper I come to a enumeration of several arguments that plead for a frequent celebration, namely the Christological motive of purification and sanctification through Christ (1); the pneumatological-mystical motive (2); the ecclesiastical-liturgical motive (3); and, finally, the heavenward directed-eschatological motive (4). (1) The motive of purification and sanctification through Christ a) The substantial communion with Christ’s body and blood is our daily food, and for Calvin this is indeed how true life as well as the justice and mercy of God taste. There is no life anywhere else but in you, o Lord, Calvin says, and “our souls have no other pasture than Jesus Christ.”86 If we were angels, we would need no sacraments, but “we are so rude and earthly, we need help.”87 “For if we were incorporeal (as Chrysostom says), he would give us these very things naked and incorporeal.”88 The body is the obstacle: “Shut up as we are in the prison house of our flesh,” Calvin wrote with the Platonic flavour of his anthropology, we need 84 Genevan Catechism, answer 363 and also answer 362, CO 6, p. 131–132 = OS 2, p. 142. Speelman: 2010, p. 402 and p. 540. Calvin wrote against the canon law : ‘plainly this custom which enjoins us to take communion once a year is a veritable invention of the devil’. OS 1, 149. In his criticism of this same canon 21, Luther, who was fiercely opposed to ecclesiastical coercion, insisted that it was diabolical to demand of people to attend the Eucharist once per year. In Reformation times good citizenship not infrequently required such annual participation. 85 I treat this in more detail in an upcoming article in Journal of Early Modern Christianity. 86 Higman: 1970, p. 102, § 4. See also ch. 9, n. 4. 87 CO 49 (17th Sermon on 1 Cor 10–11), p. 793; cf. p. 798: “we are so weak in faith and rude.” Cf. Inst. 4.14.6 where Calvin used the word tarditas, slowness, dullness, lumpishness. Wim Janse notes that Calvin’s use of the term ‘substance’ to have become more and more a synonym for ‘content’, ‘essence’ or ‘main point’, as by his 1558 sermons on 1 Cor 10 & 11; similarly in the 1559 Institutes. Janse: 2008, p. 62. Inst. 4.17.11. 88 Inst. 4.14.3; the French adds ‘sensual’.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

299

sacraments.89 Two things are presented to us in the Supper according to Calvin: “Jesus Christ as source and substance of all good; and second, the fruit and efficacy of his death and passion. This is implied also by the words which are there used. For in commanding us to eat his body and drink his blood, he added that his body was delivered for us, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins.”90 And another purpose of the personal sacramental union in which he presents his body to us, is to signal and confirm the promise by which Jesus Christ says to us that “His flesh is truly food and His blood drink by which we are fed for eternal life” (John 6: 54–55). For He certifies that He is the bread of life; anyone who eats of this will live forever (John 6: 48, 51).91 The spiritual communion in the holy sacrament ensures that we “cease to live to the world and the flesh, and that God himself may live in us (que Dieu luimÞme vive en nous).”92 “For the chief thing is that he cares for us internally (int¦rieurement) by his Holy Spirit,” Calvins says. “It is a spiritual mystery, which cannot be seen by the eye, nor comprehend by the human understanding. It is therefore symbolized by visible signs, as our infirmity requires, but in such a way that it is not a bare figure, but joined to its reality and substance.” It is said expressly of the body and the blood, “in order that we learn to seek in them the substance of our spiritual life (la substance de nostre vie spirituelle),”93 for that is for body and soul the daily food by which we are sustained. b) A large part of Calvin’s teaching is devoted to the way in which a person comes to possess Christ and his grace, that is, to the appropriation of salvation.94 The question concerns the way in which we come to share in the God-man Jesus Christ: “First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value of us. Therefore, to share with us what he has 89 Inst. 4.1.1. Frequently the body is compared to a prison cell. Inst. 1.15.2; 2.7.13; 3.2.19; 3.3.20; 3.9.4; 4.1.1; 4.15.11 and 12; 4.16.19. See Blocher: 2014, p. 74. 90 Higman: 1970, p. 105, § 11 = OS 1, p. 507. Again and again—in the Petit traict¦ de la saincte cÀne alone eighteen times!—Calvin returns to the fact that he truly feeds us ‘with his own substance’ (de nous repa„tre de sa propre substance)’ (§ 18). 91 IRC, vol. 2 (ch. 12), p. 1334–1335 = mckee: 2009, p. 548. There does, however, remain a paradox in the position Calvin assumes. On the one hand, he is insistent that a sign is nothing but itself; on the other hand, he emphasises our need for signs as vehicles to carry our minds to see things we otherwise could not perceive. See ch. 3, n. 24. 92 TT: 1958, vol. 2 (Consensus, art. 4), p. 213. 93 Higman: 1970, p. 109 and pp. 106–107, § 19 and §§ 13–15 = OS 1, p. 508–510. 94 Cf. the beginning of book III of the Institutes: People remain outsiders “as long as Christ remains outside of us (extra nos est Christus) and we are separated from him.” Christ’s human nature remains useless and without any value as long as he does not become ours (nostrum fieri) and live in us. Inst. 3.1.1 (1536). OS 4, p. 1. See ch. 11, n. 8.

300

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us (qu’il soit fait nútre et habite en nous). For this reason, he is called ‘our Head’ (Eph 5: 15), and ‘the first-born among many brethren’ (Rom 8: 29). We also, in turn, are said to be ‘engrafted into him’ (Rom 11: 17), and ‘to put on Christ’ (nous sommes ent¦s en lui et le vÞtons; Latijn: donec cum ipso in unum coalescimus; Gal 3: 27). For, as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him (nous soyons faits un avec lui).”95

There is a double mystical implantation here. On the one hand Christ “is made ours” and “lives in us,” and on the other hand we are “implanted in him” and united with his divinity and humanity. It can be compared to the branch on the vine, which lives and bears fruit by the grace of the uninterrupted presence of divine sap: “Whoever remains in me, with me in him, bears fruit in plenty ; for cut off from me you can do nothing” (John 15: 5f). In order to be able to continue to grow and bear fruit, God’s juices must continue to flow through us.96 c) For Calvin the process of dying and sanctification is first of all a matter of the individual and his personal salvation, where the pastoral guidance of the church’s office-bearers play an important and dominant role.97 The ideal of the reformers was for someone to die off daily (mortificatio) in his penitence and to share in the suffering, death, and life of Christ. In the wake of his holy baptism, man dies to himself every day again and receives a part in the renewed, resurrected life of the God-man Christ. In this personal battle against sin and evil and for the righteousness of God and the good, a Christian cannot do without sacramental union with Christ. Moreover, as the other side of the coin and continuing on from his baptism, there is the sacramental unification with Christ in the Lord’s Supper of those who receive a share in the life-giving power of the resurrection (vivificatio) and thus in the continual renewal of life. Calvin concludes: “Though we have no express command about the time and the day, it should be enough for us to know that the intention of our Lord is that we use it 95 Inst. 3.1.1. See ch. 9, n. 17f. 96 Inst. 2.3.9. Cf. mckee: 2009, p. 85–86. 97 The necessity of daily conversion is comparable to the ideal of the imitation of Christ in the spirit of the devotio moderna-movement, where imitatio and imitari with the aid of the Holy Spirit with Word and sacrament is the free, personal, and inner representation of the image of God. See ch. 3, n. 3. Van ‘t Spijker has argued that the late medieval piety ideal of the representatives of the devotion movement does not fit with Calvin’s world. In this context he points out that the notion of imitatio does not occur often in Calvin, and that where it does occur, it has a different connotation; furthermore, instead of devotio Calvin is said to use the term pietas, and intimacy becomes internality. Yet, although it is true that in the sixteenthcentury Reformation there were different accents than for Thomas a Kempis, for example, one wonders whether this applies also to Calvin’s view on the Lord’s Supper with its mystical traits. Spijker: 1988, pp. 148–149.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

301

often; otherwise we shall not know well the benefit which it offers us.”98 In Calvin’s theology daily penance and conversion are for that reason closely connected to the worthy reception of the sacrament in faith and full awareness. In all of this the first concern is not so much for the congregation as a whole as for the eternal salvation of the individual members, who share through the Lord’s Supper among other things in the cross of Christ and in the resurrection of the God-man Christ. d) In the chapters of the Institutes dealing with the Lord’s Supper Calvin makes it clear that the Eucharist involves an exchange, where our mortality is traded in for his immortality : “Our souls can receive from this sacrament a great sweetness and fruit of consolation in recognizing that Jesus Christ is so incorporated (insertus) into us and we into Him that we can call all that is His ‘ours’ and all that is ours we can call ‘His’. […] This is the exchange which He has made with us by His infinite goodness: that in receiving our poverty He has transferred to us His riches; in bearing our weakness He has confirmed us in His power ; in taking our mortality, He has made His immortality ours; in coming down to the earth he has opened a way to heaven (il a fait voie au ciel); in making Himself Son of man, He has made us children of God.”99

This close unification between Christ and the Christian does not effect a mingling but an exchange (commutatio). Jesus Christ is given to us by the Father as the bread of life (John 6: 48) and ‘He made us participants of His divine immortality.’100 The Christian does not experience that bond with Christ through the Lord’s Supper alone. Nevertheless, the continuous fusion in body and soul remains for Calvin a very important reason for celebrating Communion on a highly regular basis. It can be compared to such well-known biblical images as the putting off of our own old clothes and the putting on – as God’s chosen and beloved saints – of his new clothes, which we do every day again (Eph 4: 17f; Col 3: 5f).101 Why would anyone keep his filthy rags on if a spotless, clean wedding garment is ready, with which we may gain entrance to the Royal banquet (cf. Matt 22: 11)? What a homecoming that is! It is to enter heaven and to find pasture there in the form of a non-material banquet so as to share in the new life of

98 Higman: 1970, p. 114, § 29. 99 OS 1, p. 137 = OS 4, p. 344. IRC, vol. 2 (ch. 12), p. 1332–1333 = mckee: 2009, p. 546–547. See also Keller : 2001 (ch. 10: La cÀne mystique), p. 157f. 100 OS 1, p. 138. mckee: 2009, p. 548. Cf. Luther who spoke about a “marvelous exchange (mirifica commutatio).” Inst. 4.17.2. 101 There is also the image of the exchange of our perishable with his glorified, imperishable clothing (1 Cor 15: 42f; Eccl 12), or the image of us being clothed from heaven in our naked bodies when we come home and enter God’s dwelling (2 Cor 5: 2). See also ch. 3, n. 32.

302

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Christ. To put on Christ is to clothe ourselves with him, and this is what the Christian does every day again. (2) The pneumatological-mystical motive a) If, however, believers receive what the sacrament effects by faith alone, why then should they partake of it so frequently? In the spirit of the late medieval penitential piety, yet without its traditional sacrament of penance, the emphasis in Calvinist spirituality came to be placed on personal mortification. This means that the participant must sanctify himself in preparation, something that in medieval spirituality is sometimes expressed with the term ‘dying off’.102 “Indeed, the very word mortificatio – a part of the repentance – we infer that we are not conformed to the fear of God and do not learn the rudiments of piety, unless we are violently slain by the sword of the Spirit and brought to nought. As if God had declared that for us to be reckoned among his children our common nature must die!” These things happen to God’s children “by participation in Christ,” so Calvin argues.103 Our dying off is ideally total, just as our devotion to and unification with the Other. Based on faith in a relationship with God through a personal and direct bond with Christ that is directly effected by the Spirit, the Lord’s Supper for Calvin obtains a place for regular believers to die daily and be filled with the transforming power of Christ’s love (Rom 8: 36) and that is so central that he favours a highly frequent celebration. b) Paul points to the unification of man and woman in marriage, when a man “joins himself to his wife and they become one body” (Eph 5: 31; cf. Gen 2: 24).104 The relationship between Christ and Christians is seen as an intimate, transcendental relationship of marriage: flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones.105 This typically Reformed bridal mysticism, which is effected by the Holy Spirit, brings it about that God and man ‘possess’ each other : “And when nothing more 102 With a reference to Paul, Calvin warned for going to communion in an unworthy state (Higman: 1970, p. 109, § 20; see 1 Cor 11: 27f). According to Calvin, a correct state of affairs regarding the Supper demands from people that they test themselves and that they have themselves examined by church officials prior to the celebration. Higman: 1970, p. 115, § 31. Partly because of the revaluation of the role of the communicant, he also gave a central position to a sound personal preparation for the Supper. The participant is called upon to examine in himself whether and, if so, to what extent he renounces himself and repents in obedience to God’s law. Because real repentance and a true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ are two aspects that are intertwined to such an extent that one cannot exist without the other, they are two sides of the same matter (Higman: 1970, p. 109–111, §§ 21, 22, and 24). See also ch. 9, n. 15 and about the chief reasons produced by people for not participate in the Supper ch. 9, n. 16. 103 Inst. 3.3.8 and 9. 104 Cf. mckee: 2009, ch. 12, pp. 555–556. 105 See n. 47. For Luther see Vogelsang: 1938, pp. 72f.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

303

is added to that, we have good reasons to be pleased that we understand that, in the Supper, Jesus Christ gives us the proper (propre) substance of His body and blood, so that we may fully possess Him and possessing Him, partake in all His blessings.”106 This unio mystica, which is effected by the sacraments, is like a sacred marital bond by which we become flesh of his flesh. In the application to the Lord’s Supper, Calvin’s thought is imbued with intimate and affective images, such as the marital relationship, the relationship of parent and child, or of God’s housemates (domestiques de dieu).107 A central place is occupied here by the (unexpressed) orientation to Christ. For our entire life, in our prayer, our acts, and our thoughts, is directed to Christ who is in heaven. This wonderful (bridal) mystical bond with Christ is for Calvin a practical rather than speculative knowledge of the Other whose I am and want to be: “This Union alone […] is served by that sacred wedlock (le marriage sacr¦) through which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone (Eph 5: 31), and thus one with him (comme un avec lui). But he unites himself to us by the Spirit alone. By the grace and power of the same Spirit we are made his members, to keep us under himself (pour nous retenir — lui; ut nos sub se contineat) and in turn to possess him.”108 The intimate bond between Christ and Christians as effected by the Holy Spirit is experienced by them as a marital relationship, and must for that reason be maintained as often as possible, since believers live in Him. This is how the Lord’s Supper in Calvin’s view obtains a mystical signification. c) But for Calvin the Lord’s Supper is not only a (purely) spiritual but also a sacramental mystery, an event in which we share in a substantial manner in Christ’s exalted humanity, notwithstanding the fact that his body is and remains in heaven. It is above all a matter of the communication with the entire Christ, a mystical union with this heavenly God-man. “It is that all benefit which we ought to seek from the Supper is annulled, unless Jesus Christ be there given to us as substance and foundation of all (comme substance et fondement de tout). […] Moreover, if the reason for communicating with Jesus Christ is 106 Higman: 1970, p. 107f, § 17. Par. 17 continues: “Thus, as a brief definition of this benefit of the Supper, we may say that Jesus Christ is there offered to us that we may possess him, and in him all the fulness of his gifts which we can desire; and that in this we have great assistance in confirming our conscience in the Faith which we ought to have in him.” Cf. CStA 2, 208, l.44: “afin que nous le possedions entierement en telle sorte, qu’ il vive en nous, et nous en luy.” See ch. 3, n. 20 and n. 40f. For Luther see Vogelsang: 1938, pp. 68f: Possessing Christ is not a matter of mind, but of real presence. 107 Catechism of Geneva, answer 42. 108 Inst. 3.1.3. This is echoed in Calvin’s Commentary on Eph 5: 3 where he indicates that by saying that we are made members of Christ’s flesh and bones, Paul is expressing “something higher and more emphatic” than Christ partaking of our human nature.

304

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

in order that we have part and portion in all the gifts which he has procured for us by his death, it is not only a matter of being partakers of his Spirit; it is necessary also to partake of his humanity (participer — son humanit¦) […] For when he gives himself to us, it is in order that we possess him entirely (afin que nous le poss¦dions entiÀrement).”109

Human beings will not be quick to claim that they possess God. All the same, that is the very language Calvin employs when he speaks about the Lord’s Supper. In the Holy Supper Christ makes himself the common property of all believers, Calvin insists, no believer possessing any greater or lesser participation in Christ or any of his benefits than the others.110 The children of God, who are “ingrafted into the body of Christ,” live in Christ by continually communicating with him. And how does Christ communicate with us (Quomodo se Christus nobis communicet)? In that he “be made one with us, and we be ingrafted into his body (confondions en un seul corps avec lui; in eius corpus coalescere oportet).” This infusion of His life into us “makes increase of the body in the proportion of each member.” Those who had already long been made partakers of Christ “continue and renew that communion,” but only after “the substance and the reality of communion” have already been realised within us. It would be shameless to “call upon God as our father, if we are not members of Jesus Christ.” If we are, however, we will be all the more justified in attending. Calvin establishes a connection between the relation to God that the believer needs to have prior to attending, and the necessity of his desire to maintain this relation. It is this intense desire to strengthen that bond and to maintain the union with Christ and to nourish it that forms Calvin’s point of departure.111 Every meeting elicits the desire for a next meeting. d) Calvin in his theology reserved a very special place for the Holy Spirit. The Spirit works personally and internally in every believer because he makes people penitent, he works repentance and bestows faith. But also in a more outward fashion and in general terms he does his work in the liturgy, where he is called upon in the prayer for illumination prior to the preaching. Thus we see than, that it is the Holy Spirit who descends in the act of the Eucharist to raise believers up. 109 Higman: 1970, p. 105–106, § 12 and 13 = OS 1, 508. 110 Inst. 4.17.38. Cf. Bucer : 1969, p. 182, pp. 236–259. See also Horton: 2010, p. 410. 111 CStA 4 (art. 3, 5, 9), pp. 14, 16, 18. When we have first experienced ‘the taste of sweetness’ of this spiritual bread, we start to long for it more and consume it every time it is offered to us (§ 32). This returning and increasing desire for communion with Christ in the Supper is typical for Calvin. According to him, our soul constantly needs bread form heaven, just like our bodies cannot go without earthly food. He is certain “that it is the intention of our Lord to use the Supper often; otherwise we will not fully experience the blessings which are granted to us in it.” Higman: 1970, p. 114, § 29.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

305

And the “Spirit reforms whatever is vicious in us, that we may cease to live to the world and the flesh, and God himself may live in us.”112 Because “we draw life from the flesh once offered in sacrifice and the blood shed in expiation,” there takes place as we saw a substantial transfusion of the participant, but not of the elements of the Holy Supper.113 In our service to God, so Calvin writes, we present “our bodies to God as a living sacrifice (en hostie vivante), holy and acceptable to him.” It is not that the body of Christ must be sacrificed again and again, but we ourselves, our bodies as hosts and as living sacrifices of thankfulness and “in this consists the lawful worship of Him” (Rom 12: 1).114 For that reason the Lord’s Supper must be celebrated not only on the great feast days, but as often as possible, so that this holy liturgy might set the tone in regular, everyday life. More so than, and in some ways differently from both Luther and Zwingli, Calvin stressed that the Kingdom of God is both internal and external. It has to do with the individual heart and conscience, as well as with broad support of strict church practices and well-crafted Calvinistic liturgical forms. But all of that under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose work is without end and takes place always and everywhere where people are gathered in his name. (3) The ecclesiastical-liturgical motive a) The Reformers sought to give new meaning to the centuries-old customs of the established church. In Calvin’s Geneva dozens of worship services were held every week, even apart from other kinds of assemblies where, for example, Bible studies were held. By having the Lord’s Supper celebrated not only on the great feast days, as was the case in Bern and Zurich, but every week or at least every month, Calvin attempted to undo as well as he could the medieval distinction between secular and sacred days. And by disconnecting the Lord’s Supper from specific religious feast days, he paved the way for the Lord’s Supper to exercise an influence also on everyday, civil life. In this way the church calendar was increasingly secularised, while conversely the religious significance of the liturgy was bolstered. Christian Grosse has rightly argued that it was Calvin’s intention to bring regular life and the liturgical season so close together that regular, daily life would become more spiritual. The administration of Word and sacrament could effect a constant sanctification of society in the form of greater obedience to God and self-denial.115 Therefore is needed a new daily rhythm and liturgy of the hours. 112 113 114 115

CStA 4 (Consensus Tigurinus, art. 4), p. 16. CStA 4 (Consensus Tigurinus, art. 23), p. 26 = TT: 1958, vol. 2, pp. 213–219. Inst. 3.7.1; see n. 63. Compare A Kempis, OO 2, p. 112: “non quero datum tuum sed te.” Grosse: 2008, ch. 5.1 : ‘La fr¦quence des c¦l¦brations de la cÀne’, pp. 286–294, p. 289.

