Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition 9783666550652, 9783525550656, 9783647550657

Citation preview

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformed Historical Theology

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

Volume 27

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Emidio Campi

Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition

With 4 figures

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

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. ISBN 978-3-525-55065-6 ISBN 978-3-647-55065-7 (E-Book) Ó 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, 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. Printing and binding: a Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed in Germany

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Contents

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

7

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Part I: Debates Was the Reformation a German Event? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Brutus Tigurinus: Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact . . . . . . .

83

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli. A Reassessment of Their Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation . . .

141

Theodore Beza and Heinrich Bullinger in Light of Their Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

169

Part II: Vermigliana Peter Martyr Vermigli, Commentator on Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

187

The Preces Sacrae of Peter Martyr Vermigli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

207

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

6

Contents

Catholicity, Schism, and Heresy in the Ecclesiology of Peter Martyr Vermigli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225

Part III: Later Elaborations of Reformed Thought John Diodati (1576 – 1649), Translator of the Bible into Italian . . . . . .

241

Jan Amos Comenius and the Protestant Theology of His Time . . . . . .

259

The Italian Convert: Marquis Galeazzo Caracciolo and the English Puritans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

285

Original Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

299

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Preface

The thirteen essays in this volume were all originally presented at international conferences or in public lectures. Many of these studies, written in German and French, but primarily in English, were previously published in conference proceedings and scholarly journals. They are being published or republished here, some in substantially revised form, to make them available as a group to a wider audience. They address three main areas of inquiry, all of which, in one way or another, are of key importance in early modern historical discourse and theological thinking: (1) the theological diversity and debates within the Reformed tradition in the sixteenth century and beyond; (2) Peter Martyr Vermigli’s noteworthy contribution to Reformed ecclesiology and biblical exegesis; and (3) the later development and enrichment of Reformed thought on both sides of the Atlantic. A comprehensive treatment of the ambitious title given to this collection would have required me to pay more attention to a number of founding fathers of the Reformed churches who do not put in a direct appearance here. I have not examined the extent to which the ideas of Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer, Pierre Viret, or Girolamo Zanchi, for example, shaped the process of Reformed confessionalization and doctrinal evolution, for to do so would require far more specialist knowledge of this broad brand of Reformation than I possess. Yet one can find substantial food for thought here. I believe that these essays provide a clear account of one way of reading the Reformed tradition and an approach that is well worth considering as an option in the present historiographical discussion. They suggest a new perspective on and even a redefinition of the very concept of Calvinism or Reformed theology, for they show that the Reformed tradition was neither monolithic, nor monochrome, nor immutable, but evolved in different, if interrelated, patterns and directions. This line of interpretation is yet another clear indication of why “pluralism” and “diversity” have become watchwords in interpreting the religious upheavals of the sixteenth century, and how urgent it is to face the formidable challenge of reflecting on a new “grand narrative” of the age.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

8

Preface

I wish to acknowledge the many colleagues and friends who have given so generously of their advice over the years when these essays were written. I am grateful for discussions with Irena Backus, Jon Balserak, Machiel Adrianus van den Berg, Michael Bruening, Eric Bryner, Christine Christ-von Wedel, Amy Nelson Burnett, Eberhard Busch, Euan Cameron, Irene Dingel, John P. Donnelly S.J., Alain Dufour, Max Engammare, Günter Frank, Bruce Gordon, Kaspar von Greyerz, Ian Hazlett, Frank A. James III, Wim Janse, Gary Jenkins, Torrance Kirby, Volker Leppin, Karin Maag, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Maissen, Elsie McKee, Joseph C. McLelland, Mario Miegge, Olivier Millet, Andreas Mühling, Richard Muller, William G. Naphy, Jeannine E. Olson, Peter Opitz, Herman Selderhuis, Frans Pieter van Stam, Christoph Strohm, John L. Thompson, Randall C. Zachman, and, with sadness, those now departed: Fritz Büsser, Robert M. Kingdon, Wilhelm H. Neuser, Michele Ranchetti, Ruedi Reich, Alfred Schindler, Giorgio Spini, David Wright, and Lukas Vischer. It gives me great pleasure to thank them all here. In preparing this volume I have received generous help in various ways. From the start Herman Selderhuis was a source of encouragement, persuading me to undertake and complete the project. I am grateful to him and the members of the editorial board for so graciously accepting this volume in the series “Reformed Historical Theology”. In addition, I was extremely fortunate that Irena Backus, Jordan J. Ballor, Amy Nelson Burnett, Simon J. Burton, Ian Hazlett, Torrance Kirby, Jeannine E. Olson, Christoph Strohm, and Jason Zuidema kindly read single parts of the volume and offered helpful criticism and suggestions. None of these, however, is responsible for what I have written. Among my debts of gratitude, an outstanding one is owed to Jim West for his considerate and meticulous care in helping prepare the manuscript for publication. Translations from French and German were undertaken by Daniel Shute, Rebecca Giselbrecht, and Margaret Kirby, who have also been discerning interlocutors. As always, I received much help from the staff of the Institute for Swiss Reformation History at the University of Zurich and of the Zurich Zentralbibliothek. I am especially grateful for various kindnesses to Hans Ulrich Bächtold, Luca Baschera, Rainer Henrich, Urs Leu, Christian Moser, Esther Schweizer, Judith Steiniger, and Philipp Waelchli. I also wish to thank Ruth Tonkiss Cameron, Archivist for Union Theological Seminary and the Burke Library, and Paul Fields, Curator of The H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, who opened to me their treasures and supplied valuable material. Working with Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht has been a pleasure. Jörg Persch, the editorial director, and his staff, Christoph Spill, Charlotte Lamping, and Marie-Carolin Vondracek, not only provided material support, but also guided me kindly through the printing process with the able assistance of Rona Johnston Gordon. I should also like to express my gratitude to Hans P. Hürlimann for a grant towards this work. Last

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

9

Preface

but not least, grateful acknowledgement is hereby made to Ashgate Publishing Company, Baker Academic, Brill, Librairie Droz, Oxford University Press, Theologischer Verlag, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, as well as to the journals Êtudes Th¦ologiques et Religieuses and Zwingliana for permission to reproduce previously published articles. Baden, Switzerland

Second Sunday in Advent, 2013

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Abbreviations

Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte (also Archive for Reformation History) John Amos Comenius, Antisozinianische Schriften, ed. Erwin Schadel, vol. 4,1 – 2 of AW (Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 1983) AW John Amos Comenius, Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Dmitrij Tschizˇewskij and Klaus Schaller, 4 vols. (Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 1973 – 1983) BSLK Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 12th edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) CO Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss (Braunschweig and Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863 – 1900) Corr. de B. Correspondance de Th¦odore de BÀze, recueillie par Hippolyte Aubert, publi¦e par Henri Meylan, Alain Dufour et al. (Geneva: Droz, 1960–) DJAK D†lo Jana Amose Komensk¦ho = Johannis Amos Comenii opera omnia (Prague: Academia scientiarum Bohemoslovenicae, 1969 – 1992) HBBibl Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Bibliographie, ed. Joachim Staedtke, Erland Herkenrath et al. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972 – 2004) HBBW Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Briefwechsel, ed. Ulrich Gäbler et al. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973–) HBD Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504 – 1574, ed. Emil Egli (Basel: Basler Buch- und Antiquariatshandlung, 1904) HBTS Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Theologische Schriften, ed. Hans-Georg vom Berg et al. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983–) LLS Life, Letters, and Sermons, ed. John P. Donnelly (Peter Martyr Library 5. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999) OS Ioannis Calvini opera selecta, ed. Petrus Barth and Guilelmus Niesel (Munich: Ch. Kaiser, 1926 – 1936) ODO Iohannis Amos Comenii, Opera Didactica Omnia (Prague: Academia scientiarum Bohemoslovenicae, 1957) Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th edition, ed. Hans Dieter Betz, RGG4 Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel (Tübingen: Mohr ARG AS

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

12

PL TRE WA WA TR Z ZKG

Abbreviations

Siebeck, 1998 – 2007) (also Religion Past and Present, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006 – 2013) Patrologia Latina, ed. Jacques Paul Migne (Paris: Apud Garnier Fratres, 1844 – 1890) Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. Gerhard Müller and Gerhard Krause (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977 – 2004) D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883 – 2009) D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischreden (Weimar : Bo¨ hlau, 1912 – 1921) Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. Emil Egli et al. (Berlin: Schwetschke, Leipzig: Heinsius, and Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1905–) Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Part I: Debates

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Was the Reformation a German Event?*

Was the Reformation a German event? When asked to address this question, I was happy, because I automatically thought that I knew at least part of the answer, and this would be a definite “No!” As I began to prepare myself, the assigned topic grew on me, and I increasingly realized its complexity. In fact, it forced me to reflect not only on the question as such, but also on my own intellectual journey since my first exposure to international Reformation scholarship in Heiko A. Oberman’s seminar at the University of Tübingen in the autumn of 1968, an event which started my life-long quest for a better understanding of the Reformation. If there is any truth in the dictum attributed to Voltaire “Juge d’un homme par ses questions plutút que par ses r¦ponses,” the organizers are to be commended for their choice of lecture topic. They did not just ask: “What was the Reformation?”1 nor “Was there a Reformation in the sixteenth century?”2 – which are in themselves intriguing questions, but rather a more subtle one: “Was the Reformation a German event?” This is yet another clear indication that in a time when the Reformation is increasingly portrayed in terms of a principle of diversity, and pluralism is becoming a watchword in interpreting the religious upheavals of the sixteenth century, it is urgent not to conceal the difficulties, but rather to face the formidable challenge of reflecting on a new “grand narrative” of the age. While I am deeply indebted to the organizers for raising this question and for giving me the opportunity to share with others a few thoughts about it, I wonder, however, how realistic they are about my capability to respond to this query in a satisfactory way. Any reasoned response to this seemingly innocuous question involves most profound issues which require looking through a whole * I would like to thank Torrance Kirby (Montreal) and Ian Hazlett (Glasgow) for correcting the manuscript and giving insightful comments along the way. 1 See Richard P. Bucher, “What was the Reformation? A Brief History of the Interpretations of the Reformation” in http://www.orlutheran.com/html/refwhat.html. 2 See Hans J. Hillerbrand, “Was There a Reformation in the Sixteenth Century?” Church History 72 (2003): 525 – 552.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

16

Was the Reformation a German Event?

host of new studies, engaging in a genuine dialogue with older historians, and indeed demands a skill and a carefulness comparable with that of a surgeon operating on a brain. This attempt, therefore, can only propose a very partial answer, in some moments assertive, in others dubitative, and in others even speculative. I propose to explore the topic in three main steps. First, I provide a brief survey of the fate of the word “Reformation” itself in which I shall bring out the polymorphous nature of the term and its complex meaning. Secondly, I shall address some of the issues related to the characterization of the Reformation as an event. And thirdly, I shall dwell on the adjective “German” in connection with the noun Reformation.

1.

Reformation: A Protestant Notion?

For many, the word “Reformation” immediately evokes heroic memories of a determined German Augustinian friar defiantly hammering his challenge to the Roman Church with the posting of his Ninety-five Theses on 31 October 1517. Yet long before it was applied to the work of Martin Luther, the word reformatio had an extended and varied history.3 Its common usage already existed in classical Latin.4 In its broadest sense, it means every attempt to renew the essence of a community, institution, or similar group by reaching back to its originals, its primal sources. Indeed the concept has been known to Christianity since its earliest beginnings. Thus it was used in the time of the “Church Fathers”5 to signal that Christians and the church are continually in need of reformatio in melius per Deum – in need of transformation for the better. From there, and already as early as the beginning of the fifth century, the idea had gained a specifically religious meaning.6 Nevertheless, it was not until the early Middle Ages that the term reformatio 3 See Emidio Campi, “‘Ecclesia semper reformanda’: Metamorphosen einer altehrwürdigen Formel,” Zwingliana 37 (2010): 1 – 19; Theodor Mahlmann, “‘Ecclesia semper reformanda’. Eine historische Aufklärung. Neue Bearbeitung,” in Hermeneutica Sacra: Studien zur Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Bengt Hägglund zum 90. Geburtstag, eds. Torbjörn Johansson et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 381 – 442. 4 Theodor Mahlmann, “Reformation,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 8 (1992), 416 – 427; Ulrich Köpf, “Reformation,” in RGG4, vol. 7 (2004), 145 – 159; Mahlmann, “Reformgedanke,” in ibid., 159 – 164. 5 Gerhardt B. Ladner, The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959); Bernd Christian Schneider, Ius Reformandi. Die Entwicklung eines Staatskirchenrechts von seinen Anfängen bis zum Ende des alten Reiches (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). 6 See Edeltraud Klueting, Monasteria semper reformanda. Kloster- und Ordensreformen im Mittelalter (Münster : Lit Verlag, 2005).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: A Protestant Notion?

17

began to acquire significant weight. Then reformatio was primarily an impulse of the Western monastic tradition. In the sixth century, Benedict of Nursia was fundamentally a “reformer” owing to the fact that he did not create Monasticism, but rather “reformed” it. Other tremendous waves of reformatio followed within the church through Benedict of Aniane in the eighth and ninth centuries, the Cluniac reform of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the reform of the Hirsau monks in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Cistercian reform of the twelfth century, as well as that of the Dominicans and Franciscans in the thirteenth. They were all struggling not only for the renewal of a declining monastic tradition, but also for the “reformation” of all Christianity and indeed of Christendom. The reform movement, in fact, reached beyond the sphere of monasticism, and beginning in the eleventh century, embraced religious movements among the laity such as the Albigenses, Cathars, and Waldensians. Especially the latter considered the Constantinian turn to be the ruin of Christianity, and they consequently sought to renew the church from the inside out, in order to lead it back to an apostolic life.7 Even Joachim of Fiore (1130/1135 – 1202), who professed his vows as a Cistercian monk in 1168, expressed multi-faceted hope for a deep spiritual renewal of the church with his prophetic perception of a coming age of the Holy Spirit soon to irrupt into history.8 While the church progressively deteriorated, demands for reform grew in magnitude and intensity. The expression emendatio ecclesiae in capite et in membris (= correction of the church in head and members), first used by pope Alexander III in a letter of 29 October 1170,9 and its equivalent reformatio universalis ecclesiae, employed by Innocent III in his papal bull of 19 April 1213 convoking the fourth General Council of the Lateran (1215),10 both passed into 7 Amedeo Moln‚r, Die Waldenser. Geschichte und europäisches Ausmass einer Ketzerbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980); Gabriel Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent: Persecution and Survival, c.1170–c.1570 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Euan Cameron, The Waldenses: Rejections of Holy Church in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000). 8 Roberto Rusconi, Profezia e profeti alla fine del Medioevo (Rome: Viella, 1999). 9 PL 200, 743: “si ecclesiam Tornacensem in capite vel in membris tantae pravitatis vitio invenerit involutam, tibi ex parte nostra significet, ut hujusmodi excessus pastorali sollicitudine corrigas et emendes.” 10 PL 216, 824: “Illius ergo testimonium invocamus qui testis est in coelo fidelis quod inter omnia desiderabilia cordis nostri duo in hoc saeculo principaliter affectamus, ut ad recuperationem videlicet terrae sanctae ac reformationem universalis Ecclesiae generale […] concilium juxta priscam sanctorum Patrum consuetudinem convocemus propter lucra solummodo animarum opportuno tempore celebrandum: in quo ad exstirpanda vitia et plantandas virtutes, corrigendos excessus, et reformandos mores, eliminandas haereses, et roborandam fidem, sopiendas discordias, et stabiliendam pacem, comprimendas oppressiones, et libertatem fovendam, inducendos principes et populos Christianos ad succursum et subsidium terrae sanctae …”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

18

Was the Reformation a German Event?

common usage to express a general and deeply felt need, and remained a topos throughout the entire Middle Ages and into the Early Modern era. The demand for reformatio in capite et membris11 was subsequently taken-up at numerous reform councils, and especially at the Councils of Constance and Basel in the first third of the fifteenth century.12 There is a noteworthy definition of the notion of reformatio by the Spanish theologian John of Segovia (1395 – 1458), a leading figure at the Basel Council. He defined Reformation as correctio morum pro exstirpatione vitiorum (the correction of morals for the extirpation of errors).13 This definition does not stir images of fanatical Protestant storming of the churches, but rather implies returning back to a starting point through the cultivation of the traditional Christian virtues, together with the containment of corruption through the improvement of the administrative machinery of the church. In passing, the word reformatio had acquired a closely analogous meaning in the secular realm. It recurs in the so-called Reformatio Sigismundi, an anonymous document that swept through Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries, containing plans for recasting the political and social order of the Holy Roman Empire, which entailed preserving and restoring peace and justice through the potentia conservativa et pacativa imperii, the conserving and calming power of the Empire.14 The late Middle Ages, however, also witnessed other more radical tendencies of the reformatio ecclesiae. For instance, both the Lollards (followers of John Wyclif)15 and the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus)16 charged the church of their time with behaving in an ungodly manner, and challenged her to be true to the Word of God. For Wyclif the Bible was not just one authority among many ; it alone stood above all other authorities. And along with this principle he believed 11 The French canonist and bishop of Mende Guillaume Durand (also Durant, c. 1230/32 – 1296) has been credited with inventing the formula reformatio in capite et membris; see Constantin Fasolt, “A New View of William Durant the Younger’s Tractatus de modo generalis concilii celebrandi,” Traditio 37 (1981): 291 – 324. 12 Aldo Landi, Concilio e papato nel rinascimento (1449 – 1516). Un problema irrisolto (Turin: Claudiana, 1997). 13 “correctio morum pro exstirpatione vitiorum, sanctarum profectus […] virtutum pro carismatum incrementum.” I take this phrase from Klueting, Monasteria semper reformanda, 1. 14 Reformation Kaiser Siegmunds, ed. Heinrich Koller (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1964); Hartmut Bookmann, “Reformatio Sigismundi,” in TRE 28 (1997), 384 – 386. 15 Anne Hudson, The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); Stephen E. Lahey, John Wyclif (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 16 Amedeo Moln‚r, Jan Hus testimone della verit— (Turin: Claudiana, 1973); Peter Hilsch, Johannes Hus (um 1370 – 1415): Prediger Gottes und Ketzer (Regensburg: Pustet, 1999); Thomas Fudge, Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: A Protestant Notion?

19

that the Scripture was intended for everyone. Hus went even further than Wyclif in his call for reform and denounced the restriction of the chalice during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to the celebrant alone as contrary to Holy Scripture and to the ancient tradition of the Church. As the Waldensians had already experienced on their own bodies, tight limits were set for the possibility of a reformation in which the Bible provided the guiding principles for the life of the church. Finally, the humanist movement cannot be overlooked. Preeminent scholars such as Pico della Mirandola, LefÀvre d’Etaples, Rudolph Agricola, Johannes Reuchlin, John Colet, and Erasmus were in no way less guided by biblical vision in their concern for church renewal than other religious movements of their times. Think, for example, of Erasmus’ Enchiridion militis Christiani. Herein rests his programme of reform. Although confrontation was not to his taste, he attacked with corrosive wit half-hearted attempts to live a Christian life, mocked outward ceremonies, or was sarcastic about the excesses of the cult of saints and relics. Yet he also made quite clear that the road to true religion lay along the path of “good learning” and particularly the study of the Scripture and of ancient commentaries upon it. And for all Erasmus’ dedication to belles-lettres and stress upon revitalization of classical Antiquity, how moving was his concern for the philosophia Christi: that all truth, wherever found, belongs to Christ, and that a Christian commonwealth should have an ethical basis and be permeated with a fervent faith.17 On the eve of the Reformation – we can sum up the result of this brief overview – the conceptions of the reformatio ecclesiae were in no way uniform. They ranged from the conservative quest for complete renewal of the ancient spiritual legacy to the radical nurture of eschatological hope. All of these conceptions of reformatio are oriented in one way or another towards an imagined pristine Christian condition, and all have hope for its eventual restoration in common. Keeping in mind the turbulent late-medieval reform project in which both the frenzied activity of life and the intense piety of that time were reflected, a close look at the sixteenth-century reformers brings some surprises to light. As has been often noted, Luther’s main goal did not concur with the aspirations of so many of his contemporaries. His aim was to renew neither his own Augustinian order nor the administrative apparatus of the church; and only indirectly was he concerned with the renewal of society. Not only was he sceptical concerning the 17 R. Ward Holder, Crisis and Renewal: The Era of the Reformations (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 37 – 57; Christine Christ-von Wedel, “Zur Christologie von Erasmus von Rotterdam und Huldrych Zwingli,” in Reformierte Retrospektiven. Vorträge der zweiten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, eds. Harm Klueting and Jan Rohls (Wuppertal: Foedus, 2001), 1 – 23; Christ-von Wedel, Erasmus von Rotterdam. Anwalt eines neuzeitlichen Christentums (Münster : Lit Verlag, 2003).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

20

Was the Reformation a German Event?

reform efforts of the past and his own time – “I have almost totally given up hope for a general reformation of the church,” he once said18 – but he rarely used the word “reformation” to describe the work he himself had undertaken.19 And when he employed the term, it was with a notable difference. He considered the reformation of doctrine of far greater importance than reform of practice and ritual in the church, and insisted moreover that reformation of doctrine would bring reformation of life in its wake.20 In his own words: Doctrine and life must be distinguished. Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists, but we don’t fight about life and condemn the papists on that account. Wyclif and Hus didn’t do this and attacked the papacy for its life. I don’t scold myself into becoming good, but I fight over the Word and whether our adversaries teach it in its purity. That doctrine should be attacked has never before happened. This is my calling. Others have censured only life, but to treat doctrine is to strike at the most sensitive point . . . When the Word remains pure, then the life (even if there is something lacking in it) can be molded properly.21

Consequently the entire question of “Reformation” is elevated to an altogether new level with respect to which all previous discussion now lags behind. The critical question regarding the “legitima reformatio” is posed: Legitimate reformation, as Luther affirmed in a sermon in 1512, necessitates first and foremost a renewed listening to God’s word with awe and fear,22 and as he stated in his first

18 WA 5: 345, 20 – 21 (Psalmenauslegung, 1519): “ego velut certus desperavi reformationem generalem Ecclesiae.” 19 See Wilhelm Maurer, “Was verstand Luther unter der Reformation der Kirche?” Luther 28 (1957): 49 – 62 and Erwin Mülhaupt, “Was Luther selber von Reformation hielt,” Luther 36 (1967): 97 – 113; Bernhard Lohse, Lutherdeutungen heute (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 5 – 18; Gottfried Maron, Zum Gespräch mit Rom. Beiträge aus evangelischer Sicht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 17 – 20. 20 Eeva Martikainen, Doctrina: Studien zu Luthers Begriff der Lehre (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft, 1992). Surely this could be applied to Calvin, Bullinger, Vermigli and almost all other Reformers. See Victor E. d’Assonville, Der Begriff “doctrina” bei Johannes Calvin – eine theologische Analyse (Münster : Lit Verlag, 2001); Herman J. Selderhuis, “Der Begriff ‘Doctrina’ in der reformierten Tradition des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Bewegung und Beharrung: Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520 – 1650. FS für Emidio Campi, eds. Christian Moser et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 413 – 432. 21 WA TR 1: 294,19 – 295,3: “Doctrina et vita sunt distinguenda. Vita est mala apud nos sicut apud papistas; non igitur de vita dimicamus et damnamus eos. Hoc nesciverunt Wikleff et Hus, qui vitam impugnarunt. Jch schilte mich nit fromm; sed de verbo, an vere doceant, ibi pugno. Doctrinam invadere ist noch nie geschehen. Ea est mea vocatio. Alii vitam tantum insectati sunt, sed de doctrina agere, das ist der gans an kragen grieffen […] Sed quando manet verbum purum, etiamsi vitae aliquid deest, so kan vita dennoch zu recht kommen.” 22 WA 1: 13, 25 – 35, esp. 35: “Nam hic rerum cardo est, hic legitimae reformationis summa, hic totius pietatis substantia.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: A Protestant Notion?

21

commentary on Galatians (1519), it occurs when the word of truth is purely preached.23 Basically, Zwingli’s and Calvin’s arguments follow the same line of thought. The reformatio ecclesiae is achievable, and indeed should be achieved, but not primarily as a reform of Church form and structure. They did not seek to found a Zwinglian or Calvinist church, and they did not lead off with a demand for “renewal” of the church through measures in areas of church life; rather they placed the Word of God at the epicentre because the church lives in relation to this alone. It was enough for them to confess the ecclesia catholica et apostolica and to shape a new understanding of how this is constituted through the divine Verbum. Thus Zwingli defined the church as every community that was founded on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his Word.24 In the disputation of Bern in 1528, one of the turning points in the Swiss Reformation, the Protestant party led by Zwingli put forward the thesis: “The Holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Jesus Christ, is born from the Word of God and it ever abides and it hears not the voice of strangers.”25 The same was true of Calvin. He seldom employed the word reformatio with the church as its object. His normal way of speaking of the reformation of the church shows that he intended it as the restoration – restitutio – of God’s church, whose original face had been disfigured, to the proper form or order, viz: “Wherever we see the Word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever the sacraments are administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence.”26 Such restorations are not accomplished once and for all, but must be undertaken again and again until the Last Day. Evidently, Calvin not only believed that

23 WA 2: 609,10 – 13: “Et, ut dicam libere, impossibile est, scripturas posse elucidari et alias ecclesias reformari, nisi universale illud reale, Rhomana curia, quam primum reformetur. Haec enim verbum dei audire non potest nec sustinere ut pure tractetur : verbo autem dei non tractato neque caeteris ecclesiis succurri potest.” 24 Z 3: 168,6 – 7 (Christliche Antwort Zürichs an Bischof Hugo, 1524). See also Z 3, 217,35 – 218, 1:“Denn das gotzwort macht die kilchen, und die kilch mag nit das gotzwort machen,” Z 3,223,6 – 7: “Welchs ist aber sin kilch? Die sin wort hört.” See Berndt Hamm, Zwinglis Reformation der Freiheit (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 23 – 27. 25 Z 6/1: 243,10 – 12 (Bern Disputation, 1528): “I. Die heylig christenlich kilch, deren eynig houpt Christus, ist uss dem wort gottes geborn, im selben belybt sy und hört nit die stimm eines frömbden.” 26 Inst. 4.1.9. See also Calvin’s Reply to Cardinal Sadolet (1539), in Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), 25 – 68, esp. 35 – 36, and his Sermons on Deuteronomy, Dtn 4, 1 – 2, Sermon 19, in CO 26, 108 – 109: “Car auiourd’huy le principale article dont la Chrestiente est troublee, quel est-il? Nous demandons qu’on escoute Dieu parler : et l— dessus qu’on ne reÅoyve quelque doctrine qui sera forgee — l’appetit des hommes: mais que le monde s’ assuietisse — Dieu, que l’Escriture saincte soit tenue comme une doctrine de perfection: que nous la cognoissions estre la verit¦ de Dieu, — la quelle il faut que tout nostre vie soit reiglee, qu’on n’y adiouste n’y diminue.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

22

Was the Reformation a German Event?

restitutio ecclesiae was necessary in his time, but he also understood his work to be a part of that “restorative process” of the church.27 In conclusion, the reformers had a completely different conception of the reformatio ecclesiae than people had been used to up until then. And so it is no wonder that after the initial enthusiasm, many refused to follow the reformers. For some they went too far, for others not far enough. Obviously, for those who were loyal to the old church, they went too far. Reformation meant revolution, uproar, and destroying Christendom. On the other end of the spectrum, for those like Thomas Müntzer or the Anabaptists, the reformers did not go far enough.28 A renewal of faith was not enough for them; they were not willing to wait patiently for the fruit of faith, as the reformers recommended. What had begun must be brought to completion. That entailed a radical reformation of the church, in some cases even with the use of violence, in order to establish absolute purity. These radical reformers, however, did not achieve their goal in the sixteenth century. On the contrary, the old believers had historically great success. With the Council of Trent, they successfully mustered astounding strength for an entirely new plan for the reorganization of the Roman Church. It is noteworthy that this council, which was called with a view to mending all of the damage that had been caused by the Reformation, grew to be more and more of a powerful reform council of an entirely new type. It ran, so to speak, on two tracks: alongside the reformulation of Catholic dogma in contrast to Protestant teaching stood the many general decreta de reformatione, the reform decrees which would influence the life of Catholicism for centuries to come – from mandatory residency for bishops to provision of improved theological education for the clergy, from Bible translation to revised marriage regulations. It is no coincidence that the word “reformation” appears so often in the documents of the “anti-reformation” Council, while it is almost totally missing from the confessional documents of the sixteenth-century Protestant churches.29 27 Benjamin Ch. Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 155. See also Pete Wilcox, “Calvin as Commentator on the Prophets,” in Calvin and the Bible, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 107 – 130, esp. 124 – 126; Michael Bush, “Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 285 – 299, esp. 292 – 299. 28 See Tom Scott, “The ‘Volksreformation’ of Thomas Müntzer in Allstedt and Mühlhausen,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983), 194 – 213; Der Theologe Thomas Müntzer. Untersuchungen zu seiner Entwicklung und Lehre, eds. Siegfried Bräuer and Helmar Junghans (Berlin: Ev. Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 174 – 194, 195 – 220; Andrea Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2003), 440 – 470. 29 I have searched for the word “reformation” (Latin and French) in the Confessio Augustana, Confessio Gallicana, and Confessio Helvetica posterior in the BSLK and the new edition of the Reformierte Bekenntnisschrifte. There is no reference in the Augustana and Gallicana, but it

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: A Protestant Notion?

23

One could say with some degree of irony that everyone in the sixteenth century talked about the reformation, with the exception of the magisterial Protestant reformers! Is it not astounding that this word should ultimately come to be assigned to these of all people? Is it not indeed remarkable that what they initiated came to be known as the Reformation? History sometimes takes strange turns and historiography follows behind. And usually the actors are not even asked for their opinions. Yet, surely the historians are absolutely right in calling “reformers” those who did not consider themselves such, because in the last analysis they plainly understood the real sense of the term reformatio: namely, neither a plan to undertake large or small-scale corrections, nor a proud expression of human reason, but rather the striking recognition that the Church is born from, lives in, and moves by the Word of God. This does not mean a flight from history for some abstract matter of theology. The recovery of the primacy of the authority and importance of God’s Word is compatible with the historiographical theory that treats the Protestant Reformation as embedded within a broad process of political, economic, and socio-cultural change that extended from late-medieval communalization to early-modern confessionalization. Indeed, we would be guilty of reductionism if we were either to undervalue or to ignore the reformers’ concern that God’s Word could not be bound by human fear or obscurantism, but must go daringly free. From the encounter with the Word came a fresh understanding of the Christian message, a new awareness of the nature of the Church, which not only involved the renewal of devotion and worship, but in addition supplied the commonwealth with a new public ethos to match the new perception of faith. This encounter with the Word was not new in the sense that nobody had ever known it before, or that the reformers were the first who properly understood it – in fact, they were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries – but was new and fresh for them as in each generation it has to be found and proved anew.30

does appear two times in the Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Reformierte Bekenntnisschrifte, vol. 2/2 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2009], 273,16, and 313,8). 30 On the continuities and discontinuities between the Reformation and late medieval reform of church, theology, and piety, see Berndt Hamm, “The Urban Reformation in the Holy Empire,” in Handbook of European History, 1400 – 1600, 2 vols., eds. Thomas Brady, Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1: 193 – 220, esp. 220 – 216; Hamm, “Einheit und Vielfalt der Reformation – oder : was die Reformation zur Reformation machte,” in Berndt Hamm, Bernd Moeller, and Dorothea Wendeburg, Reformationstheorien. Ein kirchenhistoriker Disput über Einheit und Vielfalt der Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1995), 57 – 127.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

24

2.

Was the Reformation a German Event?

Reformation: Event or Process?

The massive indeterminacy that surrounds the characterization of the term “event,” and even the broad definition, commonly found in dictionaries, as a “thing that happens,” thereby shifting the burden to the task of clarifying the definition of what it is to “happen,” would at least initially seem to inflict a fatal blow to critical reflection on the description of the Reformation as an event.31 Scholarly help comes from the Scottish historian Tom Scott, who in his learned article “The Reformation between Deconstruction and Reconstruction”32 refers to Heiko Oberman’s delight in quoting Herodotus’ Preface to his Histories, in which the father of historiography distinguished carefully between the acts, the great and marvellous events (= 5qca lec²ka te ja· hylast²) and their subsequent impact, and the interpretations imposed upon them by humans (= t± cemºlema 1n !mhq¾pym). Of course, Oberman’s intent was to challenge a tendency (nowadays fortunately decreasing) among social historians of blurring this distinction by eliding “event” and “impact” into a “process.”33 Nevertheless, this Herodotean distinction makes an excellent starting point for our purposes. One of the ways in which the Reformation has been interpreted since its inception was through commemorations. Although in 1617 the observance of the first centenary of the publication of Luther’s Ninety-five Theses already celebrated the epoch-making significance of the reformer’s cleansing of the Church, it was not until the late seventeenth century that the word Reformation was actually used to describe the era in church history inaugurated by the former Augustinian friar. Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf ’s Historical and Apologetic Commentary on Lutheranism or Reformation (1692) was the first work to employ the term Reformation in this sense.34 Textbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopaedias of the eighteenth century typically linked the era now identified as the 31 See Roberto Casati, Achille Varzi, “Events,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 edition), ed. Edward N. Zalt, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/events/. 32 Tom Scott, “The Reformation between Deconstruction and Reconstruction: Reflections on Recent Writings on the German Reformation,”German History 26 (2008): 406 – 422; id., Tom Scott, “After Ranke: German Reformation History Recast,” German History 28 (2010): 358 – 363. 33 See Thomas A. Brady, “Social History,” in Reformation Europe: A Guide to Research, ed. Steven Ozment (St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1982) and Mack P. Holt, “The Social History of the Reformation: Recent Trends and Future Agendas,” Journal of Social History 37 (2003): 133 – 144. 34 Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo sive de Reformatione (3 vols., Frankfurt: Gleditsch, 1692), occasioned by the Jesuit Louis Maimbourg’s Histoire du Luth¦ranisme (Paris: Mabre-Cramoisy, 1680), still useful as a rich storeroom of materials. See Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 205 – 206; Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 10.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: Event or Process?

25

Reformation to the life and public career of Martin Luther. The Reformation epoch thus came to be acknowledged as an event centred on the 1520s and 1530s, and ending with the Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555). Through this approach not only other reformers (such as Zwingli and Calvin, not to mention Bucer, Bullinger, Cranmer, Vermigli), but also other reformations (such as the Bohemian, Swiss, English, French and radical reformations) tended to be ignored or side-lined. Moreover, the Reformation was initially studied as a purely religious phenomenon.35 The first historian who cast his net more widely than had conventionally been the case was Leopold von Ranke (1795 – 1886), in his masterwork, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation (1839 – 1847; Engl. transl.: History of the Reformation in Germany, 1845 – 1847). The father of modern historical scholarship located the Reformation in both its ecclesiastical and political settings, which he saw as mutually interactive. But when we have paid tribute to Ranke’s insistence on “showing the past as it really was” (“blos zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen [ist]”), that is, at all costs and without compromise, we must not gloss over that in his work this sixteenth-century event formed, as Thomas Brady put it, “the opening chapter of what may be called (to give it its traditional nickname) the ‘Luther-to-Bismark’ story of German history.”36 We need to face the fact that Ranke was working with an idea of “destiny” in relation to Reformation which came into Protestant historiography during the second half of the sixteenth century, and hardened thereafter, and from which modern church historians are now struggling to be free. In a passage from the Introduction to the Handbook of European History Brady convincingly notes that the “concept of ‘destiny’ [is] … subtly but forcefully present in the work of Ranke.”37 With Germany’s defeat in the Great War the “Luther-to-Bismarck” narrative of the Reformation came to an end. In his skilfully written appreciation of Luther, Gerhard Ritter (1888 – 1967), the Nestor of German historians in the first half of the twentieth century, focused upon the centrality of Luther’s theological concern and religious significance. However, his staunch nationalism betrayed him into disconcerting and even suspect references to Luther as a prophet of national revival, “the Eternal German.”38 I do not propose to address the interpretations of the Reformation offered in 35 Arthur G. Dickens and John M. Tonkin, The Reformation in Historical Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985), 9. 36 Thomas A. Brady, The Protestant Reformation in German History, with a comment by Heinz Schilling, German Historical Institute (Washington, D.C.), Occasional paper no. 22, 1998, here 10 – 11. 37 Handbook of European History, 1400 – 1600, 2: XIX. 38 Gerhard Ritter, Luther : Gestalt und Symbol (Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1925), 151 (with six extensively revised editions). Engl. transl.: Luther: His Life and Work (New York: Harper and Row, 1963).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

26

Was the Reformation a German Event?

the period from World War II to the end of the 1990s, which has seen the advent of new paradigms to study the religious upheavals of the sixteenth century. Some of them have collapsed, like the notion of the Reformation as an “early bourgeois revolution” indefatigably propounded by a handful of Marxist historians;39 others have lost some of their lustre, like the Reformation as “urban phenomenon”;40 while others, like the “communalization” thesis or the “confessionalization” thesis, still retain plausibility, although no longer in their original versions, and only with substantial corrections. While for the analysis of post-war developments I refer to the Archive for Reformation History 2009, a special issue produced to celebrate the publication of volume 100 of the journal,41 in the limited space afforded me I propose to consider the writings of the first decade of our century. An examination of recent textbooks of history is quite instructive.42 In 1999 James Tracy’s Europe’s Reformations, 1450 – 1650 came out, and in 2000 Andrew Pettegree’s The Reformation World; in 2003 Diarmaid MacCulloch published his influential work Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490 – 1700, which was followed in 2004 by Peter Wallace’s The Long European Reformation … 1350 – 1750, and Ronnie Hsia’s compendium, A Companion to the Reformation World; in 2005 Ulinka Rublack’s Reformation Europe appeared. The subtle but discernible use of the plural (“Reformations”), the conspicuous evidence of the European dimension, not to mention the increasingly inflated chronological parameters in the titles, combine to reveal first of all that the days have definitely gone when the rise of the Reformation was ascribed to manifest destiny, or 39 The thesis was first stated by the East German historian Max Steinmetz. For a brief survey, see Andreas Dorpalen, German History in Marxist Perspective: The East German Approach (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988), esp. 99 – 137. 40 Bernd Moeller led the way with Reichstadt und Reformation (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1962), transl. Imperial Cities and the Reformation: Three Essays (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1972). Perhaps the most vocal was Steven E. Ozment, Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). For the debate over the reasons for the appeal of the Reformation, see Berndt Hamm, Bernd Moeller, and Dorothea Wendebourg, Reformationstheorien: ein kirchenhistorischer Disput über Einheit und Vielfalt der Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). 41 Hundert Jahre Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte/ Archive for Reformation History, ARG 100 (2009). See especially Thomas Kaufmann, “Die deutsche Reformationsforschung seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg,” ibid., 15 – 47; Thomas A. Brady, “From Revolution to the Long Reformation. Writings in English on the German Reformation, 1970 – 2005,” ibid., 48 – 64; Christoph Burger, “Theologiegeschichtliche Darstellungen zur Reformation seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg,” ibid., 326 – 349. 42 In the discussion that follows I am indebted to Tom Scott, “The Reformation between Deconstruction and Reconstruction,” here 406, to Thomas A. Brady, The Protestant Reformation in German History, here 23 – 27, and Heinz Schilling’s “Comment to Thomas A. Brady,” in ibid., here 42 – 45.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: Event or Process?

27

indeed Luther-centric accounts of the Reformation depicted him as interpreter of the German character. Secondly, reference to multiple “Reformations” rather than simply “the Reformation” does not necessarily constitute historiographical progress. It would seem to be appropriate only if it can be demonstrated that it is not attributable to a kneeling down before the Baal of postmodern culture, but rather that several movements comprising the Reformation were nurtured not by a single, but by a variety of impulses. Thirdly, that the Reformation is increasingly portrayed as a European phenomenon in which new outlooks fostered a religious revolution on a Continental scale with even extra-European dimension represents certainly a formidable challenge to traditional Reformation studies. And finally, the ambitious, all-encompassing agenda of these textbooks indicate that the Reformation is now seen not so much as a historical event that lasted at most a few decades, but rather as a prolonged process, with roots going back hundreds of years and extending over several centuries. It is increasingly customary among scholars to refer to this period as the “Long Reformation.”43 This last perspective, while ambiguous as is any attempt at periodization of macro-history yet an essential part of recent accounts of the Reformation, is certainly the most crucial and deserves closer attention. This is the consequence to be drawn from studies on late-medieval history over the last decades (e. g., by Eamon Duffy, Robert Swanson, Peter Blickle, Heiko Oberman, Berndt Hamm), which have both enriched and revised our understanding of church and society in the medieval centuries.44 They have shown that religion was not at all in terminal decline, but it had remarkable vigour and inventiveness. Therefore the Reformation can no longer be regarded as the decisive turning point in European history – neither in the perspective of general history, because it represents the culmination point of late medieval communalization, nor from the point of view of church history, since the reformers were inheritors of the late medieval theology that they shared with their Catholic opponents. Concurrent with this revisionist reappraisal of the Reformation in the light of the preceding centuries is the confessionalization thesis, which addresses the question of when medieval Europe became modern. Heinz Schilling, Wolfgang Reinhard, and others have convincingly shown that the changes brought about by the Reformation in the 1520s and 1530s were by no means as far-reaching as Ranke, and with him generations of (mainly Protestant) historians, had argued. On the contrary, the 43 Besides the above-mentioned works, see, e. g., Robert Scribner, Religion and Culture in Germany (1400 – 1800), ed. Lyndal Roper (Leiden: Brill, 2001) and England’s Long Reformation, 1500 – 1800, ed. Nicholas Tyacke (London and Bristol, Pa: UCL Press, 1998). 44 For an overview of this historiographical trend, see Robert N. Swanson, “The Pre-Reformation church,” in The Reformation World, ed. Andrew Petteegree (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 9 – 30.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

28

Was the Reformation a German Event?

changes which profoundly altered public and private life in Europe did eventually take place in the last decades of the sixteenth century and extended well into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A further feature of the confessionalization paradigm is the inclusion of the post-Tridentine Catholic Church into the process of European modernization with its parallel, but competing traditions of reform. Ultimately the confessionalization thesis ties this process to the churches – Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed – working hand in hand with emerging modern states for the twin purposes of social discipline and state-building. Needless to say, these two historiographical paradigms have enormous consequences for the way the Protestant Reformation is now perceived. In this framework, the Reformation can no longer be regarded as a self-contained unit with little connection to the period that preceded it; nor is there any longer wide acceptance of its role as the pivotal event in the origins of modern history. The Protestant Reformation is now being subsumed under these two periods, or to use Brady’s trenchant words, “has been squeezed between the later Middle Ages behind and Confessional Era ahead.”45 The result is the “Long Reformation,” a series of fragmented events in small and often competing groups, plus some greater ones, but without a centre and lacking a bold vision. In short, this is the way in which Reformation history is being written today. We do not have, at this time, the necessary distance from this lively scholarship to discern the impulses behind the communalization and confessionalization theses. We can only observe that Reformation studies are no longer the privileged field of church historians. Social historians have firmly taken hold of the Reformation and there is little likelihood of their letting go.46 On the other hand, no matter how productive the scholarly impulses prove to be, there are inevitably dissenters from this apparent consensus within the field. Such voices are less often heard, but they are no less real for that.47 Church historians in particular tend to argue that confessionalization implies a disparagement of the Reformation in favour of later developments, and that it is 45 Brady, “From Revolution to the Long Reformation,” 63. 46 Holt, “The Social History of the Reformation,” 133. 47 See, e. g., Heinrich Richard Schmidt, “Sozialdisziplinierung? Ein Plädoyer für das Ende des Etatismus in der Konfessionalisierungsforschung,” Historische Zeitschrift 265 (1997): 639 – 682; Thomas Kaufmann, “Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche und Gesellschaft,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 121 (1996): 1008 – 1025, 1113 – 1121; Harm Klueting, “Die Reformierten im Deutschland des 16. und 17. Jahrhundert und die Konfessionalisierung-Debatte der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft seit 1980,” in Profile des reformierten Protestantismus aus vier Jahrhunderten. Vorträge der Ersten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, ed. Matthias Freudenberg (Wuppertal: Foedus, 1999), 17 – 47; Marc R. Forster, Catholic Revival in the Age of the Baroque: Religious Identity in Southwest Germany, 1550 – 1750 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: German or European?

29

necessary to re-evaluate its unique historical significance. Moreover, they hold that pluralism, and not confessional uniformity, was a fact of life in the second half of the sixteenth century and beyond. Whether the arguments of the dissenters are a contribution of weight to this great debate, or a pretentious and muddle-headed version of the Rankean triumphalist approach, time and others wiser will decide. Meanwhile, we can perhaps console ourselves with the thought that at this point social historians and church historians have work to do together, if they would only stop suspecting and patronizing one another.

3.

Reformation: German or European?

Finally, I would like to address this last point with some comments on three recent narratives of the sixteenth century Reformation: Hans Hillerbrand’s The Division of Christendom,48 Thomas Kaufmann’s Geschichte der Reformation,49 and Thomas Brady’s German Histories in the Age of Reformation.50 Hillerbrand presents an entirely conventional, Luther-centric account of the Reformation, such as we might have expected of a previous generation of historians. The author is not prepared to locate the Reformation within a broad impulse to reform encompassing the time between 1450 and 1650 (like James Tracy), or 1490 to 1700 (like MacCulloch), or 1350 to 1750 (like Peter Wallace). Hillerbrand’s account gives little attention to the late-medieval church, beginning indeed unabashedly with the year 1517 and making the German course of events until the Augsburg Peace of 1555 the backbone of the work. He does attempt, however, to offer a European perspective, focussing in separate chapters on Scandinavia, England and Scotland, Eastern Europe, and France. He also gives a sensitive account of the Catholic Church and its reform, although the complicated and long-term problems faced by those seeking to implement the Council of Trent are left aside. Although the tone echoes older generations of historians and is critical of those currently engaged in a passionate debate concerning the place of Reformation in the framework of the communalization and confessionalization paradigms, Hillerbrand attempts nonetheless to offer a Continental perspective, and does therefore regard the Reformation as more than a journey between the Elbe and the Rhine. In a 900-page narrative, Kaufmann provides an unapologetic account of the 48 Hans J. Hillerbrand, The Division of Christendom: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007). 49 Thomas Kaufmann, Geschichte der Reformation (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2009). 50 Thomas A. Brady, German Histories in the Age of Reformations, 1400 – 1650 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

30

Was the Reformation a German Event?

sixteenth-century Reformation that puts Martin Luther squarely at the centre, and throughout keeps an eye firmly on German territories and German Lutheran confessional culture in the first half of the sixteenth century. Having dealt with the social, political, and religious preconditions of the Reformation movement and with Luther’s early career and writings, he proceeds through the Peasants’ War, then to a detailed account of the imperial Diets, the imposition of princecontrolled Lutheranism and Catholicism, and finally describes the Schmalkaldic War and the Peace of Augsburg. The flow of events is masterfully recounted, but when the author interrupts his narrative to treat Zwingli, the radicals, and the Peasants’ War, they appear as villains causing harm to the hero and spoiling the (Lutheran) Reformation by splitting it. The few pages devoted to the Council of Trent serve to reinforce this monolithic Lutheran perspective. Significant events and dynamics that characterized religious life elsewhere in Europe – in the Swiss Confederation, England, France, Italy, Spain, as well as Northern and Eastern Europe – are not tagged on at the end, as in much of German Reformation scholarship, but simply ignored. Kaufmann’s Geschichte der Reformation is indeed properly a “History of the German Reformation.” As such the work has strengths that lift it beyond the usual accounts. It is thorough and erudite, in particular in its use of primary sources. The difficulty with this approach is immanent in the basic assumptions and logic of the work itself: the Reformation is portrayed as a German phenomenon par excellence, which in turn provides the key to interpreting all variant patterns of Reforming endeavour and commitment. Such a candid and forcefully expressed view merits attention and invites debate, not least because the scholarship of recent decades points out persuasively that the Reformation, by whatever definition, was more than a deutsches Ereignis and that it is highly problematic to employ solely German or Lutheran criteria in order to understand the religious upheavals in sixteenthcentury Europe. Indeed we must be wary of Kaufmann’s hidden agenda. He is concerned to preserve the unity of the Reformation under Luther’s theological leadership51 – and here we are, once again, back in the world of manifest destiny and the “Eternal German”! What Kaufmann appears not or indeed prefers not to see is that the legitimate ideal of doctrinal unity is perfectly possible without the assumption of Luther’s primacy vis-—-vis other actors. It is impossible to summarize the whole variety of perspectives that Brady’s German Histories in the Age of the Reformations opens up.52 For our purposes it

51 Thomas Kaufmann, “Luther and Calvin – One Reformation,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 149 – 171, see 170: “Certainly his [Calvin’s] life’s work didn’t serve any other Reformation than the one that took its beginning in Luther.” 52 For detailed discussion, see Tom Scott, “After Ranke: German Reformation History Recast,”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: German or European?

31

suffices to mention that following the path laid out in the last twenty years by the framers of the communalization and confessionalization theses, he looks at changes in religious life in wider political, cultural, and social contexts. With verve and robust prose, he makes a good case for the view that the period 1400 to 1650 sees the real breakthrough of the modern world. Although not in Brady’s opinion a revolutionary break with the past, the Reformation certainly led to significant changes in Germany. Ultimately, however, it was the political system of the empire that directed the developments set in motion by Luther’s movement. Setting aside traditional interpretations that place the German Reformation at the heart of a modernization of Europe, Brady insists on the importance of the creation of “confessions, marked by conformity in doctrine and, to a lesser degree, in ritual practice” (p. 289). The Reformation – this is the consequence that must be drawn – is not after all the most significant event of German history. These works are representative of developments in recent Reformation historiography. While I dissent from each of these three perspectives, albeit on different levels, I readily admit that I have learned from all of them. They have helped considerably in addressing the problematic of the last part of the assigned topic. In my judgement, it must be recognized that in the last three decades two influential paradigms – communalization and confessionalization – have seriously eroded the notion that has so long dominated our understanding of the Reformation as a milestone on the road towards modernity, a powerful catalyst of the so-called “disenchantment of the world” (Max Weber).53 Despite some manifest methodological differences resulting in differing focal points, if anything unites the various specialized fields of historical studies, it is surely the widespread consensus that the Reformation was indeed a Europe-wide phenomenon and a prolonged process that stretched over centuries. Consequently, it is hardly invidious to point out that the idea of envisaging the Reformation as a “deutsches Ereignis,” or of exalting the person of one of the reformers for confessional purposes, is antiquated, as is the attempt to identify special confessional characteristics contributing to a national identity or indeed to the course of world history. This paradigm shift is by no means as unfavourable as one might suppose for Reformation studies, because it helps to reopen a debate that had been prematurely closed by Kulturprotestantismus.54 The key role played by the ReforGerman History 28 (2010): 358 – 363, and the review by Joel F. Harrington in Renaissance Quarterly 63 (2010): 214 – 215. 53 For a perceptive discussion of this theme, see Alexandra Walsham, “The Reformation and ‘the Disenchantment of the World’ Reassessed,” The Historical Journal 51 (2008): 497 – 528. 54 For a brief account in English, see Gordon Rupp, Culture Protestantism: German Liberal Theology at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

32

Was the Reformation a German Event?

mation in the older model of modernization might have lost some lustre along the way. Its essential tenets, however, can now be studied more effectively, and in a wider context, without clinging to ideological or confessional traditions. Indeed, it would seem to be a reasonable task for church historians to streamline the confessionalization theory by adding to the sounding brass of excessive ¦tatisme the clanging cymbal of theological assumptions that shaped and influenced, accelerated and anticipated modern patterns of political, economic, and social behaviour. It is not a question of catching up with the Zeitgeist, of keeping pace with modern theories, but of trying to get a better understanding of a relevant period of modern history deserving our close attention. Let us consider a few examples in order to settle these ideas. The first example is the gallant attempt of Kulturprotestantismus to show how the doctrines of personal vocation and predestination brought about decisive transformations at the origins of modernity. This is not just to be stored as a museum piece, only of interest to antiquarians or aesthetes, but is rather the kind of work which must be done continuously. Yet, properly understood, this classic example is part of the evidence why, in our day, it is essential to adopt a new approach. For scholarship has recognized and highlighted the rather naive self-confidence and the highly romanticized image of the Reformation which accompanied that older approach. Today we know that if those doctrines proved significant for the social and cultural shifts that occurred, it was because of the complex intermingling with other trends in a manner that remains difficult to pinpoint and analyze exactly. Secondly, to reach a nuanced understanding of the Reformation in the framework of the confessionalization theory, room must also be made for fresh investigation and criticism of the rich tradition of Christian worship and spirituality, the pastoral care of souls, the intellectual and cultural achievements forged and tested by generations of theologians who, armed with the new critical tools in both Hebrew and Greek, challenged old interpretations of the Scripture sanctioned by popes or other mere office-holders. Thirdly, at least a good case can be made (with support from the seminal work of Christoph Strohm55) for the view that the period 1555 – 1650 represents a real breakthrough of modern European jurisprudence initiated from below rather than imposed politically from above and with distinct confessional – Roman-Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed – roots. Fourthly, with awareness of the Continental dimension and of American Academy of Religion, 1977, repr. Atlanta, Ga., 1987); see also Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Der Protestantismus: Geschichte und Gegenwart (Munich: Beck, 2006), 61 – 105. 55 Christoph Strohm, Calvinismus und Recht. Weltanschaulich-konfessionelle Aspekte im Werk reformierter Juristen in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Strohm, “Nach hundert Jahren. Ernst Troeltsch, der Protestantismus und die Entstehung der modernen Welt,” ARG 99 (2008): 6 – 35; Strohm, “Der Einfluss des Protestantismus auf die Entwicklung der Rechtswissenschaft,” Johannes Calvin und die kulturelle Prägekraft des Protestantismus, eds. Emidio Campi et al. (Zurich: Vdf Hochschulverlag, 2011), 75 – 88.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformation: German or European?

33

the long-term impact of the Protestant Reformation, it would seem reasonable to be sensitive to doctrinal comparisons among the different European reformations between the late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period as evidence of the overarching process of fundamental change in European and world Christianity. This includes finding new sources and discovering the voices of lesser known reformers, as well as better integrating into the larger reform-minded era the humanist groups who preceded the Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Socinians, and other radical movements. Fifthly, demythologizing Catholic and Protestant confessionalization may prove difficult in view of the polemics on both sides of the great divide between reformers and what they called “Popery,” but not impossible, and in any case the attempt has to be made. Sixthly, consideration must naturally be given to the re-examination of the relations of the various Christian denominations to Judaism and Islam, as well as to sociocultural nonconforming groups, including early instances of atheism or scepticism. Last but not least, and thinking in terms of the “Long Reformation,” Heinz Schilling’s suggestion to pursue further research on the narrative of the Reformation as a “German event” is surely of continuing importance. It will be studied, of course, not so much as the historical reality of the sixteenth century, but as one of the great European foundational myths, in his words: “the founding myth for the ‘belated nation’ as was that of the ‘Grande R¦volution’ for the French Republic.”56 And one could add: the “Glorious Revolution” for the United Kingdom,57 “William Tell” and “Huldrych Zwingli”58 for the Swiss Confederation, or the “Free Italian republics of the Middle Ages” for the national unification of Italy.59

56 Schilling, “Comment to Thomas A. Brady,” 47. The notion “Belated Nation” goes back to Helmuth Plessner’s celebrated book Die Verspätete Nation, 1935/1959. See Wolfgang Bialas, Politischer Humanismus und “Verspätete Nation”: Helmuth Plessners Auseinandersetzung mit Deutschland und dem Nationalsozialismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). 57 For example, Patrick Dillon, The Last Revolution: 1688 and the Creation of the Modern World (London: Jonathan Cape, 2006); Edward Vallance, The Glorious Revolution: 1688: Britain’s Fight for Liberty (London: Little, Brown, 2006). 58 For example, Thomas Maissen, Geschichte der Schweiz (Baden: hier + jetzt, 32011). 59 The Genevan historian Jean Charles L¦onard de Sismondi was the author of a monumental 16-volume Histoire des r¦publiques italiennes du moyen –ge (1807 – 1818), which regarded the free cities of medieval Italy as the origin of modern European states. The work, together with Madame de StaÚl’s novel Corinne: ou Italie (1804), inspired the leaders of the country’s Risorgimento, the movement for national unification in nineteenth-century Italy. See Thomas Sowell, “Sismondi: A Neglected Pioneer,” History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 62 – 88.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

34

4.

Was the Reformation a German Event?

Conclusion

Was the Reformation a German event? In this essay it has been argued that the Reformation is too important to be used merely as the founding myth of a nation, let alone of a confessional hero. It has been further suggested that reconsidering the Reformation within the framework of the communalization and confessionalization paradigms may assist in a more effective study of its theological tenets and its impact on the rise of early modern Europe, without clinging to ideological or confessional traditions. Having appealed to history, however, we must also abide by history. While there are questions we must raise for ourselves and answer by ourselves, to which the voices of the past may be irrelevant or even fallacious, there are other questions, and these are the most profound, on the answer to which the voices of the past may intervene anew. Thus, even a working historian ought not to be shocked or surprised by the perception of the Reformation articulated in 1518 by a (then) obscure Augustinian friar of the Saxon Province: “The church – he said – needs a reformation, but this is not something for one person, the pope, also not many cardinals, […] but rather for the entire world, or more correctly, for God alone. The time for such a reformation is known only by him who created time.”60

60 WA 1: 627, 27 – 31 (Resolutiones, 1518, Conclusio LXXXIX): “Ecclesia indiget reformatione, quod non est unius hominis Pontificis nec multorum Cardinalium offitium, sicut probavit utrumque novissimum concilium, sed totius orbis, immo solius dei. Tempus autem huius reformationis novit solus ille, qui condidit tempora.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Brutus Tigurinus: Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

1.

Introduction

In his Ab urbe condita the great Roman historian Titus Livy (59BC – 17AD) described the events which followed the rape of Lucretia by Sextus, son of King Tarquinius Superbus, and her subsequent suicide in around 510BC.1 Lucius Iunius Brutus drove the tyrannical king out of Rome and founded the Republic. According to Livy’s account, Brutus and Lucretia’s husband, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, were elected consuls by the people. Supported by the patriciate and by Porsenna, King of the Etruscans, the Tarquin family attempted to regain power. Brutus’ two sons were amongst the conspirators, and, informed of the conspiracy by a slave, the father’s response was decisive: his two sons were executed. Although this passage from Livy is relatively short, it addresses ethical and political issues that have inspired Western authors2 from Virgil to Petrarch, from Machiavelli3 to Voltaire,4 and on to Alfieri,5 whose Bruto primo was, tellingly, dedicated to George Washington. In the Swiss Confederation it was also common to use such much-loved ancient material to illuminate contemporary concerns. 1 Titus Livius, Ab urbe condita (lat./dt.). Liber I. Römische Geschichte. 1. Buch (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1981), 1,56 – 60, pp. 167 – 181. Sixteenth-century editions: Romische Historie vsz Tito livio gezogen (Mentz [= Mainz]: Schöffer, 1505), f. 18v – 20v ; Römsche History (Strasbourg: Gru¨ ninger, 1507), f. 24v – 26r ; Romische historien Titi Livij mit etlichen newen translation auss dem Latein: so kurtzuerschinen jaren zu˚ Meyntz imm hohen Thu˚mbenstifft erfunden hiezu˚ gethon; fast lüstig zu˚ lesen vnd fruchtbarlich allen den: so inn tugent: manheyt oder ritterlichen thaten jr leben üben wöllen (Meyntz [= Mainz]: Schöffer, 1530), f. 21r – 23r. 2 Reinhard Klescewski, “Wandlungen des Lucretia-Bildes im lateinischen Mittelalter und in der italienischen Literatur der Renaissance,” in Livius. Werke und Rezeption. FS für Erich Burck zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Eckhard LefÀvre and Eckhard Olshausen (Munich: Beck, 1983), 313 – 335. 3 See Niccolý Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, ed. Francesco Bausi (Rome: Salerno, 2001). 4 Voltaire, Brutus (1730). 5 Vittorio Alfieri, Bruto primo (1786/1789?); see Storia della letteratura italiana. Il Settecento, ed. Emilio Cecchi and Natalino Sapegno (Milan: Garzanti, 1988), 923 – 1040, esp. 1030 – 1031.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

36

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

The story of Brutus can be found for the first time in the sixteenth century in the anonymous work Urner Spiel von Wilhelm Tell,6 in which distinct parallels are drawn between the liberation of the original part of the Swiss Confederation and the rape of Lucretia and the subsequent fall of the Tarquin family. Another example of this genre is provided by the first edition of the Descriptio Helvetiae (1514) by the humanist Heinrich Glareanus, for whom William Tell was the Swiss Brutus.7 In 1527 Hans Sachs turned the story of Lucretia into a play, although his intention was not to stress the political message of the events, but rather to provide a memorial to the model virtues of Lucretia.8 One of the most impressive dramatic retellings of this ancient story during those years was provided by Heinrich Bullinger. It was written while he was a teacher at the monastery school in Kappel am Albis. The drama was entitled “A fine play on the history of the noble Roman woman Lucretia, and how the tyrannical king Tarquinius Superbus was driven from Rome and in particular of the steadfastness of Junii Bruti, first counsel of Rome.”9 Lucretia and Brutus would be the only drama in Bullinger’s opus, and although it was not one of his 6 Das Lied von der Entstehung der Eidgenossenschaft. Das Urner Tellenspiel, ed. Max Wehrli (Aarau: Sauerländer, 1952). 7 Heinrich Glarean, Helvetiae descriptio et in laudatissimam Helvetiorum foedus panegyricum (Basel: Adam Petri, 1514), ed. Werner Näf (St. Gallen: Tschudy-Verlag, 1948). Second edition with the commentary of Oswald Myconius and dedicatory poem by JoachimVadianus: Descriptio de situ Helvetiae et vicinis gentibus ([Basileae]: [Ioannes Frobenius], [1519]). 8 Hans Sachs, Tragedia von der Lucretia auss der beschreybung Livij (1527), in Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, ed. Horst Hartmann (Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut, 1973), 99 – 110. On Hans Sachs, see Berndt Hamm, Bürgertum und Glaube. Konturen der städtischen Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 181 – 231. 9 [Heinrich Bullinger], Ein schoen spil von der geschicht der Edlen Römerin Lucretiae / vnnd wie der Tyrannisch küng Tarquinius Superbus von Rhom vertrieben / und sunderlich von der standhafftigkeit Iunii Bruti / des Ersten Consuls zuo Rhom / vff Sontag den andern tag Mertzens / im 1533 jar / zuo Basel gehalten (Basel: Thomas Wolf, 1533). See HBBibl I, here 39 – 41. The first reprint of this edition was Jakob Bächtold, Schweizerische Schauspiele des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Vol. 1 (Zurich and Frauenfeld: Huber, 1890), 101 – 169. A second edition is Horst Hartmann ed., Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 39 – 97. In this paper I shall quote from the Hartmann edition. As I have had the original edition to hand, I have come across two transcription errors: p. 50, v. 26: Hartmann “mit” while the original has “mir,” p. 51, v. 12: Hartmann “man” while original has “myr.” This Bullinger text has not yet received any attention in church history circles, but there are some interesting contributions from the field of German literary studies: the important dissertation of Käthe Hirth, Heinrich Bullingers Spiel von “Lucretia und Brutus” 1533 (Marburg: R. Friedrich, 1919), is not only useful for its examination of language and meter, but also looks into the sources, the humanist elements and the political orientation of the work. Also authoritative is the study of Remy Charbon, “Lucretia Tigurina. Heinrich Bullingers Spiel von Lucretia und Brutus (1526),” in Antiquitates Renatae: deutsche und französische Beiträge zur Wirkung der Antike in der europäischen Literatur. FS für Renate Böschenstein, ed. Verena Ehrich-Haefeli et al. (Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann, 1998), 35 – 47. See also Anja Buckenberger, “Heinrich Bullingers Rezeption des Lucretia-Stoffes,” Zwingliana 33 (2006): 77 – 91.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s Reworking of the Story of Lucretia and Brutus

37

more successful works, literary critics have reckoned it amongst the most beautiful and most original stage works “which Switzerland possesses, along with Manuel, in terms of dramas for the sixteenth century.”10 Although up until now this work has received little attention, even a brief glance at the text reveals the potential for a more detailed examination. It is readily apparent that this is Bullinger’s version of current political and religious problems and how they should be clothed, albeit in the garb of a classical tale. In addition, both the events and the characters in the play can also be examined in the light of one of the most important developments in recent writing on the Reformation: issues of communication and the formation of opinion through the culture of festival and popular drama.11 The aim of this essay is twofold: first it will examine Bullinger’s intentions in his reworking of the story of Lucretia and Brutus; second, and in the context of additional material produced during Bullinger’s time in Kappel, it will seek to identify and examine further motives which contribute to our understanding of Bullinger’s early political and theological thought.

2.

Bullinger’s Reworking of the Story of Lucretia and Brutus

Context The original of Bullinger’s work is no longer extant. The lack of a manuscript is not, however, hugely problematic as there exist two printed versions of the play, one from Basel and the other from Strasbourg, and there is little variation between them.12 Although neither copy bears the name of the author, this is not a contested matter. The title page of the copy held in the Zentralbibliothek in Zurich has the following handwritten comment by Johann Jakob Simler, the founder of the eighteenth-century Simler Collection: “written by Herr Bullinger while he was still in Kappel, taken from him and performed against his will in Basel.” This comment was based on a letter written to Bullinger on 11 February 1533 by Oporinus and is confirmed and expanded by Bullinger’s own entry in his 10 Jakob Bächtold, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur in der Schweiz (Frauenfeld: Huber, 1892), 306; Charbon, “Lucretia Tigurina,” 46, refers to the text as “one of the most significant examples of the Swiss historical-political dramas.” 11 On this see Peter Rusterholz, “Fastnachtsspiel und Reformation. Die Metamorphosen des Fastnachtsspiels im Widerstreit der Disziplinen,” in Gemeinde, Reformation und Widerstand. FS für Peter Blickle zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Heinrich Schmidt et al. (Tübingen: Bibliotheca Academica Verlag, 1998), 243 – 260. 12 Hartmann, Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 32 – 33.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

38

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

diary.13 According to this diary, although he was in Kappel for less than six years, during this time he wrote more than fifty works, long and short and in German and Latin. Included in a list of these works, and amongst those in German, appears Brutus sive Lucretia, Germanico carmine scripta tragoedia, quae postea anno domini 1533 Basileae publice a civibus acta est et impressa sine meo nomine.14 Although it is clear that this work was conceived during Bullinger’s years in Kappel, we lack the necessary evidence to pinpoint accurately when it was written. However, in light of similarities with other works by Bullinger and the play’s allusions to contemporary events in Zurich, it seems most likely that the work was written in the late autumn of 1526,15 although there is little in the way of hard evidence to substantiate this conjecture. It has been suggested that the work was written in 1528, but this guess is equally uncertain.16 Despite all my efforts I have been unable to find any further evidence to enable a precise dating of the work, and for the moment we have to be satisfied with the likelihood that it was written between late autumn 1526 and 1528.

The Circumstances of the First Performance It is unlikely that a work written in Kappel was for the pupils alone. Rather, the intended audience would have included all those associated with the monastery school, for it is well established that it was not only the pupils themselves who attended the lessons given by Bullinger, but also other members of the monastic community as well as individuals from outwith the religious house, even from neighbouring Zug.17 As will be demonstrated here at greater length, essentially this piece of theatre was written for propagandistic purposes. Indeed, it is possible to take this interpretation even further and to demonstrate that this dramatic work, with its strong desire to mould opinion, is a fine example of the methods of communication and persuasion employed at the time of the Reformation. 13 14 15 16

HBBW 3, no. 190. HBD, 15. Charbon, “Lucretia Tigurina,” 35. This dating is primarily from Hirth, Heinrich Bullingers Spiel von “Lucretia und Brutus,” 28. The scholarly foundation of this assertion is not persuasive. Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962), 292, remarks that Bullinger “placed the drama at the end of his catalogue,” and from this he concludes that it was intended for the year 1528. This is conceivable, but it does not rule out the possibility of an error in the ordering of the catalogue. As a result, we are still not able to date the work precisely. 17 Fritz Blanke and Immanuel Leuschner, Heinrich Bullinger. Vater der reformierten Kirche (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1990), 60.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s Reworking of the Story of Lucretia and Brutus

39

Lucretia and Brutus was never performed in Kappel, though it has not yet proved possible to establish why. There is, however, evidence that the manuscript was taken without Bullinger’s approval and published by Thomas Wolff in Basel in 1533. On 2 March the play was performed in Basel and drew large crowds.18 A short time later it was also performed in Aarau, and again received an enthusiastic reception.19 Ignored for more than 400 years, the work was performed again at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 at the initiative of the student theatre of the University of Basel. Several performances in Basel and Zurich were well received. In a review of the performance in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a critic wrote “the amateur actors, students at the University of Basel, put right an ancient wrong when they brought their production of this work back to Zurich and performed it on the central staircase of the University to an audience composed primarily of academics – indeed they performed the work so perfectly that the spirit of the author must surely have forgiven Basel for the theft of the manuscript and the illegal public premiere which followed.”20 Yet gentle chaffing on the origins of this piece and humorous asides on the impact of Basel pronunciation on the Zurich ear cannot distract from the fact that it was not the well-established rivalry between the two Swiss cities that was at the forefront of the public’s mind at the time of this performance. The “contemporary relevance” of the piece lay rather, as Bullinger himself had written, in the issue of “how freedom, once obtained, can be upheld against all tyranny and oligarchy.” A closer examination of this play makes this very evident.

Content The play is written in traditional rhyming couplets and covers 32 quarto sides, recto and verso, about 1555 verses in total. It comprises a prologue (ff. 1b – 2a, Hartmann, pp. 39 – 40), two distinct acts (ff. 2b – 31a, Hartmann, pp. 41 – 60, 60 – 95) and a short instruction for the players (ff. 31b – 32a, Hartmann, pp. 96 – 97). On the title page there is a woodcut of the coat of arms of Basel and the insignia of Wolff ’s printing house. As I will explain later, it is not simply by chance that a mercenary soldier appears behind both these insignia. The prologue, with its references to Bullinger’s sources and purpose, is important for understanding the meaning of the play. Bullinger refers specifically to the first and second books of Livy’s Ab urbe condita and to the fourth and fifth books of the Roman history of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (60BC to c7AD), a 18 See the list of the Basler printers: Ein schoen spil (note 9). 19 Hirth, Heinrich Bullingers Spiel von “Lucretia und Brutus,” 5. 20 Max Zollinger, in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 6 December 1939, no. 2065, 3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

40

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

Greek rhetorician who lived in Rome. Although on the whole Bullinger does not move far from these ancient historians, he also does not slavishly follow them: when they do not agree with his views, he simply deviates from them. Bullinger lays this out clearly in the introduction: This play is taken from the first and second books of T. Livy’s Ab urbe condita and out of the fourth and fifth books of Dionysius’ Antiquitates, and it places before our eyes how tyranny came to rule among a certain people. Tarquin is a tyrant, and he therefore brought the Romans in many ways into despair as Iunius Brutus demonstrates in his speech after the death of Lucretia. His tyranny will also be illustrated through the violation of Lucretia; this will also be shown through his conduct and debauchery. To this end a poem by a peasant is appended which is from neither Livy nor Dionysius. Its purpose is to show that in a dreadful circumstance something positive can come forth. He turns into a joke that which is truly serious, namely how a tyrannical, godless man violently deals with the poor people. The greater the offence, the greater the punishment and the more horrific. Thus is Tarquin, on account of his dreadful deeds, driven away by a great uprising.21

The first act, which is only about one third of the total play, is dedicated to the tale of the eponymous Lucretia, who, although she certainly embodies the ideal of female morality, is not the central dramatic figure in the play.22 Instead, Bullinger is primarily concerned to bring to the fore the theme of the struggle for freedom inspired by the spirit of patriotic virtue. To some extent the title of the play is misleading, for the story of Lucretia is only a preamble, explaining the occasion for Brutus’ subsequent actions in the cause of freedom.23 The play is opened by the herald, who warns the audience that they should expect something which is neither lightweight nor extravagant. At his request the writer reads out a short account of the story of Lucretia as contained in the ancient sources. Lucretia is young, beautiful and true to her husband, Collatinus. Sextus Tarquinius, the son of the king, is entranced by her beauty and falls deeply in love with her. While her husband is doing military service, Sextus finds a pretext to gain entry to her house in the night. Bullinger throws a veil over Sextus’ abuse of her trust and her rape. He decides instead to replace this incident with a court scene in which a poor peasant is cheated of his just rights by Tarquinius Superbus and his son Sextus. The meaning is symbolic: the example of the peasant is used to show how a regime without conscience violates its subjects,

21 Hartmann, Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 39, 2 – 21. 22 Hartmann, Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 60, 31 – 36: “… Ihr Christen wyber / btrachtend das Labt ee hingon den lyb zu˚ grund Eee jhr brechen eelichen pund Land üch vff erden nichts verfüren Ee soelt jhr sterben / dann verlieren Dem man syn eer …” 23 Bullinger’s entry in his Diary (HBD) “Brutus sive Lucretia,” already indicates the political direction of the work.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s Reworking of the Story of Lucretia and Brutus

41

and that the arbitrary and brutal use of force by a tyrannical regime leads to its own downfall. In the meantime the news of the outrage committed against Lucretia reaches her father and husband in the army camp. They hurry home, accompanied by their friends Brutus and Publius Valerius, and discover Lucretia in the depths of despair. She tells them of the disgrace which has been done to her, protests her innocence, calls for revenge and stabs herself. At this point Brutus enters the fray. He interrupts the laments of her family to call for the expulsion of the Tarquin. At the marketplace and standing beside the body of Lucretia, Brutus denounces in raging words the scandalous acts of the ruling family and calls on the people to expel the tyrants and to take responsibility for the country into their own hands. The first act closes with the call to the citizens to participate in forming the new social order. While Lucretia is the heroine of the first act, Brutus is the central character of the second. This second act is about 1,000 verses long, two-thirds of the total length of the play. It is here that the dramatization of the central theme of the play is to be found: “how freedom which has been won can be retained against all tyranny and oligarchy.” This act covers the attempts of the citizens to secure their state and defend it against both internal and external enemies. At the beginning the herald commends the council to act justly. This is followed by the confirmation of the constitution of the newly-founded republic. At its head there are to be two “Consules or Burgermeister” who will hold office in rotation and to whom the council, elected from members of the guilds, will answer ; the council in turn is to make decisions on matters of great political weight in conjunction with the citizens. Elected as consuls by the people, Brutus and Collatinus have hardly had time to take up their office when it seems the Republic is in danger of falling back into the slavery it has so recently escaped. Envoys of the king who have just been expelled attempt to ingratiate themselves, but are turned away. Adventurers merry fellows, beggars, young men who support the king and, in particular, those who received pensions and mercenaries, who have been paid by the former king and appear in “foreign clothes,” unite to bring back the old order. The most vociferous participants are the sons of Brutus, Titus and Tiberius, who have grown up knowing nothing but luxury and idleness, and now curse the new Republic. However, the conspiracy is discovered by a faithful slave and the rebels are taken prisoner. In the climax of this scene, carefully crafted for its full impact, the sons of Brutus are condemned by their own father and delivered into the hands of the hangman (Hartmann, p 83 – 86); Collatinus is removed from office on account of his indecisive and cowardly behaviour and is banished from the city. The Republic has proved itself to be unassailable and virtuous in its response to a plot hatched by outsiders from both the highest and lowest social

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

42

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

classes. At the end Vindices, the slave whose actions had brought the conspiracy to light, is rewarded with his freedom; he is given the status of citizen and is even provided with a sum of money for his new life. Brutus, who has successfully defended his position, can say with justice to the council: Now we have ordered all things So that we may in future more easily rule. And when we remain faithful and true So will fortune and salvation come to you.24

3.