306

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

b) For Calvin the ideal thus appears to be a ‘daily communion’, similar to the way in which Luther in following Augustine spoke of a ‘daily baptism’, that is to say a daily communion alongside a daily baptism. While in ascetic circles of the early church in the time of Tertullian, penance was avoided as much as possible simply by the avoidance of sin. But for the great mass of believers this had become an unattainable ideal and it is for them that the Christian life is described above all in terms of a ‘daily penance’.116 Using the very same terms of Augustine, Luther would in his Large Catechism describe the Christian life as a ‘daily baptism’, just as earlier he had spoken of the sacrament of penance in the spirit of a ‘daily penance’, “that the entire life of the believers (omnem vitam fidelium) be penitential.”117 In this same line Reformed Protestantism too would make a distinction between a ‘first or initial’ and a ‘continual or daily repentance’.118 For Calvin too the life of Christians is marked by daily penance or conversion, and, in line with this, by the daily participation in the living bread of grace through the administration of both the Word and the sacrament. c) Because in the medieval period set prayers at set times structured the rhythm of life, people were accustomed to pray every day for their daily bread. As such ‘bread’ in the fourth petition of the Lord’s Supper must be understood not only as the physical but also the spiritual food, the bread of life (i. e., both God’s Word and the Lord’s Supper), since people are composed of body and soul and since both need daily sustenance. The Reformers too applied the petition for daily bread to spiritual nourishment. Pierre Viret, for example, did so in his explanation of this petition in 1548: “I admit that what this petition of Jesus Christ encompasses consists more of spiritual than corporeal matters (comprend plus

116 In his work Concerning Repentance, which he wrote against the Novatians, bishop Ambrose of Milan (ca. 333–397) speaks about a ‘daily penance’ alongside ecclesiastical penance in the context of the forgiveness of sins; the former, however, applies to less serious sins alone (II 10, 95). In his Sermon to the Catechumens on the Creed Augustine mentions the great humiliation of penance (7, 16). See above p. 30. Here too the term paenitentia is reserved for ecclesiastical penance, while ‘daily prayers’ suffice for less serious sins. In another sermon he even spoke of a ‘daily baptism’ that is received through the Lord’s Prayer (213, 8, 8). However, in a sermon held in the year 395 he did refer to a threefold paenitentia: the paenitentia of catechumens in preparation for their baptism by which the “new man” is born in them; the “penance of believers” for “daily sins”, which he there calls “daily penance”; and the public penance of those who have fallen (351, 3, 5). What is remarkable is that for both Ambrose and Augustine the ideal of the sinless life of those who have been baptised, which in the first centuries of the Christian church had formed the point of departure for every view on penance, appears to have been abandoned definitively. 117 See ch. 2, n. 5. 118 See ch. 5, n. 13.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

307

les choses spirituelles, que corporelles).” But God has also decided “in this mortal life (en ceste vie mortelle) to make the [body] like the glorified body (au corps glorieux) of Jesus Christ, and to cause it to share in its immortal and divine nature.”119 And if we pray daily for this manna from heaven, it only makes sense that we also receive it daily.120 d) In regard to Acts 2: 42 Calvin had also been thinking of a new interpretation of the daily routines, and probably with regard to this proof-text specifically of doing certain things together at fixed moments, such as teaching, the congregational chanting of prayers from the Old Testament prayer book, participation into the body and blood of Christ, in conjunction with the faithful and loving care for the needy neighbour. And his ideal of an eucharistic liturgy in a new Reformed style was from the beginning a very frequent (i. e., ‘at every gathering of the congregation’) communication with Christ through the Word and the Holy Supper, as in the early church. Aside from that he created space in the liturgy for the sharing of brotherly love and care through the offering of alms. Calvin gave also a fixed place in the liturgy to communion through the taking of an offering for diaconal purposes.121 119 Viret: 1548, pp. 374–375. In his exposition of the petition to “give us this day our daily bread,” Viret treats at length the meaning of the word ‘daily’, which some understand as “supernatural or metaphysical (supersubstantiel, ou superessentiel),” but which “can also be suitably rendered as ‘continual’ (continuel), ‘successive’ (ensuyuant), and ‘regular’ (ordinaire), as when one says: ‘Lord, pasture us, feed us, not only today, once or twice, but every day, tomorrow just as much as today and in fact all the days that follow’.” Viret: 1548, p. 437. He who “nourishes our bodies with physical bread in this temporal life is also pleased to feed and perfect us with the true bread of life.” Thus we eat “at his table, in his Kingdom, according to the promises he gave to his apostles of this meat (viandes!) and these drinks (breuvages!) of immortality that he has prepared through Jesus Christ our Lord for all those who love him in truth.” Viret: 1548, p. 447. 120 Viret remarked in this respect: “It is necessary for us to have certain hours to assemble together, both for the preaching (sermons) and catechism instruction (Catechismes), as well as the celebration of the sacraments (Sacremens) and the public prayers. And depending on the times and places and chances and opportunities they may be more or less.” Viret: 1548, p. 570. In his prayer of confession of the set Genevan liturgy (La forme des chantz et priÀres eccl¦siastiques), Calvin prays that God’s gifts of grace may increase and be fortified day by day (de iour en iour). CStA 2, 162 = OS 2, 18. Cf. La maniere de celebrer la cene: “affin que de plus en plus nous desirions de vivre et demourer en Christ (c’ est a dire de manger la chair et boire le sang du Seigneur).” CStA 2, p. 194, l.12f. For the Lord’s Supper is for those who are worthy of and greatly desire (capables et desirent grandement) the body and blood of the Lord, and “who already live in the Lord and long for that life in him to increase […] and that they may hunger for that food unto eternal life (de vie eternelle).” CStA 2, p. 194, l.22–33. 121 However, the place of a sacrifice or offering in the Roman Eucharistic liturgy traditionally existed, first with the gifts people brought in natura, and from the eleventh century onwards increasingly in the form of money. In his commentary on Acts (1550) Calvin described communicatio in terms of “mutual association, alms, and other duties of brotherly fel-

308

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

The practice of the apostolic church, as recorded for us by Luke in Acts 2, is to Calvin’s mind so very different from the custom of the papist church: “Matters were to be so managed that there should be no meeting of the church without the word, prayers, and the communion of the supper.”122 Could it not be that Calvin thought that our daily celebration and sharing in communion through the work of the Holy Spirit – with the Word-sacrament-prayer-offering scheme – is the only right way in which we time and again become enriched together, by possessing in him eternal life and all his benefits? (4) The heavenward directed-eschatological motive a) God’s children experience life according to a heavenly liturgy, in communion with all saints and looking ahead to full unification with Jesus Christ as their true final destination. Calvin lived his life with his face turned towards the light, and therefore experienced life although mortal and surrounded by death above all as being in the midst of eternal life.123 The heavenly bread nourishes and strengthens, and the believing, mortal man longs intensely for it in his orientation to heaven: “For this spiritual bread is not given us in order that on the first occasion we eat our fill of it; but rather that, having had some taste of its sweetness, we may long for it the more, and use it when it is offered us.”124 b) In opposing the theory of a local presence and the practice it supported, Calvin used the liturgical call to point (elevate) one’s heart up to heaven. It expresses an orientation to (life in) the Kingdom of heaven. It is a dynamic act that we find in his liturgy, both in the epiclese, the prayer for the presence of the Spirit in the sacrament, and in the sursum corda, the call to lift up the hearts to Christ in heaven.125 Intermezzo In the Reformed liturgy of the Lord’s Supper a special place was given to the sursum corda (“lift up your hearts”), which can already be found in the order of the early Christian church described by the Roman presbyter Hippolytus (ca. 215) and came to be known as the eucharistic prayer, and which mentions the elements of thanksgiving, remembrance of the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ, the words of

122

123 124 125

lowship.” Indeed he made a distinction between koinoonia as expressed in a eucharistic community and that of fraternal love or charity. McKee: 1984, p. 79. Inst. 4.17.44. OS 1, p. 130. See ch. 8, n 20. 1537 Geneva decided, against Calvin’s wish, to follow the practice of Zurich and Bern: four celebrations in Zurich beginning in 1525, and three in Bern starting in 1529. Calvin also opposed a monthly celebration. Grosse: 2008, p. 288. See ch. 6, n. 4 and 6. Higman: 1970, p. 116, § 33. See ch. 3, n. 34 and n. 89.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

309

institution, and the prayer for the Holy Spirit.126 The Lutheran and Anglican churches continued to follow the order of the Mass, including the dialogue with the sursum corda prior to the prayer. The Reformed followed the late medieval ministry of the Word with a simple communion for believers at set times. Several Reformed churches would rework it into their own order of worship, where the sursum corda sometimes received a place as the final and definitive ‘elevation’ following the prayer read before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.127 Farel thus located it right before communion at the end of a long exhortation as a call to lift one’s heart and as an invitation to participate, and began that exhortation as follows: “Lift up your hearts, and seek the heavenly in heaven, where Jesus Christ is seated.”128 Of ourselves we are not capable of this knowledge of and communion with God, and we also cannot lift our hearts up where Christ is in heaven. Here too man depends on the Spirit of God. By the effective working of the Spirit, says Calvin, “the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain that pours into us the life springing forth from the Godhead into itself.” We are related to Christ not only generically as fellow humans, but soteriologically, pneumatologically (which is not the same thing as ‘spiritually’), mystically, and eschatologically.129

In the Reformed liturgy, the words of institution no longer sound during the prayer of consecration, but as a proclamation right before communion. The call to lift up our hearts to heaven is for him in fact a prayer in which the Holy Spirit is asked to lead our souls into the kingdom of God. For that is where He lives, and we are “nourished and restored to life through His substance.”130 Both central acts in Calvin’s view of the Supper (i. e., the offering and reception of the substance of Christ’s body) are done by God. This also applies to the elevation of the believer’s heart.131 In this way, Calvin gave this traditional call to prayer from the early Christian liturgy to lift up our hearts to heaven a central place and a new function in the Reformed liturgy of the Lord’s Supper. As a result, it also received 126 In the introductory dialogue of the eucharistic prayer the Sursum corda is found between the greeting of the people and the thanksgiving or eucharistic prayer. The bishop says Sursum corda, and the people respond with Habemus ad Dominum (“We have them with the Lord”). 127 In Zurich 1525, Basel 1526, Bern 1529, Frankfurt 1530, and Württemberg 1536 the Sursum corda motif does not appear, but it does appear in Neuch–tel 1533, GenÀve 1542, the London refugee church 1550, Scotland 1556, and electoral Heidelberg 1563. Lurz: 1998, p. 335. 128 Calvin in Geneva, Micron and A Lasco in Londen, John Knox for Scotland, and the Reformers in Heidelberg each followed Farel’s example in their own way in order to emphasise that the eating and drinking at Holy Communion is the sign and seal of a spiritual reality that is given to believers from heaven. Knox’s final sentence, for example, reads: “For the only waye to dispose our soules to receiue norishment, reliefe, and quikening of his substance, is to lift vp our mindes by fayth aboue all thinges wordlye and sensible, and therby to entre into heauen, that we may finde, and receiue Christ, where he dweleth vndoubtedlye verie God, and verie man, in the incomprehensible florie of his father, to whome be all praise, honor and glorye now and euer. Amen.” CD 1, p. 475f. 129 Inst. 4.17.8. Calvin, Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Eph 5: 30–31. 130 See n. 125. 131 See ch. 9, n. 46.

310

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

a place in the heart of the mystery of the unio mystica cum Christo worked by God’s grace and Spirit in the Holy Supper. By the repeated sacramental unification with Christ, God’s Spirit brings delightful spiritual fruits and, as a result, also social-civil effects. Calvin suggests that for someone who “does not want to receive the Eucharist,” it is impossible to “pray to God.” Typical for Calvin is that an existing relation with Christ forms the basis of the Holy Communion.132 The basis for a frequently recurring sacramental meeting is by Calvin not in the first place daily penance or conversion, but an already existing bond of faith. At the heavenly table, our existing relationship with Christ is strengthened and the promises of the gospel are sealed. It would be highly unfitting for someone like Calvin with his orientation to God’s Kingdom to attend if we do not desire to dwell in this mysterious house of the Heavenly Father forever. In both Roman Catholic and Zwinglian conceptions, the Eucharist was in Calvin’s view chiefly a human work, either of offering Christ again for sacrifice or else of remembering and pledging. And yet, Lee Palmer Wandel concludes, the “the Supper, for Calvin, was not ‘external’–a ceremony […] nor even ‘worship’ in the sense that other evangelicals, such as Zwingli and Luther, used: a mode of honouring God.” Rather, it is a means of binding us together more and more with Christ in an ongoing relationship in which Christ “is made completely one with us and we with him.”133

4

The central role of the preparation for the Lord’s Supper

In the late medieval period, preparation for the Eucharist consisted of the consideration of the Easter mystery combined with a religious acceptance of the doctrine of the church, showing remorse and repentance during confession, and a wholehearted love (affection) for Jesus.134 Because many consciences were tormented by the question of their worthiness for participating in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and out of fear of the judgment, people usually chose spiritual communion, which for that matter had to be prepared in the same way. By introducing a mandatory Easter communion, the ecclesiastical authority suppressed the general tendency to avoid the Lord’s Supper.135

132 133 134 135

Higman: 1970, p. 115, § 30. Wandel: 2006, p. 171. Horton: 2010, p. 409–410. See ch. 3, n. 67. See Higman: 1970, pp. 114f = §§ 30–32. See also ch. 3.2 and 7.1.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

311

For Calvin the unio cum Christo is the most essential element of the Lord’s Supper, and on this point he found himself in line with Thomas a Kempis and many others. It is a miraculous meal, which the believer does not merely undergo, but it changes him as well. We become one with Christ without ceasing to exist on our own. In addition, the food differs from any other food and the salutary participation in the mysterious meal is brought about by God himself, although man has to be well-prepared in order to receive it worthily. Different from the sacrament itself, preparation for the Holy Supper is not merely a divine act in which man participates only passively. This preparation for the meal is for Calvin both a personal and a communal event. A person has to examine his conscience and walk of life introspectively, and see to what extent he is remorseful for his sins and has the intention to turn away from them. To this end a special week of preparation had been called into existence in Geneva, preceding every celebration of the Holy Supper. On the preparatory Sunday the believer was admonished to mortify himself (Þtre en la mort).136 For Thomas and Calvin, preparation was a process of self-sacrifice and self-denial. On the Lenten Sundays leading up to the Easter communion, extra attention was given in Geneva to the suffering and death of Jesus in preparation for “this holy and sacral mystery” and with a view to the imitation of Christ.137 During the rest of the year the preparation for the Lord’s Supper lasted a week. The four preparatory periods marked both ecclesiastically and civilly a separate period in Genevan society, in which, among others, the responsible instances (such as the city councils, the consistory, and the Company of Pastors) critically examined themselves in doctrine and life on a ‘jour des censures’.138 Because Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper is centred around the tight bond of communion with Christ, it was necessary for him that sinful man be taken by the hand beforehand – voluntarily or involuntarily139 – and be led to the Lord. The penitent had to be made aware of his error, and had to convert from it before he could receive forgiveness and reconciliation and admission to the holy communion with Christ. Although many were brought to repentance after a single refusal, often a longer period was necessary for the process of coming to insight 136 137 138 139

SC, t. VIII (preparatory sermon 25 August 1549), p. 390. Grosse: 2008, p. 313. Grosse: 2008, p. 315. RCP, t. I, p. 5. Grosse: 2008, pp. 316f. Shortly after the discussion with Calvin from 30 January 1560, Geneva’s Great Council again laid down some new laws on 9 February 1560. Firstly “that the office of supervisor (la superintendence), that is specific to the church, serves to bring all (tous!) Christians to the obedience and to the true service of God and to prevent and correct scandalous behavior.” The admission to and barring from of the Holy Supper was the ultimate means to achieve this. OS 2, p. 362, art. 168 = CStA 2, p. 274.

312

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

and conversion, which implied several visits to the consistory and sometimes also a second refusal. After all, Calvin was mainly concerned with “the inner renewal of the conscience” which brings forth true betterment in life, different from the confession of the established church, in which, according to him, there may have been talk of sorrow and repentance, but people in fact stayed fixed upon the external. His criticism on the confessional and penitential practice of the established church in his days was extremely sharp, especially in the Institutes. While he insisted on a greater focus on the internal, he placed great emphasis on a correct preparation for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as also certain factions in the late medieval period had done. Also on this point we can compare him to Thomas a Kempis and the confessional practice of the established church. Calvin incorporated into his own confessional and penitential system a considerable number of elements from the very same Roman Catholic institution which he despised so much. One of the clearest examples is the very tight connection between Eucharist and discipline in the form of an annual mandatory confession or account in the church. At the same time this reveals that a horizontal, socialethical component is also present in Calvin, next to the vertical, pastoral-spiritual component. Calvin’s confessional and penitential system, on which he worked for nearly a quarter of a century and which we have elaborately discussed in chapters 7 and 8, in many respects resembles the practice of the late Middle Ages, aimed at promoting order and unity through supervision and discipline. By asking from the ordinary lay believer that he actively engage himself as a Christian for church and society and to go to communion regularly, he not only had to change the traditional ecclesiastical system, but he also had to make people aware, through education and counsel, of the evangelical way of life. In addition, the Holy Supper was for him only salutary when it was received out of an existing bond of faith (manducatio piorum). For these pastoral tasks he needed ecclesiastical workers who were to function as assistants to the pastors. This became the lay office of the elder. More than Luther and Zwingli did Calvin, in the spirit of a member of the modern devotion movement like a Kempis, call attention for the importance of preparation for the Holy Supper. In this respect he also referred to the danger of God’s judgment if someone was in fact unworthy.140 Due to the greater value that was now given to the role of the communicant, personal preparation for the Lord’s Supper took on such an important role in Calvin. The participants were called to examine to what extent they were pen140 Higman: 1970, pp. 109f, §§ 20f.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

313

itent, were willing to deny themselves, and obediently subjected themselves to God’s will. For a correct state of affairs connected to the Lord’s Supper, it was necessary for Calvin, as we have said, that the communicants examine their own conscience in a form of self-examination141, but he also insisted that they should be examined by their ecclesiastical office bearers. Furthermore, believers even had the task of supervising their fellow believers. The final responsibility lay with the ecclesiastical society. The Genevan consistory was to become a remarkably decisive organ that interfered in almost every aspect of society. Every week it gathered for one part day, and when its institute had finally settled in well at the end of the 1550s, each year approximately six to seven percent of the adult population was summoned by the consistory. The registers of the Genevan consistory show that the organ had at least three basic functions in preparation for the Supper : it functioned as an educational institution, as a compulsory counselling service, and as a kind of court.142 More than the Reformers of Wittenberg and Zurich and more than has been assumed up until now, Calvin with his institutions sought to connect to several earlier penitential and confessional practices from medieval Genevan society, prior to the Reformation.

5

How the new penitential and eucharistic piety was received in the Netherlands

Ecclesiastical supervision and discipline were tightly connected to the process of the administration and reception of Word and sacrament. The aim of church discipline did not stand on its own, as was claimed later on, as if Calvin was concerned with “a pure church, a visible and exclusive community of saints.”143 Because many had come to view discipline as a separate, third mark of the church as established, for example, in the Belgic Confession adopted by the Dutch churches, for later generations this interpretation of Calvin’s penitential and confessional system seemed substantiated.

141 See ch. 2, n. 29. 142 Kingdon concluded, after he had studied the 21 parts of the register of the Genevan consistory from 1542 to 1564. See ch. 8, n. 6f. Matters that abundantly came to the fore were: “cases of idolatry and other kinds of superstition, disrespect towards God, heresy, defiance of father and mother, or of the magistrate, sedition, mutiny, assault, adultery, fornication, larceny, avarice, abduction, rape, fraud, perjury, false witness, tavern-going, gambling, disorderly feasting, dancing and other scandalous vices.” Viret: 1872, pp. 72–78. Duke: 1992, p. 48. 143 See ch. 8, n. 3 and n. 108.