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

The historical and political background It would be inaccurate to suggest that Bullinger’s play is nothing more than just an entertaining literary exercise without any contemporary social or political relevance. As mentioned earlier, there is evidence that the play was written after late autumn 1526. If we set it against the context of Zurich in the years 1525 to 1526, and in particular bear in mind daily religious life and internal political developments, we can discern the links with the politics of the day as well as with the intentions of the author. In 1525 and at the height of the Zwinglian Reformation, Zurich was isolated both confessionally and politically within the Confederation. The criticism of Zurich that was voiced by other members of the Confederation was clearly audible. This censure focused on the ecclesiastical changes which had recently been introduced in Zurich: the dissolution of the monasteries and introduction of state-run poor relief, the abolition of the mass and new regulations for the celebration of communion, withdrawal from episcopal jurisdiction and introduction of a new order for the morals court (Ehegericht), and the opening of the Prophezei, the Zurich theological school. The conflict between the politics of the Confederation and Zurich25 was made evident by the presence of three delegations from the Catholic Confederates in Zurich between September and November 1525 attempting, without success, to convince the council to reintroduce the mass and the old order.26 This conflict was also evident in the arduous negotiations over the annual reaffirmation by oath of alliances within 24 Hartmann ed., Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 94, 25 – 95, 2. 25 See Ren¦ Hauswirth, “Zur politischen Ethik der Generation nach Zwingli,” Zwingliana 13 (1971): 305 – 342, here 311. What Hauswirth argued for the generation after Zwingli was already true for the years 1525 – 1526 and was true for this whole period. 26 See Oskar Farner, Huldreich Zwingli, vol. 4: Reformatorische Erneuerung von Kirche und Volk in Zürich und in der Eidgenossenschaft (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1960), 87.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

43

the Confederation. A more serious problem belied the growing isolation of Zurich within the Confederation on account of the city’s lone stance against mercenaries and pensioners. Zwingli was well known as a bitter opponent of mercenary service and pensions from foreign lords (including the papacy).27 As early as 1522, and in part as a result of Zwingli’s strong influence, the council in Zurich had introduced a general prohibition of mercenary service unique in the Confederation28 ; in September 1524 the ruling had been made even stricter and it was upheld stringently in the following two years.29 Zurich’s stance was opposed most vigorously by the Catholic Confederates Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, and Lucerne, where mercenary service, together with pensions, formed a lucrative source of income which these Confederates were neither willing nor able to surrender. As the attack on mercenary service had particularly strong religious underpinning, the Catholic Confederates hoped it would be possible to have Zwingli outlawed and the Reformation condemned in the name of the Confederation as a whole. At the diet of 1526 a disputation was held in Baden (19 May – 9 June)30 at which the majority of the members of the Confederation did indeed condemn Zwingli’s teachings as erroneous. This condemnation was, however, worthless as Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen and, naturally, Zurich itself refused to put their names to the verdict. The disputation had, however, made evident that the Confederation was deeply divided by the religious question; when Bern, St Gallen, Basel, and Schaffhausen also joined the Reformation in 1528 – 9, the partitioning along confessional lines was unmistakable. In 1525 – 6 the conflict in Zurich between church and politics also reached its climax. Through spring and summer 1525 the rural hinterland was besieged by complaints from the peasantry, which included many who were supportive of Anabaptist teachings. Amongst their demands were the abolition of serfdom and of the small tithe and the removal of lower justice and introduction of the free election of pastors. The revolt was resolved without recourse to arms, in part as a result of repressive measures and in part as a result of a variety of concessions to the peasants. The armed conflicts between the authorities and the peasantry

27 On this, Georg Gerig, Reisläufer und Pensionenherren in Zürich 1519 – 1532. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Kräfte, welche der Reformation widerstrebten (Zurich: Leemann, 1947); Hermann Romer, Herrschaft, Reislauf und Verbotspolitik. Beobachtungen zum rechtlichen Alltag der Zürcher Solddienstbekämpfung im 16. Jahrhundert (Zurich: Schulthess, 1995); Olivier Bangerter, La pens¦e militaire de Zwingli (Bern: Peter Lang, 2003), esp. 36 – 122. 28 Emil Egli, Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation (Zurich: Schabelitz, 1879) (republished Aalen: Scientia-Verlag, 1973), no. 215 and 293, 66 – 67 and 103 – 105. 29 Egli, Actensammlung, no. 575, 248. 30 Leonhard von Muralt, Die Badener Disputation 1526 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1926); Gottfried W. Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 182 – 187.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

44

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

which took place in southern Germany were therefore not replicated in the Confederation.31 However the Reformation in Zurich was still opposed by a significant group; it was in this tense atmosphere that in May 1526 Hans Buelmann rode through the Grossmünster and cursed Zwingli as a “rogue, thief, heretic, traitor and murderer of souls.”32 Opposition to the Reformation came from both the Anabaptist movement, against which the council took decisive action in 1526, and the Catholic clergy of the Grossmünster and Fraumünster. The latter included, for example, the canon Jakob Edlibach, and it was Edlibach’s defence of the mass which was Zwingli’s target in his work Responsio brevis … in qua de eucharistia quaestio tractatur of 14 August 1526.33 The political opposition naturally also included many who were members of wealthy families, but it proved particularly attractive to those who were interested in the retention of mercenary service and in income from pensions. Mercenary service was still an attractive proposition for many people and as the pensioners retained numerous connections with influential figures in the Catholic Confederates, this circle of opponents represented a significant threat to the Reformation and the politics of the Zurich council. Zwingli himself acknowledged this in a sermon on 12 March 1525.34 He renewed his attack in mid-September 1526, when from the pulpit he accused those who received pensions and those involved in the mercenary trade of seeking to thwart the Reformation and its growth within the Confederation.35 Zwingli’s denunciations were directed against a number of individuals concerned with the mercenary trade, but they concentrated on one man in particular : the influential city councillor Jakob Grebel (c1460 – 1526).36 Yet while Grebel’s actions as a pensioner did count as misdemeanors, Grebel himself was by no means fully opposed to the Reformation. He was a moderate man concerned about the crisis of conscience afflicting both the leading figures in the city and the common people brought on by Zurich’s isolationist politics. He was greatly disturbed by the radical political direction taken by Zurich. In addition, the Reformation had affected him personally : his son Conrad had alienated himself completely from his family and later became leader of the Anabaptist 31 Andrea Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2003), 426 – 439. 32 Egli, Actensammlung, no. 580, 464; see Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 175. 33 Z 5: 317 – 358. Edlibach’s text is printed there (pp. 323 – 341). 34 Z 3: 584 – 589. 35 Zwingli to Oekolampad on 29 November 1526, in Z VIII, 779 – 783. 36 Hans Georg Wirz, “Familienschicksale im Zeitalter Zwinglis,” Zwingliana 6 (1934 – 1938): 194 – 222, 242 – 271, 470 – 499; Walter Jakob, Politische Führungsschicht und Reformation. Untersuchungen zur Reformation in Zürich 1519 – 1528 (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970), 173 – 177; Martin Haas, Huldrych Zwingli und seine Zeit (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 21976), 192 – 197.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

45

movement in Zurich. The new edge to Zwingli’s sermon had the desired impact. The council prepared itself to take the decisive step again those who received pensions and those who supported mercenary service. An investigative commission was formed and those who supported mercenary service – designated grex catilinaria and traitors to the fatherland by Zwingli, on the model of Cicero – underwent a harsh interrogation that included the use of torture. The trial of Jakob Grebel produced a death sentence, although in fact there was not sufficient evidence to justify capital punishment.37 On 30 October 1526 Jakob Grebel was beheaded at the Fish Market. The judgment was very evidently politically motivated: his execution was a warning sent out by the campaign against mercenary service. Yet if Zwingli hoped that the lesson to be learnt from Grebel’s death would have lasting impact, he was to be disappointed. Only one day after the condemnation of Jakob Grebel, several of his fellow-accused were pardoned – apparently the council did not want to push too far. There was no rush to proceed with further trials of those receiving pensions and those who recruited mercenaries – a year later several cases were still outstanding. Contemporaries criticized the severity of the action taken against Grebel, and this criticism could also be heard within Zurich itself. Felix Grebel, brother of Jakob and a council member and knight of the Holy Sepulcher, immediately relinquished his seat on the council, demonstratively surrendered his citizenship of Zurich, and left the city to live in Rapperswil.38 Bullinger’s work functions on two levels: it both describes events in some detail and also takes an unambiguous and active stance on the social and political events of the day.39 For example, at the end of the first act Bullinger places particular emphasis on the alliance of peasants and citizens, a clear reference to the settlement between Zurich and the rural territories which followed the peaceful conclusion of the peasant unrest of 1525. This union of interests was a defining feature of this highly significant year.40 In the play the scene set in Markus’ home in which the conspiracy is planned41 not only reminds the audience of the tensions which accompanied the victory of the Zwinglian Reformation in 1525 – 6 but also describes with some force the intrigues amongst unconvinced members of Zurich’s ruling elite which had come to light in the 37 Egli, Actensammlung, no. 1050, p 491 – 501. For a treatment of the process, see Georg Gerig, Reisläufer, 53 – 69, and Leo Schelbert, “Jacob Grebel’s Trial Revisited,” ARG 60 (1969): 32 – 64. 38 Jakob, Politische Führungsschicht, 171. 39 Charbon makes the same argument, even though he uses different terminology, when he judges that the Lucretia was a “classicalisation of contemporary issues,” Charbon, “Lucretia Tigurina,” 45. 40 Hartmann ed., Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 58 – 60; see also Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli, 429 – 431 41 Hartmann ed., Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 73 – 81

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

46

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

course of the trials of the supporters of mercenary service in October 1526. The background for Legate Drances42 attempts at bribery clearly underscores the deeply felt revulsion against the oligarchy – military, economic and clerical – and its involvement in the business of war. However, within the play there seems to be a direct reference to the under-secretary [to the city] Joachim Amgrut, a wellknown opponent of Zwingli, and his diplomatic mission to Rome in 1525 to claim from the papacy long overdue payment for mercenary services.43 There are similar points of reference in the political measures undertaken after the fall of the kingdom in order to maintain political and social order. Bullinger lays out clearly his ideal of a democratic state, which is based on the fundamentals of the Roman republican constitution but which at the same time is clearly reflective of the political and social order in Zurich at the time of the Reformation. While this is evident in the method of election of both mayors and councillors, Bullinger also places particular emphasis on referenda carried out by the council in the first years of the Reformation in order to ensure popular support.44 The removal of Collatinus from consular office on account of his failure to act decisively at a time of crisis can in part be viewed as an example drawn from history to give legitimacy to the (unjust) punishment of Councillor Grebel, who had failed to abide by the prohibition on pensions. And certainly there can be no doubt that the contrast between Brutus and Collatinus was intended to provide two very different models of authority which represent the conflict between different political and social groupings. It was Brutus who embodied the ideal magistrate at the head of the community. And here will be briefly shown How authority ought to be used For the common use and virtue For freedom and justice That there ought to be a man of perseverance The like of whom has not been seen.45

42 Hartmann ed., Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 78. 43 See Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 179, and Jakob, Politische Führungsschicht, 101. 44 This is correctly emphasized by Hirth, Heinrich Bullingers Spiel von “Lucretia und Brutus,” 26, and Charbon, “Lucretia Tigurina,” 40, note 20: “Ausser der expliziten Gleichsetzung von ‘Consul’ und ‘Burgermeyster’ und von ‘Lictoress’ und ‘Weybeln oder stattknecht’ (p. 64) fällt deren Reduktion von 24 auf 12 (entsprechend der Anzahl der Zünfte ohne die Gesellschaft zur Constaffel) auf. ‘SPQR’ übersetzt Bullinger mit ‘Ein Rodt vnd gmeind der Statt Rom’ (p. 81). Ferner sind die Abschaffung des stehenden Heeres (p. 64) und die Pflicht zur Konsultation der ‘Burger’ bei ‘grossen Händel[n]’ (p. 64) zu nennen. Letztere spielt auf die sogenannten ‘Volksanfragen’ an, in die auch die Bewohner der Landschaft einbezogen wurden und von denen in der fraglichen Zeit mehrere, u. a. im Sommer 1526 zur Frage des Verhältnisses zu den V Orten, stattfanden.” 45 Hartmann ed., Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 62,3 – 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

47

It still cannot be established with any certainty whether Bullinger’s positive appraisal of authority, set against the backdrop of the events of 1525 and in particular the official persecution of the Anabaptists, was either an intentional or subconscious rejection of the radical forces within the Zurich reformation which rejected the institution of authority for Christians. Without doubt, however, Bullinger’s ideas were drawn from the same debates as Zwingli’s work On divine and human righteousness of 1523 and the section On the magistrate in the Commentary. Authority is not just an emergency measure put in place to counter the evil in man, but rather an institution with moral and educational purpose.46 Brutus’ passionate appeal for unity amongst the people of Rome both recalls traditional Swiss legends about the evil actions of the representatives of Habsburg power and the struggle for freedom undertaken by the original members of the Confederation and also exhorts contemporary members of the Confederation to maintain their unity.47 This appeal can, however, also been seen as propaganda in support of Zwingli’s ambitious ideal for the Confederation in which the Reformed faith would provide the foundation for unity of both religion and state. It is not surprising that it occurred to Bullinger as schoolmaster in Kappel to turn his hand to drama. His intention was not simply to present the story of Lucretia and Brutus to a new audience as entertainment and a lesson in history. Indeed, his purpose, as a fellow-worker of Zwingli, was to use well-known historical material to illuminate the concrete events of the Reformation in the crisis years 1525 – 6. He clearly recognized the potential for high drama and effective dramatization which this story provided and used this to the full. At the same time, Bullinger the humanist clearly also enjoyed the perspective provided by history.48 It is, however, startling to see that in this work the author neither treated the original material as an end in itself, nor imposed aesthetic or literary values upon it. Bullinger’s desire to use the vehicle of drama to bring to the people the ideal of the rebirth of the Confederation from pure Christian teachings is evident in solemn and more lighthearted exchanges within the play which contain here a Biblical echo or there a clever, but not condescending, comment. The reader can see very clearly that Bullinger constantly seeks to win over his audience to his own position while exposing and countering opposing opinions. In light of the highly controversial subject matter, it is hardly surprising that 46 Von göttlicher und menschlicher Gerechtigkeit, in Z 2: 458 – 525. De vera et falsa religione commentarius, in Z 3: 590 – 912, esp. 867 – 888. See also the relevant treatment by Arthur Rich, “Zwingli als sozialpolitischer Denker,” Zwingliana 13 (1969): 67 – 89, and Berndt Hamm, Zwinglis Reformation der Freiheit (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 116 – 120. 47 Hartmann ed., Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 62,15 – 63,24. 48 On the historiographical ordering see Christian Moser, Die Dignität des Ereignisses: Studien zu Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1: 36 – 52.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

48

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

Bullinger’s presentation is not without a degree of partisanship with a rather one-sided presentation of opposing views and polemical declarations. In this the play was hardly unusual, but rather a typical example of the processes of communication in the Reformation. The play is a game of hide and seek designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible; in the end, however, all is revealed to the audience, who are left in no doubt as to the message of the play. When this message is fully digested, it will reshape the political ethos of the audience.49 It should also be noted that Bullinger was able to evaluate the varying accents of the sources available to him (Titus Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus), using their individual characteristics in a remarkably mature manner in order to enlist the tale of Lucretia into the service of contemporary political circumstances in the Confederation.50 The drama Lucretia and Brutus was not the only place in his early works where Bullinger commented on communal government and the duties of the authorities. The example of Brutus is cited explicitly in a work of August 1526, published in Zurich at Zwingli’s insistence, Früntliche Ermanung zur Grechtigheit wider alles verfelschen rychtigen gerychtes.51 Here the word justice (Gerechtigkeit) is used not so much in addressing the theological problem of justification, but rather in examining “civil and state justice”52 ; in other words, the relationship between authority and law. The duty of this office is contrasted with tyrannical government: such authority seeks not the realization of its personal will, but rather the knowledge, protection and implementation of justice as the bedrock of communality. Here, as in the play, Bullinger stresses his view that justice must be placed before any unfettered attempt to exercise power. This Bullinger summarizes utilizing figurative language: the magistrates should be like an “Egyptian judge,” in other words “an upright, magnanimous, humane 49 This attempt to influence public opinion was not only through the theater but is found in other, less speculative, communication processes. This is seen in a letter from Bullinger to Max Rosen of 5 February 1525 (HBBW 1, 63,16 – 64). Rosen was a young prominent burgher in Frauenfeld. In the letter Bullinger sets himself strongly against mercenary service, calling on the biblical text Deuteronomy 27:25 to justify his attack on the immorality of those who receive pensions – gifts from foreign lords – who shed innocent blood. Another example is Bullinger’s devotional text The Highest Good of 1528, in which he warns against the moral, political and economic dangers of pensions. Heinrich Bullinger, Das Höchste Gut, ed. and translated by Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1955), 21 – 22. On this, see Robert Walton, “Heinrich Bullinger, Repräsentant der reichen Bauern und seine Beziehungen zur städtischen Obrigkeit,” in Reform, Reformation, Revolution, ed. Siegfried Hoyer (Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität, 1980), 132 – 142. 50 Hirth, Heinrich Bullingers Spiel von “Lucretia und Brutus,” 8. On Bullinger’s use of historical material in his writing, see Moser, Dignität des Ereignisses, 1: 19 – 36. 51 Heinrich Bullinger, Früntliche Ermanung, HBBibl 1, no 2; see Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger, 281. 52 Bullinger, Früntliche Ermanung, Aijr.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

49

person (so that one knows how to punish) who neither through opportunity, force, nor payment is moved, and never deviates from the way of righteousness.”53 The power of the sword of which Romans 13 speaks is given by God to the authorities alone, to enable them to defend the innocent and to confine and punish the unjust. The Anabaptist belief that Christians cannot hold magisterial office is therefore wrong and must be rejected.54 Bullinger makes specific reference to Brutus, arguing that Brutus’ actions reflected his acute awareness of justice and the communal good. Therefore, “just as Brutus did not spare the Romans his only son, so should not any one refuse to offer themselves.”55 Bullinger also thinks very highly of the wars of liberation of his Swiss ancestors – Morgarten, Sempach, Naefels – against malicious nobility, against those who perverted the course of justice and against tyranny. And he admires greatly the traditional order, in other words the alliance system of the Swiss Confederation that committed the members of the Confederation to a policy of common protection against all foreign rulers and formed the Confederation into an overarching protective community based on justice. For Bullinger the corruption of this consciousness of freedom, justice and community presented a real threat to the Confederation. One of his foremost concerns was therefore how the Confederation could solve the moral and political problems that it faced at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Bullinger’s view of the relationship between state and church is characterized by his overriding desire to demonstrate the religious foundations of the political ethos and of the magisterial office. It is with this conviction that he admonishes the authorities: Therefore I take my leave and desire that you desire, according to God’s will, justice and the highest covenant of our faith, and that you seek in your office to observe God and his unsurpassable justice, remaining by God’s Word, and keeping him before you as God, Lord, and Judge.56

Bullinger addressed the same theme in greater detail in a tract written in 1525 but published, anonymously, for the first time only in 1528. This piece, entitled Anklag und ernstliches ermanen, is in essence an appeal to the Swiss for the introduction of the Reformation in the whole Confederation.57 Along the same 53 54 55 56 57

Ibid., Aiiijv. Ibid., Aiiijr. Ibid., Aiiijv. Ibid., Ciiijv. Heinrich Bullinger, Anklag und ernstliches ermanen Gottes Allmaechtigen zu˚ eyner gemeynenn Eydgenossenschaft, HBBibl 1, no. 3 – 9. The content and importance of the text, as well as its printing history and influence, have been thoroughly examined in Fritz Büsser, “Bullinger als Prophet. Zu seiner Frühschrift ‘Anklag und Ermahnen,’” in Fritz Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation in Zürich. Zum 500. Geburtstag des Reformators Huldrych Zwingli (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 106 – 124. See also the careful study by Hans-Ulrich Bächtold, “History,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

50

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

lines as Zwingli and with youthful confidence, Bullinger develops three interconnected ideas58 : that the origins and continued existence of the Confederation are products of God’s benevolent care, that the present members of the Confederation have left the path beaten by their predecessors whose nature they thus disowned, that God is calling these members of the Confederation to repentance and renewal. Bullinger uses the political events of the day to highlight the crisis into which the whole country has descended. The greatest outrage to be found in society, he stresses, is the pension and mercenary money, which he deems not only the exercise of the judgement of God on society,59 but also, and above all else, reprehensible on account of its catastrophic ethical results: If you refuse to understand I must recount it to you, what you have achieved with your wars and pensions. I will not speak of my honour and empire but will confine myself to the worldly consequences of what is happening. First, no one can be deceived that the origin of this lies in evil; you see daily that the wars bring nothing worthy. Look, rather, at what the fruits of the mercenaries are: they play games of fortune, they swear, they blaspheme me, they are drunk day and night, they lie with prostitutes and adulteresses. In short, they destroy the whole order of honour and discipline.60

In addition Bullinger points out the economic and political damage caused by mercenary service and pensions. As a result of military service, youth fit to work the land are not available, prices rise and capital accumulates in the hands of an oligarchy that can shape both internal and foreign policy to its own ends. This grouping is therefore currently failing to fulfill its responsibilities to the community and is leading the country into ruin. You have no democracy any more. Rather, oligarchy and the pension lords rule over the people, who receive no pensions. All others remain silent, and no one is honourable, pious, and true as he should be for his community and fatherland. No one takes this disastrous situation seriously and no one will do anything for the common good.61

58

59 60 61

Ideology and Propaganda in the Reformation: The Early Writing ‘Anklag und ernstliches ermanen Gottes’ (1525) of Heinrich Bullinger,” in Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe, ed. Bruce Gordon, Vol. 1: The Medieval Inheritance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1996), 46 – 59. The date of the work is difficult to determine more precisely than the end of 1525. See Bächtold, ibid., 48 – 49. In the following passages I cite the transcription made by Hans-Ulrich Bächtold of the text found in the Zurich Zentralbibliothek (Zw 291). This text is a copy of the apparently lost original Bullinger manuscript. See Eduard Jakob Kobelt, Die Bedeutung der Eidgenossenschaft für Huldrych Zwingli (Zurich: Leemann, 1970) and Ulrich Gäbler, “Die Schweizer – ein ‘Auserwähltes Volk’?” in Reformiertes Erbe. FS für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80. Geburtstag, eds. Heiko A. Oberman et al., 2 vols. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992), 1: 143 – 155. Bullinger, Anklag und ernstliches ermanen, f. 13. As in the letter to Max Rosen (note 49) Bullinger uses Deut. 27:25 to prove that the pension lords who received unlawful gifts and who were responsible for the shedding of blood were damned. Ibid., f. 16. Ibid., f. 41 – 42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

51

At the heart of Bullinger’s Anklag, however, lies his call for repentance and renewal from the members of the Confederation. For Bullinger there is a very strong connection between faith and moral behaviour. True faith means not just the recognition of the existence and nature of the one God and a reliance, both trusting and reverential, on God who has revealed his mercy to humanity through Christ. From faith would also come a sense of duty towards one’s fellow human beings. For Bullinger, therefore, the renewal of the Confederation was not possible without the justice which comes from true faith, a justice which has at its heart a communal spirit and the defeat of self-interest, and is manifested daily through activities both in and for the community.62 While this is of significance for the Confederation as a whole, it is of particular relevance for the actions of the authorities, whose first and most significant task, drawing on the medieval idea of the state, is the care of the common good. It is typical of Bullinger that these duties are fulfilled when the magistracy acts to implement the law and punish wrongdoing. The magistrate is not to act in accordance with his own understanding, rather he is bound so closely to the law that the office of secular authority is at heart indistinguishable from that of judge. Both judge and regent should be lovers of justice who judge the people on the basis of that justice. According to the Anklag the principal tasks of the authority are strict adherence to justice and love of the communal good founded on this justice; these are to be accompanied by strength of character and spirit. Those entitled to be officeholders within the state are to be distinguished by these political virtues.63 It is noteworthy that Brutus is included in the list of great men of ancient times and biblical accounts who ruled according to the norms of justice and law; he is depicted as the embodiment of political virtue: “O you (the Swiss) should be like the late Brutus and Themistocles – that is how it should be.”64 A comparison of the concept of authority contained in the Ermanung and in the Anklag with the instructions for those participating in the play Lucretia and 62 Ibid., f. 23 – 24. 63 Ibid., f. 37: “Rychter vnd regenten soellend jr haben, das sy das volck rychtind mitt gerechtem gerycht. Darum wo ir in allem volck gottsfoerchtig lüt habend die nit glychßner sind, sunder eins vffrechten vollkomnen hertzens: die dapffer redlich lüt sind vnd nit forchtsam, die ab yedem troeuwen erschreckend, sunder die mann sind, wie Cato was vnd David: die standhafft sind, nit biegsam, hüt eins wellend, morn ein anders, die starck sind, vnd manns hertz habend, nit fraefel Jugurthe: die wyß sind, das recht wol wüßend: die liebhaber der gerechtigkeyt sind, fygend des vnrechten vnd muotwillens, ouch trüw vnd waarhafft, nit schwaetzer vnd falsch, die ouch den gmeynen nutz liebend, dem gyt ghassz sind, vnd gar kein gaaben nemmend: die richtig im rechten fürgond, alles das thuond was die gsatzten vermogend und billigkeit, niemants darumb ansehend. Ja wo jr soemlich lüt habend, die setzend in grycht vnd rath.” 64 Ibid., f. 43: “O wie wurdend jr [Eidgenossen] so spaat Bruti vnd Themistocles werden: dennocht so muoß es sin.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

52

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

Brutus readily reveals that the characteristics of just authority in both are drawn from the same well of virtues. In his portrayal of Brutus, Bullinger seeks to highlight his bravery, his confidence-inspiring way of life and his sense of justice according to which all received what is justly theirs.65 This gives further force to the position taken at the start of this paper : even if this play had little direct impact on the contemporary situation, its potential, placed alongside his early works, for our understanding of Bullinger’s concept of authority in his early years must not be overlooked.

The Theological Dimension This discussion must not be allowed to leave the impression that Bullinger’s early writings were concerned only with justification of the constitution of the Swiss Confederation and, primarily, with the situation of Zurich. There is another angle to this material which remains to be highlighted; this will also shed additional light on the sources available and bring to the fore Bullinger’s central concerns. Along with the reflections on the nature of the state, there is another issue which pervades every aspect of these works: the fulfilment of God’s call for righteousness and justice within the political community. This brings us to the fundamental issue for Bullinger, for the Zurich reformation and for Reformed political ethics as a whole: the distinction between God-given justice and human justice. The problems in determining the precise interdependence between the iustitia divina and the iustitia civilis, or rather in defining their relationship, are particularly evident in Bullinger’s concept of authority. It is possible to say, in broad terms, that Bullinger’s understanding of authority was not taken from the Bible alone. Rather his ideas expressly flowed from biblical conceptions to those of ancient theorists of the state who, even without recognizing the will of God, held that the commonweal should be ruled according to justice and the law. However, it was fundamental for Bullinger, as well as for all other Reformers, that authority stemmed from the command of God and as such was an effective element of God’s providence. Such authority is therefore not subordinate to spiritual authority on earth, but rather must be exercised independently, although, of course, in full responsibility before God. It is important to recognize that this principle struck at the heart of the mediaeval concept of the two swords in which spiritual authority held precedence even in 65 Hartmann, Heinrich Bullinger – Hans Sachs: Lucretia-Dramen, 96,8 – 11: He “soll von lyb vnd gmuot ein herrlich dapffer man syn / ernsthafft, ruch / ghrecht / graedtz über das vnrecht / ja / das er sich nit erbetten laßt / vnd doch den guoten früntlich sey.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

53

temporal matters (plenitudo potestatis papae in temporalibus).66 It was Bullinger’s view, based on Romans 13, that magistrates were the servants of God, responsible for the realization of his order.67 Bullinger gave them the title “Elohim”68 in order to demonstrate their particular responsibilities before God. They were not to implement their own will, but rather execute God’s will for justice. The status of the magistracy is made particularly clear through a comparison, also often used in ancient times, with the father of the household, who is responsible for the protection and care of the community within his house.69 Based on his unshakable conviction that authority derives from God, Bullinger believed with equal intensity that those under this authority were bound to obedience. At the same time, however, he indicated the boundaries which magistrates had to observe. In both Lucretia and Brutus and the Ermanung Bullinger repeatedly demonstrated, in numerous sentences and with succinct allusions, that those in authority, just like all people, were under the eternal justice/law of God and that those who exercised power could do so only as permitted by God. These are the grounds for Bullinger’s striking dramatalurgical portrayal of the Tarquins as they stepped beyond the boundaries of their Godgiven competencies, their tyrannical rule destroying that which they were bound to maintain and maintaining that which they were bound to destroy. It is made clear that in this situation resistance is a risk which must be taken. Like Zwingli, but unlike other reformers, Bullinger called upon the people, and in particular citizens who were imbued with a sense of justice, to resist power exercised unjustly.70 There is a good example of Bullinger’s bold and radical position on active opposition to tyrannical authority, and even on the murder of tyrants, in the Anklag: Now you [the Swiss] know well the guilt of the pension lords with their deeds and spilling of blood. Perhaps one could be merciful with them if they, in future, renounced that shedding of blood and the selling of men, and if they gave to the poor and fairly distributed those goods acquired by blood. When they do not do this, if they never seek peace, and do not apologise, then can we do nothing other with them than as Soloman 66 See Ulrich Duchrow, Christenheit und Weltverantwortung. Traditionsgeschichte und systematische Struktur der Zweireichelehre (Stuttgart: Klett, 1970), chap. 3, 321 – 435. 67 Bullinger, Früntliche Ermanung, Ajjjjr. 68 Bullinger, Anklang und ernstliches ermanen, f. 21: “Jr soltend Elohim (das ist Goetter) sin, mine statthalter in gricht vnnd gerechtigkeyt, in sorg, ernst, guete, vnnd straff …” 69 Ibid., f. 21: “Jr im regiment, soltendt üch mit alles gewalts vnderwinden als Landtsfürsten, üwer lannd ist nit ein Oligarchia, sunder ein Democratia, ein Commun. Darumb soeltennd jr üwers armen volcks Patres (das ist vaetter) sind: üwer volck soltend jr halten wie mitbürger, ja sy lieben wie kind, vor schaden vergoumen, versehen das weder sy noch jr annaemind, von dannen mitt der zyt ein schad entston moechte.” On the significance of the terms “Democratia” and “Commun” see Kobelt, Die Bedeutung der Eidgenossenschaft, 51 – 65. 70 See Hamm, Zwinglis Reformation der Freiheit, 12 – 14.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

54

Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought

dealt with Joab when he cut off his head. It is certainly better not to fill the land with wild bloodhounds, for this would only bring chaos, wailing, hunger, war and misery.71

The primary duties of the secular authority should constantly be impressed on them: the cura religionis,72 the maintenance of peace,73 concern for communal well-being and the protection of the freedom of both the citizens and the community. Bullinger was well aware of how difficult it was to make the political powers act in accordance with God’s justice. According to Bullinger, it was the duty of the Christian community to impress this need upon the political authorities and to support them in the execution of their legal and judicial responsibilities in the spirit of the commands of the Bible. This issue was at the heart of both De propheta libri duo,74 written in 1525 but unpublished, which addressed the issue of the true prophetic office, and the Ermanung. In these works and in various manners Bullinger elucidated the close ties between the church community and the political community, and between the office of minister and the office of magistrate. Church and civic community must be understood as different entities, but they are not two entirely separate bodies based on fundamentally different principles, but rather two elements of the same organism. Although their tasks are distinct, they themselves are indivisible. For Bullinger, both bodies draw on the same model of justice and righteousness in which directions for behaviour within the community and the moral principles of the individual form a single unit. There is therefore a common concept of human community that provides the basis for the church community and the community of citizens and is in accordance with the Christian-biblical fundaments of the community of justice. In the church community, righteousness comes primarily from internal agreement achieved through faith and, therefore, this community can act as a model for the community of the state. For Bullinger, the civic community is not just a political body with powers of compulsion; rather, and above all, it is also a moral community that through renewed recognition of God’s commands enables its members to emulate the righteousness of God, over and above human justice. The boundary between actions based on genuine religious faith and those based purely on the will for 71 Bullinger, Anklang und ernstliches ermanen, f. 43. See 1 Corinthians 2:5 – 6 and 2:29 – 34. 72 Ibid., f. 38: “Wenn aber der gwalt, der das houpt vnd oug ist, also heylig vnd gsund ist, so muob es demnach vmb den lyb (vmb üch dz gmeyn volck) wol ston. Dann sicht er eynig vff mich, vff die gsatzen, vff myn wort …” and passim. 73 Bullinger, Früntliche Ermanung, Bv. 74 Heinrich Bullinger, De propheta libri duo (1525), Zurich Zentralbibliothek, Ms. A 82. See Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger, 275 – 276 and Pamela Biel, Doorkeepers at the House of Righteousness. Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich Clergy 1535 – 1575 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1991), 200 – 203. On Bullinger’s later text from 1532 on the same theme, see Fritz Büsser, “De propheta officio. Eine Gedenkrede Bullingers auf Zwingli,” in Fritz Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation, 60 – 71.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Politics and Theology in Lucretia and Brutus

55

political power is clearly drawn. The iustitia divina with its biblical commandments should not be applied indiscriminately or blindly in the day-to-day process of political decision-making. Bullinger’s intention is not the clericalization of society let alone the creation of a theocracy in the sense of rule by the clergy. Rather, it was his contention that the Christian community must watch over secular matters and raise its voice whenever it sees injustice. But if church and secular communities are founded on common principles and both accept the principle of scriptural authority, then it may seem superfluous to have an autonomous church order, for this can be the responsibility of the authorities as the guardians of justice. With this opinion on the relationship between church and state Bullinger clearly rejected the Anabaptist position that the Christian community should be formed outwith the secular sphere or that the individual should remain separate from all offices of authority. It was central to Bullinger’s thought that the iustitia divina was not just a res privata, but rather also a res publica. The Reformation was to serve society ; it was to enable the renewal of the civic community. And in turn this also meant that as long as the authorities were seeking to fulfill the tasks which God had given them, their actions were in the service of God. This article is not the place to discuss whether Bullinger’s desire to define the true relationship between divine law and human law and between church and state could be realized without pause or without alteration.75 As the history of the Reformed churches and of Protestantism as a whole demonstrates, the issues which Bullinger addressed would be raised time and time again. His lasting contribution to the theoretical debate remains the insight that human law, or the office of political authority, could no longer lay claim to final authority because it is by nature changeable and must remain changeable. As a result, Bullinger’s reworking of the story of Lucretia and Brutus in his early writings is more than just an episode in the history of interpretation of the ancient Roman legends; he endows the legend with timeless significance.

75 See Emidio Campi, “Bullingers Rechts- und Staatsdenken,” Evangelische Theologie 64 (2004): 116 – 126.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger*

The question of the similarities and differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger is not exactly a “commonplace” in Reformation studies, but neither is it an uncharted field of research. It can be reasonably argued that comparison of these two divines is as old as the Synod of Dort. On being forced to defend the orthodoxy of his predecessor during the course of that historic assembly, Johann Jakob Breitinger, the Antistes of the Zurich Church, asserted with vigour in a hastily written tract the concord between the two reformers on the doctrine of predestination.1 Nowadays we know that the question is more complex than Breitinger had led his contemporaries to believe. Yet, the few eighteenth- and nineteenth-century attempts to focus on the relationship between Calvin and Bullinger embraced that view uncritically and developed it in unison into a general thesis, applicable to all points of doctrine.2 Further attempts at comparison enjoyed a short vogue at the beginning of the twentieth century, on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of Calvin’s birth.3 Despite the impressive quantity of material assembled, these attempts too were firmly anchored in the generally accepted model of interpretation first advanced by Breitinger. There was a promising new critical beginning in 1940, when Andr¦ Bouvier * I would like to thank Professor Torrance Kirby and Professor Ian Hazlett who read through the manuscript and contributed in no small part to the completion of this essay. 1 His Apologia is printed in Johann Heinrich Hottinger, Historiae Ecclesiasticae novi testamenti, vol. 8: Saeculi XVI. Pars IV (Tiguri: typis Schaufelbergerianis, 1666), 958 – 977. On Breitinger, see Hans Rudolf von Grebel, Antistes Johann Jakob Breitinger, 1575 – 1645 (Zurich: Beer, 1964); Thomas Brunnschweiler, Johann Jakob Breitingers “Bedencken von Comoedien oder Spilen”: die Theaterfeindlichkeit im Alten Zürich (Bern: Peter Lang, 1989). 2 See Christoph Strohm, “Der Epigone – Das Bild Bullingers in den letzten Jahrhunderten,” in Evangelische Theologie 64 (2004): 159 – 167. 3 See Wilhelm Kolfhaus, “Der Verkehr Calvins mit Bullinger,” in Calvinstudien. Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins, ed. Josef Bohatec (Leipzig: Haupt, 1909), 27 – 125; Arnold Rüegg, “Die Beziehungen Calvins zu Heinrich Bullinger und der von ihm geleiteten Zürcherischen Kirche,” in Festschrift der Hochschule Zürich für die Universität Genf (Zurich: O. Füssli, 1909).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

58

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

published his unjustly neglected work Henri Bullinger, r¦formateur et conseiller oecum¦nique.4 In fact, not only did he reject the traditional interpretation, he also turned it upside down by drawing attention to considerable differences between the two reformers,5 urging a better grasp of the “apport de l’¦cole zwinglienne — la pens¦e r¦form¦e.”6 Bouvier, however, remained an isolated voice. Active debate about the relationship between Bullinger and Calvin really began in earnest as recently as 1975. In his opening address at the First International Bullinger Congress, the eminent Swiss scholar Gottfried W. Locher added substantial precision to the discussion of our topic by offering a point-bypoint comparison of their respective theologies on such important issues as the doctrine of Scripture, Christology, predestination, the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and the relationship of church and civil government. The old master formulated the results of his survey in two succinct, albeit melodious sentences: “Der Dissensus war keine Kleinigkeit. Der Consensus wog schwerer als der Dissensus.” (=Dissensus was no mere trifle. Consensus outweighed Dissensus).7 The impact of Locher’s judgement on ensuing research cannot easily be overestimated. It functioned explicitly or implicitly as a yardstick to measure the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between the theologies of the two reformers and, in my opinion, still stands as a beacon for further studies in the current debate over Reformed confessionalization.8 The enduring influence of Gottfried 4 Andr¦ Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, reformateur et conseiller oecum¦nique (Neuch–tel: Delachaux et Niestl¦, 1940), esp. 43 – 179. 5 Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 45: “il est simpliste, croyons- nous, de parler d’une absortion de l’un par l’autre, tant dans leur amiti¦ que dans leur theologie.” Bouvier points out that the doctrinal agreement was possible “au prix de sacrifices mutuels” and quotes Calvin’s letter to Bullinger, March 12, 1551 (a. d. IV idus martias): “Atque haec vere fraterna est communicatio, ubi sic inter nos distributa esse spiritus dona agnoscimus, ut nemo unus sibi sufficiat.” CO 15:74 – 75:74, no. 1463. 6 Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 47, 426 – 427. The undoubted value of the work is that for the first time it moved away from the axiom that Calvin’s theology (or a part thereof) is the sole benchmark of Reformed tradition. Its defect is that, for the purpose of making Calvin and Bullinger relevant to the contemporary ecumenical movement, it imposed on them a purely ideological distinction which in reality is not as neat as suggested and in addition offers little or nothing by way of an analytical tool to uncover areas of commonality and difference: Calvin (“le docteur”) became the representative of the Faith and Order movement and Bullinger (“le berger“) inevitably of Life and Work, see esp. 432 – 438. 7 Gottfried W. Locher, “Bullinger und Calvin. Probleme des Vergleiches ihrer Theologien,” in Heinrich Bullinger, 1504 – 1575. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag, 2 vols., eds. Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 2:1 – 33. 8 The concept of “confessionalization,” the most widely discussed historiographical paradigm of early modern European history, has been criticized and modified in recent research. See Thomas A. Brady Jr., ”Confessionalization: The Career of a Concept,” in Confessionalization in Europe, 1555 – 1700: Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan, eds. John M. Headley, Hans J. Hillerbrand, and Anthony J. Paplas (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 1 – 20. For the specific

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

59

Locher’s view is evident, for example, in the case of Fritz Büsser’s essay¸ “Calvin and Bullinger,” presented at the International Calvin Congress in 1986 in Budapest,9 which offered useful supplementary information and cross-references to the biography, works and correspondence of the reformers. A substantive presence can be seen also in the essay of Alasdair Heron on epistolography, the study by Jason Van Vliet on Calvin’s anthropology10 as well as in the contributions of Paul Rorem, Wim Janse, and Emidio Campi on the evolution of the understanding of the Lord’s Supper in Calvin and Bullinger.11 We must obviously mention three more recent examples: Christoph Strohm’s thorough attempt to clarify for the first time theological similarities and differences between the Decades and the Institutes,12 and the comprehensive monographs of Cornelis Venema13 and Peter Opitz.14 While disclosing truly distinctive elements

9 10

11

12 13

14

problem of Reformed confessionalization, see Harm Klueting, “Die Reformierten im Deutschland des 16. und 17. Jahrhundert und die Konfessionalisierung-Debatte der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft seit 1980,” in Profile des reformierten Protestantismus aus vier Jahrhunderten. Vortra¨ ge der Ersten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, ed. Matthias Freudenberg (Wuppertal: Foedus, 1999), 17 – 47; Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. 3 – 17; Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), esp. 25 – 102; Christoph Strohm, “Methodology in Discussion of ‘Calvin and Calvinism,’” in Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 65 – 105. Fritz Büsser, “Calvin und Bullinger,” in Calvinus servus Christi, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Budapest: Presseabteilung des R‚day-Kollegiums, 1988), 107 – 126, repr. in Büsser, Die Prophezei. Humanismus und Reformation in Zürich (Bern: Peter Lang, 1994), 200 – 222. Alasdair I. C. Heron, “Calvin and Bullinger 1536 – 1549,” in Profile des reformierten Protestantismus aus vier Jahrhunderten, ed. Matthias Freudenberg, 49 – 69; Jason Van Vliet, Children of God: The imago Dei in John Calvin and His Context (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), esp. 189 – 207. Paul Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper (Bramcote/Nottingham: Grove Books, 1989); Wim Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology. Three Dogma-Historical Observations,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 37 – 69; Consensus Tigurinus (1549): die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, eds. Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009). See in this volume the essay “The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact.” Christoph Strohm, “Bullingers Dekaden und Calvins Institutio. Gemeinsamkeiten und Eigenart,” in Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation. Historische und theologische Beiträge zur Calvinforschung, ed. Peter Opitz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 215 – 248. Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002). This thoughtful study demonstrates that Bullinger’s opinion was thoroughly monergistic, even if singular in orientation versus Calvin’s double predestinarianism, and – what is even more important – it was not a “conditional predestinarianism.” Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: eine Studie zu den “Dekaden” (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004). Chapter 5, “Gemeinschaft mit Gott als Leben im Bund,” 317 – 352, carefully demonstrates that Bullinger’s doctrine of the covenant did accent the conditionality of the covenant and the bilateral nature of the covenant of grace in certain contexts.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

60

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

in Bullinger’s teaching on predestination and the covenant, they both identify fundamental common ground between the two reformers. They therefore demolish the historical fallacies of the so-called “two Reformed traditions” thesis, advanced chiefly by J. Wayne Baker,15 and argue persuasively for a variegated, yet single Reformed theological tradition. We must take our point of departure from such broad consensus. To aid analysis and probe further the validity of Locher’s thesis that agreement outweighs differences, this paper will address two issues where little or no effort has yet been made to juxtapose the views of the Genevan and the Zurich reformer. I will deal successively with their understanding of “two kingdoms” doctrine, including its implication for the relationship of Church and the civil magistrate, and with their respective attitudes towards Islam. It is important to point out that these two exempla are not deliberately chosen in order to prove a preconceived thesis. Rather they are genuine test cases which have significant implications and lead to unexpected conclusions.

1.

Two Kingdoms or One Kingdom of Christ? – The Church and the Civil Magistrate

The past few years have seen a number of publications vigorously promoting the thesis that the two kingdoms doctrine, contrary to common perceptions, is not simply a Lutheran theologumenon but also a historic tenet of the Reformed tradition.16 This has been construed as a move away from a previous consensus that Reformed Protestantism believed that the kingdom of God extended to

However, like Calvin, he could speak of the covenant in both unilateral and bilateral ways and view it both as divine gift and as human obligation. 15 J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980); Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991). For further bibliographical references, see my contribution “Current State and Future Directions of Bullinger Research” and the “Indexed Bibliography of the Literature on Heinrich Bullinger, 1975 – 2004,” by Luca Baschera and Christian Moser, in Heinrich Bullinger : Life – Thought – Influence: Zurich, Aug. 25 – 29, 2004, International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504 – 1575), eds. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 1 – 30, 31 – 55. 16 Generally, see Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006); David VanDrunen, “The Context of Natural Law: John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” Journal of Church and State 46 (2004): 503 – 525; VanDrunen, ”The Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Tranformationist Calvin,” Calvin Theological Journal 40 (2005): 248 – 66; VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Two Kingdoms or One Kingdom of Christ?