314

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

For Protestants, penance and conversion were no longer meritorious, but they were still necessary for a person’s spiritual health. In his pursuit of wholeness and sanctity and the penitential discipline connected to it, Calvin always kept an eye on the salvation of the believer and his entrance into the kingdom of God. People needed to be assisted in the practical appropriation of what is offered to them by divine providence through the administration of Word and sacrament. When, in the beginning of the 1570s, the persecutions in Holland and Zeeland had passed, the Reformed churches chose to connect pastoral care to the Holy Supper, but they did not apply this to all church people. Even when the Reformed church had become the official church under a Reformed government, access to pastoral care and the Holy Supper could only be acquired when one had become a member. This connection between a specific membership procedure and admission to the communion of the Lord’s Supper stemmed from the time when the synodicals had to operate very carefully as churches-under-the-cross. Furthermore, the age at which one could become a member was raised from about ten to fifteen years, and participation in the Supper was not compulsory for members.144 This meant, de facto, that a significant part of the church people were not allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper and could only make use of the administration of the Word and prayer and, where necessary, the administration of baptism. An entire part of the population was therefore excluded from the ecclesiastical confessional or penitential practice, which was mainly 144 There is little information about the age at which profession of faith was made in the Netherlands, a practice that had taken the place of baptism. In the initial phase of the Reformation, young people of about the age of fourteen took confession, and later on this age was moved up to sixteen or older. Regular catechism instruction for children and young people did not exist for a long time. Under Calvin it became a common practice for the school master to take the children to the catechism service. OS 1, p. 169 = OS 5, Inst. 4.19.13, p. 447. In the Low Countries, taking confession was referred to as “turning to the congregation or turning to the Supper,” which implies that also in the Netherlands the church was primarily seen as a Lord’s Supper community. Although the so-called “lovers of the Reformed religion” had indeed been baptised and loyally attended church services, they did not attend the Eucharist and in this respect did not yet belong to the church, despite their baptism. In the foreword to the Latin edition of the Genevan catechism, Calvin discusses the replacement of confirmation as a preparation for the catechumen’s first communion. “We are to devote ourselves to it with all means, that among us that unity of faith, recommended thus strongly by Paul, should become strong again. For this purpose, the solemn confession of faith, which makes part of the common (or general) baptism (quae Baptismo communi annexa est), should become a common practice again. It is therefore desirable, that not only a continuing unanimity among all should exist with regard to the doctrine of faith, but also that all churches should have but one catechism.” OS 2, p. 71 and p. 73. For Calvin the three characteristics of a true Christian were his agreement with the confession, his life, and his participation in the sacrament. Cf. OS 1, 89. In the Netherlands, these features of the believers were connected to church enrolment. Speelman: 2010, ch. 11, n. 49 and n. 109.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

315

meant as a display of mutual involvement and affection in preparation of the Holy Supper. As a result, avoidance of the Lord’s Supper declined considerably among those who did have access.145 Different from what Calvin had envisioned, this attitude of the synodicals caused the public church factually to cease to be a communion of the Holy Supper, a place where all Christians gathered and shared communion with Christ together as believers. Those who voluntarily chose for membership in the institute of the church within the public Reformed church then formed a separate group within the ecclesiastical society. Within that ecclesiastical society, members held a separate status. They called each other “housemates of faith” and, as said, they had access to the Lord’s Supper. The Reformed authorities had a very different view of the introduction of “the Reformation or Reformed religion.” They held the view that the church and its services were not only meant for a small part of the population, but “for all Christians of an irreproachable life,” and this applied especially to the administration of the sacraments. For this matter, the authorities appealed to Calvin, although their opinions with regard to the issue of the discipline of the Lord’s Supper were more in line with the church of Zurich, where ecclesiastical discipline was entrusted fully to the Reformed magistrate and where it was separated from the Eucharist.146 How did the penitential and eucharistic piety take shape in later Protestantism? In answer to this question we briefly paused to consider the question how Calvinism received its shape and content in the Low Countries after the church, from the beginning of the 1570s, in large parts became the only official church. In the previous chapter we discussed the turn in ecclesiastical life in France from 145 In the 1570s on the whole few people in the Low Countries participated in the Holy Supper. The number of communicants was relatively small, especially compared to the local population. In 1573 Dordrecht counted 570 communicants. In Nieuwe Niedorp 63 participants were counted in 1574, and four years later there were nine more. In East Frisia, where Protestantism experienced no resistance, it was noted in 1576 that in many villages the Lord’s Supper was never or seldomly organised and that when the Supper was celebrated, there were only four or five communicants who attended. Sehling 7, p. 437, art. 14. Forty years later, in 1606, the rural ministers of the province of Utrecht reported to the provincial synod that the Lord’s Supper was administered in only half of their 41 villages, and that where it was administred the Holy Supper was usually attended by no more than a dozen communicants. Bor : 1679, vol. 1, bk. 12, fol. 37, p. 968. Tukker : 1965, p. 76. Duke: 1990, p. 211 and p. 270. For an overview of the amount of church membership in twelve locations of the Netherlands in 1572–1579, see Benedict: 2002, p. 191. 146 Brandt: 1671, vol. 1, pp. 551–552. The governments’ view on the church was often more similar to the practices in Zurich than those in Geneva; in other words, there was a disconnect between penitential discipline and participation in the Lord’s Supper. Because the magistrate’s aim was to locate the leadership of the church under his jurisdiction, it seemed that they had Calvin on their side. Yet they envisioned a very different form of the church’s existence. See Speelman: 2014, ch. 4.

316

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

1559 onwards. The French Calvinists had their own Reformed confession published. The church in Scotland and the Netherlands followed soon after, and in this process confessions received a new church-constituting, political significance. A turning point was reached in the beginning of 1562, when the French government recognised the Reformed church as a church next to the existing established church. Ecclesiastical pluralism had become a fact in Europe. From 1572 onwards, religious and ecclesiastical life in the Low Countries was to be marked by this turn. A long dispute arose about the manner in which religious life was to be given shape, particularly because the representatives of the Reformed church and the civil magistrates had different ideals in mind. For religious life and, more specifically, for the penitential and eucharistic piety of the ordinary Dutch church people, the consequences of this disagreement were to be of great influence up until this very day. What had started with Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin as a piety movement within the existing church had, in the meantime, become even more than a significant political factor. In the Netherlands the final result was a compromise between state and church, due to which the Reformed state church no longer allowed the entire Christian society under its wings by abandoning the unity of what it had originally been: a broad communion of the Supper, which so pervaded society that one could say that it formed its foundation. From then on, only a select company of like-minded people were granted access to its communion of the Holy Supper, and the related close involvement with fellow man and his eternal salvation. The consequence was that from then on, the scope of penance and Lord’s Supper in the Protestant piety movement of the sixteenth century was to disappear largely from Dutch society.

Conclusion In this summarising final chapter we mainly focused on how the new spirituality took shape in religious life, and how this new ecclesiastical practice was adopted by later generations. In Wittenberg this happened partly due to the church and school visitations from 1527 onwards and Melanchthon’s Instructions. Some years later, Calvin was to place his mark on the new Reformed spirituality from Geneva. In his view, this implied that the Lord’s Supper had to be prepared and spiritually experienced communally as well as individually. The aim of Calvin’s institutions for penance and confession, such as the yearly home visits in Geneva, the monthly confessional duty in Strasbourg, and the waiting room of the Genevan consistory which grew fuller by the week, was not the creation of a holy church or a Christian society functioning as well as possible, although the ameliorations in this respect and in the behaviour of the

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

317

people were indeed a welcome bonus. The aforementioned organs were necessary in order to prevent abuses that could call God’s punishing wrath over the whole society, and in order to assist church people in living with God. The administration of Word and sacrament were the central poles of the experience of this mystery.147 The work of the consistory aimed at attaining improvement, forgiveness, reconciliation, and eternal salvation. However, for Calvin divine salvation was not brought about through a congregational communion, regardless of how many pious people attended. Quite the contrary! In his view, people, including the religious church people, were so depraved by nature and inclined to evil that they had to be continuously corrected and helped in their walk towards the kingdom of heaven.148 For Calvin, the spiritual union with Christ at the table of the Lord was an alldetermining mysterious event that connected one to the heavenly Lord in a miraculous manner. For his followers, Calvin developed his own version of an eucharistic piety led by the Spirit, which in several respects is very similar to that of such reform movements as the devotio moderna of the fifteenth century. Christ’s body remained in heaven, yet believers partook in the body of Christ during the Lord’s Supper, even though during the celebration he was not tangibly present in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist in a material sense. This happened in a secret manner by the Holy Spirit. Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper therefore had mystical characteristics. The communicant does not remain fixed on the visible signs, “but by those steps (which I have indicated by analogy) rises up in devout contemplation to those lofty mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.”149 A number of good reasons for celebrating the sacrament frequently were listed above. First the longing for union with Christ is for Calvin like a new life rhythm, and forms an important christological motive of purification and sanctification through Christ’s body and blood for partaking frequently of the eucharistic elements. The institutions that Calvin created (e. g., home visitation, the consistory) to replace the system of penance and confession of the established 147 From the beginning Calvin, in line with the Fourth Lateran Council (Canon 21), demanded that the church’s office bearers be given the right to examine every person in ecclesiastical society with a view to access to the Eucharist. See ch. 8, n. 121; see also ch. 6, n. 40 and ch. 8, n. 86f. 148 See, for example, ch. 8, n. 122. 149 Inst. 4.14.5. Benoist, a Frenchman and adversary of Calvin’s view of the Supper, concludes that Calvin’s doctrine of the sacrament was comparable with Plato’s concept of participation. On the one hand Calvin argues for sacramental communion, but on the other hand the believer does not halt at physical sight, but rises up in contemplation of those lofty mysteries that lie beyond the elements. See ch. 10, n. 78f.

318

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

church of his time must be situated in the context of preparation for the Lord’s Supper. Their purpose related to the admission or barring of people from the table of the Lord through repentance and confession, forgiveness and reconciliation. Complete trust in Christ replaced confidence in one’s own faith and worthiness. For this reason the troubled conscience constantly sought the comfort and peace of acceptance through Christ, and the communion with his body and blood and the resulting purification, sanctification, and confirmation of one’s trust in the perfect sacrifice of Christ. These elements were constantly present in Calvin’s theology of the Eucharist, and formed important reasons for his push for a frequent celebration. This is inseparably connected to the being clothed with the life-giving Christ through the work of the Spirit of God, and is related to the personal appropriation of salvation and daily conversion. Secondly, the spirituality of the intimate bridal mysticism and of the continuing desire to keep and preserve that direct bond with Christ, and to experience it through the personal work of the Holy Spirit forms another central motive, the pneumatological-mystical motive in Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s Supper. Salvation must not only be heard and understood, but tasted and experienced. If Christ is our life and we in faith become his “housemates”, this means that “we live in him and he in us” and that we always and in everything “eat together” and “drink together”. As David sings: “That one thing I seek: to live in the house of Lord all the days of my life, to enjoy his sweetness” (Ps. 27: 4).150 Thirdly, there is the ecclesiological-liturgical motive. Life as it had been structured according to the existing daily rhythm of the liturgy of the hours had to be adjusted, and, as a direct result, a new vision had to be created on the place of the administration of Word and sacrament.151 In contrast to the medieval daily rhythm of life determined as it was by the many calendar holidays, the Reformers wanted through the regular alternation between the two forms of the announcement of the promises of salvation (i. e., the preaching and the Lord’s Supper) to sacralise life. Calvin furthermore wanted the ecclesiastical eucharistic liturgy to set the tone for daily life, also in a social-civil sense. For that reason he wanted the Lord’s Supper not only to be coupled to the regular Christian holidays, but to have a place also in the weekly liturgy. In the Protestant view also the justified man remained in every respect a sinner and dependent on the preaching of the law alongside the announcement of grace, and on the spiritual and sacramental union with Christ. This persistent awareness of one’s unworthiness and transience and the resulting orientation toward the kingdom of heaven both now and with a view to the future is, 150 See also ch. 11, n. 155. 151 See also ch. 2, n. 47.

Developments in the Penitential and Eucharistic Piety of Protestant Churches

319

fourthly, a recurring heavenly directed-eschatological motive in Calvin’s eucharistic spirituality. In Geneva Calvin ended his eucharistic liturgy every time with a prayer of thanksgiving for the food “to eternal life (de vie eternelle)” together with the singing of the Song of Simeon, adapted to the Lord’s Supper : “Maintenant, Seigneur Dieu, as donn¦ en moy lieu […].”152 Calvin thereby paradoxically moves the communicant to heaven, although the event at the same time actually takes place in his heart on earth. It happens at once, in eternity and in the present. Not once in a while, but again and again in the present of God’s grace now (maintenant), God comes to visit me, gives me room, and prepares his dwelling-place in me (as donn¦ en moy lieu; cf. also John 14: 2–3, on the place that he is preparing in his Father’s house, and about his return to take us with him so that we may be together). In this way the communicant comes home every day, to be with God, and God comes home to the communicant who becomes a holy temple where sacrifices (of thanksgiving) are offered.153 And, following on this one dialectic movement between heaven and earth where Christ and Christian are slowly melted together in an everlasting moment, it ends in the breath-taking sending off with which also the Song of Simeon begins. Reunited, fed, and purified, “redeemed from all his misery (sortir de tout malheur),” as Calvin has the congregation sing, man continues on his road “at good rest (en bon repos).”154 This final example functions as an illuminating illustration, and reveals something of Calvin’s deep longing to be a child of God in his house. Over the course of the years, it was not only different Reformed views on the Lord’s Supper that would circulate, such as the Calvinistic and Zwinglian views, but it turned out that there were also new interpretations of Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper which determined the way it was experienced. Classical examples are those of Charles Hodge and John Nevin, two American Calvin-scholars from the nineteenth century.155 Precisely by discussing the spiritual and physical side of what happens between heaven and earth in the liturgy in a mystical and paradoxical manner, 152 Grosse: 2008, p. 640 and p. 641. 153 Calvin: 1541, see Higman: 1970, § 9, 13, 17, 30, 50. Cf. the eucharistic piety of Thomas a Kempis for whom the desire to be united with Christ is also typical, to ‘house’ him in ‘my soul’ and in ‘my heart’, as Thomas puts it, and to own him, as Calvin repeatedly states in his treatise. At the same time, each communion strengthens that desire to be one with him. A Kempis: 1441, 3.12.19. See ch. 3, n. 96 and ch. 11, n. 60. Here we might also recall Calvin’s motto: “Cor mactatum in sacrificium offero,” and, in that context, Rom 12: 1. 154 It reminds us of the theme “rest” in Augustine’s Confessions 1,1: “Our heart is restless until it rests in you (Inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te).” 155 Ewerszumrode: 2012, p. 15 and p. 275. See also Nevin: 2012 and De Bie: 2013.

320

The Turn and Contribution of Subsequent Generations of Protestants

Calvin in his own way made a correction that he found to be necessary to the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Anabaptist spiritualities of the Lord’s Supper. The secret partly resides in the dialectic of Christ’s tangibility and intangibility, in his visibility and invisibility, and in his presence and absence through the secret operation of the Holy Spirit. It is a highly internal and external sacramental event, because the kingdom of God is, according to him, not merely internal. His viewpoint offers the necessary room for present-day ecumenical dialogue, but his dialectical way of reasoning will not be concrete and understandable enough for many, due to which his views concerning the pastorate, Lord’s Supper, and church are still interpreted in different ways and together form a cause of incomprehension. For Calvin, however, the Zwinglian and Anabaptist spirituality of the Lord’s Supper were too rational, and the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views too visual-spatial. He rather placed the emphasis on the holy mystery that is brought about by God’s Spirit through the administration of Word and sacrament by the office bearers. Gerrit Immink gave his 2011 book on the Protestant church service the revealing title: The sacred happens. This is not only an apt characterisation of the mystery of the proclamation of the Word in a Calvinistic sense. It also fittingly describes the spirituality of penance and Holy Supper in Calvin’s thought.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Agricola’s Response to Melanchthon’s Doctrine of Penance in 1527 In a recently published study, Beate Kobler does not only offer a systematic insight into the criticism on Melanchthon’s doctrine of penance, but she also elaborates somewhat on Agricola’s criticism to which she dedicates several pages.1 What follows is a complement to and confirmation of what we have mentioned above in chapters 4 and 5.2 Earlier we noted a lost manuscript of Agricola from 1527 which circulated back then, called Censura in articulos visitatorum, as well as the fact that in October 1527 Agricola must have addressed Melanchthon in person by letter.3 Next to Agricola and Caspar Aquila, Kobler also names Veit Amerbach and Elector John as critics from their circle of Melanchthon’s 1527 work.4 According to Kobler, Agricola’s second catechism appeared in November 1527.5 During breakfast at the second Torgau conference at the end of November 1527, Agricola made a remark to Melanchthon which had a great significance and background. Agricola was a true antinomian and was to continue developing in that direction, and around 1537 would even turn against Luther. Agricola and Melanchthon were study companions in Wittenberg, and the former had started there as a catechist, after which he drew up his first cate-

1 2 3 4

Kobler : 2014, pp. 54–61 and pp. 69–72. See ch. 4, n. 60–67 and ch. 5, n. 31–44. MBW T3, p. 186, p. 199 and p. 232. Cf. Kobler : 2014, p. 56 and p. 57. In our opinion it is clear that Melanchthon in no way intended his Articles and the Instruction for the Visitors, which came about out of and with a view to the practice of the visitations of the preachers in Saxony, to oppose Agricola. The latter’s criticism was only received afterwards and it gravely affected him. He rather wished to avoid these kinds of theological disputes because he did not think they were of practical relevance. 5 Kobler: 2014, p. 71.

322

Appendices

chisms.6 In his Introduction Ferdinand Cohrs comments on this: Very surely (“Ganz gewiss”) Agricola had a second agenda (“Nebenabsicht”) with the new publication of his catechism, which was to make his view on the law publicly known, because, according to him, the law no longer had a place in God’s plan of salvation since the gospel had come. The fact that he discusses his view on the law three times (directly at the beginning in question 13ff, as an appendix to faith in q. 58f, and at the end in q. 114ff) shows how important the issue was to him. We can already find traces of this antinomian view in his In Lucae Evangelium Annotationes, which appeared in 1524, and also in his Kinderzucht (“Child Training Manual”). His sharp defence of it in the Hundertdreissig Fragstücken (“A hundred-and-thirty questions”) was probably a result of Melanchthon’s Articuli, de quibus egerunt per Visitatores (“Articles for the Visitors”), published in the summer of 15277, which insistently called for a preaching of the law with a view to penance.8 According to Cohrs, a few days after Agricola had signed the foreword to the Hundertdreissig Fragstücken, the conference of Torgau (26–29 November 1527) took place, which was expected to end the doctrinal dispute that threatened to break out between Melanchthon and Agricola. When Agricola

6 John Agricola, Elementa pietatis congesta (translated version: Christliche Kinderzucht in Gottes Wort und Lehre), in Cohrs: 2009, vol. 2, nr. XVI, pp. 85–201 and pp. 266–331. The Foreword is dated: “Eisleben am tage Martini M.D.XXVj. iar,” Impressum Wittemberg, anno M.D.XXVII. Also: Haganoae, anno M.D.XXVII. The German editions as well: Wittemberg 1527, Zwickau 1527, Eisleben 1527, and later reprints). Its first paragraph reads: On penance (De Penitentia). 1. Qui poenitet, iam pene non peccavit. Est autem poenitentia transmentatio, cor novum, adeo ut cui placuit antea libidinosum esse, nunc placeat summe esse casto, Eph. V: Qui furabatur, iam non furetur, Nymmer thun ist die hochtste busse. 2. Porro hanc transformationem mentium neque opera, neque ieiunium, neque eleemosinae, neque satisfactiones, sed spiritus sanctus, partus Christi sanguine, suppeditat atque efficit. 7 Kobler argues in her dissertation that, on the basis of Melanchthon’s views as expressed in the Articuli, it could be argued that there were three fronts that had to be faced in July 1527: the Roman Catholics, the spiritualists, and the Lutherans. Kobler: 2014, p. 41. Over against the Anabaptists Melanchthon retained penance and its traditional tripartite division (remorse, confession, satisfaction), and at the same time he emphasised the differences vis-—-vis the Roman Catholic view. Penance was not to be viewed as a separate sacrament, but included in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. UdV, art. 9. Furthermore, prior to the celebration of the Holy Supper, the communicants were to have an understanding of its true meaning, and experience sorrow over their sins but also believe that they were forgiven. 8 Following, in Cohrs: 2009, vol. 2, nr. XXI: Hundertdreissig gemeine Fragstücke of John Agricola. “A hundred and thirty common questions for young children in the German middle schools of Eisleben. On the Word of God, faith, prayer, the Holy Spirit, the cross, and love. Also an instruction on baptism / and the body and blood of Christ,” a catechism that was printed in Wittenberg and Nuremberg (and probably in Zwickau as well) in 1528, but already composed in 1527.

Agricola’s Response to Melanchthon’s Doctrine of Penance in 1527

323

noticed at the conference that Luther did not share his views as much as he had thought, he succeeded in weakening and obscuring his views on the law.9

9 Cohrs: 2009, vol 2, p. 262. In order to give the reader an impression, we will extract from Agricola’s Hundertdreissig Fragstücken (1527/1528) some questions that pertain to our subject. Q. 13: How is the preaching of those who have been sent? And who were the preachers, and more? Answer: There are two kinds of preaching, one is that of the law, the other is that of grace. There have been two preachers: Moses and Christ. Q. 35: How long will this [penance or battle against the flesh] last? Answer: As long as we live, without cessation. Since we commit sin every moment, so you will call out to God every moment and pour out your troubles to him. Q. 69: Did Christ then change places with me and give his possessions and honor for my disgrace? Answer : Yes. Q. 114: Should the Christian be forced to live in obedience to Moses’ law? Answer : Christians do everything with delight and love, what is expected from them by God. For they have been sealed with the voluntary spirit of Christ, and therefore no law will force them. For no law is given to the righteous, and furthermore, as soon as the gospel becomes coercion and rule, it will never be the gospel (so ists nymmer Evangelion). Q. 130: Summa summarum, For what reason was the Holy Scripture given? Answer : Saint Paul says in 2 Tim 3: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. One first has to teach, and then punish those who refuse to follow the doctrine. (In a different version he adds: The gospel says to all flesh: You are free of all laws. Only, do not use your freedom carnally).