61

every aspect of life, according to Zwingli’s famous dictum “Christi Regnum etiam esse externum.”17 Undeniably, both Luther and Calvin taught in line with Augustine that God has instituted two realms or orders, the spiritual and the temporal, for humankind’s existence. Nevertheless, one has to say straight away that in this recent debate the two pre-eminent magisterial reformers are sometimes treated unjustly. Repeatedly the two kingdoms are identified with the modern institutions of “Church” and “State,” and seen as representing two separate ways in which God governs the world, the one derived from grace, the other from natural law.18 In this context, it must be remembered that for Luther and Calvin the two kingdoms, although they have significant implications for their ecclesiology and political theory, are not approximations of the earthly institutions of Church and political community.19 In fact, they sit squarely on the logical foundation of the reformers’ dialectical soteriology. The essence of the two divinely ordained kingdoms is that they not only correspond to two realms of human existence, but they express the idea that God is continually active in the world and in his dealings with human beings in two different ways. On the one hand, the Christian lives in the spiritual kingdom, where the soul is united in the Spirit with Christ. On the other hand, the Christian on earth is not simply a spiritual person. He or she remains a creature of sin that lives in the temporal kingdom, whose functions are primarily the maintenance of external peace and right-

17 Zwingli to Ambrosius Blarer, May 4, 1528, in Z 9: 451 – 467, here 454, 14. 18 It is the manifest intention of this recent version of the two kingdoms theory not only to contrast the redemptive rule of Christ and the creational rule of God, but also to assert a definitive distinction between redemption ethics and creational ethics for Christians. For this position, however, there is not adequate evidence in Calvin’s writing. For Calvin, in fact, there was not a paralysing contradiction between soteriology and ethics, but rather a dynamic reciprocation. The logic behind this “separation” of the two kingdoms and ethics appears to be a depleted view of the Christian message, indifferent to the nuts and bolts of cultural, economic, social and political life that need to be redeemed. 19 This is the fundamental confusion made, for example, by David VanDrunen (see note 16). Of course, the discussion is broader and older than VanDrunen’s thesis. It was the focus of a great deal of controversy in the years after World War II, and the literature on “the maze of the doctrine of the two kingdoms” – to quote the title of the important book by Johannes Heckel, Im Irrgarten der Zwei-Reiche-Lehre (Munich: Kaiser 1957) – is enormous. For a fuller examination of the debate, see Gerhard Ebeling, “The Necessity of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” in Ebeling, Word and Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 386 – 405; Ernst Wolf, “Königherrschaft Christi und lutherische Zwei-Reiche-Lehre,” in Wolf, Peregrinatio. Studien zur reformatorischen Theologie, zum Kirchenrecht und zur Sozialethik, 2 vols. (Munich: Kaiser, 1965), 2: 207 – 229; Ulrich Duchrow, Christenheit und Weltverantwortung. Traditionsgeschichte und systematische Struktur der Zweireichelehre (Stuttgart: Klett, 1970); William D. J. Cargill Thompson, The Political Thought of Martin Luther, ed. Philip Broadhead (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press; Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble Books, 1984).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

62

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

eousness. The two kingdoms are very different in character but they are not antithetical; rather they are complementary Very specifically, in the Institutes Calvin asserts with a clarity that leaves no doubt about his opinion that there is a twofold government, spiritual and civil or political, by which is meant that “the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life.”20 Although the civil or political kingdom is distinct from the spiritual, “they are not at variance.”21 The reformer highlights three distinctions between them. First, the spiritual kingdom is redemptive in character while the civil kingdom is a realm governed by God’s providence rather than his redeeming grace. Secondly, the two kingdoms are ontologically distinct: the spiritual kingdom is heavenly while the civil kingdom is earthly. Lastly, Calvin argues that the spiritual kingdom, although it extends itself to the whole world, finds its present expression in the Church, while the civil kingdom expresses itself in such realms as government, economy, science and the arts.22 The civil authority is endowed with God’s authority and acts as his representative. Calvin emphasizes that its primary functions are not solely preventative and deterrent. In fulfilling their divinely ordained task in the civil kingdom, the magistrates are called to work in the service of the spiritual kingdom. It is precisely for this reason that among their tasks Calvin lists as first: “to cherish and protect the outward worship of God” and “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church.”23 He calls the rulers “vicars of 20 Inst. 3.19.15. It is worth quoting the passage in extenso (Battles edition): “Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘temporal’ jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life – not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately ; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.” 21 Inst. 4.20.1 – 2. 22 See Benjamin Charles Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 164 – 173, here 169 – 170; Frederik A. V. Harms, In God’s Custody: The Church, a History of Divine Protection; a Study of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology Based on His Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Go¨ ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 109 – 129. 23 Inst. 4.20.2. Already in the 1536 edition of the Institutes Calvin held that civil government exists to provide for “a public manifestation of religion.” Translated and annotated by Ford

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Two Kingdoms or One Kingdom of Christ?

63

God”;24 their duties extend to both tables of the law and “Christian princes and magistrates [should] be ashamed of their negligence if they do not apply themselves to this concern.”25 At the other end, he insists that Christians have the duty not only to obey their temporal rulers, but also to participate in all levels of civil government and play a full part in civil society. The diverse dimensions of life, religious and secular, may not be played off against each other in an either-or schema. Consequently, there is no paralyzing contradiction between redemptive and natural order, soteriology and ethics. To summarize: Calvin tries to maintain a delicate balance in the relationship between the two kingdoms, which he understands as simultaneous in the Christian experience, altogether distinct yet inseparable.26 Bullinger takes a somewhat different attitude towards the two kingdoms doctrine. In the seventh sermon of the Fourth Decade, where he dwells at considerable length upon this question, the substance of the discourse is that for him there are not two kingdoms but one, which unites in itself a multiplicity of aspects and a true diversity of order under God’s governance: “This kingdom of God – he asserts – is verily but only one; for there is but one God only, one King Christ only, one church, and life everlasting.”27 This strong affirmation of God’s sovereignty, however, is intended not to suggest that his kingdom is concerned only with immaterial entities, but rather to emphasize that the Lord rules over the entire created realm. In fact, Bullinger immediately goes on to say that this

24 25 26

27

Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: The Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, Eerdmans, 1975), 208. Inst. 4.20.6. Inst. 4.20.9. Part of the disagreement with the “Two-kingdoms Calvinists” arises precisely from the inadequate attention given to the fact that the twofold kingdom in Calvin’s theology never functions as the warrant either for a dual ethic or for a dualism that presses the distinction between the religious and public spheres to the point of separation. For a broader consideration of Calvin’s position, see Andr¦ Bieler, Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought (Geneva: WARC – WCC, 2005), 183 – 195, 242 – 268 (original French: La pens¦ ¦conomique et sociale de Calvin, Geneva: Librairie de l’Universit¦, 1961); Heiko A. Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (1970): 43 – 64; Albrecht Thiel, In der Schule Gottes. Die Ethik Calvins im Spiegel seiner Predigten über das Deuteronomium (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 179 – 224; Cornelis P. Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ. The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 83 – 192; Eric Fuchs, “Calvin’s Ethics,” in John Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, 1509 – 2009, eds. Martin Ernst Hirzel and Martin Sallmann (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 145 – 158. Heinrich Bullinger, Sermonum Decades quinque de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus (1549 – 1552), ed. Peter Opitz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008) (henceforth Decad), 4,7, 648, 5 – 6, “Et hoc quidem regnum dei unicum est. Nam unus modo deus, unus duntaxat rex Christus, una ecclesia et vita aeterna est.” English translation henceforth quoted according to the reprint of the Parker Society edition, The Decades of Henry Bullinger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849 – 1852), 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), here 2:276.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

64

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

“one kingdom” encompasses an earthly kingdom of grace (regnum gratiae terrenum) as well as a heavenly kingdom of glory (regnum gloriae coeleste).28 The former “is not therefore called earthly, as though it were carnal and earthly, like the kingdom of Babylon, Persia, Alexandria, or Rome, but because it is on earth. For a good part of the holy church of God is conversant on this earth, being partaker of flesh and blood while it liveth on the earth, though it live not an earthly life according to the flesh; for according to the Spirit, whereby it is ruled, it liveth a heavenly life.”29 The latter is a heavenly kingdom because “those whom our Lord and king hath sanctified on earth, and guided with his Spirit, yea, and also justified, being delivered from the flesh and taken out of this world he glorifieth in heaven and receiveth them into joy and into the fellowship both of himself and of all saints.”30 Evidently, Bullinger is imbued with the Augustinian ideas of the City of God. He does not deny that human beings on earth have two natures, exist in two different relationships with God. They are flesh and spirit, both old and new creatures. Nevertheless he places far more emphasis on the Christological unity and integration of the so-called “two kingdoms” than Luther and Calvin, to the extent that he sees God’s creation inclusive of his Church as a totality within which there cannot be different kinds of lordship and righteousness. Thus for him, strictly speaking not just the church, but also every aspect of Christian life, home and school, society and state are all placed under the kingship of Christ. This sounds utterly mono-dimensional in contrast with the more dialectical perspectives of the two other magisterial reformers. Bullinger’s intention, however, is not the clericalization of society, let alone the creation of a theocracy where biblical commandments are applied indiscriminately or blindly to the everyday life of the civic community. Rather, it is Bullinger’s contention that God’s past and future acts of grace for human beings should be considered as the key dimension of their present situation, as the most active and crucial factor in each aspect of their life. Some might conclude that there are merely differences of accent between 28 Decad. 4,7, 648, 10 – 12 (ET, Decades, 2: 276): “Ita vero dupliciter rursus consideratur regnum dei. Vel enim terrenum est et dicitur regnum gratiae; vel coeleste est et appellatur regnum gloriae.” 29 Decad. 4,7, 648, 12 – 17 (ET, Decades, 2: 276): “Regnum gratiae terrenum non ideo appellatur terrenum, quod carnale terrenumque sit instar regni Babylonici, Persici, Alexandrini vel Romani, sed quod in terris sit. Sancta enim ecclesia dei bona ex parte versatur in hisce terris carne et sanguine participans, donec vivit in terris, licet non secundum carnem vitam vivat terrenam. Nam secundum spiritum, per quem regitur, vivit vitam coelestem.” 30 Decad. 4,7, 650, 27 – 31 (ET, Decades, 2: 280): “Porro regnum dei coeleste et glorie˛ regnum nuncupatur ea de causa, quod dominus et rex noster eos, quos in terris sanctificavit et direxit spiritu suo adeoque et iustificavit, liberatos carne et ereptos ex hoc saeculo in coelis glorificat inque suum et omnium sanctorum consortium gaudiumque recipit.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Two Kingdoms or One Kingdom of Christ?

65

Calvin and Bullinger. Indeed there is much about which they agreed. Nevertheless, I do think that Bullinger’s christologically concentrated prolepsis, as it were, marks an important difference between him and Calvin, and charts a path of great consequence in connection with regulating the relationship between the Church and civic community. For Bullinger, Church and commonwealth are not different entities, two entirely separate bodies based on fundamentally different principles, but rather two elements of the same regnum gratiae terrenum. Although their tasks are separate, they themselves are indivisible and draw on the same model of justice and righteousness. A central aspect of this conception is to secure the distinction of the ministerial and magisterial functions. By virtue of the “one-kingdom” theory, the civil magistrates have the duty to care for communal well-being, and to protect and cultivate the true religion (cura religionis).31 Bullinger gives them the title of Elohim in order to highlight their particular responsibilities before God.32 Yet for the same reason, he sees no problem in entrusting the preachers with the Wächteramt, the prophetic office of watching over the political community and the magistrates. Just as commonwealth and Church are inseparable as body and soul, so there is a reciprocal obligation of magisterial and ministerial office. With this general picture in mind, we now turn to the question of the relationship of the Church and the civil magistrates. In the Institutes, book IV, chapter 20, Calvin clearly elucidates his views, which were in marked contrast with a number of other positions.33 As is well known, he firmly rejected the papal hierocracy of the late Middle Ages. He was equally opposed to the Erastian subordination of the Church to the political authority, be it in Lutheran or Zwinglian fashion. Although he refused, like the Anabaptists, any confusion 31 Decad. 2,7, 188 – 200 (ET, Decades, 2: 323 – 344). See Torrance Kirby, “The Civil Magistrate and the ‘cura religionis’. Heinrich Bullinger’s Prohetical Office and the English Reformation,” in Heinrich Bullinger, eds. Campi and Opitz, 934 – 950. 32 Heinrich Bullinger, Anklag und ernstliches ermanen Gottes Allmächtigen zuo eyner gemeynenn Eydgnoschafft [n.p., 1525/1528?, HBBl. 1, no. 3 – 9], Zurich Zentralbibliothek, Zw 291, f. 21: “Jr soltend Elohim (das ist Goetter) sin / mine statthalter in gricht unnd gerechtigkeyt.” Bullinger, Decad. 4,3, 568, 15 – 18 (ET, Decades, 2: 134) “Porro plurativam vocem ‘Elohim’ scriptura non tantum deo tribuit, sed et angelis et iudicibus seu primariis viris, utpote quibus in officio ab ipso instituto laborantibus praesens adsit et per ipsos operetur, quae vult, hominibusque salutaria sunt.” See Emidio Campi, “Brutus Tigurinus: Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought,” in Architect of Reformation. An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504 – 1575, eds. Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004), 181 – 199, here 197 – 198. In this volume pp. 35 – 55; and Campi,“Bullingers Rechts- und Staatsdenken,” Evangelische Theologie 64 (2004): 116 – 126. 33 See Josef Bohatec, Calvin und das Recht (Feudingen i. Westfalen: s. n., 1934, repr. Aalen: Scientia-Verl., 1971); Harro Höpfl, The Christian Polity of Jean Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); William G. Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1994).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

66

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

between the spiritual and the temporal orders, he did not hold with them that Christians ought to remain apart from all magisterial offices. Magistrates are a gift of God for the benefit of the human race and therefore to despise them is to despise the providence which set them in place.34 What is less recognized, however, is that in practice the lines of demarcation between magisterial and ministerial offices were not at all clear. In various provocative and lively surveys of this theme, William C. Naphy refers to the relationship between the two offices in Calvin’s Geneva as “incredibly interlocking” and “extremely complex but largely consensual.”35 To be perfectly clear on this point, if only to avoid older inaccuracies and the propagation of a romantic picture of the Genevan Reformer as harbinger of the formula “free Church in free State”: like all his fellow reformers and almost everyone else in the sixteenth century except the Anabaptists, Calvin held firmly to the concept of a State Church to which all must belong.36 Following this premise, close state involvement in Church life was built, for example, into both the Genevan Ordonnances Eccl¦siastiques and the Zurich Prediger- und Synodalordnung.37 In Geneva the elders, who together with the pastors formed the 34 David Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Civil Magistrate,” in Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 199 – 208; Hans Scholl, “Der Geist der Gesetze. Die politische Dimension der Theologie Calvins dargestellt besonders an seiner Auseinandersetzung mit den Täufern,” in Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation, ed. Opitz, 93 – 125. For a comprehensive treatment of the Anabaptist view, see Gerald Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical Confessional Rhetoric from Schleitheim to Dordrecht (Telford, Pa.: Cascadia Pub. House; Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2006); Michael Driedger, “Anabaptists and the Early Modern State: A Long-Term View,” in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521 – 1700, ed. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 507 – 544. 35 See, e. g., Naphy, Consolidation, 144 – 153; Naphy, “Baptism, Church Riots and Social Unrest in Calvin’s Geneva,” Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 87 – 97; Naphy, “Church and State in Calvin’s Geneva,” in Calvin and the Church, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids, Mich.: CRC Product Services, 2002), 20 and 27. 36 See the useful overview by Otto Weber, “Kirchliche und staatliche Kompetenz in den Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques von 1561,” in Weber, Die Treue Gottes in der Geschichte der Kirche (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 119 – 130. 37 The text of the Ordonnances Eccl¦siastiques (1541/1561) is now available in a new critical edition published in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 1,2 ed. Heiner Faulebach et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 229 – 278. The text of the Zurich Synodal Ordinance (Prediger- und Synodalordnung), setting out rules and procedure by which activities within the synod are to be conducted, is printed in Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519 – 1533, ed. Emil Egli (Zurich: Schabelitz, 1879), 825 – 837, no. 1899 with a new critical edition in Zürcher Kirchenordnungen 1520 – 1675, 2 vols., eds. Emidio Campi and Philipp Wälchli (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011) 1: 129 – 150, no. 59. See Fritz Büsser, “Die kirchlichen Institutionen im reformierten Zürich des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation in Zürich (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 216 – 230. For more recent literature, see Bruce Gordon, Clerical Discipline and Rural Reformation. The Synod in Zürich, 1532 – 1580 (Bern: Lang, 1992); Gordon, “Die Entwicklung der Kirchen-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Two Kingdoms or One Kingdom of Christ?

67

disciplinary body known as the Consistory, were drawn from the ranks of all three Genevan councils—the Petit Conseil, the Conseil des Soixante, and the Conseil des Deux Cents, while the chairman was the Syndic. In Zurich all ministers and seven members of the city council attended the synod, which was chaired jointly by the senior pastor and the incumbent Bürgermeister. The Genevan rulers, like the Zurich magistrates, maintained steady pressure to uphold the state’s jurisdiction over the Church. On the obligations of pastors towards the state, the state’s oversight of pastors, and the relative roles of the clergy and the civil government there were large areas of consent as well as potential for recurrent discord both in Geneva and in Zurich. Unique to Geneva was the involvement of magistrate-elders in the consistorial discipline and in the sanction of excommunication. In contrast to the Genevan Reformation, the Zurich Reformers very reluctantly developed their own church discipline, and to a large extent left it to the city council.38 Even if the Church was to police itself through measures of selfgovernment exercised in the biannual meetings of the Synod, at no time did Bullinger argue – as Calvin did in Geneva – that excommunication be placed in the hands of clerical authority instead of those of the magistrates. Essentially the Zurich model, characterized by Pamela Biel as a “reciprocal relationship,”39 consisted of a modus vivendi which took account of the concerns of both parties. While the final authority over the Church lay in the hands of temporal rulers, the prophetical function (Wächteramt) of the Church, with regard to the whole society, magistrates included, was maintained by the clergy. In addition, through the person of the Antistes, the ministers had direct access to the city council and could raise their voice whenever they felt it important to make their opinions known to the government. I refer to the peculiar custom of the Fürträge, the formal memoranda to the city authorities initiated by Bullinger and sustained well into the seventeenth century in Zurich.40 With this opinion Bullinger obzucht in Zürich am Beginn der Reformation,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 16 (1994): 65 – 90. 38 For the relationship of Church and state in Bullinger’s Zurich, see Ren¦ Hauswirth, “Zur politischen Ethik der Generation nach Zwingli,” Zwingliana 13 (1971): 305 – 342; Hans Ulrich Bächtold, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat. Zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung des Züricher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531 bis 1575 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1982); Gordon, Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation; Emidio Campi, “Bullingers Rechts- und Staatsdenken,” Evangelische Theologie 64 (2004): 116 – 126. 39 Pamela Biel, Doorkeepers at the House of Righteousness. Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich Clergy 1535 – 1575 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1991), 20. 40 See Bächtold, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat. Most of the Fürträge are now available in critical edition (Heinrich Bullinger, Schriften zum Tage, eds. Hans Ulrich Bächtold, Ruth Jörg, and Christian Moser ([Zug: Achius, 2006]) and in a modern German translation (Heinrich Bullinger, Schriften, 7 vols., eds. Emidio Campi et al. [Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006], 6:1 – 552).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

68

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

viously rejected the Anabaptist position,41 often more vigorously, but never less so than Calvin did. By contrast, Bullinger spoke on occasion in a manifestly supportive tone about the Geneva model,42 although the confrontation between the two visions in the Palatinate, in what later was to be known as the Erastian controversy, exacerbated the differences between Zurich and Geneva.43 Calvin, like Bullinger, was anxious to impress on the secular authority the weighty responsibility of the cura religionis. Yet, above all he was zealous to preserve the autonomy of the Church from confusion with the jurisdiction of the “godly magistrate.” The picture that emerges from Naphy’s meticulous studies is of a long struggle by Calvin to realize his vision. His determination made it impossible to impose on Geneva a religious settlement and a church organization such as existed in Zurich or throughout Reformed Switzerland. The Geneva model is characterised by a relative autonomy and independence from the civil authority within the framework of a State Church, in particular on the matter of the social and political implications of the imposition of Church discipline. To use anachronistic terminology, we might say that Calvin’s view stresses the role of checks and balances in a system in which the Genevan Church and the Genevan state worked as “a single, national unit, comprising much of the same personnel and the same space.”44 It would be therefore misleading to label the struggle over excommunication as a constitutional clash about the independence of the Church from the state, since there was no separation between Church (Compagnie des pasteurs) and state (Petit Conseil), but merely a “disagreement between one institution of the state, the Consistoire, and another, the Petit Conseil.”45 In other words, it was “a question of jurisdiction and place in the institutional structure of the state between one bureaucratic body, the Consistory, and another, the Petit Conseil.”46 It must be added, however, that this was still a momentous achievement, a significant departure from the medieval relationship between Church and state. Calvin’s strongly held views rouse our admiration because they became the source of pulsating energies constantly adjusting to various political cultures. His model of Church organization was certainly more biblical in a New Testament vein and less hazardous than Bullinger’s model based on the pattern of Old 41 See Christian Scheidegger, “Täufer, Konfession und Staat zur Zeit Bullingers,” in Die Zürcher Täufer 1525 – 1700, eds. Urs Leu and Christian Scheidegger (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 67 – 116. 42 Bullinger to Calvin, December 12/13, 1553, in CO 14: 696 – 698, no. 1870. See Kolfhaus, Der Verkehr, 37 – 38; Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 107 – 109. 43 See Gustaf Adolf Benrath, “Die Korrespondenz zwischen Bullinger und Thomas Erastus,” in Heinrich Bullinger, eds. Gäbler and Herkenrath, 87 – 141. 44 Naphy, “Church and State in Calvin’s Geneva,” in Calvin and the Church, ed. Foxgrover, 22. 45 Ibid., 26. 46 Ibid.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s Attitudes towards Islam

69

Testament kingship, and, in the long run, more influential both spiritually and politically. Both models and not just one, however, have shaped the Reformed churches and theology over the centuries.

2.

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s Attitudes towards Islam

There are two main reasons why I have chosen this test case. While there is a longstanding tradition of studies on Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in the sixteenth century47 and a series of significant contributions to the question of Luther and Islam,48 the issue of early Reformed attitudes towards Islam has not attracted the same attention from scholars and much remains to be explored.49 47 E.g., Achim Detmers, Reformation und Judentum: Israel – Lehren und Einstellungen zum Judentum von Luther bis zum frühen Calvin (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001); Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-century Germany, eds. Dean Phillip Bell and Stephen G. Burnett (Leiden: Brill, 2006). 48 E.g., Hartmut Bobzin, “Martin Luthers Beitrag zur Kenntnis und Kritik des Islam,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 27 (1985): 262 – 289; Martin Brecht, “Luther und die Türken,” in Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance, eds. Bodo Guthmüller and Wilhelm Kuhlmann (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000), 9 – 27; Adam S. Francisco, Martin Luther and Islam. A study in sixteenth century polemics and apologetics (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Johannes Ehmann, Luther, Türken und Islam. Eine Untersuchung zum Türken- und Islambild Martin Luthers (1515 – 1546) (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2008); Thomas Kaufmann, Türkenbüchlein. Zur christlichen Wahrnehmung “türkischer Region” im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008); and Athina Lexutt, “Luther und der Islam. Beten und Büssen statt Reden und Kämpfen,” in Spiegel der Forschung. Justus–Liebig-Universität Giessen 2 (2011): 60 – 71. 49 Scholarly literature is scarce: Rudolf Pfister, “Reformation, Türken und Islam,” Zwingliana 10 (1956): 345 – 375; Katya Vehlow, “The Swiss Reformers Zwingli, Bullinger and Bibliander and Their Attitude to Islam (1520 – 1560),” Islam and Christian-Muslim relations 6 (1995): 229 – 254; Victor Segesvary, L’islam et la r¦forme: ¦tude sur l’attitude des r¦formateurs zurichois envers l’islam, 1510 – 1550 (Lausanne: Editions L’ Age d’ homme, 1977, repr. with an English preface, summary and updated bibliography : San Francisco [etc.]: International Scholars Publications, 1998 [hardback edition] and in paperback, University Press of America, 1998); the references given in the notes are to the paperback edition); William P. Stephens, “Understanding Islam – in the Light of Bullinger and Wesley,” The Evangelical Quarterly 8 (2009): 23 – 37. Some useful information can be found in standard works: Norman Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh: University Press 1960, rev. ed., Oxford: Oneworld, 1993); Hartmut Bobzin, “Latin Translations of the Koran. A Short Overview,” Der Islam 70 (1993): 193 – 206; David R. Blanks and Michael Frassetto (eds.), Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Perception of Other (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999); John V. Tolan, Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European imagination (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002); Siegfried Raeder, Der Islam und das Christentum: Eine historische und theologische Einführung (2nd and rev. ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003); Thomas E. Burman, Reading the Qur’a¯n in Latin Christendom, 1140 – 1560 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007); Frederick Quinn, The Sum of all Heresies. The Image of Islam in the Western Thought (New

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

70

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

Furthermore, besides its contemporary relevance, nothing could better illustrate the difference in the working style of the two reformers than this topic, which suggests that history was the most natural metier of Bullinger, whereas for Calvin that role was filled by theology. It is well known that war against the Turks formed a colourful background of the Reformation era. In 1521, Suleiman I captured Belgrade, and in 1526 King Louis II of Hungary was killed as his army was overthrown in the Battle of Moh‚cs on the Danube. By 1529, the Ottoman army stood at the gates of Vienna. Again in 1532, the Ottoman threat would be turned back by European forces. It was not until 1683 with the last assault on Vienna that the Turkish threat finally abated. Nevertheless, the Ottoman forces were feared as a dangerous enemy – a fear that long survived the danger. Given their place in the centre of European consciousness, it is not surprising to find references to the “Turks” in the writings of almost all Reformers and leading humanists of the time.50 Erasmus, for example, became involved with Islam in 1529, when the Turks were standing before the walls of Vienna. In his Consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo he maintained that war is the work of the Devil, but unlike Luther, who regarded the Turks as a punishment from God which should not be resisted, Erasmus said that arms could be taken up against “Turks, Mohammedans, Saracens, Muscovites, Greeks and other half-Christian and schismatic nations.”51 In the Quincuplex Psalterium by Jacques LefÀvre d’Êtaples, whose annotations by both Luther and Zwingli we know, Islam is disparaged as nave and sometimes even treated with open hostility.52 Juan Luis Vives also pointed out the threat to Christendom posed by Turkish expansion in the Mediterranean in works such as De Conditione Vitae Christianorum sub Turca and offered sarcastic comments on Muslim beliefs in his De veritate fidei Christianae.53 There

50

51

52 53

York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 17 – 54; Emidio Campi, “Early Reformed Attitudes towards Islam,” The Near East School of Theology Theological Review 31 (2010):131 – 151. Segesvary, L’islam et la r¦forme, chap. 1; Ludwig Hagemann, Christentum contra Islam: eine Geschichte gescheiterter Beziehungen (Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 1999); Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance, eds. Guthmüller and Kühlmann; Almut Höfert, Den Feind beschreiben.”Türkengefahr” und europäisches Wissen über das Osmanische Reich 1450 – 1600 (Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag, 2003). For the text, see Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (= ASD) 5/3, 1 – 82. For the significance of the Consultatio and Erasmus’ vision of Turks, see Antonius G. Weiler, “The Turkish Argument and Christian Piety in Desiderius Erasmus ‘Consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo’ (1530),” in Erasmus of Rotterdam: The Man and the Scholar: Proceedings of the Symposium held at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 9 – 11 November 1986, eds. J. Sperna Weiland and Willem Th. M. Frijhoff (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1988), 30 – 39. See Guy Bedouelle, Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefe`vre d’E´taples: un guide de lecture (Geneva: Droz, 1979), 195 – 200. Edward V. George, “Author, Adversary, and Reader. A View of the De veritate fidei Christianae,” in A Companion to Juan Luis Vives, ed. Charles Fantazzi (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 315 – 357, here 337 – 344.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s Attitudes towards Islam

71

was, however, among the most prominent humanists a significant exception: the French linguist Guillaume Postel, professor of Greek, Hebrew and Arabic in what would become the CollÀge de France, where he established Arab Studies as an academic discipline. This eccentric scholar of universal breadth had a first-hand knowledge of Islam, travelled extensively, and knew the living faith of Muslims. In 1544, in his De orbis terrae Concordia Postel advocated a universalist world religion.54 Some years before Postel, the Italian physician, historian and prelate Paolo Giovio (1483 – 1552) managed both to address traditional anxieties about the Turkish menace and to satisfy certain newer, and rather milder forms of interest in the remote past and exotic present of the Islamic East. In 1532 he published his Commentario de le cose de’ Turchi, which was one of the most influential texts in sixteenth-century Turcica.55 The Reformers had only a very limited knowledge of Islam, and in that they did not differ from the leading humanists of their time. They limited themselves to drawing from contemporary sources, historical or philosophical, among which we can count the product typical of the Renaissance, the Cribatio Alcorani by Nicholas of Cusa, or the widely disseminated Commentario de le cose de’ Turchi by Paolo Giovio; to these sources they added some descriptive or polemical works of the Middle Ages, for example Contra Legem Sarracenorum by Ricoldo da Monte Croce (c.1243 – 1320).56 Unquestionably, the best source on Islam which this generation relied upon was still the Cluny Collection, owing to the initiative of Abbot Peter the Venerable.57

54 See William J. Bouwsma, Concordia mundi: The Career and Thought of Guillaume Postel, 1510 – 1581 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957); Marion L. Kuntz, Guillaume Postel: Prophet of the Restitution of All Things. His Life and Thought (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1981). 55 Paolo Giovio, Commentario de le cose de’ Turchi (Rome: Blado, 1532). The treatise was translated into Latin by the Italian Protestant convert Francesco Negri with the title Turcicarum rerum commentarius (Strasbourg: Vendelinus Rihelius, 1537) and there is evidence that Bullinger used it extensively for his Regnorum et monarchiarum regum item catalogus. See Zentralbibliothek Zürich, MS B 133, fol. 207v-217v. On Negri, the author of the widely read Tragedia intitolata libero arbitrio (Tragedy of Free Will), see Jan-Andrea Bernhard, “Francesco Negri zwischen konfessionellen und geographischen Grenzen,” Zwingliana 37 (2010): 81 – 115, here 88. 56 The work enjoyed a vast popularity in his time as a polemical source against Islam and was influential on later scholars such as Nicholas of Cusa as well as Martin Luther. On Riccoldo, see John V. Tolan, Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002); 233 – 254. 57 See Pfister, ”Reformation, Türken und Islam,” 353 – 355; Segesvary, L’islam et la r¦forme, chap. 4 – 6; Bobzin, Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation, 181 – 209; Vehlow, “The Swiss Reformers,” 232 – 235; Harry Clark, “The Publication of the Qur’a¯n in Latin: A Reformation Dilemma,” Sixteenth Century Journal 15 (1984), 3 – 12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

72

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger’s knowledge of Islam came from contemporary reports58 as well as from the above-mentioned literature. He must have read the Qur’an and known Zwingli’s perception of and response to Islam.59 Above all he benefitted from specialist knowledge of his colleague the Zurich Hebraist and Arabist Theodore Bibliander, who in 1543 published the first printed edition of the Qur’an in Latin, based on the medieval translation by Robert of Ketton.60 The list of Bullinger’s writings and occasional statements on Islam is long.61 I have chosen to limit the presentation to one work, though the most important. The head pastor of the

58 See, e. g., Leo Weisz, Die Bullinger Zeitungen. Zur Halbjahrhundertfeier des Vereins der Schweizerischen Presse (Zurich: Buchdruckerei Berichthaus, 1933), 11. 59 Zwingli never published a treatise on Islam or the Turks; his perception of Islam is scattered through his works in the form of brief sentences, erratic notes and comments. Following John of Damascus, he considered Islam basically as a heretic sect deviating from true Christian faith (Z 6/1: 451, 3 – 16), and regarded the Turks as God’s punishment for Christendom (Z 6/ 3: 359, 2 – 360, 2, esp. note 5; Z 14: 513, 24 – 35). On the other hand, he was no friend of the crusades against the Turks, for the reason that it would put power into the hands of the Pope (Z 2: 309, 1 – 20); significantly, he did consider the possibility of a missionary enterprise to Muslims as an alternative to the war (Z 1: 435, 12 – 436, 1; 438, 30 – 440, 9). See Vehlow, “The Swiss Reformers,” 235 – 237; Gottfried W. Locher, Zwingli’s Thought. New Perspectives (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 116. Both studies help to fill a gap in scholarship, but more attention needs to be paid to this often overlooked topic, including critical appraisal of Zwingli’s exegetical writings (Z 15 – 21) due to be published shortly. 60 Theodor Bibliander (ed.), Machumetis Saracenorum principis, eiusque successorum vitae, ac doctrina, ipseque Alcoran […] ([Basel]: [Nikolaus Brylinger for Johannes Oporinus], [1543]). The complex and intriguing story of how Bibliander’s edition made it into print cannot be told here. It suffices to mention the importance of the publication, clearly demonstrated by the fact that Bibliander’s Machumetis of 1543 and the slightly revised edition of 1550 became the sourcebook for information on Islam through the sixteenth century and beyond. Recent literature on Bibliander includes: Theodor Bibliander. Ein Thurgauer im gelehrten Zürich, ed. Christine Christ-von Wedel (Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2005); Lucia Felici, “L’Islam in Europa. L’edizione del Corano di Theodor Bibliander (1543),” Cromohs 12 (2007): 1 – 13; Burman, Reading the Qur’a¯n, 110 – 121, passim; Christian Moser, Theodor Bibliander (1505 – 1564): annotierte Bibliographie der gedruckten Werke (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009). 61 In the Decades Bullinger seldom writes about Islam, in any case less frequently than about Catholicism, Judaism or the ancient Roman religion. However, there is evidence that not only is he well informed about the subject, but also that he has a nuanced approach to it. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that, unlike Erasmus who in the Consultatio applied to the Turks epithets such as heathen or barbarians, he uses the term Mahometan (3), Saracen (5) or simply Turk (14). Besides letters, other texts that deal with the issue are: Bullinger, Gegen die Teilnahme am Türkenzug (1532), in Bullinger, Schriften, vol. 6, 141 – 150; In Apocalypsim Iesu Christi conciones centum (Basel: Oporinus, 1557, HBBibl 1,327), concio 41; Bullinger, Verfolgung. Von der schweren / lagwirigen verfolgung der Heiligen Christlichen Kirchen (= Persecution. Of the severe protracted persecution of the Holy Christian Churches) (Zurich: Froschauer, 1573, (HBBibl 1, 575), esp. 66r – 70v ; Bullinger, Uff siben Klagartikel…verantwortung (= Reply to the seven charges) (Zurich: Froschauer, 1574, HBBibl 1, 584), esp. 34v – 35r and 46v – 47r.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s Attitudes towards Islam

73

Zurich church wrote in 1567 a treatise, The Turk.62 Publication date is noteworthy – one and a half year after the so called Great Siege of Malta, one of the turning points of early modern history, when a heroic defence prevented the rampant Ottoman forces of sultan Suleiman I from gaining a strategic foothold in the central Mediterranean. It is doubtful, in my judgement, that the author was not aware of the historical significance of the Siege of Malta. In any case, in the preface he declares to write “for the truth’s sake and benefit of Christianity.” Although by no means up to the standard of contemporary Islamic studies, it shows a sound knowledge of the Qur’an and Muslim religious beliefs. Bullinger ascribes the Qur’an to Muhammad, not to God. He rejects Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet, maintaining that he invented his revelations and visions. Following John of Damascus, who in the eighth century had regarded Islam not as an alien tradition but as a Christian heresy, Bullinger holds that the Qur’an was put together with the help of a heretical monk and the advice of perverted Jews and false Christians, and was further corrupted by heretics such as Arians, Macedonians, and Nestorians (A ivr-v). Therefore the syncretic character of Islam and its inauthenticity as a divine message seems to him undeniable. The Qur’an rejects such central doctrines of the Christian faith as the Person and work of Christ and the Trinity. It denies that Jesus is the Son of God, regarding him only as a messenger of God. With the denial of Christ’s sonship goes the denial of the Trinity. The Qur’an also denies the death and resurrection of Christ and his role as the only mediator. This rejection of the work of Christ means the rejection of the doctrine of justification through faith alone in Christ. Bullinger charges Muhammad with inventing ways through which people deserve and gain the forgiveness of sins, such as fasting, prayer, alms, fighting nobly, and dying in battle for the sake of Islam. For Bullinger, Muslim belief in salvation by works, like papal indulgences, is Pelagian (A viiv and vv – vir). Bullinger challenges the Qur’an’s understanding of eternal life, worship, marriage, and government as fundamentally opposed to the Christian faith. It presents eternal life, but in a carnal way, just as pagan fables do; it destroys 62 Der Türgg. Von anfang und Ursprung deß Türggischen Gloubens / der Türggen / ouch jrer Königen und Keyseren / und wie fürträffenlich vil landen unnd lüthen / sy innet 226. jaren yn genommen / und der Christenheit abtrungen habind … (= Origin of the Turkish faith, kings and emperors of the Turks, and how capable they were to capture and take away within 266 years so many lands and people from Christianity), [Zurich: s.n.] 1567, HBBibl 1, 557). The “266 years” in the title are an allusion to the Battle of Bapheus which occurred on July 27, 1302 between the Ottoman and the Byzantine army. The battle ended in a crucial Ottoman victory, cementing the Ottoman state and heralding the final capture of Byzantine Bithynia by the Turks. For a summary and overview of the content, see Stephens, “Understanding Islam”; for a thorough analysis, see Paul Widmer, “Bullinger und die Türken. Zeugnis des geistigen Widerstandes gegen eine Renaissance der Kreuzzüge,” in Campi and Opitz (eds.), Heinrich Bullinger : Life, Thought, Influence, 593 – 624.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

74

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

monogamous marriage with its polygamy and subjects innocent women to the pleasure and caprice of men (A viv). An important aspect of the reformer’s criticism of Islam is the use of violence, and the religious duty of the holy war. Muhammad spread his new faith against the true faith with the sword (B iv) and commanded his followers to persecute those who disputed the Qur’an (A viir). Bullinger compares Muslims with the Münster Anabaptists (A vir-v). There are many other points where Bullinger shows how Islam diverges from Christianity, for example, in its rejection of the sacraments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Lord’s Day (A viv). On occasion the reformer speaks positively of Muslims and negatively of the lives of Christians. Bullinger uses the bad lives of Christians to explain the rise and success of Islam. For example, he notes that the rise of Islam coincided with disputes in the Church on Christology, images, the power of bishops, and whether Constantinople or Rome was the head of all churches (A viiiv – B ir). After this doctrinal part, Bullinger sketches the history of Islam from the beginning to his own time with an accuracy reminiscent of a scholarly lexicon entry (B ir – D vii r). He gives an overview of the origins of Islam, its institutions, law, political structures, its spirituality and spread. He concludes with a long prayer in which he rehearses the infidelity of Christians in their faith and the disobedience of Christians in their life and works. Finally, and particularly noteworthy, is that Bullinger associates Muhammad and Muslims, like the papacy, with the Antichrist. To summarize: Bullinger approaches Islam from three perspectives: First, he places marked emphasis on the ethical viewpoint (rejection of some forms of piety, of polygamy, of violence and holy war). Secondly, he looks at Islam from a theological perspective focussing in his analysis on the Christological and soteriological issues; specifically, this theological perspective is eschatologically inclined, as the conflation of the Pope and the Turks clearly indicates. Thirdly, his interest in and concern for Islam is strongly historical in concept. Calvin, unlike Bullinger, did not express his view of Islam in a specific treatise. In the Institutes the word “Turks” occurs only once (2.6.4), the designation “Muslim” and the name of Muhammad are not mentioned. However, Calvin’s attitude toward the Islamic doctrine is extensively documented in his commentaries, sermons and lectures, where his pronouncements are scattered in the form of brief sentences, erratic notes and comments.63 Although the main elements of his thinking are based on medieval and contemporary arguments, he 63 To my knowledge, there are no studies available on this topic. Lengthy quotations in English translation from Calvin writings can be found in Nigel Lee, “Calvin on Islam,” available online at http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/CalvIslam.pdf (2000). The Islam specialist Hartmut Bobzin lectured on June 30, 2009 in Erlangen on “Johannes Calvin, der Calvinismus und sein Verhältnis zum Islam” but the text is not yet published.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s Attitudes towards Islam