324

Appendices

Appendix 2: Centuries of Interpretations of Luther’s Preface from 1528 to Instructions for the visitors1 Many have attempted to explain the discrepancy between the approach of Elector John and Luther, among which we also find an appeal to the difference in their goals and set-up for the visitations. It is possible that Luther was forced to abandon “seine Idee von der unsichtbaren Kirche” (his concept of the invisible church), so Carl August Hugo Burkhardt assumed in 1879.2 Was Luther’s ideal in the end rather that of a voluntary church, with an emphasis on the local congregation, or rather that of a church governed top-down by the magistrate? A central place in this discussion is often taken in by the issue of the relationship between church and state due to certain interpretations of the elector’s Instruction and Luther’s Foreword to the Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony3. In these analyses, Luther’s statements from his earlier writings were compared time and again with his Foreword to the visitation book. Generations of Lutherans have attempted to explain the historical turns, for which the foundation was laid by the charters of 1527 and 1528, in order to legitimise or criticise the model of the “landesherrliche Kirchenregiment (territorial church regiment)” which had developed over the course of time. At the end of the nineteenth century, Rudolf Sohm defended the view that Luther had declared war not only on Roman Catholic canon law, but on any form of church polity. Christ is there where Word and sacrament are. “The church order, however, does not make Christians, does not make a holy people, is therefore no sign that Christ and his parish is there. The church order does not make a church. The church of the church order as such is not the church of Christ.”4 This is also how he interpreted Luther’s Foreword to Melanchthon’s manual of January 1528. In this interpretation, Sohm assumed that Luther had remained faithful to his ideal of an invisible church. Paul Drews elaborated on Rudolf Sohm’s line of argument. He assumes that Luther was not concerned with a mass of baptised Christians, a people’s church, but merely with the true believers, the “geistliche Christenheit (spiritual Christendom),” the community of saints. Also the true Christian government, which as such could be the head of the church, belonged to this “innerliche Christenheit

1 2 3 4

See ch. 5, n. 2. Burkhardt: 1879, p. 24. Unterricht der visitatoren an die pfarrherrn im kurfürstenthum zu Sachsen (1528). “Das Kirchenrecht aber macht keine Christen, macht kein heilig Volk, ist darum kein Zeichen, dass Christus und seine Gemeinde zur Stelle ist. Das Kirchenrecht macht keine Kirche. Die Kirche des Kirchenrechts ist als solche nicht die Kirche Christi.” Sohm: 1892, p. 470. Cf. Holl: 1911/ 1932, p. 374 and Krumwiede: 1967, pp. 34f. and pp. 71f.

Centuries of Interpretations of Luther’s Preface from 1528 to Unterricht

325

(inner Christendom).”5 Pietists were to subscribe to this more spiritualistic and individualistic approach, and later on the liberals did too. In 1910 Karl Müller appealed to Luther’s Foreword to the “Deutsche Messe (German mass)” of 1 January 1526. According to him, it followed from this that Luther’s ideal was twofold: on the one hand he supported a territorial church on the basis of the administration of Word and sacrament, and on the other hand he addressed a core group of true believers who formed a smaller circle within that larger community (innerhalb dieser grossen Gemeinde ein engerer Kreis); these were the people who had actually been moved by the gospel and who wanted in all earnestness to be Christians (mit Ernst Christen sein wollten).6 Müller mentions two kinds of visitations, or two sides to it: “One, which is governed by the land owners; the other, which is owned by the representatives of the spiritual office. The elector’s Instruction favoured the first, Melanchthon’s Instructions the second.”7 Both documents of the elector and Melanchthon (i. e., the Instruction of 1527, and the complementary Instruction for the Visitors) provided the foundation for the large task of the church visitations in the entire electorate, so Karl Pallas the editor of the visitation reports concluded.8 At the same time, they formed the foundation for the developing structure of the evangelical-Lutheran state church, which was to be led by the sovereigns and city councils. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Luther scholar Karl Holl came to the conclusion that Luther had supported both “the national church in its conviction of the triumphant power of the Word, [and] the voluntary church in its appeal to personal consciousness.”9 In the end, Holl says, Luther was concerned with the independence of the church versus the ‘state’.10 He drew attention to the difference between the elector’s Instruction and Luther’s Foreword, because, to his mind, the two documents were irreconcilable.11 From 1527 on5 Drews: 1908, p. 14. Cf. Matthias: 2010, p. 9. 6 Müller: 1910, pp. 35–39, p. 39. 7 “Eine, die vom Landesherrn ausgeht, die andere, die die Vertreter des geistlichen Amts zu verrichten haben. Für die erste ist die Instruktion, für die zweite der Unterricht.” Müller : 1910, p. 74. At the end of the nineteenth century, Karl Rieker defended the same thesis. Rieker : 1893, p. 174. He also described the development of the institution of church visitations into that of the consistory which was entrusted with the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Cf. Rudolph Sohm who called the consistory the first truly ecclesiastical organ in the Lutheran church around the same time. Sohm: 1892, vol. 1, p. 617f. 8 Pallas: 1906f./ 2009, p. 12. 9 “Die Volkskirche in seiner Überzeugung von der sieghaften Macht des Worts, die Freiwilligkeitskirche in seiner Forderung persönlicher Gewissenhaftigkeit.” Holl: 1911/ 1932, p. 359. 10 “Die Eigenständigkeit der Kirche gegenüber dem ‘Staat’.” Holl: 1911/ 1932, p. 375. See also Holl: 1915/1932, pp. 288–326. 11 “Die zwei Urkunden lassen sich nicht ineinanderschrieben.” Holl: 1911/ 1932, p. 372.

326

Appendices

wards, time and again the question emerged to what extent the church visitors, who were in fact state officials, were representatives of the church. Karl Holl again reconsidered Rudolf Sohm’s thesis of a church without a church order, and insisted that the visitors, notwithstanding the fact that the elector had given them some independent competences, were addressed in the Instruction as his subjects (from us and ours; von uns und den unsern), and he came to the conclusion that “with this Instruction came [the evangelical variant] of church regiment by the territorial prince (landesherrliche Kirchenregiment).”12 The visitors were allowed to act as they deemed fit, but in the end they had to give an account of themselves to the elector. In Luther’s Foreword to the Instruction, according to Holl, one can hear an objection to the elector’s Instruction. Two opinions opposed each other : one wanted to see visitation as a result of the elector’s good care, the other as an indepent act of the church.13 In 1967 Hans-Walter Krumwiede powerfully opposed this view. As he saw it, Luther himself had asked for the elector’s cooperation and, although the latter of course gave weight to the visitations of 1527, he did not restrict the actions of the visitors. The circumstances were complex, and the aim was not a “program for an evangelical church order,” but to built a dam. The development towards the landesherrliche Kirchenregiment came about gradually. Luther never generally (generell) protested this unforeseeable development, Krumwiede emphasised.14 Hans-Walter Krumwiede’s practical survey again shows that the origin of the development of the Lutheran state churches continued to occupy the minds in the twentieth century.15

12 “[M]it dieser Instruktion ist das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment da.” Holl: 1911/ 1932, pp. 372f. 13 “Die eine will die Visitation betrachtet wissen als einen Ausfluss der landesväterlichen Fürsorge des Kurfürsten, die andere als einen Akt der Selbsthilfe der Kirche. Zwischen diesen beiden Auffassungen gibt es keine Vermittlung.” Holl: 1911/ 1932, p. 374. 14 “Programme für eine evangelische Kirchenverfassung.” Krumwiede: 1967, p. 31, pp. 71–75 and pp. 108f. Plomp: 1969, p. 55. 15 Krumwiede: 1967, pp. 13–47. See also Maurer : 1960, pp. 194–213.

On Discipline in the Cities Surrounding Geneva

327

Appendix 3: On Discipline in the Cities Surrounding Geneva1 In the Reformed cities in Switzerland neighbouring Geneva, such as Zurich and Bern, discipline had been entrusted to the Christian government, leaving little room for any form of admonition that was to come from the side of the church in the context of participation in the Lord’s Supper. What is more, Zwingli had an altogether different view on the place of religion in society than Luther did. The latter understood the mixing of religion with politics to imply the abandonment of the reformational doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’.2 Yet Zwingli for his part was convinced that Luther’s two-kingdom view meant the reduction of the church to an internal matter, while in his mind the church as the body of Christ (corpus Christi) was closely mixed with the Christian commonwealth (corpus christianum), just as it had been in the Middle Ages. Accordingly, for Zwingli all of society ought to be brought under the rule of Christ.3 In his view the ecclesiastical and civil responsibilities were as inseparable as body and soul, so that neither a special form of ecclesiastical oversight nor a discipline specifically connected to participation in the Lord’s Supper were necessary. Although Bullinger did not follow Zwingli in everything, he too was not convinced that the Lord’s Supper ought to be connected to some form of ecclesiastical discipline, penance, or confession. In a letter to his Zurich colleague Leo Judae he wrote that we must be content to have the opportunity “freely to proclaim the truth, freely to confess Christ and to associate with all who are in the church.”4 The Lord’s Supper is therefore for everyone, for all sinners. Given such a vision, there is no place for any kind of division between those who are worthy to partake and those who are not. Bullinger argued that if Jesus had welcomed Judas at the Last Supper, what right did a simple pastor have to exclude even the most notorious sinner from a ritual that was based on that very same supper? Appealing to 1 Corinthians 11, Bullinger further insisted that preparation for the Lord’s Supper was a purely personal matter, and that participation in it was a matter of the individual conscience.5 With this, Bullinger 1 2 3 4

See ch. 8, n. 62. Locher: 1979, p. 167. ZW 14, no. 6, p. 424. BW 2, no. 74 (Bullinger to Leo Judae; 15 March 1532), p. 74, l.120–121. Judae, who favoured the use of excommunication, wrote: “It is certain that Christ entrusted the sacraments to his church. The bread of grace is intended as nourishment for believers and for those who are in Chritst’s church.” He added that in Zurich things had gone so far that “the most holy body and blood of Jesus Christ were being distributed to those who are unworthy of it and godless, while they resist Christ with mouth, hearth, and life – something that vexes me greatly.” BW 2, no. 70, p. 62. 5 BW 1, no. 39, p. 213. Bullinger believed that participation in communion should be left to the conscience of the recipient. In any case, since communion was intended for the consolation of

328

Appendices

abandoned the close connection that had existed in the Roman Catholic church as well as in Calvin’s Geneva between Eucharist and penance, confession, and the supervision and discipline of the church.6 Towards the end of his life Bullinger would write in retrospect: “There was no single, uniform view on the manner and nature of discipline. Our church has never mixed the mystical supper of our Lord with church discipline (disciplina ecclesiastica). And as far as I know it has never for that reason been accused of impiety (impietatis) by anyone.”7 For Calvin, on the other hand, the close connection between Lord’s Supper and discipline was the foremost of goals. He sought to achieve an effective exercise of church discipline over the doctrine and life of all members without exception, that is, over all baptised members of the Genevan church. In similar fashion to Zurich and Bern, the city council in Basel assumed control of the institutions of spiritual and religious life in the church, including church discipline. Calvin, however, complained to Farel that the discipline applied by the state in Basel had weakened.8 Earlier he had seen in Geneva how the government in fact soon fell short on the point of ecclesiastical discipline. Accordingly he had written to the Basel pastor Myconius: “The world is accustomed to seek to rule as it sees fit.”9

6

7

8 9

all Christians, who are at the same time also sinners, Bullinger thought that any punishment meted out by the civil authorities should settle the affair, and that any spiritual punishment should be left to God and Satan. Baker : 1985, pp. 14f. In his 1542 catechism Calvin in a remarkable manner insisted on a certain primacy of the Lord’s Supper : “For though both in baptism and in the gospel Christ is exhibited to us, yet we do not receive him wholly but only in part.” CO 6, p. 125 = CO 6, p. 126 = OS 2, p. 139, answer 346. Later on in the catechism Calvin addresses the question whether a Christian may abstain from the Lord’s Supper. CO 6, p. 131 = CO 6, p. 132 = OS 2, p. 142, answers 362 and 363. Bullinger to Datheen (in Frankenthal), 1 June 1570, in Erastus: 1589, p. 365: “Nunquam dociumus nos nullam in Ecclesia esse debere disciplinam: quam sane necessariam esse fatemur. De modo & ratione huis disciplinae, non vnum vel idem omnium est & semper fuit iudicium. Nostra Ecclesia nunquam disciplinae ecclesiasticae immiscuit coenam Domini mysticam. Neque ea de causa ab vllo vnquam, quod sciam, impietatis est accusata.” Datheen had asked Bullinger for support in his polemics with Thomas Erastus (1524–1583), professor of medicine in Heidelberg, who opposed the discipline of the Lord’s Supper. Earlier Bullinger had let on that he thought Calvin to have been “overly zealous” with respect to church discipline. Hermj. 5, no. 710 (4 May 1538), p. 9 = CO 10b, no. 114, p. 195. Cf. Calvin’s view of himself in this matter, Hermj. 5, no. 743, p. 111 = CO 10b, no. 140, pp. 246–247 and Köhler on Calvin, Köhler: 1942, vol. 2, p. 512. Hermj. 6, no. 843 (31 December 1539, to Farel), p. 155. Hermj. 7, no. 1100 (14 March 1542), p. 440 = CO 11, no. 389, p. 379. Early in 1542 it still was not entirely clear in Calvin’s mind who ought to be responsible for actually carrying out confession in a “national church” like that in Geneva. Also at the beginning of his second Geneva period Calvin was still searching for an answer as to who in the new Reformed church order ought to exercise and be (ultimately) responsible for penance and confession. His doubts and uncertainty are evident in his response to Myconius, to whom he wrote that the matter was still rather unclear to him: “I am a fool to enter this forest.” Hermj. 7, p. 440. Earlier (10 February 1542) Myconius had expressed his doubts as to whether the city council may

On Discipline in the Cities Surrounding Geneva

329

By that time it was abundantly clear to Calvin that a church cannot exist without some special form of discipline for the Lord’s Supper. In a letter he later sent to the pastors in Zurich, Calvin expressed himself in a way that left no doubt: “Opinions are currently divided on excommunication. I know that there are pious and godly men to whom ecclesiastical discipline does not seem necessary under a Christian magistrate. […] For me Christ’s teaching is entirely clear on this point.”10 In neighbouring Bern it was decided that the pastors would serve the government and would therefore have to restrict themselves to matters of instruction and liturgy. They were allowed to exercise the freedom in preaching, provided that they were moderate and preached only the law and the gospel. The civil involvement of the pastors was thus pushed back, but this also meant a change in Reformed spirituality which from then on was to be limited to the conscience and to address every individual personally “in the heart […] as before God.”11 The pastors in the Bernese territory, who in that time numbered into the hundreds, were to spur the people on to do what is good without any coercive means, and they were entirely content to be without such means at their disposal. According to their view the institute for supervision and discipline in matters of morals had to pay more attention to “the internal […] than to the external things. […] We are for now not out to increase the available tools for the exercise of discipline.”12 In Bern the pastors thus received no special tools or means to force the people to maintain a Christian lifestyle, so that the Lord’s Supper became a matter of the conscience alone. In Bern Reformed Protestantism honoured Luther’s view on discipline through Capito, who chaired the synod of Bern held in January 1532. At this synod it was decided that the kingdom of God was a purely internal matter. This did not mean that the bond between the Christian religion and morality was severed, for the government bore responsibility insofar as the kingdom of Christ manifested itself outwardly. Yet the specific responsibility of the pastors was limited to the inner and spiritual life, to which they had to incite the people – without any coercive means, as we have noted.13 This principle was applied also to the Lord’s Supper and to the discipline connected with it. Spiritual life was thought not to be directed to the physical, just as also the sacraments do not

10 11 12 13

represent the church, given that the magistrates at times “have so little knowledge of divine and ecclesiastical matters.” Hermj. 7, p. 440. CO 14, no. 1858 (Calvin to Bullinger, 26 November 1553), p. 676. BS 1 (Cyro), p. 24. BS 1, art. 28, p. 117. BS 1, arts. 25 and 27, p. 106 and p. 114. BS 1, 32a, p. 125. BS 1, art. 1, p. 37. BS 1, art. 22, p. 93. The final part of the quotation reads: unnd wellend nit bald yemant wyter zu bannen fürnemen. BS 1, art. 27, p. 114. BS 1, art. 28, p. 117. BS 2, pp. 32f.

330

Appendices

incite us in this regard: for the goal is that “the sacraments might incite us to perfection, rather than stimulate us to carnal sensuality.”14

14 BS 1, art. 19, p. 74, l.27–28. BS 2, p. 135. Also in Bern the administration of the sacraments was above all placed in a pedagogical context with a view to the Christian life. BS 1, arts. 19–22, pp. 75–95. This view of the sacraments was not an isolated one, and was related among others to the devotio moderna tradition. Capito knew that he enjoyed the support of Erasmus in this. If someone had another view of the sacraments and believed, for example, in transubstantiation or in the sacrifice of the Mass, this was to his mind still no reason for admonition. After all, the most important thing is the personal bond between God and each individual’s heart and conscience, the inner strengthening of faith in his life. In such a vision it is one’s disposition alone that matters. BS 2, p. 222. For an overview of the different eucharistic spiritualities in the late medieval period, see Oberman: 1986, p. 243.

Whose is the Right of Excommunication?

331

Appendix 4: Whose is the Right of Excommunication?1 The question as to who had the power to impose punishment was still subordinate to the application of the discipline of the Lord’s Supper itself. The difference showed itself in practice.2 Calvin wanted Christian penance and confession to be made truly visible, so that the evangelical values of forgiveness and reconciliation, and sorrow and repentance, would also become visible in the church. With a view to this he was convinced that he had to see to it that church discipline would be regulated properly. This was why he claimed the power of excommunication for the consistory. He wanted to boost the importance and spiritual significance of this institution. When, late in the 1550s, his efforts to promote the position of the consistory seemed to be failing, he even threatened to leave the city.3 He was convinced that action had to be undertaken against prostitution, drunkenness, gambling, and the like, and that the bishop had been far too lax in these matters.4 In order to come to a good understanding of Calvin’s view on the practice of confession, it is important to have a good grasp on his view of excommunication. In his mind one of the foremost causes of the decline of the established church

1 See ch. 8, n. 73. 2 Kingdon has investigated the consistory registers in three reference years (1546, 1552, and 1557). In 1546 a regulation for matters pertaining to marriage was enacted, in 1552 Calvin’s leadership was particularly threatened, and in 1557 he was at the height of his power. In these years the number of penitential cases that this spiritual court dealt with increased dramatically, and not only due to the population increase. For nearly half of the cases in which the consistory doled out spiritual punishments, a satisfying solution was found. In other cases the matter was referred on to the civil judge (i. e., the city council) which rendered its decision. In other words, the men and women who showed themselves to be remorseful and to repent from their sin in the presence of the consistory were not sent the civil judge, but this did happen in the other half of the cases. Men and women who were first punished by the civil judge were commonly referred on to the spiritual court of the consistory as well in order to confess their guilt and to seek forgiveness. The number of cases treated pertaining to sex, marriage, and family increased from 182 in 1546, to 323 in 1557. Over the course of this time also the penitential measures themselves became stricter. Whereas in 1546 people were mostly punished by way of admonition, and exclusion from the Lord’s Supper was rare (five of 182 cases), in 1552 a total of 36 of 253 the summoned sinners were excluded from the sacrament, and in 1557 excommunication was applied in 114 of the 323 cases. In 1546 the consistory treated 309 total cases, 390 in 1552, and 566 cases in 1557; thus some 60 percent of cases related to matters of sex, marriage, and family. Kingdon: 2005, pp. 74f. Kingdon: 1997, pp. 23f. 3 In September 1553 the council overruled a consistorial excommunication and told Philibert Berthelier that he could take communion. Calvin was incensed and, in a Saturday session of the council on the eve of communion, exclaimed “that he would die rather than put up with this against his conscience.” RC 47, p. 145 (2 September 1553). Grosse: 2008, p. 365. Kingdon & Lambert: 2012, p. 12. Kingdon: 2005, p. 68. Kingdon: 1993, p. 522. 4 Kingdon: 1990, p. 166.

332

Appendices

had been the emptying of confession.5 This was why he consciously pled, also to the neighbouring churches, for the consistory to be given power in Geneva. When he addressed his colleagues in Zurich on this matter, for example, he emphasised the consistory’s objective and social-church political side.6 Even when he, in the next phase of the development of his penitential and confessional system and with the backing of his Zurich colleagues, had won his case in Geneva and obtained for the consistory the right of excommunication as the ultimate form of ecclesiastical punishment, he still reshaped the consistory in order to make it clearer than ever before that the consistory was a place where people were to demonstrate their sorrow over the sin they had committed and that they had repented, and where they could also be restored and receive reconciliation. Calvin reported to Bullinger and translated for him some important chapters of the arrangements that had been made in Geneva with respect to discipline and excommunication.7 The possibility of temporarily excluding someone from the Lord’s Supper repeatedly comes up. According to Calvin, someone who has committed grievous sin must, “as an example to the others, be called to account. If there is no evidence at all of sorrow, he must be earnestly chastised. But as for those who continue to the exasperation of the church must, because they show that they despise God, be kept from the Holy Supper until they show signs of sorrow.”8 Since the sinner could repent, Calvin always spoke about a temporary ban from “participation in the communion of the Lord’s Supper (la communion de la cÀne).”9 Calvin could not here avoid emphasising the discipline of the Lord’s Supper and even the possibility of exclusion from the sacrament in this work he addressed to his colleagues in Zurich, since they did not maintain the same close connection between the Lord’s Supper and discipline he did. Calvin’s opponents in Geneva had pointed to the way things were done in Zurich. This was why he informed Zurich of his intentions and options, im5 Calvin complained to Sadoleto about the lack of church discipline in the established church: we “have not the least objection that the discipline which was sanctioned by ancient canons (vetustis canonibus sancita) should be in force in the present day” and wish that it also be restored in your church and “be carefully and faithfully observed.” A little further he wonders: “Where are those ancient canons with which, like a bridle, bishops and priests were kept to their duty?” OS 1 (Calvin to Jacopo Sadoleto; 1 September 1539), p. 479 = CO 5, pp. 406–407. 6 In the work he sent to Zurich, Calvin also quoted from an earlier letter to Geneva’s city council as a supplement to the summary of the Genevan disciplinary order. In this letter he had referred to “your laws (vestris legibus)” rom which you do not wish to depart, and to “those laws (illae leges)” which have been drawn up in such a way that they do not contain anything that has not been derived from Scripture as its pure source, adding that there is nothing in “your laws (vestris legibus)” that is unclear or uncertain. CO 14, no. 1859, p. 680 and p. 681. 7 See also the passage in the main text at chapter 6, n. 44f. 8 CO 14, p. 679, art. 158. 9 CO 14, p. 679, art. 159. Cf. art. 154f.