75

does not make any reference to the sources, he does not cite a single theological, literary, or philosophical authority by name, so that a thorough investigation of the development of Calvin’s thought on Islam provides an interesting case study – a task which far exceeds the scope of this essay. My much more modest goal will be to indicate some of the salient questions that arise from the reading and interpretation of a relatively small sample of primary sources. At first glance Calvin and Bullinger seem to form a common front on the question of Islam. When we look more closely at them, however, we find considerable differences between their views, most of which are attributable to differences in method. The most striking characteristic of Calvin’s attitude towards Islam is that he overtly avoids commenting on contemporary affairs, and engages almost exclusively in theological debates, arguing even passionately about significant points of controversy. The first reproach addressed to the Prophet and his followers is that they represent a heretical sect separated from Christianity outside of which there is no true religion. Thus, for instance, in his 1550 Commentary on Second Thessalonians Calvin identifies the “man of sin” and apostasy with the Romanists, proclaiming: “The defection has indeed spread more widely! For, since Muhammad was an apostate, he turned his followers, the Turks, from Christ. … The sect of Muhammad was like a raging overflow, which in its violence tore away about half of the Church.”64 As might be expected, one utterly controversial point was whether the Qur’an could be recognized as God’s revelation. In his Sermons on Deuteronomy Calvin explains: “When the Turks set their Mahomet in the place of God’s Son – knowing not that God has manifested Himself in the flesh (which is one of the chief articles of our Faith) – what dealing is it? How many things so ever men term by the Name of ‘God’ – they be but devils of their own devising and setting up, if they keep not themselves fast enclosed within the bounds of the Holy Scripture! And therefore let us mark well, that we must hold us to the pure Religion.”65 In the Sermons on Job more explicitly Calvin states: “Devilish cu64 Comm. 2 Thess. 2:3, CO 52: 197: “Paulus autem non de uno homine loquitur, sed de regno quod a Satana occupandum sit, ut sedem abominationis in medio Dei templo erigat: quod videmus impletum in papatu. Latius quidem defectio grassata est: nam Mahometes, ut erat apostata, Turcas suos a Christo alienavit […]. Nunc intelligunt lectores sectas omnes, quibus ab initio imminuta fuit ecclesia, totidem fuisse defectionis rivos, quae aquam a recto cursu abducere incepit: sectam vero Mahometis, instar violentae exundationis fuisse, quae dimidiam plus minus partem suo impetu raperet.” 65 Sermons on Deuteronomy 13: 6 – 11, CO 27: 261: “Quand les Turcs mettent leur Mahomet au lieu du Fils de Dieu, et qu’ils ne cognoissent point que Dieu est manifest¦ en chair, qui est l’un des principaux articles de nostre foy : et o¾ est-ce aller? Ainsi donc tout ce que les hommes appellent Dieu, sinon qu’ils demeurent l— enserrez en ces bornes de l’Escriture saincte: ce sont autant de diables qu’ils se forgent, et qu’ils se bastissent. Et ainsi, notons bien qu’il nous faut tenir — la pure religion.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

76

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

riosity is not contented to be taught simply by the Holy Scripture! Behold also – whereupon the religion of the Turks is founded! Mahomet has reported himself to be the party that should bring the full revelation – over and besides the Gospel.”66 The other major point of the Qur’anic doctrine particularly criticized by Calvin is that Islam, like Judaism, rejects the divinity of Jesus and the Christian view of the Trinity. For example, in his comments on 1 John 2:23 noting that the text asserts the eternal divinity of Christ, Calvin finds this teaching sufficient to refute the opinion of the Jews, Turks, and others.67 A well known text among Calvin’s polemical treatises, the Defence of the Orthodox Faith Concerning the Holy Trinity, in which he both refuted Servetus’s views and defended the actions taken by the City Council against the Spaniard, provides us with an indirect but eloquent criticism of the Muslim denial of the Trinity. The Reformer makes direct reference to the Brevis Refutatio errorum Michelis Serveti by the Genevan fellow-ministers. They had rebuked Servetus’s argument that the arcane distinction between one God and three hypostases would constitute an obstacle between Islam and Christianity, asserting vigorously that a compromise on this central doctrine is not possible, because it controverts the innermost heart of the Christian faith.68 It is clear that Calvin agrees with the content of the statement and wishes not to add to it, but to advance it as true. Although Calvin’s engagement with Islam was sharply critical, it was not morally disqualifying. This is somewhat surprising, given the history of Christian polemical literature against Islam, literature of which Calvin was certainly aware. Calvin’s criticism focuses on doctrine and not on ethics. For Calvin, doctrinal difference rather than ethical moral behaviour was the source of his fierce condemnation of the Prophet’s religion. This is different from 66 Sermons on Job 4:12 – 19, CO 33: 204: “Cela est venu de ceste curiosit¦ diabolique, qu’ils ne se sont point contentez d’estre enseignez simplement en l’Escriture saincte. Voila sur quoy aussi est fond¦e la religion des Turcs: Mahomet a dit qu’il estoit celuy qui devoit apporter revelation pleine outre l’Evangile.” 67 Comm. 1 John 2:23, CO 55:325: “Iterum dico, non hic agitari subtilem disputationem de aeterna Christi essentia quam unam cum patre habet. Abunde quidem ad eam probandam sufficit hic locus: sed Iohannes ad fidei praxin nos vocat: nempe quia Deus se totum nobis in Christo fruendum dedit, frustra alibi quaeri: vel (si quis malit clarius) quoniam in Christo habitat tota plenitudo divinitatis, extra eum nihil esse Dei. Unde sequitur, Turcas, Iudaeos, et similes, Dei loco merum habere idolum.” See also Inst. 2.6.4. 68 CO 8:536: “Quia silentio praeterit quae nos gravi reprehensione digna censemus, iudicium ex lectione ipsa fiat. Nec est quod excuset, hodie quoque iactare Turcas obstaculo sibi esse trinitatem: quia nopn protinus sequitur Mahometo iustam fuisse apostasie causam. Quod vero in una Dei essentia invisibiles et arcanas hypostase tam superbe repudiat, iam breviter ostendimus cum tota pietatis doctrina pugnare.” See also also CO 8:476: though the magistrate ought to punish heretics, it does not follow, that he has the right to compel Jews, Turks, and others to embrace Christian faith.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s Attitudes towards Islam

77

Bullinger’s approach to Islam. For Bullinger, Islam was a heresy at the level of both doctrine and ethics; and this second level truly represents for the Zurich reformer a dividing line, an unbridgeable abyss between Christians and Muslims. There is another important difference between the two founding fathers of Reformed Protestantism which is worth pointing out. Bullinger, like Luther and Melanchthon, identified the Prophet Muhammad with the Antichrist, prophesied by Daniel. The name of Antichrist, in the Zurich Reformer’s conception, designates all those who oppose the Christian message, the enemies of the true faith.69 He became increasingly convinced that the signs of the times in which he believed himself to be living were related directly to the papacy and the Ottoman Turks, simultaneously. They were two sides of the same coin. In their essays on prophecy and history in Calvin’s lectures on Daniel, Mario Miegge and Barbara Pitkin have found that Calvin’s treatment of this theme runs counter to the dominant interpretative patterns of his fellow reformers.70 In the same situation of religious and political ferment, Calvin is the only reformer who in his interpretation of Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11 explicitly refutes, at times by name, those who relate these prophecies in any way to the Antichrist.71 He consistently interprets the prophecies of Daniel as relating entirely to historically past events, to Antiochus IV Epiphanes on the one hand, and ancient Rome on the other. Mario Miegge and Barbara Pitkin have argued that Calvin’s approach is both original and unique in the history of Daniel interpretation and sheds light on his understanding of prophecy, history, and the best way to derive present meaning from biblical past. It is a fortunate thing that Machiel Adrianus van den Berg has now dedicated so much effort to this topic. In his thorough work he provides convincing support for the claim that “Calvin’s exposition is radically anti69 For an exhaustive overview of this topic in Bullinger’s writings, see Christian Moser, “‘Papam esse Antichristum’. Grundzüge von Heinrich Bullingers Antichristkonzeption,” Zwingliana 30 (2003): 65 – 101. 70 Mario Miegge, “‘Regnum quartum ferreum’ und ‘lapis de monte’. Die kritische Wende in der Danielinterpretation im 16. Jahrhundert und ihre Folgen in Theologie und Politik,” in Europa, Tausendjähriges Reich und Neue Welt: zwei Jahrtausende Geschichte und Utopie in der Rezeption des Danielbuches, eds. Mariano Delgado and Hartmut Bobzin (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 2003), 239 – 251; and Barbara Pitkin, “Prophecy and History in Calvin’s Lectures on Daniel,” in Die Geschichte der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum und Islam: Studien zur Kommentierung des Danielbuches in Literatur und Kunst, eds. Katharina Bracht and David S. du Toit (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2007, 323 – 347). 71 For example, Praelectiones in Danielem 7:8, in CO 41:50: “Hic incipiunt variare interpretes: quia alii hoc ad papam detorquent, alii vero ad Turcam. Sed neutra opinio videtur mihi probabilis. Falluntur autem utrique, quoniam existimant hic describi totum cursum regni Christi, quum tamen Deus prophetae suo tantum indicare voluerit quid futurum esset usque ad primum Christi adventum. Hinc igitur omnium error, quod volunt complecti sub hanc visione perpetuum ecclesiae statum usque ad finem mundi.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

78

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

apocalyptic…This means that even the Antichrist is not actually relevant, as he is for other exegetes.”72 Although in the Praelectiones in Danielem (1561) Calvin appears indeed to exhibit a stronger hermeneutical awareness than his fellow reformers, it must be pointed out that in other places he saw the Antichrist as both the papacy and Islam. In the Sermons on Deuteronomy (1555/1556), for example, the papacy was the Western Antichrist and Islam the Eastern Antichrist and he referred to them as the “two horns.”73 Whether this, in the end, represents a critical shift inaugurated with the Praelectiones in Danielem is an issue that cannot be decided here and requires further exploration. Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that images of the Turk as Antichrist were quite obvious in rabbinical literature as well as in the early Protestant exegesis. Given this context, and the content of his statements, Calvin’s support for a more responsible appreciation of Islam – even if at a late stage and when ensconced in the vein of polemical refutation – can be charitably approached. This nuanced attitude, together with Calvin’s admission that the Roman church is still “the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but profaned by innumerable sacrileges”74 and that there will always be “a church in the papacy, but hidden and wonderfully preserved,”75 may indeed be interpreted as a cautious form of tolerance.76 72 Machiel Adrianus van den Berg, Het rijk van Christus als historische realiteit. Calvijns antiapocalyptische uitleg van het boek DaniÚl [with a summary in English] (Bunnik: De Banier, 2008), 362 – 363. 73 Sermons on Deuteronomy 18:15, CO 27: 502 – 503: “…depuis que le Fils de Dieu est apparu, est-ce raison que les hommes mettent enavant leurs songes et resveries, et que Iesus Christse taise? […] Tout ainsi que Mahommet dit que son Alchoram est la sagesse souveraine, autant en dit le Pape: car ce sont les deux cornes de l’Antechrist. ” See also Comm. 1 John 4:3 – 6, CO 55: 351: “Sic hodie papistae sua omnia commenta, spiritus oracula esse, magistrali supercilio iactant. Nec Mahometus aliunde se hausisse praedicat sua deliria quam e coelo.” 74 Comm. 2 Thess. 2:4, CO 52: 199: “Paulus non alibi Antichristum locat, quam in ipso Dei sanctuario. Non enim externus est hostis, sed domesticus, qui sub ipso Christi nomine Christum oppugnat. Sed quaeritur quomodo vocetur ecclesia specus tot superstitionum, quae columna debebat esse veritatis. Respondeo, sic vocari, non quod retineat omnes ecclesiae qualitates: sed quia aliquid residuum habeat. Templum ergo Dei esse fateor, in quo dominatur papa, sed innumeris sacrilegiis profanatum.” 75 Praelectiones in Ezechielis proph. 16:20, CO 40: 354: “apud ipsos [papistas] quidem ecclesiam esse, hoc est Deum illic habere suam ecclesiam, sed occultam, et mirabiliter etiam servari.” 76 Calvin mentions the Turks in his sermons on Isaiah 52 – 66 generally not in positive terms See, e. g., Sermon 296, Friday, September 9, 1558 on Isaiah 59, 7 – 9 (Londres, Ms VIII f 3, f. 124r); Sermon 324, Wednsday, July 12, 1559, on Isaiah 64, 6 – 7 (Ms VIII f 3, f. 347v – 348r); Sermon 329, Tuesday, July 25, 1559 on Isaiah 65, 10 – 12 (Ms VIII f 3, f. 395r-v). There is, however, a significant exception: see Sermon 296 of Saturday, August 27, 1558 on Isaiah 58, 6 – 9 (Londres, Ms VIII f 3, f. 8r): ”Voil— donc ce que le prophete a voulu dire, notamment quand il exprime qu’il ne faut point que nous cachions les yeux de nostre chair, c’est — dire de ceux qui nous attouchent de si prez que nous leur sommes du tout conjoins selon l’ordre de

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

79

Conclusion

To summarize, the fear of the “Turks,” an all-pervasive feeling in early modern European society, finds a strong echo in Bullinger’s and Calvin’s writings. Despite the existentially pressing military and spiritual threat represented by the Ottoman Empire, they did not share the traditional accusations against the Turks propagated by the mendicant friars. The bulk of their contributions to the discourse did not consist of irresponsible ad hominem attacks, but rather of philological, historical and theological arguments. Unlike Erasmus, they were no friends of the Christian crusade against the Muslims. Instead of resorting to the spirit of crusade they embarked on a meticulous investigation into the essence of the Muslim religion, Bullinger mainly from a historical and ethical standpoint, Calvin using almost exclusively theological arguments.

3.

Conclusion

The intent of this essay was to probe and complement Gottfried Locher’s thesis, “Dissensus [between Bullinger and Calvin] was no mere trifle. Consensus outweighed dissensus.” The example of the reformers’ understanding of the “two kingdoms” doctrine with its implication for the relationship of Church and the civil community as well as the study of their respective attitudes towards Islam provide sufficient evidence to confirm the assertion. The first test case shows that despite the different starting point, both Calvin and Bullinger were equally concerned to assert the sovereignty of God over the entire created realm, and to distinguish the spiritual from the earthly city. Yet both draw somewhat differing conclusions about the relation between the visible Church and the commonwealth. While Bullinger was largely positive in his assessment of the intervention of the magistrate in Church life, Calvin was more cautious. He was, like Bullinger, anxious to invest the secular authority with the weighty responsibility of the cura religionis; at the same time, however, he was keen to preserve the autonomy of the Church from confusion with the jurisnature, et que si nous voulons nous en separer nous despitons manifestement Dieu. Or si nature nous enseigne d’avoir piti¦ les uns des autres, quand il y a ceste conjonction spirituelle que Dieu a mise par l’Evangile, n’est ce pas encores plus? Prenons le cas que nous soions comme entre les Turcs, et qu’il n’y ait autre lien qui nous attire — ceste communaut¦ de laquele parle ici le prophete, sinon d’autant que nous sommes tous hommes, nous voil— desja convaincus, car un Turc est nostre chair. Et nostre Seigneur Jesus aussi monstre assez que nous avons proximit¦ avec ceux qui semblent estranges de nous, souz ceste figure qu’il nous propose du Samaritain. Or maintenant nous sommes creatures, formees — l’image de Dieu, nous sommes hommes et femmes, et avons comme ung partage naturel entre nous, comme les paens mesmes l’ont bien seu dire. Mais estans enfans de Dieu, il faut avoir fraternit¦ ensemble; estans membres de Jesus Christ, il nous faut estre conjoints beaucoup plus que si nous n’avions que ceste consideration que met ici le prophete.” I thank Max Engammare for pointing out to me this passage.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

80

Probing Similarities and Differences between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger

diction of the “godly Magistrate.” In practice there was doubtless no great difference, since the ministers in both Zurich and Geneva tended to be virtually civic officials, but the struggles over the involvement of the magistrate in consistorial discipline reflect Calvin’s view of sharper differences between spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. The second test case shows the striking shared conservatism of Bullinger’s und Calvin’s attitude towards Islam and the Turks, which reflected by and large the prejudices of early-modern European thought as the Ottoman threat grew stronger. Fundamentally, Bullinger’s approach was moralistic, focusing on questions involving religious practices that he regarded as sinful. This contributed to Bullinger’s conflation of the Turk and the Pope under the rubric of the Antichrist, a view likewise held by Luther. On the other hand, for all his vehemence, the Zuricher, as a talented historian, was by no means oblivious of the cultural, artistic and scientific achievements of the Ottoman Empire. Calvin was just as much concerned as Bullinger with what he regarded as the moral failings of Islam. Unlike Bullinger, however, he regarded the theological issues as being properly the object of contention between Christians and Muslims. Christological and Trinitarian doctrine were the dominant themes of Calvin’s polemic, which he waged with no less acrimony against the Antitrinitarians or Anabaptists. If we now venture the precarious jump from two specific test cases to general historical observations, it is important to point out that we have identified two approaches that together have shaped the Reformed churches and theology over the centuries. In the current debate on Calvin’s role in the process of Reformed confessionalization77 scholars should not be blinded by the didactically reasonable, but historiographically problematic nineteenth-century Schleiermacherian tradition of theological subjectivity ; rather they should seek to emphasize the importance of reciprocal interaction between persons and situations.78 This implies abandoning the idea that Swiss-Upper Rhine Reformation research and Calvin research properly belong to “separate spheres” – an assumption which has exerted wide influence to this day. It is certainly ironic that Calvin and Bullinger, as an examination of the personal correspondence between the two Reformers reveals, understood their strongly bonded similarities as well as their differences better than modern historians. On 30 August 1549 Bullinger wrote: “Your immense zeal for learning, Calvin, most cherished 77 See note 8. 78 Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Brief Outline of the Study of Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1850), 183 – 184, § 251: “It is appropriate, in relation to Historical Theology, that epochs…should be delineated in connexion with the lives of certain eminently influential individuals. […] variations in the System of Doctrine…are best rendered intelligible by viewing them in connexion with the lives of their authors.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

81

Conclusion

brother in the Lord, and the diligent labours by which you endeavour daily … to rid the Church of stumbling blocks … are worthy not only of commendation and praise, but also to be upheld and followed by us to the best of our ability.”79 Two years later Calvin expressed his great thankfulness to Bullinger for the gift of the Fifth Decade with the following words: “Behold, this is true brotherly fellowship, when we recognize that the gifts of the spirit are so divided among us, that none of us is sufficient unto himself.”80 In this respect, we can do no more, but at least we should do no less.

79 Bullinger to Calvin, August 30, 1549, in CO 7: 745 – 748:745: “Ingens tuum studium, Calvine, frater in Domino colendissime, et opera sedula, quibus moliris doctrinam de sacramentis in dies illustriorem facere, ac tollere offensiones e media ecclesia, quae obortae videntur ex obscuriore quadam explicatione mysteriorum:adeo nihil molestiae nobis adferunt, ut ea non modo laude ac praedicatione digna, verum etiam pro nostra virilii et adiuvanda esse et imitanda iudicemus.” The text of the letter as well as of the Consensus Tigurinus is now available in a modern English translation by Torrance Kirby, in Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 265 – 267, here 265. The two reformers exchanged numerous letters and, on five occasions, visited each other. For an overview of their personal interaction see the “Chronology,” in Consensus Tigurinus, 381 – 386 and the essay “‘Loved and Feared’: Calvin and the Swiss Confederation,” in John Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, eds. Hirzel and Sallmann, 14 – 34. 80 Calvin to Bullinger, March 12, 1551 (a. d. IV idus martias), CO 15:74 – 75:74, no. 1463: “Atque haec vere fraterna est communicatio, ubi sic inter nos distributa esse spiritus dona agnoscimus, ut nemo unus sibi sufficiat.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

The Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper has been shaped and enhanced by long and heated disputes in which the different views of Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin played a pre-eminent role. The document that can claim to have built a real and lasting bridge between Zwinglians and Calvinists is the Consensus Tigurinus, the agreement concerning sacramental doctrine that Bullinger and Calvin hammered out in May 1549 in the aftermath of prolonged negotiations. The Consensus not only strengthened the relations between the two leading Reformed churches, but also paved the way for the growth of a family of churches distinct from the Lutherans that was later called “Reformed”. The Consensus’s modern name originated in the nineteenth century.1 Contemporaries called it Consensio mutua in re sacramentaria, after the title of its first published imprint in 1551, or simply Einhelligkeit or Accord, as in the titles of the German and French first editions from the same year. Our purpose in this essay is threefold: to review Bullinger’s and Calvin’s convictions concerning the nature of the Eucharist before and during the laborious negotiations; to examine the theological content of the agreement; and to trace the impact of the Consensus Tigurinus on confessional relations in the late sixteenth century.

1 First employed by Georg Benedict Winer, Comparative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der verschiedenen christlichen Kirchenpartheien: nebst vollständigen Belegen aus den symbolischen Schriften derselben in der Ursprache (Leipzig: Reclam, 1824), XVIII. Then it was used by Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, Collectio confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis publicatarum (Leipzig: Klinkhardt, 1840), 191.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

84

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

Origins 1.

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s Views before the Negotiations

Zwingli developed a distinctively new view of the Lord’s Supper when he published his work De vera et falsa religione Commentarius in March 1525. On the one hand, he agreed with Luther and the Lutherans in rejecting the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice beneficial to the living and the dead, the doctrine of transubstantiation, the notion of opus operatum, and communion in one kind. On the other hand, Zwingli and Luther disagreed sharply over the mode of Christ’s presence and over the power and efficacy of the sacrament for salvation. Luther clung to the view that the body and blood of Christ were truly and substantially present in the sacramental bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper and understood the words of institution as a trustworthy testament of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Following Erasmus and the Dutch humanist Cornelis Hoen, Zwingli no longer interpreted the words of institution in a literal sense: This is my body, but instead as a metonymy, a figure of speech: This signifies my body. He drew a very sharp distinction between the sign and what it signifies, and accordingly rejected the notion of the bodily presence of Christ, the old doctrine of transubstantiation as well as the Lutheran teaching of consubstantiation. John 6:63 – “it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing” – became in many ways paradigmatic of his understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In short, for Zwingli from 1524 to the Marburg Colloquy of 1529 the Eucharist was a thanksgiving and commemorative meal (Dank- und Gedächtnismahl), an affirmation of brotherly communion (Gemeinschaftsmahl), a pledge of allegiance to Christ (Pflichtzeichen) for his sacrifice on the cross, and primarily an exercise of faith (contemplatio fidei). Scholars still debate whether this interpretation of the Lord’s Supper represents a stage in Zwingli’s thinking to which new insights were added after the Marburg Colloquy. In his writings from the years 1529 – 1531 Account of the Faith, Exposition of Faith, and especially De convitiis Eckii one can detect cautious attempts to come closer to Bucer and Luther on the questions of the presence of Christ and the efficacy of the sacraments.2 They indicate that 2 See, for example, Zwingli’s letter to Bucer of 3 or 4 September 1530 in which he rejects six descriptions of the real presence but provides four of his own definitions for criteria with which he thought the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper could be adequately addressed, Z 11: 119: “Hinc fit, ut Christum credamus vere esse in coena, quemadmodum dictum est: ‘ibi in medio illorum sum’ [Matt. 18:20]; non in pane, non adsumpto pane, non in se converso pane, non unitum pani, non naturaliter nec corporaliter, sed religiose, nude, pure ac divine menti, sacramentaliter ac mysterialiter”; Fidei ratio, Z 6/2: 806, 6 – 17; Fidei Expositio, Z 6/5: 90,14 – 19; 92,17 – 93,3; De convitiis Eckii, Z 6/3: 278 – 281. See also Walther Köhler, Zwingli und

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

85

Origins

something other than diplomacy stood behind his assertions. At least it would appear that he felt the need to refine his own position, saying more than he had taught up to 1529. Nevertheless, the eucharistic controversy between Luther and Zwingli, with its scholastic subtleties that remain unintelligible for lay people to this day, had far-reaching, if unintended, consequences for the future development of Protestantism. Inasmuch as these differences became the distinguishing marks of two categorically divided and easily defined “types” of the Reformation movement, the cleft grew deeper in the confessional religious settlements that emerged. In this respect, the Consensus Tigurinus represents the last (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt at rapprochement on the eve of Protestant confessionalization.

1.1

Bullinger’s Position on the Lord’s Supper Prior to the Negotiations

Tradition and renewal constitute the two decisive elements of Bullinger’s eucharistic thinking, although this is often mentioned in the same breath with Zwingli’s own theology. Bullinger certainly advocated Zwingli’s line of argument and its inner logic, but his reasoning and its development bear his own signature. It is striking that the new leader of the Zurich Church tenaciously defended a position on the Lord’s Supper in the first half of the 1530s that was similar to that of Zwingli’s later writings.3 Such similarities cannot be overlooked, for instance, in his letter from 22 October 1534 to Ambrosius Blarer,4 in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians,5 and especially in the Eucharistic Confession from December 1534, in which he declares explicitly that Christ’s body and blood are really present in the Lord’s Supper, eaten and drunk by the faithful in the belief that Christ gives himself as life-giving nourishment.6

3 4 5 6

Luther: Ihr Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen, vol. 2: Vom Beginn der Marburger Verhandlungen 1529 bis zum Abschluss der Wittenberger Konkordie von 1536 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann,1953), 217 – 218, who makes note of certain amendments. For an in-depth look, see Reinhold Friedrich, Martin Bucer, “Fanatiker der Einheit”?: Seine Stellungnahme zu theologischen Fragen seiner Zeit (Abendmahls- und Kirchenverständnis) insbesondere nach seinem Briefwechsel der Jahre 1524 – 1541 (Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2002), 69 – 84. See Fritz Blanke, Introduction to Articles 7 and 8 of Fidei ratio, in Z 6/2: 767 – 773; Fritz Büsser, Introduction to De convitiis Eckii, in Z 6/3: 231 – 247; Fritz Blanke, Introduction to Fidei expositio, in Z 6/5: 138. HBBW, no. 463, 369 – 372. HBBibl, no. 53, 31 – 32: ff. 136 – 139. See Köhler, Zwingli und Luther, vol. 2, 349 – 350. Confessio Ministrorum verbi apud Tigurum super Eucharistia sancta ad M. Bucerum (1534), HBBibl, no. 766, 321. Text in HBBW vol. 4, no. 482, 420 – 430, especially 422,8 – 16: “In eucharistiae sacramento, hoc est in gratiarum actionis coena sacrosancta verum corpus Christi, quod pro nobis in cruce fractum est, et verum eius sanguinem, qui in remissionem pecca-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

86

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

Was the tone struck in these writings mere acquiescence in the late view of his mentor, a sort of mandatory defense of Zwingli, or can another nexus be recognized that may have determined this theological choice? In a deeply perceptive study, often not looked at closely enough, Joachim Staedtke has demonstrated that despite their palpable affinity, Bullinger’s basic approach to eucharistic theology differs from Zwingli’s.7 Significant here is the fact that in line with his particular educational background, the young Bullinger saw the sacraments as closely linked with the concept of the covenant in which the constancy and reliability of God’s commitment of grace to humanity is implicit.8 Accordingly, as early as 1524, he went beyond a purely symbolic understanding, aspiring to a strong (and Augustinian) relationship between the sign (signum) and the thing signified (res significata). This emphasis fundamentally characterizes his understanding of the Lord’s Supper in some of his earliest extant writings, such as De sacrificio missae and De institutione eucharistiae. Based on the strong conviction of the unity between the Testaments, Bullinger referred to both the Passover meal and the Last Supper as symbolic acts with revelatory quality that guide the vision of the people toward the covenant of grace with God. Hence they are not bare signs, but have soteriological significance because at creation God promised his grace and has kept his word.9 This feature explains why the article concerning the sacraments in the First Helvetic Confession of 1536, which was significantly shaped by Bullinger, could easily relate to Zwingli’s later statements and aimed for more than a “bare commemoration.”10 Thus, the article dealing with the Eucharistia contained the

7 8

9 10

torum nostrorum effusus est, vere adesse, dari, distribuique fidelibus, qui verum corpus Christi verumque eius sanguinem fide edunt atque bibunt. Sacramenta enim, quae dominus instituit, divinae erga nos gratiae symbola, signa testimoniaque sunt, quae divinas promissiones et gratuita in nos dei benefitia non solum significant, sed suo quodam modo sensibus subiiciunt ac repraesentant. Haec summa est sententiae nostrae.” See Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962), 234 – 254; 249 – 251; Martin Friedrich, “Heinrich Bullinger und die Wittenberger Konkordie,” Zwingliana 24 (1997): 62 – 63. Noteworthy is what Bullinger recorded in his Diarium about a discussion he had with Zwingli on 12 September 1524 in which he defended his own view of the Lord’s Supper against the first Zurich Reformer with ideas that he had “taken from the writings of the Waldensian Brothers and Augustine’s books.” See HBD, 9, 11 – 14, “12. Septembris primo aperuit mihi menten suam Zuinglius, quid sentiret de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini. Nam bona fide illi exponebam sententiam meam, quam hauseram ex scripto quodam fratrum Vualdens[ium] et Augustini libris.” See Hans Georg vom Berg, “Spätmittelalterliche Einflüsse auf die Abendmahlslehre des jungen Bullinger,” Kerygma und Dogma 22 (1976): 221 – 233. See “De sacrifitio missae” (1524), in HBTS 2, 39 – 40; “De institutione eucharistiae” (1525), in HBTS 2, 89 – 100. Text in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, ed. Heiner Faulenbach et al., vol. 1/2 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 33 – 68, here 64,78: the sacrament “non nudis signis, sed signis simul et rebus constant”; it is further explained, ibid., 64,13 – 14, that the sacrament

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

87

Origins

notion of coena mystica and affirmed that in the outward signs Christ himself offers to the believers his body and blood through the ministry of the church.11 Bullinger reiterated this position in his 1538 De scripturae sanctae authoritate,12 which he dedicated to King Henry VIII, in the foundational treatise De origine erroris in negocio eucharistiae ac missae of 1539,13 and in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that was published in 1542,14 as well as in a series of letters from the years 1541 and 1544.15 Nowhere is this view clearer in Bullinger’s works before the Consensus Tigurinus than in his 1545 Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis der Diener der Kirchen zu Zürich (Orthodox Confession of the Ministers of the Zurich Church),16 a moderate rebuttal of Luther’s scurrilous pamphlet of 1544 against the so-called sacramentarians – Zwingli’s followers – who were denounced as heretics.17 In all good conscience the Antistes disclaimed the accu-

11

12 13 14 15

16

17

“non solum tesseras quasdam societatis christianae, sed et gratiae divinae symbola esse”; ibid., 65,23 – 66,3: “Sunt enim haec res sanctae venerandaeque, utpote, a summo sacerdote Christo institutae et suscoeptae, suo quo diximus modo res significatas exhibentes, testimonium rei gestae praebentes, res tam arduas representantes, et mirabili quadam rerum significatarum analogia clarissimam mysteriis istis lucem afferentes.” Paul Sanders, also points out that Bullinger’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper “s’inscrit dans la continuit¦ d’une doctrine zwinglienne en voie de d¦finition”; Sanders, “Heinrich Bullinger et le ‘zwinglianisme tardif,’” in Reformiertes Erbe: Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher, ed. Heiko A. Oberman et al., 2 vols. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992), 1: 307 – 323, here 313. Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 1/2, 65, 7 – 8, “Coenam vero mysticam, in qua dominus corpus et sanguinem suum, id est seipsum vere ad hoc offerat, ut magis magisque in illis vivat et illi in ipso”; 11 – 14, “quod panis et vinum ex institutione domini symbola sint, quibus ab ipso domino per ecclesiae ministerium vera corporis et sanguinis eius communicatio, non in periturum ventris cibum, sed in aeternae vitae alimoniam exhibeatur.” HBBibl 1, no. 111, 57 – 58, Book 2, Chapter 6. Text in HBTS vol. 4, 134,31 – 140,3. HBBibl 1, no. 12, 89. The treatise was first published in March 1528 and was then modified for the 1539 printing. HBBibl 1, no. 144, 71: ff. 232v–237v (Interpretation of the words of institution from Matt. 26:26 – 29). Bullinger to Nikolaus Müller, July 22, 1541, in HBBW vol. 11, 245 – 262; Bullinger to Simon Grynäus, July 26, 1541, ibid., 265 – 288; Bullinger to Oswald Myconius, February 12, 1544, in HBBW 14, 93 – 96; Bullinger to Joachim Vadian, May 1544, ibid., 222; Bullinger to Oswald Myconius, June 2, 1544, ibid., 253 – 255; Bullinger to Philipp Melanchthon, June 22, 1544, ibid., 276 – 277; Bullinger to Joseph Macarius, June 20, 1544, ibid., 272 – 275; Bullinger to Philipp Melanchthon, December 3, 1544, ibid., 566; Bullinger to Joseph Macarius, December 4, 1544, ibid., 566 – 567. HBBibl 1, no. 161, 79 – 80. Partial print in Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, ed. E. F. Karl Müller (Leipzig: Deichert, 1903; reprint Waltrop, 1999), 153 – 159. See also Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 1/2, 449 – 465. See Carl Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1858), 229 – 237; Andr¦ Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, r¦formateur et conseiller œcum¦nique, le successeur de Zwingli (Neuch–tel: Delachaux and Niestl¦, 1940), 116; Ernst Bizer, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1940), 234 – 243. In the same year, Rudolph Gwalther published a Latin translation, Orthodoxa Tigurinae Ecclesiae Ministrorum Confessio, HBBibl 1, no. 167, 82. Martin Luther, Kurzes Bekenntnis vom heiligen Sakrament, WA 54, 119 – 167.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

88

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

sation of heresy and defended Zwingli and his doctrine by emphasizing the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. He even expressly admitted that believers truly eat and drink Christ’s body and blood during the meal, albeit with the limitation that the presence of Christ is “spiritually” conceived and in no way limited to the Lord’s Supper because Christ is not received through the mouth, but “with the believing soul.”18 Faith “feeds and preserves the faithful unto eternal life.”19 Shortly thereafter, at the end of 1545, Bullinger composed yet another work on the Lord’s Supper, the Absoluta de Christi Domini et Catholicae eius Ecclesiae Sacramentis tractatio (= De Sacramentis),20 which was formally distinct from the Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis. It was not a polemical treatise, but rather a private aide-memoire written in Latin and summarizing his personal thoughts – similar to what he would do later in his Confessio Helvetica Posterior. The unpublished manuscript was first shared with friends and colleagues, among others Jan Łaski and John Calvin, and then printed in 1551 in London.21 Bullinger sought to discern clearly the relation between signum and res significata. The signs, he held, do not bring the thing signified – that is, salvation – with them. However, they are a true promise in that throughout the New Testament a peculiar form of expression is employed – the name of the thing signified being uniformly given to the sign. Concerning the efficacy of the sacrament, Bullinger argued that they neither “contain” nor “confer” the grace that they promise, but they do affect the senses (heart, soul, spirit) of the recipients and strengthen their faith as nothing else can. They represent outwardly what the Holy Spirit communicates inwardly. Yet this action is by no means restricted to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This, at least the formulation, struck a new tone in Swiss theology and was relatively conciliatory to the Lutherans. The Absoluta was, as will be seen later, the text that opened a vigorous debate between Bullinger and Calvin. Before examining this development, it is important to note that the formulations used therein are neither purely Zwinglian, nor identical with those of the Consensus 18 Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, 154, 21 – 28: “So werde in dem Nachtmal der glöubigen der waar lyb unnd bluot Christi im Nachtmal von glöubigen warlich geessen unnd truncken, aber doch nit so rouw und fleischlich, wie es bißhar die Päpstler geleert habend (namlich daß man jn ässe substantzlich, das ist lyblich und fleischlich, also daß das brot in das waar natürlich fleisch Christi verwandlet, unnd der wyn in das blut Christi keert werde, oder daß der lyb im brot sye) sonder geistlich, das ist geistlicher wyß, unnd mit dem glöubigen gemüt.” 19 Ibid., 156, 40 – 41: “Sölicher gloub in den crützgeten sun Gottes und Marie, spysst uund erhalt die glöubigen zuo dem ewigen läben.” 20 HBBibl 1, no. 183, 91, and HBD 33, 26 – 30. 21 The superintendent of the London refugee church, Jan Łaski, had the Absoluta printed and dedicated it to Queen Elisabeth. Later, Bullinger integrated the slightly changed text into his Decades 5,67, see HBTS 3/2, 874 – 966.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

89

Origins

Tigurinus. Rather they reveal a eucharistic thinking still in the process of being defined that sought to bring understanding where previously there had only been bitter disagreement.