Whose is the Right of Excommunication?

333

plicitly seeking their approval of this form of discipline as being good and in line with God’s will. With approval of their system from the church of Zurich, the Genevan pastors would of course find themselves in a stronger position over against those who ignored or despised this penitential system. In order to try and achieve a greater sense of clarity as to the biblical nature of their system of church discipline, the members of the Genevan city council on 30 November 1553 – i. e., shortly after the pastors of the city had written their colleagues in Zurich – likewise sent a letter to their colleagues on the council in Zurich in which they asked for advice concerning those who had sinned publicly in doctrine and life. They sent a similar request to the three other Protestant cities in Switzerland, namely Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen. The question on which they sought advice was whether it was in line with Scripture and the Christian religion to keep public sinners from the Lord’s Supper or the Christian community.10 Bern’s reaction was short and to the point: it noted that it did not apply a similar kind of ecclesiastical discipline, and that it was better for the civil government to punish evil.11 Basel sent a copy of its discipline without further comment or advice.12 Of the four cities whose advice had been solicited, Schaffhausen expressed itself most positively on the new system of church discipline established in Geneva.13 In what follows, we will restrict ourselves to the reaction from Zurich. As we noted, Calvin had sent a confidential letter with an appendix to Zurich. In this appendix he laid out in detail the matter as he saw it, and asked for support. On 13 December 1553 the council of Zurich responded positively and sent its Genevan colleagues the regulations for matters pertaining to marriage (Ordnung vnd Satzung von Zurich […] von wegen der straf des ebruchs und unelicher biwoning) which had been drafted by Zwingli several decades earlier.14 These regulations stipulated that it was the governmental committee known as the Ehegericht or Konsistorium that had the authority to punish people who 10 CO 14, no. 1862, p. 685. The council decided to seek advice after Calvin and his colleagues had announced on 9 November 1553 that they would not tolerate a weakening of the existing legislation, according to which church discipline was carried out in full or part by the city council. Kingdon: 1993, p. 526. 11 CO 14 (8 December 1553), pp. 690–691. Bern’s reaction was more or less limited to the observation “que navons aucunnement en usance telle excommunication.” CO 14, p. 691. 12 CO 14 (23 December 1553), pp. 711–713. 13 See CO 14 (23 December 1553), 709–711, a letter in which Rügerus Bullinger cites from Schaffhausen’s response. Cf. also Calvin’s summary of the four responses in his letter to Farel from 31 December 1553. CO 14, pp. 723–724. 14 CO 14, no. 1871, pp. 699–703. See Egli: 1973, no. 1085 (15 December 1526), p. 521. The document sent from Zurich to Geneva included only the first ten articles of the Ordnung; articles eleven to seventeen were thus not included. However, a brief article was appended with regulations for an act of penance that an adulterer was to perform every week.

334

Appendices

had been found guilty of sin by excluding them from the Lord’s Supper and by forbidding them from holding a variety of offices or functions (erlichen ständen). If the sinner persisted and refused to make reconciliation or to improve his life, he would be definitively banned from the city.15 Zwingli’s successor Bullinger would follow him in matters of discipline.16 For him excommunication was the punishing of evildoers by “the venerable magistrate.”17 Bullinger would later write that that the Lord’s Supper and discipline were not mixed together in Zurich.18 In contrast to Calvin, he did not think the church had a separate responsibility for penance and discipline. In a letter to Datheen he wrote: “Do not think that we here in Zurich would want all things to be regulated according to the rigour of the Genevan church.”19 Disagreement on who was to exercise discipline was one thing, but the matter of ecclesiastical discipline was a totally different one. On the whole, the Protestant camp resisted what it saw as the tyranny of the papal tradition, especially in the form of the church’s system of penance and discipline. The moderate Nicodemites had expressed their view on the matter as well, arguing that Calvin was too strict. He then responded with his “Excuse a 15 “Söliche sündrung und usschliessung (der erenämptren, als zuo gricht und gmeind und anderen erlichen versammlungen) so lang bestan, bis mänklich schinbarliche besserung spüren und abnemen mag. Alsdann söllen und mögen der- oder dieselbigen von einem grossen R., anstatt gmeiner kilchen, widerumb versüent und zuo christenlichen mitbrüederen angenommen und irer biwonung und gmeinsame halb ouch widerumb ersetzt werden. […] Wann aber einer oder eine in sölichem laster über vorbestimpte straf verharren und sich nit beserren wurde, so soll der oder die an(e) alle gnad uss der stadt Zurich und land verwisen und verbotten und darin nit wider kommen noch gelassen werden.” Egli: 1973, no. 1087 (15 dec. 1526, art. 4), p. 522. 16 “Die Apostel sind under der heidischen oberkeit gesin, welche die laster nit gestrafft, so ein Christ schuhen sol. Da mit nun ouch die kirch ein straff der lasteren hette, hat sy die warnung und usschliesen an die hand genommen, dan mit dem Schwert, das inen nit beuolhen, kontend sy nit straffen. Das ist die ursach der banns, by inen gesin. Nachdem aber die Christenlich oberkeit die laster selbs strafft, wirt der Bann nit me von nothen sin.” Erastus: 1589 (Bullinger to Datheen, 1 June 1570), p. 363. Egli: 1973, no. 1757 (18 and 19 April, Acta synodi paschalis anno 1531), pp. 749–754. Egli did not publish the full synodical report, and the omissions include the quotation above. Parts of Bullinger’s letter can also be found in CO 14, 697. During a synod held in Bern with the Anabaptists on 19 April 1531, Zwingli defended the view by which the execution of punishment for sin is entrusted to the magistrate. From then on, ecclesiastical excommunication was no longer necessary in Zurich. 17 BW 1, no. 39, p. 208. Under the influence of Bullinger, the authorities in Zurich even decreed in 1532 that those punished by the Ehegericht be required to take communion, rather than being barred from it. Benedict: 2002, p. 54. 18 See n. 7. 19 Bullinger to Datheen, 1 June 1570, in Erastus: 1589, no. 5, p. 365: “Neq; putes nos ita esse dementes vt hic omnia ad rigorem illum Geneuensis Ecclesiae exigere & reuocare velimus & c.” Cf. n. 7 above. Datheen had asked Bullinger for support in his polemics with Thomas Erastus (1524–1583), professor of medicine in Heidelberg, who opposed the discipline of the Lord’s Supper.

Whose is the Right of Excommunication?

335

Messieurs les Nicodemites” (1544): “I testify in truth, before God and his angels, that I have no other intention except – insofar as it depends on me – to see to it that we all worship God in purity.”20 After studying the Genevan church order, Bullinger wrote to Calvin on 13 December 1553 that he saw no fundamental difference between them on the matter of ecclesiastical discipline. He further added that the regulation that applied in Geneva was entirely biblical: “A short time ago we took note of your church’s consistory regulations, and recognise them to be pious and close to the prescriptions of God’s Word.”21 With this Bullinger extended support to Calvin, even though there actually were fundamental differences between them on the exercise of church discipline. The crucial point of disagreement was that Bullinger rejected the close connection between ecclesiastical supervision and the Lord’s Supper, which very thing Calvin like the medieval church before him considered all-important. Bullinger further added about believers who had fallen into sin: “We are of the opinion and believe that the Lord’s Supper was not instituted by the Lord as a winnow or sieve by which people each in their turn are to be sieved or scattered, but as a means of bonding, that is, as cement, society, communion, and unity so as to collect and assemble sinful men together.”22 Bullinger nevertheless was of the opinion that one could maintain a variety of different views within Reformed Protestantism, and that there was room also for Calvin’s distinctive approach: “For the rest I point out to you that excommunication for the ancients did indeed mean exclusion from the communion of the sacraments, but I add that it is a temporal punishment and an external discipline intended for healing.”23 In Zurich those who were guilty of grievous sins were punished for them by the Christian magistrate. In Bullinger’s defence, we might note that it seems that Bullinger thought things were hap20 CO 6, p. 596 = CStA, vol. 3, p. 228. 21 CO 14, no. 1870 (Bullinger to Calvin, 13 December 1553), p. 697. 22 Erastus: 1589 (Bullinger to Datheen), pp. 356–357: “Sceleratos & offendentes ecclesiam, alia ratione cohercendos esse, & in viam reducendos arbitramur, qui existimamus & credimus coenam dominicam a Domino esse institutam, non vt sit ventilabrum aut cribrum, quo cribrentur aut dispergantur ab inuicem homines, sed synaxim, id est, coagmentationem, societatem, communionem & coniunctionem, ad colligendos congregandosque homines peccatores, eos putamus, qui peccatorum suorum mole depressi, peccata sua agnoscunt, haec sibi remissa per mortem Christi credunt, ideo iam ad coenam Domini accedunt, gratias acturi & c.” 23 Erastus: 1589 (Bullinger to Datheen), p. 358: “Caeterum si mecum repetiuero omnia, quae hac de causa in libris meis editis, scripsi, non video me vel tantillum a mea discedere sententia, qua ab initio mei ministerii, per annos circiter 48. tenui, ac vltimo in Confess. nostra exposui. […]. Deinde ostendo excommunicationem quidem apud veteres fuisse exclusionem a communione Sacramentorum. Adiicio tamen supplicium esse temporale & disciplinam externam, ad medendum institutam.”

336

Appendices

pening more or less the same way in Geneva, since he assumed that Calvin’s system addressed the external side of ecclesiastical penance. Although Bullinger may seem to have been right, he actually overlooked the fact that Calvin out of principle closely connected church discipline and the Lord’s Supper and thereby gave penance and confession a highly spiritual dimension that can hardly be called an ‘external discipline’.24 Bullinger was less concerned with the restitution of the sinner than Calvin was, and had a greater interest in punishment of and penance for offences committed in the church community. In Bullinger’s eyes, it was sufficient for punishment to be imposed by the Christian government.25 Accordingly, in his mind there could be different views on disciplinary measures and on the powers that were to exact the punishment (i. e., either the magistrate as in Zurich, or else a semi-ecclesiastical committee like the Genevan consistory) without the core of the matter being changed. This was the point on which the views of Calvin and Bullinger did not agree.

24 Two decades earlier Beza had observed about the difference between the theory and practice of excommunication that there is a world of difference between asking “whether excommunication ought to take place in the Christian church, and then how it ought to be applied. For concerning the first question I am of the opinion that no one has ever questioned this, except perhaps someone who is not familiar with the Word of God […] the second question is a foregone conclusion for every person with a sound mind […] we ought not to serve man but God. Even if the whole congregation were lost, even then it may not occur to us to allow the sacred things to be defiled so as to please men. […] For the rest, if the church has the power to exclude people, it follows that it also has the power to receive sinners once again if they show sufficient remorse (2 Cor 2: 6–7; cf. Cyprian, CCEL, bk. 1, letter 2, and bk. 3 letters 14 and 16).” Beza: 2009 (Confession, ch. 5, §43), p. 261. 25 “I decide and urge everyone to see to it that this sacred medicine, which has been removed from the communion of the saints through the greed of the pope, be restored to its place, that is, that offensive misdeeds be punished.” Erastus: 1589 (Bullinger to Datheen), pp. 358– 359: “Concludo & hortor omnes, curent, vt salutare hoc pharmacum, e coetu sanctorum, Pontificis auaritio eliminatum, reducatur : hoc est, vt scelera offedentia plectantur.” For Zwingli and Bullinger the goal of the discipline was the rooting out of evil, just as for Oecolampadius it was the maintenance of the church’s purity. As Opitz correctly observes, however, for Calvin the consistory was “ultimately a pastoral body (letztlich ein seelsorgerliches Gremium).” CStA, vol. 2, p. 232.

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt (ed.) (1962, 3rd ed. 1961, 2nd ed. 1967, 1957), Luther Deutsch: Die Werke Martin Luthers II, III, VII and X, Stuttgart/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [= LD] Allen, Percy s. (1910), Erasmi Epistulae II, Oxford: Oxford University press. Amphoux, Henri (1900/ 1969), Michel de L’Húpital et la libert¦ de conscience au XVIe siÀcle, Paris/ Gene`ve: Slatkine Reprints. Andresen, Carl (ed.) (1980–1984), Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, 3 vol., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Angelus [Carletus] de Clavasio (1491/ 1500), Summa de casibus conscientiae, Strasbourg/ Lugduni [Lyon]: Martin Flach/ Martinus Havard [?]. Angenendt, Arnold (2005), Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter, 2nd ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Aquino, Thomas of (1886), Summa Theologica: Sacrament of the Penance, vol. III, Rome: Ex. typogr. Senatus. [= STh] Arnhardt, Gerhard/ Reinert, Gerd-Bodo (1997), Philipp Melanchthon. Architekt des neuzeitlich-christlichen deutschen Schulsystems, Donauwörth: Auer. Augustine, Aurelius (1841), ‘Tractates on the Gospel of John 80, 3’, in (Migne) MPL 35, Paris: Garnier. Augustine, Aurelius (1865), ‘Sermones ad populum’, in MPL 38, Paris: Garnier. Augustine, Aurelius (1981), ‘Confessionum’, in Lucas Verheijen (ed.), Corpus Christianorum, series Latina 27, Turnhout: Brepols. Augustijn, Cornelis (1986), Erasmus, Baarn/ München: Ambo/ C.H. Beck. Augustijn, Cornelis (1994), ‘Calvin in Strasbourg’, in Wilhelm H. Neuser, Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 166–177. Augustijn, Cornelis (1996), Erasmus: Der Humanist als Theologe und Kirchenreformer, Leiden: Brill. Augustijn, Cornelis (2003), Humanismus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Aymon, Jean (1710), Tous les synodes nationaux des eglises reforme´es de France, 2 vol., La Haye: Charles Delo. Baird, Henry M. (1879), History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France, vol. 1: From the Beginning of the French Reformation to the Edict of January 1562, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

338

Bibliography

Baker, J. Wayne (1985), ‘Church Discipline of Civil Punishment: On the Origines of the Reformed Schism, 1528–1531’, in Andrews University Seminary Studies, vol. 23, nr. 1, 3–18. Baker, J. Wayne (1993), ‘Christian Discipline, Church and State, and Toleration: Bullinger, Calvin, and Basel’, in Reformiertes Erbe: Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80. Geburtstag, Heiko A. Oberman/ Ernst Saxer/ Alfed Schindler/ Heinzpeter Stucki (ed.) [Zwingliana 19/1, vol. 1], Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 35–48. Bakhuizen van den Brink, Jan N. (1962), Protestantse Pleidooien, 2 vol., Kampen: Kok. Bakhuizen van den Brink, Jan N. (1962a), ‘Melanchthons voorrede voor de Saksische geloofsbelijdenis. Ontwerp I uit 1530’, in idem, Protestantse Pleidooien, Kampen: Kok, vol. 1, 101–111. Bakhuizen van den Brink, Jan N. (1976), De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften: In authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. [= NBG] Balke, Willem/ Moehn, Johannes H.Th. (ed.) (1994), Supplementa Calviniana: sermons ine´dits, vol. 8, Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles, Neukirchen/ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. [= SC] Barth, Karl (1932–1967), Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, Zollikon/ Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag. Battles, Ford W. (ed.) (1989), John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 Edition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Baudrier, Julien/ Baudrier, Henri-Louis/ Tricou, Georges (ed.) (1895f/ 1964/5), Bibliographie Lyonnaise: Recherches sur les imprimeurs, libraires, relieurs et fondeurs de lettres de Lyon au XVIÀme siÀcle, 12 vol., Paris: De Nobele. Bavinck, Herman (1930), Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Eng.: Reformed Dogmatics), vol. 4, 4th ed., Kampen: Kok. Bavinck, Herman (1887/ 2009), ‘Calvijns leer over het Avondmaal’, in Opnieuw Calvijn: Verzameling Nederlandse Calvijnstudies, Herman Selderhuis/ William den Boer (ed.), Apeldoorn, vol. 1, 111–125. Bayer, Oswald (1989), Promissio: Geschichte der reformatorischen Wende in Luthers Theologie, 2nd ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Bayer, Oswald (2007), Martin Luthers Theologie, 3rd ed., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (1930), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [= BSLK] Beisser, Friedrich (1970), ‘Zur Deutung von Luthers Zwei-Reich-Lehre’, in Kerygma und Dogma 16, 229–241. Benedict, Philip (2002), Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism, New Haven: Yale University Press. Benedict, Philip/ Fornerod, Nicolas (2009), ‘Les 2150 ‘¦glises’ r¦form¦es de France de 1561–1562’, in Revue Historique, no. 311, 529–560. Benrath, Gustav A. (ed.) (1968), Reformtheologen des 15. Jahrhunderts, Gu¨ tersloh: Mohn. Benoist, René (1564), Seconde epitre — Jean Calvin, dict ministre de GenÀve, Paris: Nicolas Chesneau.

Bibliography

339

Bergier, Jean-François/ Robert M. Kingdon (ed.) (1964/ 1962), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de GenÀve au temps de Calvin, vol. 1: 1546–1553, vol. 2: 1553– 1564, GenÀve: Droz. [= RCP] [Bern] Der Berner Synodus von 1532. Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, Locher Gottfried W. (ed.) (1982/ 1988), 2 vol., Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. [= BS] Beveridge, Henry (1849/ 1851, reprint 1958), ‘Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ’, in Calvin’s Tracts and Treatises, vol. II and III, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, vol. 2, 163–198. [= TT] Beyer, Michael/ Wartenberg, Günther (ed.) (2009), Martin Luther: LateinischDeutsche Studienausgabe III, Leipzig: Evang. Verlag. Beyschlag, Karlmann (2000), Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte II/2, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Beza, Theodore (2009), Belijdenis van het christelijk geloof (Confession de foy chrestienne, QuartiÀme edition, z.p. [Caen] 1561); in Mees te Velde (ed.), Confessies: Gereformeerde geloofsverantwoording in zestiende-eeuws Europa, Heerenveen: Groen, 140–351. Beza, Theodore (1580/ 1883–1889), Histoire eccle´siastique des E´glises Re´forme´es au Royaume de France [Attribu¦e souvent — Beza], Johann W. Baum, August E. Cunitz et Rodolphe E. Reuss (ed.), 3 vol., Paris: Fischbacher. Beza, Theodore (1556–1571/ 1962–1988), Correspondance de The´odore de Be`ze, par Hippolyte Aubert/ Alain Dufour/ Henri Meylan (ed.), GenÀve: Droz. Bèze, Theodore de (1965), Correspondance de Th¦odore de BÀze III (1559–1561), Hippolyte Aubert, Alain Dufour and Henry Meylan (ed.), GenÀve: Droz. Bie, Linden J. de (2013) (ed.), Coena Mystica, Debating Reformed Eucharistic Theology [Johan Williamson Nevin and Charles Hodge], Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock. Bizer, Ernst (1940/ 1972), Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Blocher, Henri A.G. (2014), Calvin on the Lord’s Supper : Revisiting an Intriguing Diversity, part 1, in WTJ 76 (2014), 55–93. Boer, Erik A. de (1993), ‘Hypocrisie in de Schrift, confessie en prediking: Een typering van kerkleden in Zondag 30–32 van de Catechismus’, in Theologia Reformata 36, 370– 383. Boersma, Hans (2011), Heavenly Participation: The weaving of a sacramental tapestry, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bohatec, Josef (1937), Calvins Lehre von Staat und Kirche mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Organismusgedankens, [Untersuchungen zur Deutsche Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, 147], Breslau: M. & H. Marcus. Bor, Pieter (1679–1684), Oorsprongk, begin en vervolgh der Nederlandsche oorlogen, beroerten, en borgerlijke oneenigheden. Beginnende met d’opdracht der selve landen, gedaen by keyser Karel den vijfden, aen sijnen soon konink Philippus van Spanjen [etc.] Met: Byvoegsel van Authentieke stukken behorende tot de Historie van P. Bor, 2 vol., Amsterdam: By de weduwe van Joannes van Someren. Bouwsma, William J. (1988), John Calvin: A Sixteenth century portrait, New York/ Oxford.