1.2

Calvin’s Eucharistic Position before the Negotiations

Recent scholarship has demonstrated that Calvin’s eucharistic thought cannot be approached as a finished and coherent theological product, for it developed gradually and exhibited at different times Zwinglian (1536 – 1537), Lutheran and Bucerian (1537 – 1548), spiritualistic (1549 – 1560), and again Lutheran (1561 – 1562) impulses and leanings.22 Impressive points of contact with Zwingli and his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper are to be found in the 1536 edition of the Institutes and in the Catechism of 1537. In both works, Calvin emphasized, as had Zwingli, the confinement of Christ’s human body in heaven after the ascension and described the sacrament as “an outward sign by which the Lord represents and attests to us his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith.” He continued, “it is a testimony of God’s grace, declared to us by an outward sign.”23 Yet Calvin struck a different note by tying this concern to a strong emphasis on the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. God’s promise is connected to the sacrament in such a way that it is never without efficacy. Calvin says, “And, indeed, we must carefully observe that the entire force of the Sacrament lies in these words: ‘which is given for you’, ‘which is shed for you.’”24 Thus, Luther’s core belief about what is received in the sacrament was embraced – namely, that 22 Wim Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology : Three Dogma-Historical Observations,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 37 – 69, esp. 39: “Calvin’s Eucharistic views were not from the beginning a detailed, coherent, and unified doctrine, finding its representative expression in the Agreement of Zurich (1549) or the 1559 Institutes, but show a historical development”; Janse, “The Sacraments,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 344 – 55, esp. 345. 23 Catechism or Institution of the Christian Religion of the Church of Geneva (French version 1537 translated into Latin in 1538), in I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, transl. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 34. The definition is largely drawn from the 1536 Institutes, see CO 1: 102: “Est autem signum externum, quo bonam suam erga nos voluntatem Dominus nobis repraesentat ac testificatur, ad sustinendam fidei nostrae imbecillitatem. Definiri quoque aliter potest, ut vocetur : testimonium gratiae Dei, externo symbolo nobis declaratum.” 24 Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), transl. Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1986), 103. See CO 1:119: “Ac diligenter quidem observandum est, totam sacramenti energiam in his verbis sitam esse: quod pro vobis traditur, qui pro vobis effunditur.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

90

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

in the words of institution Christians receive the promise of forgiveness and new life. When Bucer, Luther, Melanchthon, and others negotiated the Wittenberg Concord between March and May 1536 – the words “truly and substantially” were used in the document to describe the real presence of Christ’s body and blood accompanying the sacramental elements – Calvin supported it and was hopeful that unity between Zurich, Strasbourg and Wittenberg could be restored. Moreover, Calvin did sign in 1540 the so-called Variant Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana variata), which had softened the language about the real presence to say that the body and blood of Christ were truly offered “with” the bread and wine. A different vision of the real presence was not long in coming. The Short Treatise on the Holy Supper (1541), the Institutes from 1543, and the Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1546) signal a decided shift away from the Zwinglian accents found in Calvin’s earlier writings and Luther’s influence on him becomes clear. Written first in French in order to explain to ordinary people the basic meaning of the sacrament, the Short Treatise on the Holy Supper was then translated in 1545 into Latin, which reveals the author’s intention to intervene in the strife over the Eucharist between the Wittenberger and the Swiss. Indeed, Calvin voiced his concern that the contentious disputes between the parties threatened the survival of the Reformation movement. With great independence he sought to reconcile Luther’s and Zwingli’s positive emphases by adopting another approach to the vexing question of the mode of Christ’s eucharistic presence. This appears, for instance, in Calvin’s distinctively new usage of the notion of substance in relation to Christ.25 Unlike Zwingli, he refused to relinquish the term, but his use differed from that of Luther. In short, Calvin equated the substance of the Eucharist with Christ himself.26 Not an abstract substance enclosed under corruptible elements, but his whole person – the crucified and glorified body – and all the works he accomplished in the flesh are 25 Short Treatise, in Calvin: Theological Treatises, transl. J. K. S. Reid (Philadelphia: Westminster Press; London: SCM Press, 1954), 146 – 148, CO 5: 437 – 440. See David Willis, “Calvin’s Use of Substantia,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis custos: die Referate des CongrÀs International des Recherches Calviniennes … vom 6. bis 9. September 1982 in Genf, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang, 1984), 289 – 302, here 300; Eberhard Busch, Gotteserkenntnis und Menschlichkeit: Einsichten in die Theologie Johannes Calvins (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005), 111 – 138, here 126; Anthony Lane, “Was Calvin a Crypto-Zwinglian?” in Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe. Essays in Honour of Brian G. Armstrong, ed. Mack P. Holt (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 21 – 41; Richard Muller, “Calvin on Sacramental Presence, in the Shadow of Marburg and Zurich,” Lutheran Quarterly 23 (2009): 147 – 167; Muller, “From Zurich or Wittenberg? An Examination of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 243 – 255. 26 Originally a Melanchthon/Bucer concept and expression that Calvin adopted. See Ian Hazlett, “Les entretiens entre Melanchthon et Bucer en 1534,” in Horizons europ¦ens de la R¦forme en Alsace, ed. M. de Kroon and M. Lienhard (Strasbourg: Istra, 1980), 215.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

91

Origins

offered to believers through the sacramental signs. While Christ dwells bodily in heaven, the Holy Spirit makes possible a true participation in his flesh and blood.27 Therefore, Calvin could close his treatise on the eucharist with the words: “in receiving the sacrament in faith, according to the ordinance of the Lord, we are truly made partakers of the real substance of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ.”28 Calvin continued to develop this line of thought in his 1543 edition of the Institutes and in the Commentary on 1 Corinthians. A fairly characteristic example can be seen in his exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:24. After a firm refusal to be drawn into scholastic discussions on how Christ’s presence is related to the signs and symbol, he affirmed that “Christ’s body is really (as the common expression is), that is, truly given to us in the Supper.” However, it is not so much the flesh as the whole person and work of Christ (i. e., the substantia corporis) that is the “wholesome food for our souls.”29 Thus, the gift character of the Supper and the objectivity of Christ’s presence in the sacrament were clearly addressed. Here Calvin demonstrates a greater affinity with Luther than with Zwingli. At the same time, however, he agreed with Zwingli’s teaching that Christ does not descend from heaven, and his body does not lie invisibly in or under the elements. In a thinly veiled criticism of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views of the real presence, he declared that the Spirit makes possible the true participation in Christ’s flesh and blood, not by drawing the body of Christ down into the elements but rather because the Holy Spirit raises the believers into the presence of Christ.30 They are elevated by the Spirit, hence the heavenly location of Christ does not change, and he communicates to them from heaven the virtue

27 Short Treatise, 145 – 146, CO 5: 437 – 438. 28 Short Treatise, 166, CO 5: 460. 29 Institutes (1543) 18,19, CO 1: 1003 – 1004; see also footnote in OS 5: 352 – 354; Comm. 1 Cor. 11:24, CO 49:487: “Concludo, realiter (ut vulgo loquuntur), hoc est, vere nobis in coena dari Christi corpus, ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem. Loquor vulgari more: sed intelligo, substantia corporis pasci animas nostras, ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo: vel, quod idem valet, vim ex Christi carne vivificam in nos per spiritum diffundi, quamvis longe a nobis distet, nec misceatur nobiscum.” See also, Thomas J. Davis, This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 141 – 148. 30 Comm. 1 Cor. 11:24, CO 49:488: “atqui haec communicatio corporis Domini, quam nobis in coena exhiberi dico, nec localem praesentiam, nec Christi descensum, nec infinitam extensionem, nec aliud quidquam tale flagitat: nam quum coena coelestis sit actio, minime absurdum est, Christum in coelo manentem a nobis recipi. Quod enim se nobis communicat, id fit arcana spiritus sancti virtute, quae res locorum distantia seiunctas ac procul dissitas non modo aggregare, sed coadunare in unum potest. Verum ut capaces huius communicationis simus, assurgere in coelum nos oportet.” See also Calvin, Institutes (1543) 18,30, CO 1: 1010: “In sacra sua coena iubet me sub symbolis panis ac vini, corpus ac sanguinem suum sumere, manducare ac bibere. Nihil dubito, quin et ipse vere porrigat, et ego recipiam.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

92

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

of his flesh, as though it were present.31 Finally, yielding significant ground to Zwingli, Calvin approved of the view that the sacrament is an act of praise and thanksgiving, and he laid particular emphasis upon the theme of gratitude for the undeserved gift of communion with Christ.32 The quotations above provide us with some sense of Calvin’s state of mind and concern for the unresolved debate on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. One might be tempted to think that his own view prior to the negotiations with Bullinger is much less clear than in later writings. For our purposes, however, it is far more important to note that intervening in the dispute between the two hardened fronts, Calvin did not side with one or the other, but from approximately 1541 onwards he appears to have come to believe that the spiritual mode of participation in Christ’s real body was adequate to satisfy the Lutheran demand for a real presence of Christ in the Supper as well as the Zwinglian emphasis on symbolic understanding.

1.3

The Ecclesiastical and Political Background to the Consensus Tigurinus

Bullinger’s and Calvin’s reflections on the Lord’s Supper in the years between 1541 and 1549 were certainly derived from theological insights, but they were also influenced to a large extent by the ecclesiastical and political context. Two closely related issues shaped the ideas of the Zurich and Genevan reformers during the turbulent decade of the 1540s: conflicts in the Bernese territories over matters of church polity and eucharistic doctrine, and the political situation in the Empire and France.33 When, in September 1541, Calvin returned to Geneva, he introduced in due course, with the celebrated Ecclesiastical Ordinances and the Catechism, a model of church polity characterized by relative autonomy from the civil authority. A long-running clash occurred between Calvin and the 31 Comm. 1 Cor. 11:24, CO 49: 490: “Denique [Christus] locum non mutat, ut nobis adsit, sed e coelo praesentem in nos carnis suae virtutem transmittit.” See Paul Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1989), 9 – 11. 32 Short Treatise, 148 – 149, CO 5: 440 – 441. Brian A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 19 – 20. Even though gratitude is indeed emphasized, most scholars would disagree with Gerrish’s claim that gratitude is “not only the theme of the Lord’s Supper” but “perhaps the most fundamental theme” of Calvin’s theology. 33 See Ulrich Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus im Jahre 1549,” in Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979): 321 – 332; Michael W. Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528 – 1559 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005), 182 – 194; Emidio Campi and Christian Moser, “‘Loved and Feared’: Calvin and the Swiss Confederation,” in John Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, eds. Martin Ernst Hirzel and Martin Sallmann (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 14 – 34; Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 150 – 156, 170 – 180.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

93

Origins

Genevan magistrates. The conflict also strained relations with Bern because Calvin had great theological influence among the pastors of the neighboring Pays de Vaud, the French-speaking territory under the authority of Bern since 1536. Here the magistrates were overwhelmingly committed to the Reformation along Zwinglian lines and, therefore, sought to retain complete control over the church. Far from taking the approach favoured by Calvin, they expected the implementation of their church polity, including the obligations of the pastors towards the civil government and the state’s oversight of church discipline, especially with regard to the sanction of excommunication. The latent theological discord emerged in 1547 when an acrimonious dispute over the Lord’s Supper broke out in the Pays de Vaud between the pro-Calvin group, led by Pierre Viret, and the Zwinglian group, led by Andr¦ Z¦b¦d¦e, who feared that Calvin’s tendencies were too strongly Lutheran. The strife not only polarized the Bernese ministers but also had the potential to destroy the entire Reformed endeavor in the Confederation because it degenerated in a short time from a local debate over the sacraments into a fundamentally divisive fight over Zwingli’s true legacy fomented by a minority of pro-Calvin French expatriates. The controversy took place precisely at the moment when, just across the border, Charles V was crushing the German Protestants. The Bernese city council called for a synod to be held in Bern in March 1549 to resolve the issue. Calvin, who had fallen into disrepute in the eyes of the authorities, was not allowed to appear. Therefore, he sent to the synod twenty articles, which came to be known as the Confessio Gebennensis, in which he stated his view of the sacraments more distinctly.34 As we shall see, they would later form the foundation for the Consensus Tigurinus, but they were never discussed in Bern. The course of events made Calvin painfully aware of the great resentment that persisted against his theology in Bern. This may well have convinced him of the necessity of settling the conflict by reaching a pan-Helvetic agreement on the Lord’s Supper. In order to achieve that goal, however, he needed theological accord with and the active involvement of Zwingli’s successor, namely Heinrich Bullinger, who had the respect of all parties and could exert a favorable influence. At the same time, the political situation in the Holy Roman Empire also pushed the two reformers together. After the failure of the religious colloquies in Hagenau, Worms, and Regensburg (1540/1541), and the Protestant refusal to attend the long-awaited Council at Trent, and when persuasion and threats failed to heal the schism, Charles V resorted to the use of force against his heretical subjects. The war (1546 – 1547) ended with Charles V’s stunning victory over the 34 CO 12: 216 – 218. For the new critical edition see Consensus Tigurinus. Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, ed. Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), 118 – 124, CO 12: 216 – 218.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

94

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

Lutheran princes of the Schmalkaldic League at Mühlberg on 24 April 1547, the imprisonment of John Frederick I, elector of Saxony, and the surrender of Landgrave Philipp of Hesse, the two leaders of the alliance. At the 1548 imperial diet in Augsburg, Charles, at the height of his power, imposed a provisional religious settlement on the Empire. The so-called Augsburg Interim was in effect a complete restoration of Catholicism, conceding to Protestants only the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in both kinds and the marriage of priests. Clearly, the enactment of the Interim in the Empire posed a threat to the security of Geneva and the Reformed cantons of the Confederation. Church leaders and magistrates were acutely aware of the precariousness of the situation. It was dramatically clear to them that theological concord was all the more necessary and even a prerequisite for the survival of both the Reformation movement and the state. Calvin’s and Bullinger’s letters capture with vividness the atmosphere and reflect this concern.35 Bullinger wrote to Calvin in July 1548 describing the shocking events of Charles’ campaign in Germany : “Church life is being extinguished by the impious imperial Interim … May God restrain the bloody beast and have mercy on his afflicted church.”36 While Charles V was enjoying his victory, another situation of international political significance opened up the possibility of a rapprochement between Geneva and the Swiss churches, namely the renewal of the French-Swiss alliance in the year 1548. King Henri II of France sought military support from the Confederation, but negotiations dragged on. The Catholic cantons and the Reformed cities of Basel and Schaffhausen were prepared to join the alliance with France, while Bern and especially Zurich categorically rejected it, in keeping with a policy that went back to Zwingli’s opposition to mercenary service and any Swiss subservience to foreign powers. In the negotiations around the French-Swiss alliance, threats to the continued independent existence of the Genevan republic came from France and Savoy. For this reason the city council was in favour of the alliance and even more so Calvin, who regarded it as a means of winning concessions for Protestants in France, who had come under considerable persecution since King Henri II’s accession.37 Calvin sought to cam-

35 See Alasdair I. C. Heron, “Calvin and Bullinger 1536 – 1549,” in Profile des reformierten Protestantismus aus vier Jahrhunderten, ed. Matthias Freudenberg (Wuppertal: Foedus, 1999), 49 – 69. 36 Bullinger to Calvin, July 14, 1548, CO 13: 6 – 7, No. 1046: “Quid autem dicam tibi de ecclesiis germanicis? … Interierint pleraeque interemptae per Interim impium Caesaris ... Oremus quoque Dominum ut erigat lapsos et fraenum ponat in rictum illius cruentae bestiae, ne quo libet progrediatur … Dominus misereatur ecclesiae suae afflictissimae.” 37 See Thomas Maissen, “Die Eidgenossen und das Augsburger Interim. Zu einem unbekannten Gutachten Heinrich Bullingers,” in Das Interim 1548/50. Herrschaftskrise und Glaubenskonflikt, ed. Luise Schorn-Schütte (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005), 76 – 104. The

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

95

Origins

paign personally in Zurich for this political master plan and visited Bullinger twice to that end, in February 1547 and again in May 1548, but the Zuricher, despite genuine empathy for the fate of the persecuted Huguenots, viewed the matter from a different perspective. However, in October 1548, when the imperial forces captured the city of Constance, an ally of Zurich, and restored the old faith, the Antistes realized how ominous the threat was and how urgent the need to draw together the French-speaking Reformed churches of Geneva, Neuch–tel and the Pays de Vaud, and the German-speaking Reformed churches of the Confederation. The turning point was marked by Calvin’s response to the Interim in the spring of 1549 with the treatise Interim adultero–germanum, where he sided with the Swiss in a brief exposition of the doctrine of the sacraments.38 In conclusion, the negotiations leading to the adoption of the Consensus Tigurinus were visibly interwoven with ecclesiastical and political events. Yet this is not to say that under the pressure of a crisis of staggering proportions, Bullinger and Calvin reached agreement by sacrificing their own theological insights. Obviously, external circumstances helped concentrate their minds, with even Strasbourg, fearing the fate of Constance, which was wrecked, forced to accept the Interim. This alone, however, does not adequately explain why Bullinger and Calvin entered into a serious dialogue (to which we will return) and indeed reached an agreement. What can be argued is that as with all groundbreaking documents, the Consensus was firmly planted in a specific historical situation and has to be set in the context where it was penned if we are to understand or make sense of it.

2.

Realizing the Consensus

One of the fascinating aspects of the Consensus Tigurinus concerns the theological and diplomatic tightrope walked before the approval of the definitive text in the summer of 1549. The agreement was the result of a long and primarily private theological dialogue between Calvin and Bullinger carried out during three personal encounters and especially in a copious correspondence that stretched over the years from 1547 to 1549.39 The extremely thorough discussion took place in two phases: the first followed Calvin’s visit to Zurich in February 1547, and the second followed his sojourn in Zurich in May 1548. The decisive text has been published in the meantime in Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, vol. 6, eds. Emidio Campi et al. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 2006), 247 – 261. 38 CO 7: 545 – 64. See Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 52 – 56. 39 See the overview of this correspondence between Bullinger and Calvin in Consensus Tigurinus, ed. Campi and Reich, 381 – 386.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

96

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

breakthrough occurred when they met at the end of May 1549. The manuscript text was then circulated among the Swiss churches, but it was not printed until 1551. The following will sketch the chronological sequence of the negotiations.

2.1

The First Phase: Bullinger’s Absoluta and Calvin’s Critique

As mentioned above, Bullinger wrote a memorandum in 1545 summarizing his personal understanding of the Lord’s Supper, Absoluta de Christi Domini et Catholicae Ecclesiae Sacramentis tractatio – also known as De sacramentis – which was sent to several friends and colleagues. The Antistes most likely presented Calvin with a copy of the manuscript when he passed through Zurich on his journey through the Swiss cities in February 154740 and invited him to comment on it. Within a few days, Calvin wrote a detailed response.41 The Genevan reformer chided Bullinger for defining of the word “sacrament” as “oath of allegiance” and “sign of obligation” while still wanting the Lord’s Supper to retain its mystical character. Calvin agreed with Bullinger that the elements are symbols; however, he delimited himself in the following way : “You deny that (with the bread) the real body of Christ is received. I, on the contrary, think precisely thus.” He rejected Bullinger’s idea that the form of speech for initiating the Lord’s Supper is figurative and resisted that position with the reply, “An empty symbol cannot go forth from God. Thus, the bread represents not only that the body of Christ was offered once and for all, but that to this day he still wills to offer me the food by which I live. We must understand these words truly religiously : Take and eat! Indeed this is why Paul also speaks of communion with Christ.”42 Emanating from God and therefore not empty signs, they are 40 In this sense, Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, 376, and Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus,” 325; against this, Sanders, Heinrich Bullinger et le “zwinglianisme tardif,” 316; Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 133, and Otto Erich Strasser, “Der Consensus Tigurinus,” Zwingliana 9 (1949): 1 – 16, here 7, do not exclude the option that Calvin received the work in Geneva after his visit to Zurich. 41 Calvin to Bullinger, February 25, 1547, CO 12:480 – 489, no. 880, here 480: “Silentium quod a me stipulatus es bona fide praestabo usque ad extremum” (I will faithfully hold to the silence that you require from me concerning this); ibid., 488, “Memini enim quas mihi partes iniunxeris, ut tibi notarem quae minus placerent” (While I am reminded of the task that you gave to me to tell you what I do not completely like). According to Strasser, “Der Consensus Tigurinus,” 7, William Farel may have become involved in drafting the text. 42 CO 12: 481: “non placet quod verbum sacramenti facis militare”; ibid., 484: “Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis traditur. Panem esse signum contendis. Idem sentimus. Exhibitionem negas. Ego contra assero … Signum enim a Deo vacuum non proficiscitur. Neque vero tantum panis figurat Christi corpus fuisse semel pro me immolatum, sed mihi hodie in cibum dari quo vescar. Religiose enim expendi debent haec verba: Accipite, edite. Unde etiam Paulus vocat xoivym_am.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

97

Origins

efficacious and not merely representative. According to Calvin, it was incongruous to speak of the sacraments without recognizing them as a medium for communicating Christ and all his benefits by the power of the Holy Spirit. Bullinger did not react to Calvin’s letter for half a year;43 he appeared to have been disgruntled by Calvin’s objections.44 Calvin determined to take up contact once again;45 however, he received a “less friendly and satisfactory reply” near the end of the year.46 Despite all this, Calvin, who openly admitted teaching that the body and the blood of Christ were “really” and “truly” given in the Supper, continued the correspondence in the new year, arguing that their differences were mainly a matter of expression.47 In the meantime, the strife over the Lord’s Supper escalated in the Pays de Vaud to such an extent that Viret feared losing his position in Lausanne.48 In order to secure Bullinger’s mediating advocacy, Calvin and Farel rushed to Zurich in the middle of May 1548. The Zuricher carefully excluded the theme of the Lord’s Supper from the meeting, which was overshadowed by the news of the Augsburg Interim, promulgated at the so-called “Armoured Diet” of 1548. In any case, the colloquy did not lend any progress to the discussion.49 In addition, Bullinger made it clear in a letter that he sent shortly before the gathering that he was not prepared to back down from his position. He appeared not to place any hope in any further discussions because after years of Luther’s polemics against Zurich and of Bucer’s fluctuations and ambiguity, the Antistes doubted Calvin’s honesty and independence.50 The result of the first round of discussion – if one can speak in such terms – 43 See Calvin to Bullinger, September 19, 1547, CO 12:590 – 591, no. 946: “Iam praeteriit sextus mensis ex quo librum tuum tibi remisi cum meis annotationibus quales a me postulaveras. Ab eo tempore nihil abs te responsi allatum esse miror” (“Now the sixth month has passed since I returned your book with my commentary, as you wished me to do. I am surprised that I have not received a letter from you since then”). 44 Calvin had these concerns before, as he expressed them in his letter from February 25, 1547, he hoped that Bullinger would accept his “critical labor of love … in a good way,” CO 12: 488 – 489, no. 880. See Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 26 – 27, and Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus,” 326. 45 Calvin to Bullinger, September 19, 1547, CO 12:590 – 591, no. 946. 46 The letter seems to be missing. See Strasser, “Der Consensus Tigurinus,” 7, note 15; Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 136; Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 27, who refers to Calvin’s letter to Viret from January 23, 1548, CO 12: 654, no. 990. 47 Calvin to Bullinger, March 1, 1548, CO 12:666 – 667, no. 999. 48 See Campi and Moser, “Loved and Feared,” 19. 49 See Calvin’s opinion in his Propositiones, in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, 82: “… utinam, mi Bullingere, cum istic nuper essemus, tibi collegisque grave non fuisset nobiscum de tota illa causa verbis placide conferre, fuisset certe aliquid profectum” (indeed, my dear Bullinger, when we were recently in Zurich, if it would not have been difficult for you and your colleagues to peaceably deal with this entire issue, certainly progress would have been made). 50 Bullinger to Calvin, May 26, 1548, CO 12:706 – 707, no. 1025.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

98

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

proved to be rather disappointing and led to the stagnation of theological dialogue over the Lord’s Supper.

2.2

The Second Phase

2.2.1 Calvin’s Propositiones and Bullinger’s Annotationes This first failure, however, neither strained relations nor entirely precluded the exchange of letters between the two reformers. As was mentioned earlier, the threat posed by Charles V and the dire situation faced by Lutheranism appeared to require the alignment of Geneva and Zurich, and indeed the crisis provided an opportunity to strengthen the bond between the two Reformation centers. In June 1548, Calvin reopened the dialogue, sending to Bullinger a brief exposition of his thinking on the Lord’s Supper. The text, which Bullinger later entitled Propositiones de Sacramentis, inaugurated the second phase of written negotiations.51 Calvin vigorously defended Bucer, although rejecting his ambiguities, and he bluntly dismissed not only the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation but also the Lutheran arguments for consubstantiation.52 Above all, he brought a new idea to the discussion: limiting the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper to the elect. The idea of the elect was amenable to Bullinger in that it “met the structural demands of Zurichers that faith is the prerequisite for effectively receiving the Lord’s Supper,” that is, the benefits of it.53 Furthermore, Calvin put less emphasis on the objective aspect in favor of the subjective disposition of the recipient. However, he retained the exhibitive character : the ascended Christ is really present in the sacramental action and offers his flesh and blood as salvific nourishment for the chosen believers. Finally, the efficacy of the sacrament was described in instrumental language: the sacramental signs are instruments to dispense God’s grace owing to the power of the Holy Spirit. The Antistes arranged Calvin’s explanation into 24 articles and furnished each article with his own comments, Annotationes, which he sent in November to Johannes Haller in Bern to send on to Geneva; either mistakenly or intentionally, these were retained in Lausanne.54 Bullinger’s reply reached Calvin at

51 Calvin to Bullinger, June 26, 1548, CO 12:726 – 731, no. 1039. Henceforth references will be made to the new critical edition: John Calvin, Propositiones, in Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 82 – 87. 52 Calvin, Propositiones, 83. 53 Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus,” 326. 54 See Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 138; Strasser, “Der Consensus Tigurinus,” 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

99

Origins

the beginning of December 1548 after an extended delay.55 Bullinger challenged the definition of the sacrament as an instrument of God’s grace and used instead the notion of the seal in his Annotationes. Nevertheless, he did compromise with Calvin on two points. First, he accepted that the eucharistic signs are not empty but commemorate the salvific event of Christ. Secondly, he admitted that Christ himself is communicated through the Spirit, but he insisted that the Spirit alone acts, while the sacrament represents and seals this gift.56 Thus this exchange reveals significant differences, yet also that each reformer was able to come closer to the other’s view, in substance if not in emphasis. 2.2.2 Calvin’s Responsio and Bullinger’s Annotata At the end of January 1549, Calvin replied to his colleague in Zurich with a brief and succinct letter in which he resisted the attempts to enlist him as a “Luther adulator” or an active Bucerian.57 However, what immediately catches the eye is that attached to the letter there was a substantive Responsio to Bullinger’s Annotationes from November (or rather December) 1548 in which Calvin sought not controversy but a mutually acceptable formulation after the somewhat staccato negotiations.58 Thus, while he preferred to call the sacrament instrumentum, he seemingly conceded the use of the term organum, a form more palatable to Bullinger, although he rejected Bullinger’s view that God’s grace is independent of any media, apart from anything material. Moreover, he almost abdicated the idea that the sacrament embraced at the same time the figurative representation and the actual offering of Christ’s body and explained that simul was used in the sense of similiter. Finally, he appropriated Bullinger’s emphasis on the faith of the recipient to eat the body of Christ sacramentally, allowing that because of faith there is a certain conjunction of the grace of God and the sacraments.59 55 Bullinger had to write to Geneva again on December 6, 1548, CO 13:115 – 118, no. 1104. The letter reached Calvin three days after he received the Annotationes. See Calvin’s letter attached to the Responsio, in Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 98 – 100. 56 For the text of the Annotationes, see the new critical edition in ibid., 88 – 97 (= CO 7:693 – 700). See W. Peter Stephens, “The Sacraments in the Confessions of 1536, 1549, and 1566 – Bullinger’s Understanding in the Light of Zwingli’s,” Zwingliana 33 (2006): 51 – 76, esp. 64 – 65. 57 Calvin to Bullinger, January 21, 1549, in Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 98 – 100 (= CO 13: 164 – 166, no. 1129): “Si qui Luthero vel aliis blanditi sunt, non sum ex eorum numero. […] quemadmodum sic cum Bucero amicitiam colo, ut libere interdum ab illo dissentiam.” 58 For the text of Calvin’s Responsio see the new critical edition, in ibid., 101 – 109 (= CO 7: 701 – 708). 59 Ibid., 104 (= CO 7: 703 – 704): “Quod obiicis, non esse donorum Dei capax signum visibile, cum res sit inanima, id ego tecum fateor. Nec vero adeo crassus sum, spiritum Dei vel in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

100

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

This combination of theological sharpness and flexibility proved its value over the following months. When Bullinger received Calvin’s Responsio, he went through it with a fine-tooth comb and replied in mid-March 1549 with the socalled Annotata, where he struck a quite different tone.60 He asked for forgiveness for his clumsiness, declared himself in complete agreement with Calvin’s text and thanked him enthusiastically for his efforts, “I recognize and acknowledge how many gifts the Lord has bestowed upon you. Such enrapture me to admire and love you, and due to your efforts, and because of your exquisite benefactions that God’s church receives through you, I am right to praise and honor you.”61 The accompanying letter is even more affectionate. It contained words of comfort to Calvin, who was mourning the death of his wife in March, and confirmed that their final differences had been bridged.62 Thus, the Propositiones, Annotationes, Responsio, and Annotata formed the core of the second phase of the negotiations. The authors not only came closer to each other on many points, but were also able to agree that unity in confession concerning the Lord’s Supper could now be reached.

2.3

The Conclusion of the Consensus Tigurinus

As mentioned above, Calvin had composed, in the name of the Genevan pastors, the 20-article long Confessio Gebennensis (or the Geneva Confession) for the Bern Synod that had been in session since 12 March 1549 and sought to restore peace to the troubled church.63 The document failed to accomplish its stated goal, since the assembly did not even discuss it, but it achieved something even more enduring: Bullinger, who had received a copy of the text from Johannes Haller, the chief pastor in Bern, was indeed “completely satisfied” with Calvin’s

60 61 62

63

panem vel in aquam opinione mea includam. Sed hac obiectione non evincis sacramentum non esse instrumentum gratiae conferendae. Nam et vox hominis ad salutem administrandam Dei instrumentum est, cuum res sit inanima”; 105 (= CO 7: 704): “Itaque particula ‘simul’ hic mihi nihil aliud significat quam ‘similiter’”; 102 (= CO 7: 701). For the text of Bullinger’s Annotata see the new critical edition, in ibid., 110 – 117 (= CO 7:709 – 716). Bullinger, Annotata VII, ibid., 114 (= CO 7: 712): “Scio et agnosco mi Calvine, quanta tibi Domino data sint dona. Illa me in tui rapuerunt admirationem et amorem, ac propter studia illa tua et beneficia excellentia ecclesiae Dei per te collata te laudo et magni facio merito.” Bullinger’s letter to Calvin, March 15, 1549, CO 13:221 – 223, no. 1165, here 221 – 222: “Multum sane profecisti apud me tua responsione, Calvine doctissime et carissime frater … Dicis te sic a nobis dissentire, ut animo minime sis disiunctus. Ego vero non video cur a nobis dissentias. Lecta responsione mea spero te hac in causa omnem positurum dissentionem. … Valeant porro expostulationes. Amemus nos mutuo sincere et aedificemus ecclesias.” For the new critical edition of the Confessio Gebennensis see Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 118 – 124 (= CO 7:723 – 726).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

101

Origins

eucharistic confession.64 Having learned of the Antistes’s favourable impression, Calvin judged that it was exactly the right time to hold the final discussions with the Zurichers on the understanding of the Lord’s Supper. In addition, he hoped to convince the governments of Bern and Zurich of the need to sign the alliance with King Henri II. Thus, in a letter of May 7, 1549, he suggested a meeting in Zurich.65 Bullinger, who preferred letter writing to personal meetings,66 felt that traveling to Zurich was not advisable due to the unrest in Bern and sought to dissuade him.67 His letter appears, however, not to have reached Calvin before he embarked on his journey. In any case, Calvin decided differently. Without announcing his plan to the authorities in Geneva or Zurich, and without Bullinger’s knowledge, Calvin arrived in Zurich together with Farel, declaring his intention of bringing the negotiations with Bullinger to an end. When and where the encounter between the two reformers took place in the last days of May can no longer be reconstructed.68 In any case, members of the council attended, which lent the meeting official character,69 and agreement appears to have been reached within a relatively brief period of time.70 The Genevan confession, and no longer the Responsio or the Annotata, served as the basis of discussions. Three articles of the Confessio Gebennensis could not be included in the Zurich Agreement,71 but the other seventeen were adopted almost word for word. A Christological introduction was included (Art. 1 – 5) and, in response to Bullinger’s concern, articles on the distinction between the sign and what it signifies (Art. 9) and on the figurative interpretation of the words of 64 Strasser, “Der Consensus Tigurinus,” 8. 65 Calvin to Bullinger, May 7, 1549, CO 13: 266 – 269. Calvin was in Zurich a total of five times (three times with Farel): 1538, 1545, 1547, 1548, and 1549. Bullinger was never in Geneva. See Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger : Leben, Werk und Wirkung, vol. 1 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005), 118 – 119. 66 Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 132. 67 Bullinger to Calvin, May 21, 1549, CO 13:279, no. 1194. 68 The exact date is unknown. However, it must have been after 21 May (Bullinger’s letter to Calvin). According to Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 38, the meeting did not take place before 25 May. 69 See Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, XXIX. 70 Later words of Calvin, which imply that after hopeless beginnings “subita lux affulsit,” suddenly there was light, Calvin to Bucer, CO 13:437 – 440, no. 1297, here 440 and that unity was achieved in a matter of merely two hours, Calvin to Myconius, Geneva, November 26, 1549, CO 13:456 – 457, no. 1309, here 457. Both appear to be somewhat unrealistic and are difficult to prove in detail. The sensible suggestion of Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 39, that Calvin wanted “to portray the meeting in a positive light as genuinely smooth and successful,” does not help in determining the length of the meeting. Assuming that the unity occurred in a relatively short period of time explains Calvin’s statements most convincingly. 71 Articles 2, 4, and 5 set out Calvin’s typical view that in the Supper is granted the substance of the body and blood of Christ and therefore were completely crossed out.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

102

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

institution (Art. 22) were inserted. Furthermore, to ensure an accurate understanding of the text, it was planned to add a preamble and an epilogue that recorded the hurdles that stood in the way of the agreement, which was called Consensio mutua in re sacramentaria.72 After the meeting, Calvin requested the insertion of two explanatory articles that he wrote (Art. 5 and 23),73 and Bullinger agreed to the additions without hesitation.74 Having seen the draft of the Consensio, the Bernese ministers expressed their approval of the content, but they disapproved of the preamble and the epilogue, fearing that the impact could exacerbate existing conflicts in the troubled Bernese church. It was therefore agreed to delete them and instead to include explanatory letters between Geneva and Zurich.75 Thus the Consensus Tigurinus took on its final form in the summer of 1549, with 26 articles as well as Bullinger’s and Calvin’s missives. From a brief note in Calvin’s letter to Oswald Myconius, it can be assumed that manuscripts of the text were first sent to a wider circle of theologians and churches in the Confederation and foreign countries.76 Following manifold preparations and at Calvin’s urging,77 the Consensus was printed in March 1551 in Latin.78 German and French editions followed that same year.79

72 All changes are recorded in the apparatus of the new critical edition of the Consensio mutua, in Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 125 – 142 (= CO 7:733 – 748). 73 Calvin to Bullinger, June 26, 1549, CO 13:305 – 307, no. 1211; Calvin to Bullinger, Geneva, August 13, 1549, CO 13:348 – 349, no. 1238. 74 Bullinger to Calvin, August 14, 1549, CO 13:349 – 350, no. 1239. 75 Ministers of Bern to the ministers of Zurich, June 2, 1549, CO 13:288, no. 1197; ministers of Zurich to Calvin, July 7, 1549, CO 13:320 – 322, no. 1120. Calvin’s letter to Bullinger and the ministers of Zurich from August 1, 1549 served as a introduction, in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, 125 – 126 (= CO 7:733 – 734); Bullinger’s letter in the name of the pastors and professors of Zurich to Calvin and the ministers of Geneva from August 30, 1549 served as conclusion, in ibid., 139 – 142 (= CO 7:745 – 748). See Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, XXIXXXX; Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, 385; Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, 141. 76 Calvin to Myconius, November 26, 1549, CO 13:456 – 457, no. 1309. See Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, 383 – 387. 77 See Calvin to Bullinger, February 17, 1551, CO 14:51 – 52, no. 1450. 78 The complete title is Consensio mutua in re sacramentaria ministrorum Tigurinae ecclesiae, et D. Ioannis Calvini ministri Genevensis ecclesiae, iam nunc ab ipsis autoribus edita (Zurich: Rudolf Wyssenbach, 1551). Text of the new critical edition, in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, 125 – 142. 79 Einhaelligkeit der Dienern der Kilchen zuo Zürich und Herren Joannis Cavinii, Dieners der Kilchen zuo Genff, deren sy sich imm Handel der heyligen Sacramenten gägen andern erklärt und vereinbared habend (Zurich: Rudolf Wyssenbach, 1551) in ibid., 143 – 158; L’Accord pass¦ et conclud touchant la matiere des sacremens, entre les Ministres de l’Eglise de Zurich, et Maistre Jehan Calvin Ministre de l’Eglise de Geneve (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1551) in ibid., 159 – 170.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

103

Assessment

Assessment 3.

The Content and Theological Denouement of the Consensus Tigurinus

3.1

Content

After such intense and protracted negotiations, it comes as no surprise that the Consensus Tigurinus80 was not systematically constructed in a rigid manner. However, three unequal sections of text can be recognized: a succinct Christological introduction (Art. 1 – 5), the presentation of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Art. 6 – 20), and a brief section rejecting the doctrines of local presence, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and the adoration of the sacrament (Art. 21 – 26).81 In addition, the document contains Calvin’s letter to the Antistes and ministers of the Zurich church and Bullinger’s response in the name of the pastors and professors of Zurich with thanks for the unanimity that had been achieved and the wish that the agreement might be recognized everywhere. The Christological introduction had not been handled explicitly in the correspondence prior to the drafting of the Consensio mutua; it is the actual theological outcome of the final discussions that took place in the spontaneous (or rather, unplanned) meeting held in Zurich in the last days of May 1549 that led to the adoption of the document.82 By taking Christology as the starting point of the exposition, an issue raised by Zwingli in his memorandum to Bucer of September 3/4, 1530, the Consensio seems to emphasize that Christology sets the ground rules for sacramental theology. The primary significance of the sacraments, their scope, and all that they possess is laid up in Christ. People come to God through Christ alone. Only those who follow him can speak of the sacrament well or aptly (Art. 1). The following article lends support to this formulation, 80 Henceforth the new English translation by Torrance Kirby is quoted, in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, 258 – 267. 81 See Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus,” 329, und Busch, Gotteserkenntnis und Menschlichkeit, 135 – 136; also in the introduction of the critical edition in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 1/2, 473 – 474. The division suggested by Strasser, “Der Consensus Tigurinus,” 9 – 14 (Einleitung, 1 – 6, Sakramentslehre, 7 – 9, Abwehr aller Verdinglichung, 10 – 15, Notwendigkeit des Glaubens, 16 – 20, Ablehnung der Irrlehren, 21 – 26) and followed by Timothy George is in no way convincing. See John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform ed. Timothy George (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1990), 47 – 54: (Christological introduction, 1 – 6; General doctrine of the sacraments, 7 – 9; Defense against sacramental materialism, 10 – 15; The necessity of faith, 16 – 20; Refutations of specific errors, 21 – 26). On the other hand, Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, sees no reasonable grounds for division and offers a continuous interpretation of the text in the light of the Confessio Gebennensis. 82 See Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 40.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

104

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

affirming that only someone who “truly holds onto Christ” can expound correctly and usefully the nature, power, office, and enjoyment of the sacraments (Art. 2). Articles 3 and 4 contain two brief statements on the person and work of Christ. The saving knowledge of Christ consists in confessing that he is the Son of God who, through his incarnation, makes our adoption as children of God possible – namely, we are reckoned righteous, regenerated to new life and, being restored in the image of God, reject our old person (Art. 3). Christ is the “priest” who by his sacrifice once and for all expiated our sins and secured perfect righteousness for us. But he is also the “atoning sacrifice” by whom God is reconciled to the world. He is also to be deemed the “brother” who made us children of God; as the “redeemer” who reforms whatever is vicious in human beings; the “king” who reigns and protects us and leads us to him and to his father (Art. 4). The following article was inserted at Calvin’s urging after the Zurich meeting in May 1549: In order to know Christ, it is necessary “that we be made one with him and that we grow together in his body.” Borrowing from Ephesians 4:6, inner union with Christ is illustrated by the image of the members and head, which is the point of union for the entire body (Art. 5).83 The actual presentation of the doctrine of the sacraments in Articles 6 through 20 goes to a large extent back to the Confessio Gebennensis; however, several important elements in the agreement are the honest result of the negotiations between Bullinger and Calvin conducted up to the spring of 1549. Article 6 serves as a bridge from the Christological introduction to the more specific issue of the sacraments. In order to testify to the communion that we have with Christ by the indwelling of the Spirit, the preaching of the gospel and baptism and the Lord’s Supper were instituted (Art. 6). The sacraments are qualified first of all in characteristically Zwinglian terms as “marks and tokens” (notae ac tesserae) of the Christian confession and fellowship, “incitements (incitamenta) to gratitude and exercises of faith and a godly life.” The pre-eminent end is that by them God testifies, represents, and seals his grace. Furthermore, it is underlined that as “living images” (vivae imagines), they appeal to the senses and recall to our memory Christ’s death and benefits so that faith may be better exercised. They are seals (sigilla) confirming and ratifying God’s Word (Art. 7).84 In the following article, Calvin’s concerns resound: what the sacraments testify and seal outwardly, what they represent to our eyes, God himself “without any doubt truly offers inwardly by his Spirit,” namely, reconciliation with God, renewal of life by the Spirit, in short, the benefits of righteousness and

83 This article was inserted later by Calvin in agreement with Bullinger. See above, note 73. 84 See Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 42; Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 43.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

105

Assessment

salvation (Art. 8).85 This position gives rise to the need to clarify the relation between the sacramental sign, or figure, and that which it signifies. It is claimed that signum and res significata are distinct but not disjoined. Hence, those who by faith embrace the promises that are offered by the sacrament “receive Christ spiritually together with his spiritual gifts” (Art. 9). With the emphasis on the conjunction between “sign” and “thing signified,” the Consensio disassociates its teaching from any that consider the signs bare signs, but it also emphatically rejects the belief that water or bread and wine offer Christ to us. In the sacrament the emphasis is on the promise, not on the sign, for “it is the function of the promise to lead us to Christ” (Art. 10). Therefore, there is to be no stupefied gazing upon the elements. Separated from Christ, the sacraments are nothing more than “empty masks” (inanes larvae) (Art. 11). The sacraments accomplish nothing by themselves; “it is God alone who acts by his Spirit” (Art. 12).86 God uses them indeed as “instruments” (organa),87 but lest this be misunderstood, the Consensio reiterates that the sacraments are “instruments by which God acts efficaciously” in such a manner that “all the work of our salvation must be ascribed to him alone” (Art. 13). In short, “it is Christ alone who truly baptizes inwardly, who makes us partakers of himself in the Supper, and in sum Christ alone who fulfills what the sacraments figure.” He uses these instruments in such a way that the “whole effect rests in the power of his Spirit” (Art. 14). To elaborate this point, it is stated that even though the sacraments are sometimes called “seals” (sigilla) because they serve to nourish, confirm, and increase faith, we may not ascribe to the sacraments anything that belongs to salvation. The Spirit alone is properly the seal, as well as the author and finisher of faith (Art. 15).88 The following five articles focus primarily on the central concepts of election and faith. Faith is needed to receive the sacraments. Not all who partake of the sacrament receive what is offered to them, only the “elect” – namely, those whom God has “preordained unto life” and “enlightened in faith” by the agency of his Spirit (Art. 16).89 Given that the sacraments do not confer grace,90 nor is God bound to them such that they have efficacy for all, it can be inferred that while the signs are administered to the reprobate and the elect alike, the truth of the signs reaches only the latter (Art. 17), a concept certainly reminiscent of the Wittenberg Concord. This is not to deny that Christ with his gifts is truly offered to all, but they are received by believers alone, according to the measure of their faith (Art. 18). The faithful also enjoy the gifts offered by God before and without 85 86 87 88 89 90

See Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 42 – 43. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 43. Ibid. Ibid., 44. Ibid., 48. Ibid., 49; Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 44 – 45.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

106

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

the use of the sacraments (Art. 19). The benefits received from the sacraments are not restricted to the time when they are administered; just as the benefit of baptism is accessible throughout life, the Lord’s Supper can also be of later avail (Art. 20).91 The third and final section refutes specific sacramental doctrines (Art. 21 – 26). First, the notion of a “local presence” of Christ in the sacraments according to his human nature is rejected. The fleshly body of Christ as a limited body can only be found in heaven and sought in faith. Hence, “it is a perverse and impious superstition to seek to contain him under the elements of this world” (Art. 21). Second, it repudiates the literal interpretation of the words of institution (precise literalem sensum). They are rather to be taken figuratively (figurate), for it is not unusual that both throughout the Scriptures, as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers, the name of the thing signified is transferred to the sign by metonymy (per metonymiam ad signum transferatur rei signatae nomen) (Art. 22). Third, therefore, the words “eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood” are to be understood figuratively, namely, that we draw life and are strengthened in faith by his death, and not as if an “intermingling or transfusion” of substance (substantiae commixtio vel transfusio) occurs (Art. 23).92 All doctrines that either “detract from Christ’s celestial glory or are less than consistent with the true reality of his human nature” are refused as “crude inventions and futile sophistry,” for instance the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (Art. 24), or the Lutheran concept of the ubiquity of Christ’s human body (Art. 25). It is even less permissible “to attach Christ to the bread and the wine in our imagination” or “to worship him in bread” – an assertion directed against the Lutheran teaching of consubstantiation and a bone of contention between Luther and Zwingli – for the bread is a sign and pledge (symbolum et pignus) of the communion that we have with Christ, not the substance itself. Whoever succumbs to this error makes an idol of it (Art. 26).

3.2

Theological Denouement

This brief summary of the Consensus Tigurinus makes evident that no effort was spared on either side to bring Zwingli’s legacy and Bullinger’s covenantal approach into consonance with Calvin’s pneumatological emphasis. What is the theological profile of the document that emerged from the negotiations? The 91 Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 44, comments here: “Calvin got into Zwinglian waters.” 92 This article was added at Calvin’s request and with Bullinger’s consent after the meeting in May 1549. See note 73.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

107

Assessment

criteria used for assessing the agreement vary according to the scholar’s own cultural base, confessional background, or lack of it, and other equally decisive factors. It comes as no surprise that their judgements can be negative93 as well as positive.94 Opinion differs also with regard to the concessions made by the two parties to reach agreement – in short, whether the Consensio mutua breathes Bullinger’s or Calvin’s spirit.95 While from a hermeneutical point of view consideration of Bullinger’s and Calvin’s influence is crucial to a full understanding of the document, no study has yet fully explored their developing conceptions of the Lord’s Supper from a comparative perspective. The significance of the fact that the two drafters were engaged in a genuine revision of their positions and

93 See, for example, Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus,” 330: “… theologisch hat der Consensus nicht erreicht, was er versprach; dazu blieben zu viele Fragen offen, eine Synthese von Bullingers Denken und Calvins Denken ist keineswegs hergestellt worden”; Karl Barth, Die Theologie der reformierten Bekenntnisschriften (1923) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1998), 277: “Sie haben … bemerken können, dass ich den sachlichen Wert des Consensus Tigurinus nicht allzu hoch einschätze.” 94 So, for example, Bizer, Studien, 273: “Diesem Bekenntnis kann man nun jedenfalls nicht den Vorwurf der Unklarheit oder Zweideutigkeit machen,” or Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided (London: Penguin, 2004), 251: “A remarkable piece of theological statesmanship and a tribute to both Calvin’s and Bullinger’s common sense and ability.” 95 Leaving aside the older Calvin research (E. Doumergue, E Kolfhaus, and others, who saw the Consensus as Calvin’s triumph), I think Joseph C. Mclelland exaggerates when he argues that the Consensus represents a “victory for Calvin rather than Bullinger, if the language of warfare is even appropriate here,” Joseph C. McLelland, “Meta-Zwingli or Anti-Zwingli? Bullinger and Calvin in Eucharistic Concord,” in Huldrych Zwingli: 1484 – 1451: A Legacy of Radical Reformation, ed. Edward J. Furcha (Montreal: FRC/ARC, 1985), 179 – 195, here 192 – 193. Most Calvin scholars would disagree with Francesco Diego Tosto, Calvino punto di convergenza, simbolismo e presenza reale nella Santa Cena (Naples: Edizioni scientifiche, 2003), 141: “Il Consensus esprime il pensiero autentico di Calvino.” Bernard Cottret is correct when he understands the reference to metonymy in the Consensus as “indice d’une modernit¦ qui d¦j— dissocie l’ordre des mots de l’ordre des choses.” However, metonymy was equally if not more important for Bullinger. The presence of the term in the Consensus cannot serve as clear expression of Calvin’s thought (Bernard Cottret, “Pour une s¦miotique de la R¦forme: le Consensus Tigurinus [1549] et la BrÀve R¦solution [1555] de Calvin,” Annales no. 39 [1984]: 265 – 285, here 268). On the contrary, other scholars regard the Consensus as Calvin’s surrender of doctrinal purity or even as his submission to Bullinger : Ernst Saxer, “‘Siegel’ und ‘Versiegeln’ in der calvinisch-reformierten Sakramentstheologie des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Zwingliana 15 (1977): 397 – 430, here 425; Wilhelm Neuser, “Von Zwingli und Calvin bis zur Synode von Westminters,” in Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte: Die Lehrentwicklung im Rahmen der Konfessionalität, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 273; Thomas J. Davis, The Clearest Promises of God: The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching (New York: AMS Press, 1995), 30, 41 ff., 56; Davis, This is My Body, 131, note 9; Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 195; Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 51.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

108

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

used certain terms at times with differing accentuation, or relinquished them in different contexts, has not been sufficiently recognized.96 Let us consider in brief a few examples. Under the pressure to maintain good theological relations with the Zurich church, Calvin waived in the Consensio mutua the notion of the sacrament as an instrument of God’s grace, which he preferred, and accepted as a substitute for the word “instrument” (instrumentum), the term “implement” (organum), which was more palatable to Bullinger, who objected to any form of instrumentalism. Did this looser formulation reduce the Supper to a cognitive experience? Did thereby the presence of Christ in the Supper become less real? We see that in the ensuing article Bullinger agreed to refer to the sacraments as “aids” (adminincula), which is not typical of him, although with the qualification that Christ alone uses und makes them effective. A similar statement of sacramental realism recurs also in article 19, which affirms that “in the Supper Christ communicates himself to us.” Thus Bullinger’s objection to instrumentalism was not a conservative retrenchment in Zwinglian schemes, but reflective of a wholly alternative understanding. On one hand, the Zuricher, although objecting to Calvin’s language, gave his interlocutor to understand that for him baptism and Supper are not bare signs; they do not merely indicate, but do communicate Christ and all his benefits. On the other hand, even using the term organum, Calvin brought to the fore his understanding of the objective nature of the sacraments. Such a balance is typical of the Consensus Tigurinus. Certainly, Bullinger and Calvin insisted that the signs and the things signified are distinct. And they both agreed, unlike Zwingli, that there is not only a clear distinction but also a clear conjunction between the signs and what they signify, which means that they are in no way empty, but truly offer what they figure, namely, the gift of salvation. Hence, for both, the sacraments were not simply a thanksgiving and commemorative meal, an affirmation of brotherly communion, and a pledge of allegiance to Christ. Yet Bullinger’s willingness to emphasize more than he usually did the positive relationship between the signs and the things signified was a concession to Calvin, which allowed the drafters of the Consensus to characterize the sacraments as seals of 96 This consideration applies especially to the older Calvin and Bullinger research that was not concerned with offering a point-by-point comparison of the eucharistic thought of the two reformers in diachronic form. It is questionable, for example, whether the well-known classification of Brian G. Gerrish, “The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confession,” Theology Today 23 (1966): 224 – 243 – Calvin’s symbolic instrumentalism, Bullinger’s symbolic parallelism, Zwingli’s symbolic memorialism – sheds light on the actual development of their eucharistic thought in each respective phase of their career, or if it instead imposes on them static categories which in reality are not as neat. Noticeable exceptions are Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger, and Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” who consistently point out similarities and differences in Calvin’s and Bullinger’s thought over the years. The same approach is taken by Davis, The Clearest Promises of God, albeit limited to Calvin.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

109

Assessment

the promise of God contained in them and, at the same time, shows a development within Bullinger’s own sacramental theology. Surely, as already noted, Calvin’s persistent concern for a proper understanding of the mode of Christ’s presence in the Supper led him to the preferred expression “spiritual substance.” As a result of the epistolary exchange, the term was completely dropped from the Consensus, and it was even affirmed that the sacraments ought not to be considered as holy things by virtue of the reality they signify – a clear concession to Bullinger. However, both interlocutors emphasized the exhibitive character of the sacraments through the close correlation between the words of institution and Christ so strongly that the appropriation of Christ, and with him the gift of salvation, was decisively understood as the work of the Holy Spirit. To be sure, this represents a reworking of Calvin’s language, but in such a way the two men were able to affirm together that the sacraments do not merely represent Christ, as they did for Zwingli, while presenting him without using instrumentalist language. Rapprochement between Geneva and Zurich with regard to the scope and “gift-character” of the Lord’s Supper is evident in the core articles 7 – 10 as well. Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments as badges of Christian profession, inciting us to thanksgiving, exercising faith, and recalling the death of Christ to memory, is faithfully acknowledged. But Bullinger and Calvin had wrestled with this interpretation long enough to know that it had to be set aside because it did not differentiate between the objective offer of grace and the subjective experience of it, and thus it robbed faith of a key component – the palpable gift of salvation. Thus, the preeminent purpose of the sacraments, both reformers affirmed, “is that through them God may testify, represent, and seal his grace to us.” The formulation may sound mediating and pale. The core of the matter, however, lies in the idea that God does not set an empty symbol before us, but “truly and without doubt” effects that which he represents in the sacraments through his Spirit. All of the threads of the Consensus Tigurinus come together in these articles: the Supper offers salvation, but through the Holy Spirit, in that Christ gives himself with his spiritual gifts to the believers. At the same time, this pneumatologically oriented line of thought clearly provides space for exercising faith in communal, social, and ecclesiastically tangible ways. Assurance of salvation is therefore not to be sought “through the roundabout way of reflecting on one’s own faith,” as has often been inaccurately claimed,97 but instead is attributed to the Spirit of God. Obviously, it is critical to note that the formulations were ambiguous and lend themselves to various interpretations – late Zwinglian, Bullingerian, and Calvinistic. Nevertheless, and despite this, it can be main97 As opposed to Bizer, Studien, 273 – 274, 286, und Saxer, “‘Siegel’ und ‘Versiegeln’,” 424. See Opitz, Leben und Werk Johannes Calvins, 125.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

110

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

tained that this was a theological step forward. Both Bullinger and Calvin willingly accepted the articles that clearly demonstrated compromise, and with their indivisible connection between doctrine and life, sacrament and ethics, these articles left their impression on Reformed Protestantism. Further examples of the balancing of assertions in the Consensus are evident in articles 16 – 21, which with their correlation between faith and sacrament steer a middle course between the Roman Catholic understanding of sacramental realism and the mere symbolism of early Zwingli and the radicals. Bullinger and Calvin refused categorically to attach the confidence of salvation to bare signs or to separate the sign from what is signified. But they were emphatic that the power and efficacy of the sacraments must be looked upon in faith. Only in faith do we understand that God acts through the signs and that we truly receive the gifts of Christ. Bullinger may have preferred to employ the term faith in a Zwinglian manner, as the communicant’s act of confession, while Calvin could understand it in the robustly sacramental sense that the nourishing of the soul truly occurs. In any case, it is a good example of the ambiguous formulation that they were certainly aware of. More important, however, is the statement that the effectiveness of the sacraments is related to the doctrine of election: God does not exert his power indiscriminately (promiscue) in all who receive the sacraments. While the signs are administered to the reprobate and elect alike, the truth of the signs (veritas signorum) reaches only the latter (Art. 16 – 17). The theological context of this claim, of course, concerns the so-called manducatio oralis et impiorum, or as it is called in the Wittenberg Concord: manducatio indignorum.98 In the heat of the first eucharistic controversy, Lutherans affirmed that even the wicked or anyone else who unworthily partakes of the Supper receive not only the elements but Christ’s body and blood. Bucer (unlike the Lutherans) distinguished between the impii, who received nothing and the indigni who ate and drank judgment. This allowed him to say that only those with faith – even if it was inadequate faith – truly ate Christ’s body. Even so, the difference between Luther and Bucer on one hand and Bullinger and Calvin on the other on this point was insurmountable. The authors of the Consensus were indeed emphatic that the sacraments by the power of the Spirit would bear with them the things they signify, yet they forcefully insisted that we do not partake of Christ’s body and blood without faith, and thus they cannot be received by unbelievers or the unworthy. One may ask whether Bullinger, who was less sanguine than Calvin about the doctrine of predestination, did fully agree with 98 Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 12th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 65. See Bizer, Studien, 122 – 127; Amy Nelson Burnett, “The Myth of the Swiss Lutherans: Martin Bucer and the Eucharistic Controversy in Bern,” Zwingliana 32 (2005): 45 – 70, here 49 – 51.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

111

Assessment

this typically Calvinian concern to relate the effectiveness of the sacrament to the elect. But he could accept it because the formulation in the Consensus – God who “enlightens in faith none but those whom he has preordained unto life” – does not appear to conflict with his somewhat nuanced understanding of election.99 Finally, Bullinger and Calvin affirm together that the benefit (utilitas) of the sacraments is not restricted to the occasion of their administration but is accessible throughout life. The formulation is somewhat ambiguous. So again, one might well ask whether the accent is placed on remembrance and thanksgiving of what God has done in Christ, or on the efficacy of the sacraments themselves. The former position can be qualified as Zwinglian, the latter position can be interpreted or expanded to include Calvin’s theme of the believers’ grateful response to God for partaking of the substance of the body and blood of Christ, as is indicated for instance in article 5. The concluding six articles of the Consensus reject specific eucharistic errors. Predictably, they begin with the rejection, in article 21, of the idea of a local presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic elements – a clear reference to Roman Catholic sacramental theology, but also a not too veiled allusion to the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity, which is labeled as “perverse and impious superstition.” Bullinger and Calvin (as well as other reformers) denied the presence of the true body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine. They appealed to Christ’s ascension to heaven and to Christ’s corporeal, local presence in heaven as arguments for the absence of Christ’s body in the Supper. With typical Zwinglian terminology, they emphatically affirmed that the body of Christ is to be sought “nowhere than in heaven, and not otherwise than with the mind and the understanding of faith.” Surprisingly, no mention of the Spirit occurs here. However, the term is present throughout the text, and explicitly in article 6, where the emphasis is not on corporeal communion, but on spiritual communion effected by the Holy Spirit.100 The first and foremost example of misconception is, however, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which the authors deny vigorously, maintaining that the words of institution are not to 99 George (ed.), John Calvin and the Church, 52; Cornelis P. Venema, “Heinrich Bullinger’s Correspondence on Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination, 1551 – 1553,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 17 (1986): 435 – 450; Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic 2002) 100 Muller, “From Zurich or from Wittenberg?” 243 – 255. Muller is correct in pointing out the Melanchthonian influence on Calvin’s early eucharistic thought, but I do not think (and neither does he claim) that this applies to the specific case of article 21 of the Consensus, which is distinctly Zwinglian. For the presence extra carnem of Christ in the Supper, see Heiko A. Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” in The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1986), 234 – 258.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

112

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

be taken in a literal sense but figuratively. Noteworthy is the use of the term metonymy. This figure of speech had been brought into the eucharistic controversy by Zwingli at least since his Amica exegesis (1527) and it is attested in Bullinger’s correspondence with Calvin prior to the adoption of the Consensus. It would seem that Calvin accommodated himself to Zwingli and Bullinger at least in the concept he agreed to use. But by contrast article 23, which was one of the two that were added at the suggestion of Calvin, seems to be Bullinger’s concession to Calvin, since one finds the phrase “eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ,” although with the elucidation that eating is here figuratively depicted. The other eucharistic error is the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. Both reformers were convinced that the idea of the localized divine presence in the elements, which was formulated quite early by the Lutheran circle with the prepositions “in, with, and under,”101 was not acceptable, and there were good reasons for its rejection. The two fathers of Reformed Protestantism affirmed together : the human body of Christ “is finite and is contained in heaven,” and hence is “necessarily as distant from us by as great an interval of place as heaven is from earth.” But at the same time they confessed throughout the document that no distance cannot be bridged by Christ’s power and ability to feed his believers. Christ’s body is truly offered, Christ does truly communicate his body and blood to those who gather at the Supper, and believers truly receive it – all owing to the work of the Holy Spirit. In short, although Christ is truly present (and this means independent of anyone’s state of mind), the emphasis is on the pre-eminent role of the Spirit with respect to the communication and reception of what is presented in the Lord’s Supper. The final article strongly rejected the practice of eucharistic adoration and other forms of devotion of the consecrated elements by pointing to the fact that such behaviour puts trust in creaturely things and turns the mind from Christ. If one reads not only the final text but also the entire correspondence prior to its adoption, it becomes clear that when writing independently the two reformers would have expressed their views differently, but both could subscribe to the agreement, even if in doing so, each had to make concessions to the other.102 By accepting the Consensus Bullinger did not become Calvinist, nor did Calvin yield so much ground as to be labelled as Bullingerian. As Stephens rightly observes, the Consensio mutua could be described as a “Calvinian view 101 The formula “im brod, mit brod, unter brod” is first attested in Luther, Vom Abendmahl Christi: Bekenntnis (1528), WA 26: 447,26. 102 On June 28, 1549, Calvin sent to Bucer a copy of the Consensio mutua with an accompanying letter. Bucer, he wrote, might find the text leaves something to be desired, but he was satisfied with that, CO 20: 393 – 395, no. 4154, here 394: “Formulam nostrae consensionis scripsimus, cuius exemplar tibi mitto. Etsi tu nonnulla forte desiderabis, mihi tamen hoc satis visum est quod tria praecipua obtinuerimus.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

113

Assessment

expressed within the constraints imposed by Bullinger’s theology or Bullinger’s view stretched to embrace Calvin’s.”103 Yet this bold undertaking was not just diplomatic balancing for the sake of doctrinal unity, but a genuine process of mutual influence that enabled theological enrichment. Even in places where the Consensus uses language that seemingly would not have pleased both authors, one must ask whether this represents a concession or, more likely, a development within their own sacramental thinking. As is candidly stated in Bullinger’s accompanying letter to the Consensio, both Calvin and Bullinger were aware that the agreement hammered out after long negotiations was built on a series of concessions and omissions requiring corrections and additions. They therefore welcomed “a clearer explanation of the sacraments.” Meanwhile, they emphatically affirmed their desire “to speak in the same terms concerning the doctrines of religion” and that their views “by no means differ in the explanation of these mysteries.” Indeed, the Consensus did not resolve all differences between Calvinists and Zwinglians, but it did lay out a common position on the Lord’s Supper normative for both sides. They were thoroughly aware – as Calvin noted in his Defence of the Sane and Orthodox Doctrine of the Sacraments, an exposition of the Consensus in the face of Lutheran assaults – that on one hand if the dignity of the sacraments is too highly extolled, superstition easily creeps in, but that on the other hand a reductionist understanding of their efficacy fails to recognize that they are a divine gift and not merely the reminder of a gift. Clearly navigating between the Scylla of sacramental realism and the Charybdis of sacramental symbolism, Bullinger and Calvin charted their own course, namely, that the ascended Christ is truly present in the Supper and truly offers what the signs figure. Not all, however, receive his true body and blood as spiritual nourishment: only the elect, and by faith through the power of the Holy Spirit. As so often in church history, the long-term results were better than one might have expected. What seemed to contemporaries a text with a host of qualifications and ambiguities ranking a little below Luther and a little above Zwingli, and therefore fundamentally divisive, never achieved the status of a confession. Nevertheless, the Consensus became a reference text for the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which found its mature expression in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Second Helvetic Confession. Moreover, it was a seed of hope that anticipated the Leuenberg Concord of 1973, the intra-Protestant agreement that overcame the strife between Lutherans and Reformed over the Lord’s Supper and enabled Protestant churches to enter into table fellowship.104 103 Stephens, “The Sacraments in the Confessions,” 67. 104 John Calvin, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de sacramentis, CO 9: 15 – 36 (Preface December 1554, published 1555). See also below note 119. I disagree with Davis, The Clearest Promises of God, 41 ff. when he observes that Calvin’s arguments in the Defense are a misinterpretation or a radical reinterpretation of the Consensus. Against this evident

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

114

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

Impact 4.

The Impact of the Zurich Consensus

4.1

Acceptance of the Consensus in the Reformed Regions of the Confederation and in Foreign Places

The Consensus was circulated in manuscript form among the Swiss churches before the first edition was printed in 1551 because Bullinger and Calvin sought general agreement. The major challenge was to persuade the church of Bern, or to be more precise, the Bernese magistrates. They were adamant that the church of the newly won French-speaking protectorate, the Pays de Vaud, had to accept Bern’s doctrine and praxis of the Lord’s Supper – namely, the “Zwinglian” and not the Genevan “Calvinistic” mode. The conflicts in the Pays de Vaud, which had been ongoing with varying intensity since the 1530s, show just how sensitively they reacted towards any deviation from teaching and praxis in Bern. Thus the authors of the Consensio mutua reasoned that Calvin and Farel, who were theologically suspect, should not approach the Bern ministers, but that Bullinger, who had the respect of both sides, would reveal the results of the Zurich Agreement. The two leading theologians, Johannes Haller and Wolfgang Musculus, declared their cordial approval of the content. However, the Council of Bern obstructed acceptance because they feared that a new explanation of the eucharistic question could reignite discord or at the least weaken the normative function of the Bern Disputation of 1528 and the Zurich Confession of 1545 against Luther.105 Bullinger and Calvin, eager to gain the approval of the most important Reformed canton besides Zurich, continued to apply pressure. That Bern accepted the Consensus in 1551 after much maneuvering did not solve the problems in the Pays de Vaud. The pastors with Calvinist leanings had to act with restraint towards the official church politics of Bern or be removed, which was simplification compare, e. g. Burnett, “The Myth of the Swiss Lutherans,” 69, who regards the Consensus as a “foundational document for the Reformed church” and Busch, Gotteserkenntnis und Menschlichkeit, 138, who calls the Consensus “Saat der Hoffnung auf eine grössere evangelische Kirchengemeinschaft.” On the often underestimated significance of the Consensus for the Leuenberg Concord, see Fulvio Ferrario “Vom Consensus Tigurinus zur Leuenberger Konkordie,” in Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 337 – 351. 105 See the letter from Bern to the Zurich Pastors, June 2, 1549, CO 13:287 – 289, no. 1197; Wolfgang Musculus to Bullinger, June 21, 1549, CO 13:303 – 304, no. 1210; Wolfgang Musculus to Bullinger, June 2, 1549, CO 13:291, no. 1199; Bern to the Zurich Pastors, June 27, 1549, CO 13:312 – 314, no. 1214; Johannes Hallers to Bullinger, June 27, 1549, CO 13:315 – 316, no. 1215; Wolfgang Musculus to Bullinger, June 27, 1549, CO 13:316 – 317, no. 1216; Bern to the Zurich Pastors, September 14, 1549, CO 13:391 – 392, no. 1266. See to this Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger; 384; Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus,” 332; Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 47.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

115

Impact

the case with Pierre Viret.106 The Basel Church was likewise reluctant to give official approval because the Antistes, Oswald Myconius, although in agreement with the content of the Consensio mutua, resented having been bypassed in the negotiations. Moreover, the Zwinglian tradition found an outspoken defender in the person of the Italian religious refugee Celio Secundo Curione, who had been called as Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Basel in 1546. Nevertheless, a carefully worded letter from Calvin persuaded the vacillating Antistes to change his opinion.107 In the smaller churches of Schaffhausen and St Gallen the Consensus was well received and signed immediately, while in Neuch–tel, which did not belong to the Confederation at the time but was under the French House of Orl¦ans-Longueville, approval came not without some hesitation. The last to declare their acceptance were the Grisons and Mülhausen.108 Did the Zurich Agreement fail to serve as a unifying document? It has become almost customary in the literature on the subject to blame the Consensus for failing to create unity and for even exacerbating existing divisions.109 However, this is not the whole truth. Let us beg an important question: could a single stroke of the pen have solved the most controversial and most divisive issue in the 16th century (and through to the present time)? Could changes that normally and naturally demand years, sometimes centuries to work out, be rushed through in weeks or months? Bullinger has a striking sentence about the effect of the Consensus upon the Swiss Reformed churches: “if this document should not remove the stumbling blocks … of disagreement among us … we will nevertheless think that it has borne fruit splendidly because we … by no means differ in the explanation of these mysteries.”110 It is perhaps an unconscious testimony to a deep truth. First, it must be recognized that the Consensus did have the immediate effect of “[removing] the stumbling blocks of disagreement” between the two leading centres of the Reformed faith. Both sides loyally upheld the agreement. Reading Bullinger’s exposition of the Lord’s Supper in the Decades (1551) and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) is enough to make one realize that the dialogue with Calvin had been fruitful.111 As for Calvin, he spent the last 106 Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 197 – 198. 107 Wilhelm Kolfhaus, “Der Verkehr Calvins mit Bullinger,” in Calvinstudien: Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins, ed. Josef Bohatec (Leipzig: Verlag Rudolf Haupt, 1909), 27 – 125, here 72. See Calvin to Myconius, November 13, 1549, CO 13:456 – 457, no. 1309. 108 Ibid., 73. 109 See, for example, Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus,” 330 and Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 199. 110 Reply of the Zurichers to Master Calvin’s letter, in Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 267 (CO 7: 748). 111 Bullinger, Decad. 5. 9, HBTS 3, 2, 995 – 1041. See Bullinger’s letter to Calvin, February 27, 1551, CO 14: 54 – 55, no. 1453, in which the Zuricher informed the Genevan reformer that he had sent him his Fifth Decade and emphasized that this was in keeping with the sacramental

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

116

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

ten years of his life defending the Consensus from the assaults of the strict Lutherans Joachim Westphal and Tilemann Heshusius, and despite evident changes in his understanding of the Lord’s Supper, “traces of 1549 are still discernible in his later work.”112 Second, taking the long view, a good case can be made that the theological insights gained from the Consensus and the recovery of unity between Geneva and Zurich did eventually lead the Reformed churches in the Confederation and beyond to re-shaping and re-examining their understanding of the sacraments, or at least to use language that would be acceptable to all. Third, as we shall soon see, this recovery of sacramental harmony among Reformed churches changed the terms of the inner-Protestant eucharistic debate of the later sixteenth century. Lutherans and Reformed continued to be much engaged in petty but very acrimonious controversies. However, they no longer argued about the presence of Christ in the sacraments, which was accepted by both sides. The disagreement now was on whether that presence was corporal or spiritual.113 In this sense, although the results were more modest than the authors had expected, the Consensus was not a failure. It can rightly be called, as Bullinger said, a “splendid fruit.” Calvin’s political goal of linking the negotiations over the Consensus Tigurinus with the renewal of the alliance between France and the Swiss Confederation as a means of creating an effective military defence against Emperor Charles V and of legitimizing the evangelical movement in France was not achieved. As we have seen, most of the Catholic cantons, and the Reformed cities Basel and Schaffhausen, signed the French alliance, whereas the far more populous and powerful of the confederates, Bern and Zurich, remained steadfastly against. For Calvin it was a severe blow to discover that the Zurich Great Council felt obliged to send a well-argued refusal to the diet gathered in Solothurn in May 1549, which was largely based on Bullinger’s assessment of the situation. By the end of October, Calvin abandoned all expectations for the alliance.114 Equally as difficult to implement, and in any case senseless in light of closer analysis of the regional and international political relations, were the efforts of the Genevan magistrates to weaken Bernese influence through the mediating role of Zurich. doctrine of the Consensio. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 52 holds a very different view, noting “no change or development in Bullinger’s sacramental theology during his intense negotiations with Calvin.” For the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in the Decades see Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den “Dekaden” (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 439 – 461. For the Second Helvetic Confession see Stephens, “The Sacraments in the Confessions,” 69 – 73. 112 Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology,” 63. 113 See Burnett, “The Myth of the Swiss Lutherans,” 69. 114 The text of Bullinger’ s report to the city council is now published in Bullinger Schriften, 7 vols., eds. Emidio Campi et al. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004 – 2007), 6: 247 – 261. Bullinger gave Calvin a full explanation in his letter of May 11, 1549, CO 13:278 – 280, no. 1194. See Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 199 – 204.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

117

Impact

Despite all that can be written in defence of such plans, they proved to be a failure. Yet, in assessing the “non-theological factors” that influenced the genesis of the Consensus, another dramatic event must be taken into consideration, one that has largely been ignored in the secondary literature. The city of Constance, where the Reformation movement had made deep inroads and which was allied with the Reformed cantons, fell to Charles V’s troops in August 1548, and the Emperor eventually abolished its status as free imperial city, reintroduced Catholicism, and annexed it to the Further Austrian possessions. These shocking events meant not only a great loss for the people of Constance but also eternal ignominy for the Reformed cantons that had pledged military support in case of attack but did not provide it. It meant also that with the loss of this confessional bond the security of the Swiss Protestants diminished. With the agreement over the Lord’s Supper – despite Bern’s initial political reserve – Zurich, Schaffhausen, and St Gallen found on Lake Geneva a replacement for what they lost in the hinterland of Germany, a new political alliance with a territory that was small but played a part in Europe that was highly significant.115 The combination of these complex and interrelated circumstances delayed the publication of the Consensus. The small treatise was first published simultaneously in Zurich and Geneva in February 1551, when the Swiss Reformed churches officially adopted the agreement. However, in the meantime Bullinger and Calvin actively disseminated it in manuscript form. One can read in the Antistes’s letter to the dying Joachim Vadian, “Before it was published, a number of important men in England, Prussia, France, Italy, and Hungary had seen and approved it.”116 Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jan Łaski from their forced exile in England welcomed the Consensus as a positive achievement; Bullinger’s other trusted friends in England such as Bartholomew Traheron, John ab Ulmis, and John Hooper approved as well.117 Even Melanchthon, who did not agree with 115 See Maissen, “Die Eidgenossen und das Augsburger Interim,” 19; Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 51. 116 Bullinger to Joachim Vadian, March 8, 1551, CO 14:71: “Viderunt eam priusquam ederetur Angli, Prussi, Galli, Itali, Ungari aliquot praecellentes viri, nec improbarunt.” See Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, 386. 117 See Bucer’s letter to Calvin, August 14, 1549, CO 13:350 – 358, no. 1240, which however entails also some critical observations; Vermigli to Bullinger, January 27, 1550, in Epistolae Tigurinae de rebus potissimum ad Ecclesiae anglicanae reformationem pertinentibus conscriptae A. D. 1531 – 1558 (Cambridge: J. Gul. Parker, 1848), 316: “Deumque oro et obsecro ut illum perpetum faciat”; and from 25 April 1551, ibid., 325; for Jan Łaski and Bartholomeus Traheron see Cornel A. Zwierlein, “Der reformierte Erasmianer a Lasco und die Herausbildung seiner Abendmahlslehre,” in Johannes a Lasco (1499 – 1560): Polnischer Baron, Humanist und europäischer Reformator, ed. Christoph Strohm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 35 – 99, here 89, 95. For John ab Ulmis und John Hooper including the common understanding of the Consensus in England, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, “The Importance of Jan Łaski in the English Reformation,” in ibid., 315 – 345, here 322 – 323, and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

118

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation, seems to have recommended to theology students, according to the Zurich Antistes Ludwig Lavater “that they go to Zurich or to Geneva to clearly understand the doctrine of the sacraments.”118

4.2

Lutheran and Catholic Attacks on the Consensus

A heated and prolonged controversy between Calvin and the German Lutherans of unexpected hostility broke out when the Consensus was published in 1551. What came to be known as the Second Supper Strife went hand in hand with the advance of the Reformed confession in a number of principalities within the Empire as well as with the rapid spread of Calvinism in France and the Netherlands. In Germany, in the midst of doctrinal quarrels over the legacy of Martin Luther, the “Gnesiolutherans,” Luther’s most ardent disciples, accused Melanchthon and his party, called the “Philippists,” of allowing the intrusion of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper on German soil. Although Lutherans would not deny the Reformed claim to be Protestant, they tended to be emphatic and highly partisan whenever someone rejected the doctrine of Christ’s “real presence” in the sacrament. Numerous Gnesiolutheran theologians pointed out the concrete danger represented by the Consensus Tigurinus for Lutheranism. Chief among them was the principal pastor of Hamburg, Joachim Westphal, who published two pamphlets, Farrago in 1552 and Recta fides in 1553, both filled with truculent personal abuse. Calvin became the “calf” (das Kalbe) and Bullinger inevitably the “bull” (der Bulle). At the request of Bullinger and in contact with Peter Martyr Vermigli, Calvin answered with an apology titled Defensio in 1555,119 a subsequent Secunda Defensio in 1556, and an Ultima Admonitio in id., “Heinrich Bullinger and the English-Speaking World,” in Heinrich Bullinger : Life, Thought, Influence, eds. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 891 – 934, esp. 914 – 917. 118 Ludwig Lavater, Historia / Oder Gschicht / Von dem ursprung und fürgang der grossen zwyspaltung / so sich zwüschend D. Martin Luthern an eim / und Huldrychen Zwinglio am anderen teil /auch zwüschend anderen Gelerten / Von wae gen deß Herren Nachtmals gehalten hat / und noch haltet … (Zurich: Christoffel [Christoph] Froschauer, 1564), 128v : “gen Zürych oder gen Genff zuoziehen / darmit sy den verstand der leer / von den Sacramenten / klaerlichen erkanntind”; Latin edition of the same, Historia de Origine et Progressu Controversiae Sacramentariae de Coena Domini, ab anno nativitatis Christi M. D. XXIIII. usque ad annum M. D. LXIII. deducta (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1563), 47r : “Multis Theologiae studiosis author fuerat [sc. Melanchthon], ut Tigurum et Genevam se conferrent, quo sententiam doctorum de sacramentis liquido cognoscerent.” 119 Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de sacramentis, CO 9: 15 – 36. See also Calvin’s defense of the Consensus Tigurinus in Calvin to the Pastors of the Churches in Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen, Chur and Grisons, St. Gallen, Biel, Mülhausen, and Neuch–tel, December 13, 1554, CO 9:5 – 14. For the correspondence related to Defensio, see Calvin to Bulliger, March 26, 1554, CO 15: 93 – 96, no. 1935, here 95; Calvin to Bullinger, October 6,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

119

Impact

1557. Thus in direct contradiction of its authors’ intent, the Consensus only increased the antagonism between Reformed and Lutheran, which played out in the Second Supper Strife.120 Even though his style is typical for sixteenth-century theological polemic, Calvin took a more conciliatory approach in an effort to achieve consensus with the Lutherans. He prefaced his Secunda Defensio with an epistle to the pastors of Saxony dated 16 January 1556, in which he urged them to work with all of their strength for the peace and unity of the church.121 The debates continued and grew in intensity, yet Calvin continued the dialogue, constantly affirming his agreement with Luther and the Augsburg Confession. In the Ultima Admonitio, he declared, “But as long as any hope of pacification appears, it will not be my fault if mutual goodwill is not maintained. Though from being unworthily provoked I have been more vehement in this writing than I was inclined to be, still were a time and place appointed for friendly discussion, I declare and promise that I will be ready to attend, and manifest a spirit of leniency which will not retard the desired success of a pious and holy concord. I am not one who delights in intestine dissension.”122 Calvin repeatedly begged Melanchthon to express his opinion on the “Sacramentarian controversy,” but his appeal fell on deaf ears. For years before his death in 1560, the preceptor Germaniae himself was the target of enraged attacks from the Gnesiolutherans Tilemann Heshusius and Matthias Flacius. Various reconciliatory missions by Theodore Beza to Germany between 1557 and 1559 ended in failure. To the strict and fundamentalist Lutherans, the Consensus Tigurinus not only revived the ghost of the Luther-Zwingli controversy, but 1554, CO 15: 255 – 256, no. 255 – 256; Bullinger and Zurich ministers to Calvin, October 24, 1554, no. 2034; Calvin to Zurich ministers, November 13, 1554, no. 2042, CO 15: 303 – 307; Bullinger to Calvin, December 15, 1554, no. 2064, CO 15: 349 – 352. For the contacts between Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli see Emidio Campi, “John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli. A Reassessment of Their Relationship,” in Calvin und Calvinismus. Europäische Perspektive, ed. Irene Dingel and Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 85 – 102, here 93. In this volume pp. 123 – 140, esp. 131 – 132. 120 Bizer, Studien, 275 – 299. See also Joseph N. Tylenda, “The Calvin-Westphal Exchange: The Genesis of Calvin’s Treatises against Westphal,” Calvin Theological Journal 9 (1974): 182 – 209. See also the perceptive article by Eberhard Busch, “Die Tragweite von Artikel 7 im Consensus Tigurinus,” in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 284 – 295. 121 Secunda Defensio piae et orthodoxae, CO 9: 41 – 120, here 49 – 50. 122 John Calvin, Ultima admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum, CO 9: 137 – 252, here 250: “Nec tamen per me stabit, donec spes aliqua pacificandi ostensa fuerit, quo minus salva inter nos benevolentia mancat. Atque idem ego, qui indigne provocatus vehementior fui in hoc scripto quam ferebat voluntas, si mihi ad amicam disceptationem locus ac dies indictus fuerit, preasto me statim fore profiteor ac spondeo: et quidem ea animi lenitate praeditum quae optabilem piae sanctaeque consensionis successum non moratur. Neque enim is sum qui intestinis dissidiis oblecter.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

120

The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact

considering the simultaneous spread of Calvinism across Germany, the Zurich Agreement seemed in their eyes proof that the Reformed, having perverted true doctrine, aimed to subvert true religion as well. Thus they mistrusted Calvin’s and Bullinger’s bridge-building attempts to establish Protestant unity, and even mistreated the “Calvinists.”123 Distressed and, perhaps with a quiet insightfulness, Calvin wrote in 1560 to Rector Matthias Schenck of Augsburg that, “Wittenberg has produced, I confess, several pious and courageous personalities. But the majority believe themselves to be faithful imitators of Luther by inflating themselves with pretentious arrogance instead of the openness of mind which this man possessed.”124 The hopes of the early 1540s that the breach with the Lutherans could be healed, and the three Protestant capitals – Wittenberg, Zurich, and Geneva – brought together were definitely dashed.125 The incipient confessionalization deepened the divide between the Swiss and the German Reformation. Calvin, the persecuted refugee from France who had been disliked in the Confederation for a long time because of his proximity to Luther and his relationship with Bucer, was from then on considered as “Swiss” as Bullinger, the co-author of the Consensus Tigurinus. Immediately following the conflict with the Lutherans, Calvin became involved in a dispute with Nicolas Durand de Villegagnon over the Lord’s Supper.126 The Vice-Admiral from France, who co-founded a French colony with the participation of Huguenot students and preachers in the region today known as Rio de Janeiro, published a polemical pamphlet in 1560 titled Ad articulos Calvinianae traditions de sacramento eucharistie … responsiones. It was translated into French a year later as Les propositions contentieuses entre chevalier de Villegagnon et maistre Jehan Calvin concernant la verit¦ de l’eucharistie. The author showed quite considerable knowledge of Calvin’s works. L’Epistre au Roi and the Petit traict¦ de la saint CÀne as well as his polemic writings against Westphal were mentioned and critically analyzed. But the main 123 Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 202 – 229; Irene Dingel, “Calvin in the Context of Lutheran Consolidation,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 12 (2010): 155 – 187. 124 CO 18: 61 – 62: “Genuit, fateor, Viteberga pios quosdam et cordatos homines: sed maior pars genuinam Lutheri imaginem se referre putat, si pro animi magnitudine, qua praeditus fuit vir ille, flatu arrogantiae turgeat. Idem et Ierosolymae olim contigit, quum sub apostolis illic maxime vigeret ac floreret pietas: qui nulli infestiores ecclesiis gentium hostes fuerunt, quam qui inde profecti Iacobi et aliorum discipulos se iactabant.” 125 In the 1560s, Tilemann Heshusius expanded Westphal’s Lutheran theological polemic. See also David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 172 – 186. 126 In the following, I am indebted to the informative essay by Irena Backus, “Nicolas Durand de Villegagnon contre Calvin: le Consensus Tigurinus et la pr¦sence r¦elle,” in Calvin et ses contemporains: actes du colloque de Paris 1995, ed. Olivier Millet (Geneva: Droz, 1998), 163 – 178.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

121

Impact

goal of the treatise was to prove the “incoherence” of the Consensus. The theological quality of Villegagnon’s treatise is so poor that it can be ignored. What is important is that he made himself a name among those who defended the true faith against the Calvinist heretics in France. In any case, the Benedictine Jacques de Billy (1535 – 1581) attested to his ability “d’expurger les errors maladorantes de Calvin par zÀle et labeur incessant.”127 Surprisingly enough, one finds few traces of the Zurich Agreement in controversial literature or relevant works from the ensuing years. However, the insights that were acquired were not forgotten. Shortly after the Consensus had been composed, and after the high point of the Second Supper Strife, Bullinger’s Decades (1551) and Calvin’s Institutio in its final edition of 1559 were circulating in Europe. If not the Consensus itself then at least its message was carried far by these two new dynamic modes of dissemination.