340

Bibliography

Brady, Thomas A. (2000), ‘The Holy Roman Empire’s Bishops on the Eve of the Reformation’, in Robert J. Bast/ Andrew C. Gow, Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History. Essays Presented to Heiko A. Oberman on his 70th Birthday, Leiden [etc.]: Brill, 20–47. Brandt, Geeraert (1671–1704), Historie der reformatie, en andere kerkelyke geschiedenissen, in en ontrent de Nederlanden. Met eenige Aentekeningen en Aenmerkingen. Naerder oversien, merklijk vermeerdert, en vervolgt tot het jaer 1600, 4 vol., Amsterdam: J. Rieuwertsz. Brecht, Martin (1986), Martin Luther, vol. 2: Ordnung und Abgrenzung der Reformation 1521–1532, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. Browe, Peter (1933), Die verehrung der Eucharistie im Mittelalter, München: Max Hueber. Bucer, Martin (1969), The Reign of Christ, in Melanchthon and Bucer, Wilhelm Pauck (ed.), Philadelphia: Westminster Press, p. 174–265. Bugenhafen, Johannes (2015), Selected Writings, Kurt K. Mendel (ed.), 2 vol., Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Buisson, Albert (1950), Michel de l’Hospital 1503–1573, Paris: Hachette. [Bullinger] Heinrich Bullinger Werke: Briefwechsel, Ulrich Gäbler/ Endre Zsindely (ed.) (1973–1989), 4 vol., Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. [= BW] Burkhardt, Carl A.H. (1879/ 1981), Geschichte der sächsischen Kirchen- und Schulvisitation von 1524 bis 1545, Leipzig: Grunow. Burkhardt, Carl A.H. (1894), ‘Die älteste Kirchen- und Schulvisitation im östlichen Thüringen 1527’, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken 67, 773–782. Busch, Eberhard (2005), Gotteserkenntnis und Menschlichkeit: Einsichten in die Theologie Johannes Calvins, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. Calvin, Jean (1863–1900), Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, Guilielmus Baum/ August E. Cunitz/ Eduard W.E. Reuss (ed.), 59 vol., Brunswick: C.A. Schwetschke. [= CO 1–59 / CR 29–87] Calvin, Jean (1926–1936), Joannis Calvini Opera selecta, Petrus Barth/ Guilelmus Niesel (ed.), 5 vol., Munich: Kaiser. [= OS] Calvin, Jean (1970), ‘Petit traict¦ de la saincte cÀne de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ’, in Francis M. Higman, Jean Calvin: Three French Treatises, London/ New York, 99–130 [= CO, vol. 5, 433–460 = OS, vol. 1, 503–530 = CStA, vol. 1.2, 422–493. Calvin, Jean (2009), Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata. Series IV Scripta didactica et polemica, vol. 4: Epistolae duae (1537) Deux discourse (Oct. 1536), Erik A. de Boer/ Frans P. van Stam (ed.), GenÀve: Droz. [= COR 4/4] Calvin, Jean (2005), Ioannis Calvini opera omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata, Series VI: Epistolae, vol. 1: 1530–sept. 1538, Cornelis Augustijn/ Frans P. van Stam (ed.), Geneva: Droz. [= COR 6/1] Calvin, Jean, Institution de la religion chre´tienne (1541/ 2008), Olivier Millet (ed.), GenÀve: Droz. [= IRC] Calvin, Jean (1994f), Calvin-Studienausgabe, Eberhard Busch/ Matthias Freudenberg/ Alasdair Heron (ed.), Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn. [= CStA]

Bibliography

341

Camerarius, Joachim (2010), Das Leben Philipp Melanchthons übersetzt von Volker Werner mit einer Einführung und Anmerkungen versehen von Heinz Scheible, Leipzig: Stiftung Luther-Gedenkstätten in Sachsen-Anhalt. Campi, Emidio (2009), ‘Consensus Tigurinus: Werden, Wertung und Wirkung’, in Emidio Campi/ Ruedi Reich (ed.), Consensus Tigurinus: Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, Zürich: TVZ, 9–41. Canlis, Julie (2010), Calvin’s Ladder, A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Carbonnier-Burkard, Marianne (2010), ‘Consensus et diff¦rend dans le Petit trait¦ de la sante cÀne’, in Matthieu Arnold (ed.), Jean Calvin: les ann¦es strasbourgeoises (1538–1541), Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 223–249. Caspers, Charles M.A. (1992), De eucharistische vroomheid en het feest van sacramentsdag in de Late Middeleeuwen [Miscellanea Neerlandica, 5], Leuven: Peeters. Caspers, Charles/ Lukken, Gerard/ Rouwhorst, Gerard (ed.) (1995), Bread of Heaven: Customs and Practices Surrounding Holy Communion. Essays in the History of Liturgy and Culture, Kampen: Kok. Caspers, Charles M.A. (1996), ‘Meum summum desiderium est te habere. De Eucharistie als sarament vn de godsontmoeting voor alle gelovigen, ca. 1200–ca. 1500’, in Ons Geestelijk Erf 70, 193–215. Caspers, Charles M.A. (2006), ‘Thomas von Kempen und die Kommunion. Die Stellung des vieren (dritten) Buches der ‘Imitatio’ innerhalb der spätmittelalterlichen und späteren eucharistischen Frömmigkeit’, in Ulrike Bodemann/ Nikolaus Saubach (Hrsg.), Aus dem Winkel in die Welt. Die Bücher des Thomas von Kempen und ihre Schicksale, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 158–172. Chadwick, Henry (2001), The Church in Ancient Society : From Galilee to Gregory the Great, Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press. Clairvaux, Bernhard of (1963), ‘Liber de gradibus humilitatis et superbiae’, in Sancti Bernardi Opera, vol. 3, Tractatus et opuscula, Jean Leclercq/ Henri Rochais (ed.), Romae: Ed. Cistercienses. Cohrs, Ferdinand (1900f/ 1978/ 2009), Die Evangelischen Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion: Die evangelischen Katechismusversuche aus den Jahren 1527– 1528 (MGB 21), 2 vol., Berlin/ Hildesheim: Hofmann/ Olms. Condé-Bourbon, Louis (1743), Memoires de Cond¦, servant d’¦claircissement et de preuves — l’Histoire de M. de Thou: contenant ce qui s’est pass¦ de plus m¦morable en Europe, vol. 2, London/ Paris: Rollin. Cottret, Bernard (2000), Calvin: A Biography, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cramer, Frédéric-Auguste (1853), Notes extraites des r¦gistres du Consistoire de L’Eglise de GenÀve, 1541–1814, GenÀve: Droz. Daussy, Hugues (2014), Le Parti Huguenot : Chronique d’une d¦sillusion (1557–1572), GenÀve: Droz. Davis, Thomas J. (2008), ‘Discerning the Body : The Eucharist and the Christan Social Body in Sixtheenth-Century Protestant Exegesis’, in idem, This is My Body: The Presence of christ in Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 149–168. [Delius] Studienausgabe Martin Luther, Hans-Ulrich Delius/ Helmar Junghans (ed.) (1979–1999), 6 vol., vol. 3 (1983): Preface of Luther, 402–414, Instructions of the Visitors, 415–462, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

342

Bibliography

Denzinger, Heinrich J.D./ Schönmetzer, Adolf (ed.) (1991), Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Verbessert, erweitert, ins Deutsche übertragen und unter Mitarbeit von Helmut Hoping herausgegeben von Peter Hünermann, 37e (ed.), Freiburg u. a.: Herder. Denzinger, Heinrich J.D./ Hünermann, Peter (2001), Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen, Freiburg: Herder. Dijk, Rudolf van (2012), Twaalf kapittels over ontstaan, bloei en doorwerking van de Moderne Devotie, C. Caspers/ R. Hofman (ed.), Hilversum: Verloren. Doumergue, Emile (1899–1928), Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps, 7 vol., Lausanne: Bridel. Drews, Paul (1908), ‘Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?’, in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 9–38. Du Cange, Charles Du Fresne (1840–1850), Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, 7 vol., Paris: Firmin Didot. Dufour, Alain (1970), ‘Le colloque de Poissy’, in Henri Meylan, Me´langes d’histoire du XVIe sie`cle. Offerts a` Henri Meylan, Gene`ve: Droz, 127–137. Dufour, Alain (1980), ‘Das Religionsgespräch von Poissy : Hoffnungen der Reformierten und der “Moyenneurs”’, in Gerhard Müller (ed.), Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit, Gütersloh: Mohn, 117–126. Duke, Alastair C. (1990), Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries, London [etc.]: The Hambledon Press. Duke, Alastair C./ Lewis, Gillian/ Pettegree, Andrew (1992), Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1610: A collection of documents, Manchester/ New York: Manchester University Press. Dulk, Maarten den (1987), …Als twee die spreken: Een manier om de heiligingsleer van Karl Barth te lezen, ’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Ebeling, Gerhard (1964), Luther: Einführung in sein Denken, Tübingen: Mohr. Egli, Emil (ed.) (1879/ 1973), Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519–1533, Zürich/ Nieuwkoop: De Graaf. Eijk, Antonius H.C. (2010), Eucharistie: Het woord en het brood [Theologische Perspectieven 4], Bergambacht: 2vm. Elders, Leo J./ Tukker, Cornelis A. (1992), Thomas van Aquino: Zijn leven, leer en invloed, Leiden/ Brugge: Groen/ Tabor. Elwood, Christopher (1999), The Body Broken: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and the Symbolization of Power in Sixteenth-Century France, New York: Oxford University Press. Erasmus, Desiderius (1530), St. John Chrysostom’s Opera, 5 vol., Basel: Hervagrius. Erasmus, Desiderius (1511/ 1933/ 1964), ‘De ratione studii’, in Ausgewahlte Werke, Hajo Holborn (ed.), Munich: C.H. Beck. Erasmus, Desiderius (1968), Enchiridion militis christiani, Werner Welzig (ed.), vol. 1, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Erastus, Thomas (1589), Explicatio gravissimae quaestionis utrum Excommunicatio, Pesclauii [i. e., London]: Boacium Sultaceterum. Estes, James Martin (1998), ‘The Role of Godly Magistrates in the Church: Melanchthon as Luther’s Interpreter and Collaborator’, in Church History 67/3, 463–483.

Bibliography

343

Estes, James Martin (2000), ‘Luther’s First Appeal to Secular Authorities for help with Church Reform, 1520’, in Robert J. Bast/ Andrew C. Gow, Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History. Essays Presented to Heiko A. Oberman on his 70th Birthday, Leiden [etc.]: Brill, 48–76. Evans Gilian R. (1989), ‘Calvin on Signs: an Augustinian Dilemma’, in Renaissance Studies 3, 35–45. Ewerszumrode, Frank (2012), Mysterium Christi spiritualis praesentia: Die Abendmahlslehre des Genfer Reformators Johannes Calvin aus römisch-katholischer Perspektive, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Faber, Eva-Maria (1999), Symphonie von Gott und Mensch: Die responsorische Struktur von Vermittlung in der Theologie Johannes Calvins, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Farel, Guillaume (1980), Sommaire et brÀve declaration 1525, Arthur-L. Hofer (ed.), Neuch–tel (Suisse): Êditions ‘Belle Rivie`re’. Faulenbach, Heiner/ Busch, Eberhard/ Saxer, Ernst (ed.) (2006), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 1.2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Feine, Hans E.A.(1902/ 1972), Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, die Katholische Kirche, Köln, Böhlau. Feld, Helmut (2001), Opera exegetica XII/2, GenÀve: Droz. Fischer, Emil (1902/03/ 1972), Zur Geschichte der evangelischen Beichte, vol. 1, Aalen: Scientia Verlag. Florentinus, Antoninus De (1499), Summala confessionis, Strasbourg. Forbes, Patrick (1740), A full view of the public transactions in the reign of Q. Elizabeth: or, a particular account of all the memorable affairs of that Queen, Transmitted down to us in a series of letters and other papers of state, written by herself and her principal ministers [etc.], vol. 1, London: G. Hawkins. Frantzen, Allen J. (1983), The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Gansfort, Johannes (1614/ 1966), Wesseli Gansfortii Groningensis Opera, Groningæ/ Nieuwkoop: Excudebat Ioannes Sassivs/ De Graaf. Gansfort, Wessel (1968), ‘De sacramento poenitentiae et quae sint claves ecclesiae’, in Reformtheologen des 15. Jahrhunderts, Gustav A. Benrath (Hrsg.), Gütersloh: Mohn, 61–92. Geest, Paul J.J. van (1996), Thomas a Kempis (1379/1380–1471): Een studie van zijn mens- en godsbeeld. Analyse en tekstuitgave van de Hortulus rosarum en de Vallis liliorum. Kampen: Kok. Geest, Paul J.J. van (2014), ‘Johannes Calvijn en de onbeschrijflijke verborgenheid van Christus’, in E¦n met Christus: Een klein traktaat over het heilige Avondmaal van Johannes Calvijn, vertaald en ingeleid door Herman Speelman, Kampen: Brevier, 8–10. Geest, Paulvan (2015), ‘“Timor est servus caritatis” (s. 156.13–14). Augustine’s Vision on Coercion in the Process of Returning Heretics to the Catholic Church and his Underlying Principles’, in Anthony Dupont, Matthew A. Gaumer, Mathijs Lamberigts (ed.), The Uniquely African Controversy: Studies on Donatist Christianity [Late Antique History and Religion, 9], Louvain: Peeters, 289–309. Geest, Paul van (2015), ‘“Ergo sic time Dominum, ut speres in misericordia eius” (En. In ps. 146, 20). Augustine on the relationship between fear of God en personal prayer’, in

344

Bibliography

Hans van Loon, Michiel Op de Coul (ed.), The Early Christian Mystagogy of Prayer [Late Antique History and Religion, 12], Louvain: Peeters. Geisendorf, Paul F. (1949), The´odore de Be`ze, Gene`ve [etc.]: Labor et Fides. Gerrish, Brian A. (1982), ‘Sign and Reality : The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confessions’, in idem, The Old Protestantism and the New : Essays on the Reformation Heritage, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 118–130. Gerrish, Brian A. (1988), ‘Discerning the Body : Sign and Reality in Luther’s Controversy with the Swiss’, in Journal of Religion 68, no. 3 (July), 377–395. Gerrish, Brian A. (1993), Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Gerson, Jean Charlier de (1706/ 1987), Opera omnia, Louis Ellies du Pin (ed.), 7 vol., Antwerpen/ Hildesheim [etc.]: Olms. Geyer, Hans Georg (1965), Von der Geburt des wahren Menschen. Probleme aus den Anfängen der Theologie Melanchthons, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Goldie, Mark (ed.) (1997), Locke, Political Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gregory, Brad S. (2012), The Unintended reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, Cambridge [etc.]: Harvard University Press. Goossens, André (1999), ‘R¦sonances eucharistiques — la fin du Moyen Age’, in Andr¦ Haquin (ed.), FÞte-Dieu (1246–1996), vol. 1, Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut d’Êtudes M¦di¦vales de l’Universit¦ Catholique de Louvain, 173–191. Grosse, Christian (2008), Les rituels de la cÀne: Le culte eucharistique r¦form¦ — GenÀve (XVIe–XVIIe siÀcles), GenÀve: Droz. Grosse, Christian (2009), ‘Aux origins des pratiques consistoriales de pacification des conflits: “le Conseil de paix”(1527–1529)’, in Les registres du Conseil de la R¦publique de GenÀve sous l’Ancien R¦gime, Catherine Santschi/ Sandra Coram-Mekkey/ Christophe Chazalon (ed.), Geneva: Archives d’Etat de GenÀve: Droz, 29–63. Gründler, Otto (1987), ‘Devotio Moderna’, in Jill Raitt (ed.), Christian Spirituality : High Middle Ages and Reformation, New York: Crossroad/ London: Routledge/ Kegan Paul, 176–193. Hahn, Alois (1982), ‘Zur Soziologie der Beichte und anderer Formen institutionalisierter Bekenntnisse: Selbstthematisierung und Zivilisationsprozess’, in Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 34, 407–434. Hahn, Alois (1987), ‘Identität und Selbstthematisierung’, in Selbstthematisierung und Selbstzeugnis: Bekenntnis und Geständnis, Alois Hahn/ Volker Knapp (ed.), Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp, 7–23. Hamman, Gustav (1952), Nomismus und Antinomismus innerhalb der Wittenberger Theologie von 1524–1530 (Dissertation), Bonn: s.n. Härle, Wilfried (ed.) (2006), Martin Luther: Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe I, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Harnack, Adolf von (1976), History of Dogma, transl. Neil Buchanan, vol. 7, Gloucester : Peter Smith. Hausammann, Susi (1974), Busse als Umkehr und Erneuerung von Mensch und Gesellschaft: Eine theologiegeschichtliche Studie zu einer Theologie der Busse, Zürich: Theolog. Verl.

Bibliography

345

Herrmann, Rudolf (1929/31), ‘Die Kirchenvisitationen im Ernestinischen Thüringen von 1528’, in Beiträge zur thüringischen Kirchengeschichte 1, 167–229. Herminjard, Aimé-Louis (1866–1897; reprint 1965–1966), Correspondance des r¦formateurs dans les pays de langue franÅaise, 9 vol., GenÀve/ Paris: Georg/ Levy, reprint Nieuwkoop: De Graaf. [= Hermj.] Hesselink, John I. (2008), ‘Pneumatologie’, in Herman. J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvijn Handboek, Kampen: Kok, 337–352. Heussi, Karl (1971), Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 13th (ed.), Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/ Paul Siebeck Verlag. Higman, Francis M. (1970), Jean Calvin: Three French Treatises, London/ New York: The Athlone Press. Higman, Francis M. (1992), ‘L‘Eglise en France, 1550–1562’, in idem, La diffusion de la R¦forme en France 1520–1565, GenÀve: Êditions Labor et Fides. Higman, Francis M. (1996), Piety and the People Religious Printing in French 1511– 1551, Aldershot: Scolar Press. Hoffmann, Georg (1938), ‘Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Augustana: Der “Unterricht der Visitatoren” als Vorlage des Bekenntnisses’, in Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie 15, 419–490. Holböck, Carl (1961), ‘Konsistorium’, in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Josef Höfner/ Karl Rahner (ed.), vol. 6, Freiburg, 476–477. Holl, Karl (1932), ‘Die Entstehung von Luthers Kirchenbegriff, 1915’, in idem, Gesammelte Aufsätzen zur Kirchengeschichte I: Luther, Tübingen: Mohr, 288–326. Holl, Karl (1932), ‘Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment, 1911’, in idem, Gesammelte Aufsätzen zur Kirchengeschichte I: Luther, Tübingen: Mohr, 326–380. Horton, Michael, Calvin’s Eucharistic Ecclesiology, in David W. Hall, Tributes to John Calvin. A Celebration of his Quincentenary, Phillipsburg NY: P& R Publishing Company 2010, 381–418. Höss, Irmgard (1972), ‘The Lutheran Church of the Reformation: Problems of Its Formation and Organization in the Middle and North German Territories’, in Lawrence P. Buck/ Jonathan W. Zophy (ed.), The Social History of the Reformation, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 317–339. Hunsinger, George (2000), Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. Immink, Gerrit (2011), Het heilige gebeurt: Praktijk, theologie en traditie van de protestantse kerkdienst, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Impeta, Christoffel N. (1959), Werken van Dr. Maarten Luther I: De Babylonische gevangenschap van de kerk, Brief aan Paus Leo X, en De vrijheid van een christen, Kampen: Kok. Jadatz, Heiko (2007), Wittenberger Reformation im Leipziger Land. Dorfgemeinden im Spiegel der evangelischen Kirchenvisitationen des 16. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Janse, Wim (2008a), ‘Calvijn over het avondmaal’, in Protestants Nederland no. 9 t/m 12. Janse, Wim (2008b), ‘Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology : Three Dogma-Historical Observations’, in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 37–69.

346

Bibliography

Janse, Wim (2008c), ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Holy Supper’, in Sou-Young Lee (ed.), Calvin in Asian Churches, Seoul, vol. 3, 171–206. Janse, Wim (2008d), ‘Sakramenten’, in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvijn Handboek, Kampen: Kok, 387–397. Johnson, Luke T. (1996), ‘Religious Rights and Christian Texts’, in John Witte, Jr./ Johan D. van der Vyver (ed.), Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective. Religious Perspectives, The Hague/ Boston/ London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 65–96. Karpp, Heinrich (1969), Die Busse: Quellen zur Entstehung des altkirchlichen Busswesens, Zürich: EVZ-Verlag. Kawerau, Gustav (1881), Johann Agricola von Eisleben, Berlin: W. Hertz. Keller, Carl-A. (2001), Calvin mystique: Au coeur de la pens¦e du R¦formateur, GenÀve: Labor et Fides. Kempis, Thomas A. (1441/ 1902–1922), ‘Imitatio Christi’, in Thomae a Kempis canonici regularis ordinis S. Augustini Opera Omnia, M.J. Pohl (ed.), 7 vol., Freibourg i.B.: Herder, vol. 2, 3–263. [= OO] Kempis, Thomas A. (1441/ 1904), ‘Devota exhortation ad sacram communionem’, in Thomae a Kempis canonici regularis ordinis S. Augustini Opera Omnia, M.J. Pohl (ed.), Freibourg i.B.: Herder, vol. 2, 89–138. Kingdon, Robert M./ Bergier, J.F. (ed.) (1964/ 1962), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de GenÀve au temps de Calvin, vol. 1: 1546–1553 and vol. 2: 1553–1564, GenÀve: Droz. [= RCP] Kingdon, Robert M. (1984), ‘Calvin and the Government of Geneva’, in Wilhelm H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos, Bern: Peter Lang, 49–67. Kingdon, Robert M. (1990), ‘Calvin and the Establishment of Consistory Discipline in Geneva: The Institution and the Men Who Directed It’, in Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 70/1, 158–172. Kingdon, Robert M. (1993), ‘Social Control and Political Control in Calvin’s Geneva’, in Hans R. Guggisberg (ed.), The Reformation in Germany and Europe: Interpretations and Issues, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 521–532. Kingdon, Robert M. (1994), ‘The Geneva Consistory in the time of Calvin’, in Andrew Pettegree/ Alastair Duke/ Gillian Lewis (ed.), Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1620, Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge University Press, 21–34. Kingdon, Robert M. (1994a), ‘The First Calvinist Divorce’, in Mentzer Raymond A. (ed.), Sin and the Calvinists: Morals Control and the Consistory in the Reformed Tradition. [Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 32] Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1–14. Kingdon, Robert M. (1995), Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kingdon, Robert M., Transcription of the Registers of the Geneva Consistory during the Ministry of Calvin, Unpublished, Present in the Speer Library of Princeton Theological Seminary and in the Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin College and Seminary. [= Kingdon, Transcription] Kingdon, Robert M. (ed.) (1996f), Registres du Consistoire de GenÀve au temps de Calvin, vol. 2 (2001): 1545–1546, vol. 4 (2007): 1548, GenÀve: Droz: Droz. [= RC] Kingdon, Robert M. (1997), ‘Calvin in Light of Geneva Consistory Registers’, in Wilhelm H. Neuser/ Brian J. Armstrong (ed.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, Calvin as

Bibliography

347

Protector of the Purer Religion, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 21– 33. Kingdon, Robert M. (1999), ‘Calvin’s Socio-Political Legacy : Collective Government, Resistance to Tyranny, Discipline’, in David Foxgrover, The Legacy of John Calvin [Papers presented at the 12th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society], 112–123. Kingdon, Robert M. (2005), ‘The New Alliance of Church and State. The Reformation Work of the Genevan Council and Consistory’, in John Witte, Jr./ Robert M. Kingdon, Sex, Marriage, And Family in John Calvin’s Geneva 1: Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage, Grand Rapids [etc.]: Eerdmans, 62–93. Kingdon, Robert M./ Lambert, Thomas A. (2012), Reforming Geneva: Discipline, Faith and Anger in Calvin’s Geneva, GenÀve: Droz. Kjeldgaard-Pedersen, Steffen (1983), Gesetz, Evangelium und Busse: Theologiegeschichtliche Studien zum Verhältnis zwischen dem jungen Johann Agricola (Eisleben) und Martin Luther, Leiden: Brill. Kobler, Beate (2014), Die Entstehung des negativen Melanchthonbildes, Protestantische Melanchthonkritik bis 1560, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Köhler, Wolter (1929), Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion [SVRG 148], Leipzig: Heinsius. Köhler, Wolter (1932/ 1942), Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, vol. 1: Das Zürcher Ehegericht und seine Auswirkung in der Deutschen Schweiz zur Zeit Zwinglis, vol. 2: Das Ehe- und Sittengericht in den Süddeutschen Reichsstädten, dem Herzogtum Württemberg und in Genf, Leipzig: Heinsius. Kolb, Robert/ Wengert, Timothy (ed.) (2001), Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Kooi, Kees van der (2002), Als in een Spiegel. God kennen volgens Calvijn en Barth. Kampen: Kok. Kooiman, Willem J. (1946/ 6th ed. 1962), Maarten Luther, doctor der Heilige Schrift, Reformator der Kerk, Amsterdam: Ten Have. Kooiman, Willem J. (1963), Philippus Melanchthon, Amsterdam: Ten Have. Köstlin, Julius (1875), Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften, 2 vol., Elberfeld, R.L. Friderichs. Kroon, Marijn de (2004), ‘Augustinus’ Epistula fundamenti in de uitleg van Johannes Calvijn’, in Bram van de Beek, Wout M. van Laar (ed.), Sola Gratia: Bron voor de Reformatie en uitdaging voor nu, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum, 70–86. Kroon, Marijn de (2004), ‘Wij geloven in God en in Christus. Niet in de kerk’: Wessel Gansfort (gest. 1489) en Martin Bucer (gest. 1551), Kampen: Kok. Krumwiede, Hans-Walter (1967), Zur Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen und in Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lang, August (1900/ 1972), Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundzüge seiner Theologie, Leipzig: Dieterich. Lange, Dietz (1982), ‘An die Ratsherrn aller Städte deutschen Landes, dass sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen (1524)’, in Karin Bornkamm/ Gerhard Ebeling (ed.), Martin Luther, Ausgewählte Schriften, vol. 5: Kirche, Gottesdienst und Schuld, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 40–72.

348

Bibliography

Langbein, John H. (1977), Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien R¦gime, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, Jung-Sook (1997), Excommunication and Restoration in Calvin’s Geneva, 1555–1556, Princeton: University Press. Lee, Jung-Sook (2016), ‘“True Repentance” in the Consistorial Discipline in Geneva and Its Relevance to the Korean Church’, lecture given at the International Congress on Calvin Research, Zurich, Switzerland 24–28 Augustus 2014, upcoming article in Herman J. Selderhuis and Arnold Huijgen (ed.), Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae. Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 34–47. Léonard, Emile G. (1961–1964), Histoire ge´ne´rale du protestantisme, 3 vol., Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Leppin, Volker (2006), Martin Luther, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Lietzmann, Hans (ed.) (1998), Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, herausgegeben im Gedenkjahr der Augsburgischen Konfession 1930, 2 vol., 12th printing, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [= BSLK] Link, Christian (2009), Prädestination und Erwählung: Calvin-Studien, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukichener. Locher, Gottfried W. (1969), ‘Grundzüge der Theologie Zwinglis’, in idem, Huldrych Zwingli in neuer Sicht, Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 173–274. Locher, Gottfried W. (1979), Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europaschen Kirchengeschichte, Göttingen/ Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Locher, Gottfried W. (ed.) (1984/ 1988), Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, 2 vol., Neukirchen/ Bern: Neukirchener Verlag. [= BS] Locke, John (1689/1960), Two Treatises of Government, Peter Laslett (ed.), Cambridge: University Press. Locke, John (1689/1983), A Letter Concerning Toleration, James H. Tully (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett. Lohse, Bernhard (1987), Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work, Edinburgh: Clark. Lohse, Bernhard (1995), Luthers Theologie in ihrer historischen Entwicklung und in ihrem systematischen Zusammenhang, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lualdi, Katharine J./ Thayer, Anne T. (2000), Penitence in the Age of Reformations, Burlington: Ashgate. Lubac, Henri de (2006), Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, San Francisco: Ignatius. Lurz, Friedrich (1998), Die Feier des Abendmahls nach der Kurpfälzischen Kirchenordnung von 1563, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. [Luther] Dr. Martin Luthers’ sämmtliche Werke (1862–1885), 67 vol., Erlangen: C. Heyder. [Luther] Dr. Martin Luthers sämtliche Schriften (1880–1910), Johann G. Walch (ed.), Gross-Oesingen: Verlag der Lutherischen Buchhandlung. [Luther] D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (1883–1983, reprint 1964f), 60 vol. (vol. 26, 1909), Weimar : Böhlau. [= WA]

Bibliography

349

[Luther] D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Briefwechsel (1930–1985), vol. 1–18, Weimar : Böhlau. [Luther] Luthers Werke in Auswahl, Otto K. Clemen (ed.), (vol. 1, 4, 5 and vol. 6, 1925, 1926, 1933, 2nd ed. 1955), Berlin/ Bonn: de Gruyter. [= LW] [Luther] Luther’s Works (1958), Conrad Bergendoff (ed.), (vol. 40/2 Church and Ministry), Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press. [Luther] Martin Luther. Ausgewählte Werke (1965), Hans Heinrich Borcherdt/ Georg Merz (ed.), (6 vol.), München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag. [Luther] Martin Luther, Ausgewählte Schriften (1982), Karin Bornkamm/ Gerhard Ebeling (ed.), (6 vol.), Frankfurt am Main: Insel. [Luther] Martin Luther Studienausgabe (1979–1999), Hans-Ulrich Delius/ Helmar Junghans/ Joachim Rogge/ Günter Wartenberg (ed.) (6 vol.), Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. [Luther] Kiezen is dienen. De servo arbitrio Luthers antwoord aan Erasmus (2010), vertaling van Max Staudt en Krista Mirjam Dijkerman met voorwoord van Markus Matthias, Kampen: Kok. Macculloch, Diarmaid (2005), Reformatie: Het Europese Huis gedeeld 1490–1700, Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Mansi, Joannis D. (1748–1752/ 1901–1927/ reprint 1960–1962), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 53 vol., Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [= Mansi] Markus, Robert A. (1972), ‘St. Augustine on Signs’, in idem (ed.), Augustine: A Collection of Critical Essays, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 61–91. Maurer, Wilhelm (1960), ‘Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Harnack und Sohm und die Begründung eines evangelischen Kirchenrechtes’, in Kerygma und Dogma 6, 194– 213. Maurer, Wilhelm (1967/ 1969), Der junge Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation, vol. I: Der Humanist and vol. II: Der Theologe, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. McDonnell, Kilian (1967), John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist, Princeton: University Press. McKee, Elsie A. (1984), John Calvin on the Diaconate and Liturgical Almsgiving, Geneva: Droz. McKee, Elsie A. (2009), John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1541 French Edition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. McNeill, John T. (1932), ‘Medicine for Sin as Prescribed in the Penitentials’, in Church History 1, 14–26. McNeill, John T. (1951), A History of the Cure of Souls, New York: Harper & Bros. McNeill, John T. (1954), The History and Character of Calvinism, New York [etc.]: Oxford University Press. McNeill, John T./ Battles, Ford L. (ed.) (1960), John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vol., Louisville/ London: The Westminster press. [= Inst.] Melanchthon, Philippus, Loci communes (1521/ 1933): Lateinisch – Deutsch. Übersetzt und mit kommentierenden Anmerkungen versehen von Horst G. Pöhlmann, Gütersloh: Mohn.

350

Bibliography

Melanchthon, Philippus (1527/ 1858/ 1964f), ‘Articuli de quibus egerunt per Visitatores in Regione Saxoniae’ (Wittembergae: Nic. Schirlentz), in Karl G. Bretschneider (ed.), Corpus Reformatorum, Brunsvigae/ Graz: Akademie druk, vol. 26, 7–28; Dutch translation in Speelman: 2013, ch. 9, 297–322. [= AV] Melanchthon, Philippus (1528), ‘Unterricht der visitatoren an die pfarrherrn im kurfürstenthum zu Sachsen’, in Karl G. Bretschneider (ed.) (1858; reprint Graz 1964f.), Corpus Reformatorum, Brunsvigae/ Graz: Akademie Druk, vol. 26, 415–462 = HansUlrich Delius (ed.) (1979–1999), Studienausgabe Martin Luther, 6 vol., Leipzig/ Berlin: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, vol. 3 (1983), 415–462 = Dutch translation in Speelman: 2011, 351–387. [= UdV] Melanchthon, Philippus (1535), ‘Loci Communes’, in Corpus Reformatorum 21, 229– 559 = Melanchthonis Opera Database (2008), Herman J. Selderhuis/ William den Boer (ed.), Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek. [Melanchthon] Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, Robert Stupperich, Richard Nürnberger (ed.) (1951–1975), vol. I: Reformatorische Schriften (1951) and vol. III: Humanistische Schriften (1961), 7 vol., Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. [Melanchthon] Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe. Richard Wetzel/ Heinz Scheible (ed.) (1991f), Stuttgart/ Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. [= MBW] Mentzer, Raymond A. Jr. (1991), ‘Ecclesiastical discipline and Communal Reorganization among the Protestants of Southern France’, in European History Quarterly 21, 163–183. Mentzer, Raymond A. Jr. (ed.) (1994), Sin and the Calvinists: Morals Control and the Consistory in the Reformed Tradition [Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 32], Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers. Mentzer, Raymond A. Jr. (2000), ‘The French Wars of Religion’, in Andrew Pettegree, The Reformation World, London/ New York: Routledge, 323–343. Millet, Olivier (1992), Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: Etude de rh¦torique r¦form¦e, GenÀve: Droz. Millet, Olivier (ed.) (2008), Jean Calvin, Institution de la Religion Chr¦tienne (1541), 2 vol., GenÀve: Droz. [= IRC] Milway, Michael (2000), ‘Forgotten Best-Sellers from the Dawn of the Reformation’, in Robert J. Bast/ Andrew C. Gow, Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History. Essays Presented to Heiko A. Oberman on his 70th Birthday, Leiden [etc.]: Brill, 113–142. Moehn, Wim H.Th. (2001), “God calls us to His service”: The Relation Between God and His Audience in Calvin’s Sermons on Acts, Geneva: Droz. Monter, E.William (1967), Calvin’s Geneva, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Monter, E.William (1976), The Consistory of Geneva, 1559–1569 [Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 38], GenÀve: Droz. Mönnich, Conrad W./ Niftrik, Gerrit C. van (1958), Hervormd-Luhters gesprek over het Avondmaal: Explicatio van de consensus over het Avondmaal 1956 tussen de Nederlandse Hervormde en de Evangelisch-Lutherse kerk, Nijkerk: Callenbach. Moore-Keish, Martha L. (2008), Do This in Remembrance of Me: A Ritual Approach to Reformed Eucharistic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

351

Müller, Ernst (1984), ‘Zur Neuordnung des Kirchenwesens im Kurfürstentum Sachsen um 1525’, in Jahrbuch für Regionalgeschichte 11, 174–186. Müller, Gerhard (ed.) (1985), Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin/ New York. [= TRE] Müller, Karl (1910), Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther, Tübingen: Mohr. Muller, Richard (2009), ‘De Zurich ou B–le — Strasbourg? Êtude sur les pr¦mices de la pens¦e eucharistique de Calvin’, in Bernard Cottret/ Olivier Millet (ed.), Jean Calvin et la France, Gene`ve/ Paris: Droz, 41–53. Munier, Charles (1984), Tertullien: La p¦nitence [Sources chr¦tiennes 316], Paris: E´ditions du Cerf. Naef, Henri (1936/ 1968), Les origines de la R¦forme — GenÀve, [Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 50], 2 vol., GenÀve: Droz. Naphy, William G. (1994), Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, Manchester/ New York: Manchester University Press. Neuser, Wilhelm (2008), ‘Predestinatie’, in Herman. J. Selderhuis, Calvijn Handboek, Kampen: Kok, 353–365. Nevin, John W. (2012), The Mystical Presence And the Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord’s Supper, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock. Niesel, Wilhelm (1938), Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche, Zollikon/ Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag. [= Niesel] Nissen, Peter (2008), ‘De gevolgen van de Reformatie voor de kloosters in Nederland’, in Paulina de Nijs/ Hans Kroeze, De middeleeuwse kloostergeschiedenis van de Nederlanden, Zwolle: Waanders, 179–197. Nürnberger, Richard (1948), Die Politisierung des franzo¨ sischen Protestantismus: Calvin und die Anfänge des protestantischen Radikalismus, Tübingen: Mohr. Oakley, Thomas P. (1933), ‘Cultural Affiliations of Early Ireland in the Penitentials’, in Speculum Historiale (8), 489–500. Oberman, Heiko A. (1961), ‘Reformation, Preaching, and Ex Opere Operato’, in DaniÚl J. Callahan/ Heiko A. Oberman/ DaniÚl J. O’Hanlon, Christianity Divided, Protestant and Roman Catholic Theological Issues, New York: Sheed and Ward, 223–240. Oberman, Heiko A. (1967), The Harvest of Medieval Theology : Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Oberman, Heiko A. (1967a), Forerunners of the Reformation. The Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents, London: Lutterworth Press. Oberman, Heiko A. (1981), Luther: Mensch zwischen Gott und Teufel, Berlin = idem (1988), Luther: Mens tussen God en duivel, Kampen: Kok. Oberman, Heiko A. (1986), The Dawn of the Reformation. Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought, Edinburgh: Clark. Oberman, Heiko A. (1986a), ‘The “Extra” Dimension in the Theology of Calvin’, in idem, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought, Edinburgh: Clark, 234–258. Oberman, Heiko A. (1988), De erfenis van Calvijn. Grootheid en grenzen, Kampen: Kok. Oberman, Heiko A. (1988b), Die Kirche im Zeitalter der Reformation, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Oberman, Heiko A. (1991), Initia Calvini: The matrix of Calvin’s Reformation, Amsterdam: knaw.

352

Bibliography

Oberman, Heiko A. (1994), The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Oberman, Heiko A. (1994a), ‘Wittenberg’s War on Two Fronts: What Happened in 1518 and Why’, in idem, The Reformation. Roots and Ramifications, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 117–148. Oberman, Heiko A. (1994b), ‘The Reformation in the light of the Confutatio’, in idem, The Reformation. Roots and Ramifications, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 167–182. Ohst, Martin (1994), Pflichtbeichte: Untersuchungen zum Busswesen im Hohen und Späten Mittelalter, Tübingen: Mohr. Olin, John (ed.) (1966), A Reformation Debate: John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto, New York. Opitz, Peter (1997), ‘Die Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques (1541) 1561: Einleitung’, in CStA, vol. 2, 227–235. Opitz, Peter (2014), Calvin – A Man of Law and Order?, Upcoming Conference Article. Ozment, Steven E. (1969), Homo Spiritualis: A Comparative Study of the Anthropology of Johannes Tauler, Jean Gerson and Martin Luther (1509–1516) in the Context of Their Theological Thought, Leiden: Brill. Pahl, Irmgard (ed.) (1983), Coena Domini: Die Abendmahlsliturgie der Reformationskirchen im 16./17. Jahrhundert, vol. 1, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg. [= CD] Pallas, Karl (1906–1918/ 2009), Die Registraturen der Kirchenvisitationen im ehemals sächsischen Kurkreise, 7 vol., Halle: Hendel. Pannenberg, Wolfhart (1986), Christliche Spiritualität, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pannier, Jacques (1936), Les origines de la confession de foi et la discipline des e´glises re´forme´es de France: Êtude historique, Paris: Alcan. Pessers, Lodewijk (2014), ‘De succesvolle mislukking van Europa’, in De Groene Amsterdammer (29 mei), 34–39. Pettegree, Andrew (2000), The Reformation World, London/ New York: Routledge. Pettegree, Andrew/ Walsby, Malcolm/ Wilkinson, Alexander (ed.) (2007), French Vernacular Books: Books Published in the French Language before 1601, 2 vol., Leiden/ Boston: Brill. Pitkin, Barbara (2004), ‘Redefining Repentance: Calvin and Melanchthon’, in Herman J. Selderhuis, Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae [Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20–24, 2002] GenÀve: Droz, 275–286. Plasger, Georg (2001), ‘Das Sacrament als “widergedächtnis”: Einige Aspekte zum Verständnis von Taufe und Abendmahl bei Zwingli’, in Klueting, Harm/ Rohls, Jan (ed.), Reformierte Retrospektiven, Wuppertal: Foedus, 105–114. Plomp, Johannes (1969), De kerkelijke tucht bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok. Poschmann, Bernhard (1928), Die abendländische Kirchenbusse im Ausgang des christlichen Altertums, München: Kösel & Pustet. Poschmann, Bernhard (1930), Die abendländische Kirchenbusse im frühen Mittelalter, Breslau: Müller & Seiffert. Post, Regnerus R. (1968), The Modern Devotion. Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism, Leiden: Brill. Poujol, Jacques (1959), ‘L’Ambassadeur d’Angleterre et la Confession de Foi du Synode de 1559’, in Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’histoire du protestantisme franÅais 105, 49–53.

Bibliography

353

[RConsistorie] Registres du Consistoire de GenÀve au temps de Calvin, Thomas Lambert/ Isabella m. Watt (ed.) (1997), vol. 4, Geneva: Droz. [= RC] Reid, John K.S. (1954), Calvin: Theological Treatises. [The Library of Christian Classics 22] Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Rieker, Karl (1893), Die rechtliche Stellung der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig: C.L. Hirschfeld. Rilliet, Albert/ Dufour, Théophile (1878), Le cate´chisme franÅais de Calvin: publie´ en 1537: Re´imprim¦ pour la premie`re fois d’apre`s un exemplaire nouvellement retrouve´, et suivi de la plus ancienne confession de foi de l’e´glise de Gene`ve avec deux notices, Gene`ve/Paris: H. Georg. Rittgers, Ronald K. (2004), The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience, and Authority in Sixteenth-Century Germany, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Rivoire, Émile/ Berchem, Victor van (ed.) (1927–1935), Les Sources du droit du Canton de GenÀve de 1461 — 1550, 3 vol., Arau: Sauerländer. Roget, Amédée (1870–1883), Histoire du peuple de Gene`ve depuis la Re´forme jusqu’— l’Escalade, 7 vol., Gene`ve: Jullien. Romier, Lucien (1924), Catholiques et Huguenots — la cour de Charles IX: Les ¦tatsg¦n¦raux d’Orl¦ans, le colloque de Poissy, le “concordat” avec les protestants, le massacre de Vassy (1560–1562), Paris: Perrin. Royannes, Marcel (1979), ‘L’eucharistie chez les ¦vang¦liques et les premiers r¦form¦s franÅais (1522–1546)’, in Bulletin Êtudes, Documents, Chronique litt¦raire, Tome cxxv (Janvier-F¦vrier-Mars), 548–576. Ruh, Kurt (1999), Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik, 4 vol., München: Beck Ryff, Andreas (1872), ‘Un jeune B–lois — GenÀve au XVIme siÀcle (1560–1563)’, in JeanAntoine Gautier (ed.), M¦moires et documents publi¦s par la Soci¦t¦ d’Histoire et d’Arch¦ologie de GenÀve 17, 412–416. Saint, William P. le (1959), Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On penitence and On purity, Westminster : Newman Press. Schaff, Philip (1983), Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, 3 vol., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Scheible, Heinz (1996), ‘Von Meiningen nach Bretten. Melanchthon und Aquila über den Kirchenbann’, in Gerhard May/ Rolf Decot (ed.), Melanchthon und die Reformation. Forschungsbeiträge, Mainz: von Zabern, 333–351. Scheible, Heinz (1997), Melanchthon: Eine Biographie, München: Beck. Scheible, Heinz (2010), ‘Melanchthon als theologischer Gesprächspartner Luthers’ (1998), ‘Die Reform von Schule und Universität in der Reformationszeit’ (1999), ‘Die Bedeutung der Unterscheidung von Gesetz und Evangelium für theologische Ethik und Praktische Theologie am Beispiel Melanchthon’ (2000) und ‘Das Melanchthonbild Karl Holls’ (2003), in idem, Aufsätze zu Melanchthon [Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 49], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1–27, 152–172, 241–252 und 447–461. Schilling, Johannes (ed.) (2006), Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe II, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Schmitz, Herman J. (1883/ 1958), Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche: Nach handschriftlichen Quellen dargestellt, und idem, Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren: Nach handschriftlichen Quellen dargestellt, 2 vol., Mainz: Graz.

354

Bibliography

Scholl, Hans (1995), ‘Johannes Calvin’, in Christian Möller (ed.), Geschichte der Seelsorge in Einzelporträts: Von Martin Luther bis Matthias Claudius, vol. 2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 103–126. Scholl, Hans (2006), Verantwortlich und frei: Studien zu Zwingli und Calvin, zum Pfarrerbild und zur Israeltheologie der Reformation, Zürich: TVZ. Schrey, Heinz-Horst (ed.) (1969), Reich Gottes und Welt, die Lehre Luthers von den zwei Reichen, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schwarz, Reinhard (1968), Vorgeschichte der reformatorischen Busstheologie, Berlin: W de Gruyter. Seeberg, Reinhold (1930), Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte III und IV/1, 4th ed., Leipzig: A. Deichert. Sehling, Emil (ed.) (1902f), Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts I, Aalen: Scientia Verl. [= Sehling] Smith, Allan R. (2013), ‘Lift up your hearts’: A Contribution to the Understanding of John Calvin’s Teaching on the Eucharist and its Setting within his Theology, digital dissertation (University of Hertfordshire). Sohm, Rudolph (1892), Kirchenrecht I: Die geschichtlichten Grundlagen, Berlin: Wichern. Soldan, Wilhelm G. (1855), Geschichte des Protestantismus in Frankreich bis zum Tode Karl’s IX, 2 vol., Leipzig: Brockhaus. Speelman, Herman A. (2009), ‘Belijdenissen als handleiding bij het bijbellezen’ en ‘De ontstaansgeschiedenis van gereformeerde kerken met hun eigen belijdenissen vanaf eind jaren vijftig’, in Mees te Velde, Confessies: Gereformeerde geloofsverantwoording in zestiende-eeuws Europa, Heerenveen: Groen, 48–53 and 62–105. Speelman, Herman (2011), Visitatie-instructies voor predikanten, in Frank van der Pol, Philippus Melanththon: Bruggenbouwer, Utrecht: Kok, 332–391. Speelman, Herman A. (2010), Biechten bij Calvijn: Over het geheim van heilig communiceren, Heerenveen: Groen. Speelman, Herman A./ Korteweg, Theo (2013), Hoe overleeft de kerk?: Melanchthons Onderricht aan predikanten, Heerenveen: Groen. Speelman, Herman A. (2014), Calvin and the Independence of the Church, Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht. Speelman, Herman A. (1541/ 2014a), E¦n met Christus: Een klein traktaat van Johannes Calvijn over het heilig Avondmaal, vertaald en ingeleid, Kampen: Brevier. Spijker, Willem van ‘t (1988), Invloed van de Moderne Devotie in de reformatie te Straatsburg, in Petty Bange, e.a., De doorwerking van de moderne devotie: Windesheim 1387–1987, Hilversum: Verloren, 135–149. Spinoza, Baruch (1670), Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Leiden: Brill. Spitz, Lewis W. (1974), ‘Further Lines of Inquiry for the Study of “Reformation and Pedagogy”’, in Charles E. Trinkaus/ Heiko A. Oberman, The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion, Leiden: Brill, 294–306. Spykman, Gordon J. (1955), Attrition and Contrition at the Council of Trent, Kampen: Kok. Strauss, Gerald (1974), ‘Reformation and Pedagogy : Educational thought and Practice in the Lutheran Reformation’, in Charles E. Trinkaus/ Heiko A. Oberman, The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion, Leiden: Brill, 272–293.

Bibliography

355

Stupperich, Robert (ed.) (1975), Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, Gütersloh. [= MW] Süss, René (2012), Luther, een sympathieke potentaat, Amsterdam: Bibliotheca Theologica. Sutherland, Nicola M. (1977), ‘The Cardinal of Lorraine and the colloque of Poissy, 1561: A Reassessment’, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28, 265–289. Tanner, Norman, P. (ed.) (1990), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: From Nicaea I to Vatican II, 2 vol., Washington: Georgetown University Press. Tanner, Norman, P. (2000), ‘Pastoral Care: the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215’, in Evans Gilian R., A History of Pastoral Care, London/ New York: Cassell, 112–125. Tentler, Thomas N. (1977), Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thierry, William of Saint (1978), Meditaties, P. Verdeyen ed., s.l.: Monastieke cahiers. Tobias, Ilse (2002), Die Beichte in den Flugschriften der frühen Reformationszeit, Berlin: Peter Lang. Tukker, Cornelis A. (1965), De classis Dordrecht van 1573 tot 1609: Bijdrage tot de kennis van in- en extern leven van de Gereformeerde Kerk in de periode van haar organisering, Leiden: Universitaire Pers. Tukker, Cornelis A. (1984), ‘Zwingli en de Nederlanden’, in Willem Balke e.a., Zwingli in vierderlei perspectief, Utrecht: De Banier, 103–133. Val, Antoine du (1559/ 1560/ 1567), Mirouer des Calvinistes et armeure des Chrestiens, Paris: Nicolas Chesneau. Veen, Mirjam G.K. van (2009), ‘Sursum corda: Calvijns polemiek tegen nicodemieten, in het bijzonder tegen Coornhert’, in Opnieuw Calvijn: Verzameling Nederlandse Calvijnstudies, Herman Selderhuis/ William den Boer (ed.), Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, vol. 2, 1613–1638. Viret, Pierre (1548), Exposition familiere de l’oraison de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, & des choses dignes de consyderer sur icelle, faite en forme de dialogue, Geneve: Iean Girard, 374–375. Viret, Pierre (1872), ‘La Forme de dresser un Consistoire’, in EugÀne Arnaud (ed.), Documents protestants in¦dits de XVIe siÀcle, Paris: Grassart, 72–78. Visser, Dirk (1997), ‘Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1583): Melanchthons Geist im Heidelberger Katechismus’, in Heinz Scheible (ed.), Melanchthon in seinen Schülern, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 373–389. Vodola, Elisabeth (1986), Excommunication in the Middle Ages, Berkeley : University of California Press. Vogelsang, Erich (1938), ‘Die Unio mystica bei Luther’, in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 35. Vorgrimler, Herbert (ed.) (1962), Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. 4, Freiburg: Herder. Wandel, Lee Palmer (2006), The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy, Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. Wandel, Lee Palmer (2007), ‘The Body of Christ at Marburg, 1529’, in Walter Melion/ Reindert Falkenburg (ed.), Image and Imagination of the Religious Self in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europa, Turnhout: Brepols, 195–213.

356

Bibliography

Watt, Jeffrey R. (2013), ‘Reconciliation and the Confession of Sins: The Evidence from the Consistory in Calvin’s Geneva’, in R. Ward Holder (ed.), Calvin and Luther: The Continuing Relationship, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 105–120. Weber, Karl von (1844), M. Phil. Melanchthon’s evangelische Kirchen- und Schuldordnung vom Jahre 1528. Beigefügt sind: Articuli de quibus egerunt per Visitatores in regione Saxoniae, Wittembergae 1527, Schlüchtern in Kurhesse. Weber, Max (1973), Die protestantische Ethik I. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, 3rd ed., Hamburg: Siebenstern Taschenbuch Verlag. Wendel, Francois (1950), Calvin: Sources et ¦volution de sa pens¦e religieuse, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Wengert, Timothy J. (1997), Law and Gospel: Philipp Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over ‘Poenitentia’, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wolff, Johannes L. (1478/ 1907), Beichtbüchlein des Magisters Johannes Wolff, F.W. Battenberg (ed.), Giessen: Töpelmann. Wollersheim, Heinz-Werner (1997), ‘Philipp Melanchthon und die Organisation des protestantischen Schulwesens in Sachsen’, in Rupp F. Horst e.a., Philipp Melanchthon und das städtische Schulwesen, Eisleben: Ausgabe von der Lutherstadt, 49–80. Woltjer, Juliaan J. (1971), ‘De politieke betekenis van de Emdense synode’, in Doede Nauta, Johannes P. van Dooren, Otto J. de Jong (ed.), De synode van Emden 1571–1971, Kampen: Kok, 22–49. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (1995), Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks, Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge University Press, 97–114. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (2014), ‘John Calvin’, in Lee Palmer Wandel, A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 97–114. Wood, James E., Jr. (1996), ‘An Apologia for Religious Human Rights’, in John Witte, Jr./ Johan D. van der Vyver (ed.), Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective. Religious Perspectives, The Hague/ Boston/ London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 455–485. Zwanepol, Klaas (2009), Luthers Catechismus, Heerenveen: Protestantse Pers. Zwingli, Ulrich (1526), ‘On the Lord’s Supper’, in Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed.) (1953), Zwingli and Bullinger : Selected Translations with Introduction and Notes, Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 185–238. Zwingli, Ulrich (1531/ 1953), ‘An Exposition of the Faith’, in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (ed.), Zwingli and Bullinger: Selected Translations with Introduction and Notes, Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 245–279. [Zwingli], Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, Emil Egli/ Georg Finsler (ed.) (1905–1929/ 1959f/ 1982f), 14 vol. in 18 Bde., Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger/ from 1959: Zürich: Berichthaus/ from 1982: Zürich: Theologischer Verlag/Berlin: Schwetschke. [= CR 88– 101 / ZW 1–14] [Zwingli], Huldrych Zwingli Schriften (1995), Thomas Brunnschweiler/ Samuel Lutz/ Hans Ulrich Bächtold (ed.), 4 vol., Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. [= HZW]

Index of Names

Agricola, John (d. 1566) 60, 114–117, 136–141, 144, 321–323 Albon, Jacques de Saint-Andr¦, Marshal (d. 1562) 264 Albrecht von Mainz, Elector and Archbishop (d. 1545) 104 Alcibiadus, Athian Politician (5th c. BC) 29 Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) 30, 41, 47, 167 Angelus de Clavasio (Angiolo da Chivasso; d. 1495) 38, 39 Antoninus Florentinus, Archbishop (d. 1495) 38 Aquila, Kaspar (d. 1560) 19, 114–116, 137–139, 321 Aquino, Thomas of, Dominican Philosopher (d. 1274) 160, 243, 286 Aratu (d. 552 BC) 123 Aristophanes (d. 386 BC) 123 Augustine of Hippo (d. 430 AD) 30, 31, 33, 41, 47, 69, 77, 132, 167, 168, 169, 243, 286, 306

Benoist, Ren¦e, Catholic writer and printer 273 f, 274, 317 Berengar of Tours (d. 1088) 69, 167 Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) 33, 73, 81, 130, 131 Beza (de BÀze), Theodorus (d. 1605) 118, 174, 203, 209, 231, 255, 257, 259, 261 f, 264–270, 273, 336 Biel, GabriÚl (d. 1495) 88

Bourbon, Antoine de, King of Navarre (d. 1572) 255, 262, 265, 267, 272 Brandenburg, Georg von (d. 1543) 102 Brisger, Eberhard (d. 1545) 115 Brück, Gregor von, Chancellor (d. 1557) 106, 114 Bucer, Martin (d. 1551) 91, 142, 203, 250, 297, 304 Bugenhagen, John (d. 1558) 105, 116 f Bullinger, Heinrich (d. 1575) 59, 170 f, 177, 179, 183, 199, 204, 213, 244, 249, 250, 264, 290, 327–329, 332, 334–336 Bullinger, Rügerus 333 Burkhardt, George (d. 1545) 19, 100–104, 113, 324 Calvin, Jean (d. 1564) 11–25, 35, 50–93, 118–120, 133, 141ff Camerarius, Joachim (d. 1574) 114 f, 126, 137 f, 140 f Capito, Wolfgang Fabricius (d. 1541) 250, 329 f Caroli, Pierre (d. 1550) 203 Catherine de Medici, Queen mother (d. 1575) 260, 262, 265, 271 Cato, Dionysius (d. 149 BC) 128 Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche, Minister (d. 1591) 255 Charles de Marillac, Archbishop of Vienna (d. 1560) 261 Charles V, Emperor (d. 1558) 253 Christoph von Württemberg, Count (d. 1568) 260

358 Chrysostom (d. 407) 212, 214, 239, 298 Cicero, Marcus Tullius (d. 43 BC) 123, 128 Cochlaeus of Dresden (d. 1552) 122 Coligny, Gaspard de, Admiral (d. 1572) 258, 261, 267–269, 271 Colladon, Nicolas (d. 1586) 174, 257 Cond¦, Louis de Bourbon (d. 1569) 255, 272 Constantine the Great (d. 337 AD) 30, 278 Cornelius, Bishop and Martyr (d. 250 BC) 29 Cusa, Nicholas of (d. 1464) 243 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthago (d. 258) 118, 336 Cyro, Peter (d. 1564) 329 Datheen, Peter (d. 1588) 328, 334–336 Demosthenes (d. 355 BC) 123 Donatus, Aelius, Roman Retoricus (4th c. AD) 128 Duns Scotus, John, Franciscan Priest (d. 1308) 37 f, 40 Eck, John (d. 1543) 50, 126 Einsiedel, brothers of 105 Elizabeth I, Queen (d. 1603) 259 Erasmus, Desiderius (d. 1536) 42, 54, 68, 77, 104, 137, 239, 330 Erastus, Thomas (d. 1583) 328, 334–336 Farel, Guillaume (d. 1565) 22, 71, 78, 155, 174 f, 197, 199 f, 205, 309, 328, 333 Francis of Assisi, Monk (d. 1226) 47 Frederick III of Saxony, Elector (d. 1525) 97, 100 Frederick III of the Palatinate, Elector (d. 1576) 260 Gerson, Jean Charlier de (d. 1429) 39, 48 Ghirlandaio (d. 1494) 17 Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389 AD) 123 Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395 AD) 243 Gregory the Great, Pope (d. 604) 31 Groote, Geert (d. 1380) 73, 88, 172 Grynaeus, Simon (d. 1541) 250

Index of Names

Guise, Francois de, Duke (d. 1563) 267, 270

264,

Hausmann, Nikolaus (d. 1538) 100–102, 113, 116 f Henry II, King of France (d. 1559) 256, 271 Henry VIII, King of England (d. 1549) 253, 264, 268 Hessen, Philip von (d. 1567) 105, 108 Húpital, M. de l’, Chancellor (d. 1573) 23, 262, 265, 267–269, 271 f, 276 Jeanne d’Albret (d. 1572) 255 John (Johan), Duke of Saxony, Elector (d. 1532) 18, 101, 102, 104, 109, 117, 120, 278, 321, 324 Jonas, Justus (d. 1555) 60, 116 f, 137–139, 141 Kaisersberg, Johan Geiler von, Preacher (d. 1510) 81 Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolf von Bodenstein (d. 1541) 124 Kempis, Thomas a (d. 1472) 48 f, 58, 65, 81 f, 84, 87, 89, 172, 277, 291 f, 300, 311 f, 319 Knight, William Cecil, Queens Secretary (d. 1554) 258 f Knox, John (d. 1572) 215, 309 Lanfranc of Bec (d. 1089) 167 Laynez, Peter, General of SJ (d. 1565) 266 Leo Judae (d. 1542) 327 Lombardus, Petrus (d. 1160) 172, 285 Lorenzo di Valla (d. 1457) 42 Lucian (d. 180 AD) 123 Luther, Martin (d. 1546) 18–22, 32–43, 46–91, 97–163, 167–181, 183, 198, 203, 217–227, 232, 240, 244–250, 254, 270, 277–316, 321–329 Marcourt, Antoine, pasteur (d. 1561) 71 Melanchthon, Philip (d. 1560) 11–24, 51– 60, 82, 97–128, 133–162 f, 170, 203, 219,

359

Index of Names

234 f, 250, 270–277 f, 280 f–285, 316, 321 f, 324 f Montluc, Jean de, Bishop of Valence (d. 1579) 261 f Montmorency, Anne de, Conn¦table (d. 1567) 264, 267 Morel, FranÅois de, Minister of Paris 257 f Myconius, Oswald (d. 1552) 104, 202, 250, 328 Nicholas of Cusa (d. 1464)

243

Oecolampadius, Johannes (d. 1531) 169, 213, 336 Ovid, Roman Poet (d. 17 AD) 128 Plato, Greek Philosopher (d. 347 BC) 273 f, 317 Plautus, Roman Poet (d. 184 BC) 128 Pontanus, Iovianus (d. 1503) 123 Ratramnus, Bertram of, Monk of Corbey (d. ca. 868) 69, 167, 168 Ryff, Andreas 157 Sadoleto, Jacopo, Cardinal (d. 1547) 190, 249, 332 Schirlentz, Nicholas, Printer (d. 1547) 114

Schurff, Hieronymus (d. 1554) 106, 114, 116 Spalatin, George Burkhard von Spalt (d. 1540) 54, 102, 104, 113, 116 f, 138 Staupitz, Johan von (d. 1524) 42 f, 46, 130 f, 139, 141 Strassen, Michael von der (d. 1531) 103 f Tauler, Johannes, mysticus (d. 1361) 47 f Terence, Roman Poet (d. 159 BC) 123, 128 Tertullian of Carthage (d. 220 AD) 29 Tetzel, John (d. 1519) 43, 130 Throckmorton, Nicholas, English Ambassador (d. 1570) 258 f Thucydides (d. 400 BC) 123 Tournon, FranÅois de, Cardinal (d. 1562) 266 Vinci, Leonardo da, Painter (d. 1519) 17 Viret, Pierre (d. 1571) 199, 306 f, 313 Wessel Gansfort, Johan (d. 1489) 41, 65 f, 91, 130, 172, 254, 278 Wolff, Johannes (mid. 15th c.) 184 Wolfgang von Zweibrücken (d. 1569) 260 Xenophon (d. 355 BC)

123

Zwingli, Ulrich (d. 1531) 46, 66–87, 169, 213, 224, 227, 240, 243 f–250, 286–312, 327, 333 f, 336

Index of Places

Alsace 98 Altenburg 97, 115 Amboise 260 Amsterdam 15, 189 Augsburg 16, 19, 91, 104, 111, 118 f, 125, 142, 260, 262, 281 Basel 120, 130, 197, 213, 239, 248, 309, 328, 333 Beauvais 264 Bern 22 f, 59, 176, 193, 305, 308 f, 327– 330, 333 f Borna 104 Braunschweig 98 Cateau-Cambr¦sis Celle 98, 156

256

Dordrecht 315 Dresden 122 Eisenberg 112 England 253, 256, 258, 262, 264, 267 f Europe 276 Florence 36, 278 France 17, 23, 65, 71, 92, 120, 155, 177, 186, 194, 199 f, 206, 209–211, 225, 231 f, 240 f, 245, 253, 255–268, 270–273, 285, 298, 316 Germain, St.

269 f, 272

Germany 19, 105, 123–125, 137, 219, 248, 253, 267, 269 Goslar 98 Göttingen 98 Groningen 102 Hamburg 98 Heidelberg 50, 132, 150, 160 f, 163 f, 309, 328, 334 Hesse 98 Hessen 105, 108 Holland 314 Hungary 271 Jena

112

Kahla 112 Lausanne 239 Leipzig 50, 123, 126 Longjumeau 264 Lubeck 98 Magdeburg 98 Marburg 66 f, 119, 273 Meissen 279 Naaldwijk 41 Nantes 270 Netherlands, the 23 f, 258, 271, 313–316 Neuch–tel 190, 218, 309 Neustadt 112

362 Nieuwe Niedorp N„mes 225

Index of Places

315

Oberwierau 99 Orl¦ans 261–263, 265, 272 Palatinate, the 98 Paris 33, 123, 234, 253, 255–259, 263, 271 f Poissy 93, 260, 265 f, 268 f, 272 f Poitiers 255, 263 f Poitou 255 Poland 267 Pontoise 264 f Saalfeld 19, 114 Sauve 265 Saxony 53, 58, 60, 97, 103, 109, 112, 119, 122 f, 127 f, 270 Schaffhausen 333 Scotland 17, 260, 267, 271, 309, 316 Spain 256, 268 Stralsund 98 Strasbourg 80, 81, 155, 199, 206, 211, 228, 297, 316 Switzerland 202, 248, 253, 267, 327, 333

Tenneberg 104 Thuringia 98, 104, 109, 279 Tours 167 f Trent 12, 104, 172, 198, 238, 245, 247, 264, 268, 272 Tübingen 123 Utrecht

102, 315

Vassy 270 Vienna 261 Weimar 97 f Wittenberg 16, 48, 53 f, 57, 72, 78, 97–109, 114, 117, 120–128, 130, 146, 163, 225, 243–253, 285, 295, 297, 313, 316, 321 f Worms 18 Zeeland 314 Zurich 15, 71, 86, 97, 158, 170 f, 176, 188, 193, 202, 212, 225, 227, 243, 297, 305– 315, 327–336 Zwickau 100, 322