127 Backus, “Nicolas Durand de Villegagnon contre Calvin,” 177.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli. A Reassessment of Their Relationship

Seventy years ago in his magnum opus, Eretici Italiani del Cinquecento, which made his name familiar and respected among scholars of the sixteenth century, Delio Cantimori formulated the thesis that the Italian Reformation was saved from becoming a fossil of history by the intellectual activity of those Italian religious refugees who had continued to cross the Alps after 1542 to escape persecution.1 Cantimori, however, drew a sharp dividing line between orthodox and heretical emigration. The former group was composed in large part of figures who participated fully in the life of the Protestant churches, and who visibly adapted their theology to the extent that they lost all originality. The heretical emigration, on the other hand, preserved intact and transmitted to the North many of the intellectual traditions of Italian Renaissance culture, thus imparting the most distinctive and successful Italian contribution to European intellectual history. It is far from my purpose in this paper to test the validity of Cantimori’s thesis. I simply note that since then, two generations of historians have been concentrating their attention on religious heterodoxy (Lelio and Fausto Sozzini, Giorgio Biandrata, Valentino Gentile, Matteo Gribaldi, Giorgio Siculo); their orthodox counterparts by contrast have scarcely been studied.2 Only recently has scholarship shown a growing interest in Pier Paolo Vergerio,3 Emanuele Tremellio,4 Girolamo Zanchi,5 and above all Pietro Martire Vermigli, 1 Delio Cantimori, Gli eretici italiani del Cinquecento (Florence: Sansoni, 1939, repr. Eretici italiani del Cinquecento e altri scritti, Turin: Einaudi, 1992). 2 Studies either directly or indirectly inspired by Cantimori already fill a small, multi-lingual library, as the impressive bibliographical survey by John Tedeschi demonstrates: The Italian Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture: A Bibliography of the Secondary Literature (ca. 1750 – 1997); in association with James M. Lattis; with an historiographical introduction by Massimo Firpo (Modena: F.C. Panini, 2000). 3 Pier Paolo Vergerio il Giovane, un polemista attraverso l’Europa del Cinquecento, ed. Ugo Rozzo (Udine: Editrice Universitaria Udinese, 2000); A. Robert Pierce, Pier Paolo Vergerio. The Propagandist (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2003). 4 Kenneth Austin, From Judaism to Calvinism: The Life and Writings of Immanuel Tremellius (c. 1510 – 1580) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

124

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

who nowadays is definitely experiencing a veritable renaissance.6 It is well worthwhile that at a conference dedicated to Calvin and Calvinism a brief mention should be made of the relationship between Calvin and the “orthodox” Italian Reformers, because – as we shall see – it will lead us to some unexpected, and perhaps surprising, conclusions. However, to sketch out even the broad lines of what could well become a lengthy monograph exceeds the necessary limits of this paper. Therefore I will refer exclusively to Peter Martyr Vermigli, probably the finest theologian among the Italian reformers. The very abundance of sources and the rare scholarly literature on this topic offer an exemplary casestudy that also adds significantly to our reflection on the term Calvinism and its theological and historical usefulness.7 5 Emanuele Fiume, “‘Decretum Dei, solatium ineffabile’: il contributo di Girolamo Zanchi (1516 – 1590) alla dottrina della doppia predestinazione e della perseveranza dei credenti,” Bollettino della Societ— di Studi Valdesi 181 (1997): 67 – 78; John Farthing, “Patristics, Exegesis, and the Eucharist in the Theology of Girolamo Zanchi,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, eds. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott (Clark Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 79 – 95; Patrick J. O’Banion, “Jerome Zanchi, the Application of Theology, and the Rise of the English Practical Divinity Tradition,” Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et R¦forme 29 (2005), 97 – 12; Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana fides, eds. Luca Baschera and Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 6 In addition to the older studies, see Peter Martyr Vermigli: Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi (Geneva: Droz, 2002); Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. Frank James (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2004); Pietro Martire Vermigli (1499 – 1562). Umanista, Riformatore, Pastore, ed. Achille Olivieri (Rome: Herder, 2003); Torrance Kirby, The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007); Frank A. James, “The Bullinger /Vermigli Axis. Collaborators in Toleration and Reformation,” in Heinrich Bullinger. Life, Thought, Influence. Zurich, August 25 – 29, 2004. International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504 – 1575), 2 vols., eds. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag: 2007) 1: 165 – 175; Joseph MacLelland, “Vermigli on Penance. A Third Sacrament?” Zwingliana 34 (2007): 29 – 36; Luca Baschera, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Free Will. The Aristotelian Heritage of Reformed Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal 42 (2007): 325 – 340; Baschera, Tugend und Rechtfertigung. Peter Martyr Vermiglis Kommentar zur Nikomachischen Ethik im Spannungsfeld von Philosophie und Theologie (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008); Jason Zuidema, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499 – 1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008); A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, eds. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank James (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2009); Frank James, “Vald¦s and Vermigli. Crossing the Theological Rubicon,” in Bewegung und Beharrung. Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520 – 1650. Festschrift für Emidio Campi, eds. Christian Moser and Peter Opitz (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2009), 117 – 133; Torrance Kirby, “From Florence to Zurich via Strasbourg and Oxford. The International Career of Peter Marty Vermigli (1499 – 1562),” in ibid., 135 – 145; Gary Jenkins, “Dinner with Raphael. The Prolegomena of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Eucharistic Intellections,” Zwingliana 36 (2009): 103 – 113. 7 Among the rare existing contributions it is useful to mention Marvin A. Anderson, “Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542 – 1562): His Letters to Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin,” Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 41 – 64; Peter A. Lilliback, “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the Context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. Frank A. James, 70 – 96; Richard Gamble, “Sa-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

125

Biographies

1.

Biographies

Given the reality that both Calvin and Vermigli seldom spoke about themselves directly in their writings, it may be useful as a first step of this study to focus on the image of the two Reformers as seen through the eyes of contemporary biographies.8 I have chosen La Vie de Calvin of 1564 by Theodore Beza,9 and the Oratio de vita et obitu … Petri Martyris Vermili of 1563 by Josias Simler.10 Beza’s Life of Calvin is composed of three unequal parts. The first begins with a long presentation of Calvin as a valiant soldier of God against Satan and his terrestrial lieutenants (Pierre Caroli, Sebastian Castellio, J¦rúme Bolsec, Michael Servetus, Joachim Westphal, and the Anti-Trinitarians). The second contains some summary biographical details. The third and largest section consists of an apologia, which aims to exonerate Calvin from the accusation of heresy and to exalt his moral character.11 In effect, says Beza, Calvin was neither heretical nor

8 9

10

11

cramental Continuity among Reformed Refugees: Peter Marty Vermigli and John Calvin,” in ibid., 97 – 112. For a detailed discussion of the historical and historiographical problems of biographies of the Reformers in the age of the Reformation see Irena Backus, Life Writing in Reformation Europe: “Lives” of Reformers by Friends, Disciples and Foes (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). The Vie de Calvin came out in three different editions. The first appeared a few weeks after the death of the Reformer, August 19, 1564, with the title Discors de M. Theodore de Besze, contenant en bref l’histoire de la vie e mort de Maistre Jean Calvin, avec la testament e derniere volonte’ dudit Calvin e la catalogue des livres par luy composez (s.l.: s.n., 1564). The second, much enhanced by notes and supplements, was published the following year; the third saw the light of day after an interval of ten years, in 1575, together with a collection of the Epistolae et responionses of Calvin. The three editions are contained in CO 21: 1 – 172. On these see Daniel M¦nager, “Th¦odore de BÀze, biographe de Calvin,” in BibliothÀque d’humanisme et renaissance 45 (1983): 231 – 255; Alain Dufour, Th¦odore de BÀze. PoÀte et th¦ologien (Geneva: Droz, 2006), 104 – 107. Josias Simler, Oratio de vita et obitu clarissimi viri et praestantissimi theologi D. Petri Martyris Vermilii divinarum literarum professoris in schola Tigurina (Zurich: Froschauer, 1563). For an English translation see LLS; cf. Fritz Büsser, “Vermigli in Zürich,” in Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Campi, 203 – 211. The following passage is a good example of Beza’s prose: “Je ne respondray point a ceux qui l’appellent heretique et pire qu’ heretique, duquel ils ont forge un nouveau nom de Calvinistes: car sa doctrine fournit de responses au contraire plus que suffisantes. […] Aucuns l’ont charge d’ambition.” Others, Beza continues, “se sont desbordez iusques a le faire les uns un usurier les autres un banquier […] Autres tout au contraire l’ont fait prodigue et ioueur, mais aussi apropos que ceux qui l’ont charge de paillardise […] ll y en a eu d’autres qui l’ont appele irreconciliable, cruel, et mesmes sanguinaire, ce qu’aucuns ont voulu moderer en l’appelant seulement trop severe.” CO 21: 35 – 37. On the origin of the term “Calvinist” see Uwe Plath, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Wortes ‘Calvinist’,” ARG 66 (1975): 213 – 223 and Christoph Strohm, “Methodology in Discussion of ‘Calvin and Calvinism’,” in Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 65 – 105, esp. 66 – 70. Likewise efficacious is the description of the ceaseless struggle of an extremely lucid intelligence with a fragile body weakened by fevered work and under the constraints for long periods of time of being a semi-invalid, in ibid.: “nonobstant qu’il fut en douleurs conti-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

126

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

impious, but rather a noble and perfect model of Christian virtue whose sole care was the defense of pure doctrine and the rebirth of true Christianity throughout all of Europe. In the eyes of a historian, La Vie de Calvin is as tendentious as it could possibly be. The massive exaltation of the Reformer’s actions and, vice versa, the denigration of his adversaries have the air of being not so much the involuntary bedazzlement of Beza, who in truth was more of a poet than an historian, than his extreme attempt to garner public opinion’s favour for a most controversial leader of a religious movement that was waging war without quarter at this time all across Europe. In fact we cannot consider it historically irrelevant that from the middle of the 1550s Calvin had become the subject of vicious attacks from Catholics, Lutherans, and heretics of all shades. La Vie de Calvin was destined both to rebut the anti-Calvin propaganda and to spread an image of Calvin wreathed in Biblical majesty throughout the international reformed movement. More than a biography or even a panegyric,12 therefore, the writing is a splendid piece of propaganda rooted in religious convictions. If, on the one hand, that limits La Vie de Calvin’s historical importance, on the other hand, it leaves its value as a documentary source intact as far as the problem of “the circulation of ideas” is concerned. From this point of view, Beza’s work, together with its Catholic counterpart Histoire de la vie de Jean Calvin (1577) by J¦rúme Bolsec,13 offers a not insignificant insight into the psychological warfare of the times. Let us now transfer our attention from Beza to Simler and skim through the pages of his funeral oration on Peter Martyr’s life. In this text as well, there is no lack of hagiographical aspects aimed at gaining the reader’s goodwill, for example when Simler seeks to pass off Vermigli as springing from a noble lineage rather than from a modest family of Florentine artisans, or when Simler places Vermigli’s year of birth in the annus mirabilis of the half millennium 1500 instead of the more prosaic nuelles, ayant souvent en sa bouche ces mots du Psaume 39: Tacui Domine quia fecisti, Je me tay Signeur, pource que c’est toy qui l’as faict. […] Une autre fois parlant — moy il s’escria et dit: Seigneur, tu me piles, mais il me suffit que c’est ta main.” 12 Dufour, Th¦odore de BÀze, 105. 13 J¦rúme Bolsec, Histoire de la vie, moeurs, actes, doctrine, constance et mort de Jean Calvin jadis ministre de Geneve, recueilly par M. Hierosme Hermes Bolsec. Docteur medecin — Lyon. Dedi¦ au reverendissime Archevesque, Conte de l’Eglise de Lyon, et Primat de France (Lyon: Jean Patrasson devant Sainct Antoine, 1577). It is interesting that in the same year the libel of this arch-denigrator of Calvin was included in a miscellaneous work together with the lives of other contemporaries “heretics”, who included also Peter Martyr Vermigli: Histoire des vies, meurs, actes, doctrine et mort de quatre principaux h¦r¦tiques de nostre temps, — scavoir Martin Luther, Andr¦ Carlostad, Pierre Martyr, et Jean Calvin, jadis ministre de GenÀve, recueillie par F. NoÚl Talepied, C. de Pontoise et M. Hierosme Hermes Bolsec, docteur m¦decin — Lyon; le tout faict pour advertir et divertir les catholiques de ne se laisser abuser par leurs doctrines mortifi¦es; d¦di¦ au Rf. Archevesque, conte de l’Eglise de Lyon et primat de France (Paris: chez Jean Parant [1577]). On Bolsec and his so-called “Life of Calvin” see Backus, Life Writing, 154 – 168.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

127

Biographies

1499. Indeed the opposite of a reliable witness, this citizen of Zurich records the life of his Florentine master in the most sympathetic light imaginable, although he does not transfigure it into a model of Christian perfection or into an abstract figment. In Simler’s narrative, there is a refined sense of concreteness – a solid connection with reality. Vermigli is described as “prestantissimus theologus”14 gifted with “singularis eruditio” and as an “incredibilis multarum rerum peritia”15 while he is portrayed as a “vir optimus” in very many aspects of his character, in his family affections, in his discussions with his students and friends, and even in his polemics.16 Furthermore Simler narrates with such vividness the personal details of the Florentine exile in connection with the great historical events of the sixteenth century that Vermigli’s experiences come to life before the reader’s eyes: for example, the introduction of the Roman Inquisition, the War of the Schmalkaldic League, the Interim of Augsburg, the accession of Edward VI to the English throne and the re-catholicizing of the country under Mary Tudor, the republican settlement in Bullinger’s Zurich, the Wars of Religion in France and the Colloquy of Poissy. Although Simler also sometimes over-eggs the rhetoric, his biography of Vermigli, rapidly written in a mere twenty days, remains a notable work of detailed and accurate history. Not only was the Oratio considered excellent enough to be republished in the 17th and 18th centuries and indeed remained the only biography of Vermigli until the beginning of the 19th century, even present day research on Vermigli continues to rely largely on Simler. In order to underline the historical influence of the Oratio one could add that Simler’s image of Vermigli, quite unlike that of Calvin transmitted by Beza, has remained largely uncontested – or at least never condemned out of hand – even by Cesare Cant¾ in his famous “Gli Eretici d’Italia”.17 14 Simler, Oratio, f. 10v – 11r : “Nam primum quod propter trium linguarum exactam peritiam felicissime praestare poterat, ipsa verba sacrarum literarum sensumque genuinum diligenter explicebat: deinde investigebat et retegebat rationes et argumenta, quae sub verbis alioquin simplicibus et contractis delitescunt: et simplicius dicta aliis locis confirmabat, obscura cum apertis conferebat, ostendebat quae nam adversarii viderentur verbis propositis, et rationem ea conciliandi demonstrabat, quid item patres sensissent singulari felicitate memoriae ordine exponebat: et acri iudicio quod pondus et robur singulorum interpretationes, examinabat: controversias vero incidentes ita dextre et dilucide explicabat, ut nemo alius.” 15 Simler, Oratio, f. 13v : “Quia vero Petrus Martyr doctorum virorum iudicio, ob singularem eruditionem et incredibilem multarum rerum peritiam, unus omnium ad hoc munus maxime idoneus videbatur, ab archiepiscopo Cantuariensi de voluntate regis vocatus est.” 16 Simler, Oratio, f. 1v : “Doleo scholae nomine quae eum doctorem amisit, cui par non est substitui: quemcunque enim patres Martyri nostro substitueritis, alterum Martyrern non habebitis: neque unus fuit vulgo Theologorum, et ex gregario doctorum numero, sed tanto fuit ingenio, tam excellenti doctrina, ea praeterea pietate, modestia morumque facilitate, ut non modo iis quibus cum vixit gratus, charus, reverendus fuerit, sed ab hostibus quoque et adversariis inter summos numeratus sit et admirationi illis fuerit.” 17 Cesare Cant¾, Gli eretici d’Italia (Turin: L’unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1867), 69 – 80. The reliability of the Oratio is thoroughly discussed by Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), xiv-xviii and passim.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

128

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

Although, unfortunately, I cannot take this step here, the “comparative” study of the biographies of Calvin and Vermigli should be widened to include the description of the two Reformers contained in Beza’s Icones.18 Moreover, those who take the time to re-read the numerous epitaphs printed on the occasion of the deaths of Vermigli (November 12, 1562) and Calvin (May 27, 1564), both of which certainly deserve to be studied linguistically and theologically, will see what a wealth of information they contain; and indeed one cannot but admire the force of their arguments alongside the beauty of their literary style.19

2.

Correspondence

Until recent times the correspondence between Calvin and Vermigli has received scant attention.20 The collection of Calvin’s letters is easily accessible, even if it is in the nineteenth-century edition of the Corpus Reformatorum. Lacking a critical edition, Vermigli’s epistolary is unfortunately dispersed in various works that are also not easily accessible. Securing orientation in the available documentary material means turning to the justly admired Bibliography of the Works of Peter 18 Th¦odore de BÀze, Les vrais portraits des hommes illustres, introd. by Alain Dufour (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1986). This remains a desideratum despite the scholarly analyses of Catharine Randall Coats, “Reactivating Textual Traces: Martyrs, Memory, and the Self in Theodore Beza’s Icones (1581),” in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994), 19 – 28, and Christophe Chazalon, “Les ‘Icones’ de Th¦odore de BÀze (1580) entre m¦moire et propagande,” BibliothÀque d’ Humanisme et Renaissance 66 (2004): 359 – 376. 19 Most of the epitaphs for Peter Martyr appear at the beginning of Martyr’s Loci communes, but they are by no means all. To take just one example, see the epitaph in memory of Peter Martyr Vermigli composed by Rudolph Gwalther the Younger that has recently been discovered in Zurich: “PETRUS MARTYR [VERMILIUS]. / Exilio ante alios celebrem te MARTYRA fecit / Ingrata in cives Italis ora suos. / Verum dum nocet haec, tibi maxima, maximaque orbi, / Non aliter poterat quae dare, dona dedit.” Quoted from: Kurt J. Rüetschi, “Rudolf Gwalthers d. J. Inschriften für die Wandporträts in der Froschau,” in Erasmus in Zürich. Eine verschwiegene Autorität, eds. Christine Christ-von Wedel and Urs B. Leu (Zurich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2007), 343 – 365, here 347. See also Torrance Kirby, “Vermilius absconditus?” in Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Campi, 295 – 303. 20 A complete analysis of Vermigli’s correspondence remains to be undertaken, even though several substantial contributions have already been made: Marvin W. Anderson, Peter Martyr: A Reformer in Exile (1542 – 1562). A Chronology of Biblical Writings in England and Europe (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1975), 467 – 486, and Anderson’s already cited article, “Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542 – 1562): His Letters to Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin”; N. Scott Amos, “Strangers in a Strange Land: The English Correspondence of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. James, 26 – 46; Christian Moser, “Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Correspondence: Theological Themes,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, eds. Kirby, Campi and James, 433 – 455.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

129

Correspondence

Martyr Vermigli.21 Calvin’s correspondence amounts to 4,271 letters, while that of Vermigli consists of 329 letters written over a period stretching from 1542 to 1562. This marked contrast is not by chance but is strongly conditioned by the biographical circumstances of the two Reformers and should also be compared with other contemporary collections of letters. To give an example, Zwingli has left a corpus of 1,293 letters, Luther exchanged 4,300, Melanchthon around 10,000, and Bullinger around 12,000, while from the orientalist Theodor Bibliander, Vermigli’s colleague at Zurich and his antagonist in the dispute over predestination, there have come down to us just 220 letters.22 An examination of Vermigli’s letters immediately brings into view the privileged nature of his interchange with three groups of correspondents: first place goes to Bullinger and his colleagues at the Schola Tigurina with 63 letters (50 + 13), secondly Calvin and Beza with 55 letters (46 + 9), and in third place the various exponents of the English Reformation are gathered together with 53 (Thomas Cranmer, Stephen Gardiner, John Hooper, Edmund Grindal, John Jewel, Edwin Sandys, Richard Cox, Thomas Sampson). Bucer is some distance behind with 21 letters, followed by Jan Utenhove with 17 letters, and not to be forgotten are occasional writings to the Spaniard Francisco de Enzinas (Dryander), Philipp Melanchthon, Johannes Sleidan, Wolfgang Musculus, Jan Łaski, Celio Secondo Curione and Pierre Viret. Essentially two theological themes emerge in the correspondence with Calvin and Beza: the sacraments and predestination. The latter subject did not produce the fruitful exchange of diverging opinions we find with Bullinger and Calvin.23 The epistolary dialogue between the French and the Italian refugees shows close doctrinal agreement on predestination. We can see such agreement in a letter of 9 May 1554 in which Vermigli informs Calvin about the more sharply defined differences opening up with the Lutheran Johannes Marbach at Strasbourg and declares in clear and unmistakable terms not only that he holds the dogma of predestination “extremely useful and necessary” but also that he will be un21 A Bibliography of the Works of Peter Martyr Vermigli, compiled by John Patrick Donnelly in collaboration with Robert M. Kingdon with a register of Vermigli’s correspondence by Marvin W. Anderson. (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1990), 155 – 197. 22 For Bibliander’s correspondence see Christian Moser, “Ferngespräche: Theodor Biblianders Briefwechsel,” in Theodor Bibliander (1505 – 1564): Ein Thurgauer im gelehrten Zürich der Reformationszeit, ed. Christine Christ-v. Wedel (Zurich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2005), 83 – 106, 156 – 159. 23 See Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002); Emidio Campi and Christian Moser, “‘Loved and Feared’: Calvin and the Swiss Confederation,” in John Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, 1509 – 2009, ed. Martin E. Hirzel and Martin Sallmann (Grand Rapids: Eerdmams, 2009), 14 – 34, here 31 – 32.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

130

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

swerving in its defense both in private and in public,24 a declaration that was repeated the next year in a letter to Beza.25 In July 1557, Vermigli returned to the subject in a letter to Calvin written from Zurich,26 and in April 1558 he praised Calvin’s Treatise on Predestination, pointing out that he had assumed the same position in his own Commentary on Romans, which was about to be published.27 The exegesis of Chapter 9 of Romans, as we know, corresponds precisely with what the learned Florentine had declared. Calvin replied, thanking him for his support, and expressing his happiness on Vermigli’s completion of this monumental work, and hoping that the latter’s commentaries on Genesis and on the Minor Prophets would be printed as soon as possible.28 Reformation historians have long known that there was nearly perfect agreement on all basic points between Calvin and Vermigli concerning the decretum horribile.29 What requires emphasis, however, and is convincingly documented in the correspondence, is that there is no evidence of the influence of Calvin upon Vermigli. The two 24 CO 15: 136 – 137, no. 1953; see ibid., 137: “Nec te postremo latere velim me una cumreliquis bonis viris id vehementer dolere, quod adversus veritatem ac tuum nomen adeo inepta et falsa spargant de aeterna Dei electione atque de haereticis extremo supplicio non afficiendis. [. . .] Nos hic, quoties rogamur, quum publice tum privatim, partes et veri et tuas pro virili tuemur, praesertim Zancus et ego.” 25 Correspondance de Th¦odore de BÀze, vol. 1, ed. Fernand Aubert et al. (Geneva: Droz, 1960), 153 – 155, no. 57 (March 1555); see ibid., 153: “Dogma praedestinationis ut in Ecclesia retineatur purum et vere simpliciterque doceatur, perutile ac necessarium esse intelligo, quod quia non videmus fi eri, ut nostrum uterque optat, inde magnum acerbumque dolorem capio. Zanchus et ego hic pro viribus a Deo concessis offi cio non defuimus, verum et docendo et disputando, quod verum est dilucide atque aperte defendimus.” 26 The letter dates from July 1, 1557 and strangely is not printed in the Corpus Reformatorum, but in Johann Heinrich Hottinger, Historiae ecclesiasticae Novi Testamenti, vol. 8 (Zurich: Michael Schaufelberger, 1667), 829 – 830. Vermigli thanks Calvin for sending him a small book (libellum) on predestination, indicating that he has read it with great joy (magna cum voluntate legi), and that he was in agreement with Calvin’s teaching. 27 CO 17: 143 – 145, no. 2855. See Peter Martyr Vermigli, In epistolam S. Pauli apostoli ad Rom [anos]. D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris divinarum literarum in schola Tigurina, commentarii doctissimi, cum tractatione perutili rerum & locorum, qui ad eam epistolam pertinent (Basileae: Petrus Perna, 1560), the very long locus “De predestinatione,” ff. 923 – 1008. This is Vermigli’s definition of predestination, f. 940: “Dico igitur, praedestinationem esse sapientissimum propositum Dei, quo ante omnem aeternitatem decrevit constanter, eos, quos dilexit in Christo, vocare ad adoptionem filiorum, ad iustificationem ex fide, & tandem ad gloriam per opera bona, quý conformes fiant imagini filii Dei, utque in illis declaretur gloria, & misericordia creatoris. Haec definitio complectitur, ut opinor, omnia, quae ad naturam praedestinationis pertinent.” 28 CO 17: 143 – 145, no. 2855. 29 See Joachim Staedtke, “Der Zürcher Prädestinationsstreit von 1560,” Zwingliana 9 (1953), 536 – 546; John Patrick Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 124 – 145; Frank A. James, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Predestination: The Augustinian Inheritance of an Italian Reformer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); David Neelands, “Predestination and the Thirty–Nine Articles,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, eds. Kirby, Campi and James, 355 – 374.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

131

Correspondence

Reformers did not have the relationship of disciple and master, but were involved rather in a dialogue of equals, conducted with mutual respect, at times even affectionately.30 More intense and articulate is the exchange of letters concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist in which Vermigli’s independence of judgment and unquestioned authority on the subject are even better documented.31 In November 1554 Calvin sent Vermigli his Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de sacramentis, directed against Joachim Westphal, with the corrections requested by the Zurich theologians and asked him for his opinion.32 The letter, in passing, contains the first in a series of appeals by the Genevan Reformer to Peter Martyr to move to Geneva.33 The importance Calvin gives to Vermigli’s judgment reminds us immediately of the sheer amount of Scriptural and Patristic references that Vermigli brought to the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper.34 It is enough to say that Bullinger,35 the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer,36 and Calvin himself, all were indebted to Vermigli for a more fruitful way of dealing with the cruelest of the conflicts that tore Western Christianity apart. Moreover, Calvin did not conceal his own admiration for the depth of Vermigli’s comprehension of the Scriptural and Patristic foundations of the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper. In his Dilucida Explicatio sanae doctrinae 30 Although Vermigli’s intellectual approach to the doctrine of predestination is still a debated question among scholars (for a overview see Zuidema, Peter Martyr Vermigli, 99 – 102), I agree with Donnelly (Calvinism and Scholasticism, 129) that the similarities between Martyr’s and Calvin’s understanding of the decretum horribile “result less from any borrowings Martyr made from Calvin than from a parallel development of the heritage they both shared from Bucer as well as from Augustine and Paul.” 31 Anderson, Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542 – 1562), 41 – 64; Gamble, “Sacramental Continuity,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. James, 96 – 112. 32 CO 15: 322 – 323, no. 2053 (November 27, 1554). A full account of Calvin’s controversy with Westphal is given by Joseph N. Tylenda, “The Calvin-Westphal Exchange: The Genesis of Calvin’s Treatises Against Westphal,” in Calvin Theological Journal 9 (1974), 182 – 209. 33 CO 15: 386 – 389, no. 2089 (January 18, 1555). 34 The most complete studies of this topic remain Joseph C. McLelland, The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli, AD 1500 – 1562 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) and Salvatore Corda, Veritas sacramenti. A Study in Vermigli’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975). See also Donald Fuller, “Sacrifice and Sacrament: Another Eucharistic Contribution from Peter Martyr Vermigli,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. James, 215 – 237; Peter Opitz, “Eucharistic Theology,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, eds. Kirby, Campi and James, 387 – 398. 35 See, e. g., Bullinger’s letter to Vermigli, October 1549 and Vermigli’s letters to Bullinger, January 27, and April 25, 1551, in Epistolae Tigurinae de rebus potissimum ad Ecclesiae anglicanae reformationem pertinentibus conscriptae A.D. 1531 – 1558 (Cambridge: Parker, 1848), 316 and 325. 36 See Corda, Veritas sacramenti, 66; Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer,” in Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Campi, 172 – 201, here 179 – 189.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

132

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

de vera participatione carnis, he declares without equivocation that nothing could be added to what Peter Martyr had already written.37 The extent of Vermigli’s authority on the subject of the Eucharistic doctrine is once again most felicitously shown in his correspondence. In July 1557, this Florentine who was sharp of mind yet temperamentally meek felt obliged to intervene with unusual severity to deplore a youthful Beza’s faux pas. The then professor of Greek at Lausanne, who was in Württemberg with Guillaume Farel in order to plead the cause of the Waldensians and the French Huguenots, subscribed a little thoughtlessly to a Confessio de Coena heavily influenced by Lutheranism and known as the Confession of Göppingen. The resulting epistola irata – the angry letter of Vermigli, on which one could write an amusing page of the history of Reformed theology – produced a singular inversion of roles, with the intransigent Calvin elevated to the unheard-of role of mediator as he sought to prevent an irreparable breach.38 These few examples illustrate how epistolography can illuminate and enliven theological and doctrinal matters. Therefore, as a building block in the reconstruction of the relations between Calvin and Vermigli, their correspondence is worthy of the attention of historians in the future.

3.

Writings

The previous sections traced some biographical aspects and theological themes present in the correspondence. Can we learn more about the two reformers by comparing their writings? One immediately thinks of Calvin’s Institutes and Vermigli’s Loci communes which, together with Bullingers’ Decades, represent the most influential critical expositions of 16th-century Reformed theology. The fundamental difference is found more in the form of their presentation rather than in their theological content. Whilst the writing style of the Institutes belongs 37 CO 9: 457 – 524: 490: “Porro quum toti mundo plus quam notum esse putarem, consensu veteris ecclesiae doctrinam nostram clare probari, causam hanc retexit Heshusius, et quosdam vetustos scriptores, ut confligant nobiscum, quasi erroris sui suffragatores advocat. Equidem hactenus hoc argumentum ex professo tractandum non suscepi: quia nolebam actum agere. Primus hoc Oecolampadius accurate ac dextre praestitit: ut evidenter monstraret commentum localis praesentiae veteri ecclesiae fuisse incognitum. Successit Bullingerus, qui eadem felicitate peregit has partes. Cumulum addidit Petrus Martyr, ut nihil prorsus desiderari queat.” On Heshusius, see D. C. Steinmetz, “Calvin and his Lutheran Critics,” Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1990): 179 – 194. 38 Vermigli to Beza, July 20, 1557, in Correspondance de Th¦odore de BÀze, vol. 2, no. 100. See Emidio Campi, “Beza und Bullinger im Lichte ihrer Korrespondenz,” in Th¦odore de BÀze (1519 – 1605). Actes du Colloque de GenÀve (septembre 2005) publi¦s par l’Institut d’histoire de la R¦formation, ed. Irena Backus (Geneva: Droz, 2007), 131 – 144, here 139. In this volume pp. 169 – 181.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

133

Writings

to the semantic field of the treatise, the literary character of the Loci is somewhat singular. The Loci communes, first printed in 1576 in London, 14 years after Vermigli’s death, was compiled by the French Huguenot Robert Masson, who selected from the Florentine’s works a series of excerpta and systematically ordered them according to the plan of Calvin’s Institutes.39 From this perspective, Vermigli comes across as an author straitjacketed in minutiae and forbidding casuistry, while the more human and irenical aspects of his writing tend to be excluded. Notwithstanding these limitations, the Loci communes withstood the test of time and continued to be read, reprinted, and translated in the Reformed world of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the same extent as the Institutes and the Decades, especially in France, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and among the Puritans of New England. They constituted invaluable tools for Reformed churches as they sought to resist the Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation, to overcome their doctrinal weaknesses, and to refine their ethico-theological arguments.40 It is owing to the singular origins of the Loci that a comparison between the works of Calvin and Vermigli must also include their respective Bible commentaries. Here I choose, from among the many possibilities (e. g., their commentaries on Romans, 1 Corinthians), their commentaries on Genesis. We know that Calvin set to work on his commentary in the summer of 1550 and published it in 1554 in both Latin and French,41 while Vermigli must have begun work on his around the summer of 1543, a little after his arrival in Strasbourg, and must have finished his commentary on chapter 42 in the summer of 1545.42 Unlike Calvin, Peter Martyr was unable to publish his lectures, because he was obliged to flee the Alsatian city and seek refuge in England, where he became engaged in other projects.43 His “hurried annotations,” as he defined the manuscript of his

39 See Joseph C. McLelland, “A Literary History of the Loci Communes,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Kirby, Campi, and James (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 479 – 494. 40 Christoph Strohm, “Petrus Martyr Vermiglis Loci Communes und Calvins Institutio Christianae religionis,” in Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Campi, 77 – 104, here 104. 41 John Calvin, In Primum Mosis Librum, qui Genesis vulgo dicitur, Commentarius (1554), in CO 23; Calvin, Commentaire sur le premier livre de Moyse dit GenÀse (GenÀve: Jean G¦rard 1554). See Randall C. Zachman, “Calvin as Commentator on Genesis,” in Calvin and the Bible, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1 – 29. 42 It is difficult to determine exactly when Vermigli wrote his commentary. For a detailed discussion, see my contribution “The Genesis Commentary : Interpreting Creation,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Kirby, Campi, and James, 211. In this volume pp. 187 – 205. 43 Vermigli to Bullinger, letter CCXXXIV dated at Oxford, October 26, 1551, in Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, written during the reigns of King Henry VIII., King Edward VI., and Queen Mary : chiefly from the archives of Zurich, ed. Hastings Robinson (Cambridge: University Press, 1847), 499. See also the other letter Martyr wrote to Bullinger

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

134

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

monumental commentary, were published posthumously in 1559 by his faithful Zurich disciple Josias Simler.44 Therefore, even if the date of publication leads us to think differently, in reality Vermigli’s Commentary on Genesis predates by at least eight years that of Calvin. What can we discover from a comparison of the two works? In neither is there any trace of the medieval hermeneutical framework known as the Quadriga or the fourfold sense of Scripture (sensus literalis, allegoricus, tropologicus, analogicus). Even if Vermigli and Calvin each accepted an allegorical reading of some passages of Scripture, their exegesis is essentially literalhistorical, which is founded in both cases in an impressive command of Hebrew. Both used Sebastian Münster’s Hebraica Biblia Latina45 and the Bomberg Bible as reference works.46 Both made use of the lexicographical works of Johannes Reuchlin and Sante Pagnini for the translation, but also the Targum Onkelos Chaldeus and the Targum Hierosolymitanum to clarify particularly difficult passages in the Hebrew text.47 For both the Septuagint performed a relatively important role in textual criticism. The difference between Calvin and Vermigli is not so much in their method as in the degree of understanding and command of ancient and medieval Hebrew literature, running from Philo to Josephus Flavius to Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac, (1040 – 1105), Ibn Ezra (1089 – 1164), and David Kimchi known as Radak (1160 – 1230). While Calvin made simple use of the sources indicated by the Rabbinic Bible, the mastery with which Vermigli passes from one to the other of these authors is incomparable.48 The recovery of rabbinical comments served him for

44

45 46 47 48

on March 8, 1552, in Life, Letters, and Sermons, ed. John. P. Donnelly (Peter Martyr Library, 5. Kirksville, Mo: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999), 121 – 22. Peter Martyr Vermigli, IN PRIMUM LIBRUM / MOSIS, QUI VULGO GE-/ NESIS DICITUR COMMENTARI / doctissimi D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Floren- / tini, professoris divinarum literarum in / Schola Tigurina, nunc primum / in lucem editi / Addita est initio operis vita eiusdem a Iosia Sim- / lero Tigurino descripta. / Praeterea accesserunt duo Indices locupletissimi Rerum / et verborum unus, alter locorum communium qui / in his Commentariis explicantur, Tiguri: Excudebat Christophorus / Froschoverus, M.D.LXIX (Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Z 5. 771, Z III B, 382). The text of Vermigli’s commentary stops with chapter 42, 25. Posthumously published by Josias Simler in 1569, the commentary was completed and reissued in Zurich in 1579 by Ludwig Lavater. IN PRIMUM LIBRUM / MOSIS, […] descripta. / Accesserunt praeterea in hac editione, octo postrema ca- / pita huius libri, Ludovico Lavatero inter- / prete: Item duo indices […] Froschoverus M.D.LXXIX (Zentralbibliothek Zürich, ZIII B 421, Z Zw 3291) and in Heidelberg: e typogr. Iohannis Lancelloti, impensis Andreae Cambieri, 1606 (BNF, Paris, 31561688). Hebraica Biblia Latina Planeque Nova (Basel: Ex officina Bebeliana, impendiis Michaelis Isingrinii et Henrici Petri 1534/35). Daniel Bomberg (ca. 1458-ca.1553) of Venice published two Rabbinic Bibles (1517, 1524 – 25) as well as a Hebrew concordance, which rendered the medieval Jewish commentators accessible to Christian readers. See Genesis, 30r, where the meaning of the term “gopher” is explained in Gen 6,14. Carl Schmidt, Peter Martyr Vermigli. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften (Elberfeld: Friderichs,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Theological Similarities and Differences

135

the accurate exploration of problems of a philological, archaeological, architectural, topographical or ethnographical nature.49 There is therefore in Vermigli’s Commentary on Genesis a critical understanding that is superior to that of most of the commentators of his time, including Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Luther, Calvin, and Musculus, as I have sought to demonstrate elsewhere.50 Reformation historians in general tend to overvalue the knowledge of Hebrew and of rabbinical writings in the commentaries of Luther and Calvin and to undervalue, if not even ignore, the same high degree of competence in Vermigli, often simply because they do not know his works. A more comprehensive approach to the Biblical hermeneutics of the reformers can be among the most valuable services that the instruments of comparative history can render to Reformation studies.

4.

Theological Similarities and Differences

Following the preceding point, one needs to compare the theological themes that the two Reformers have in common. As one can deduce from what has been said concerning their correspondence, in a future study it will be necessary to give ample space to sacramental theology and the doctrine of predestination, but it will also be indispensable to pay attention to ecclesiology and political ethics. I shall leave aside this last theme because it was studied some years ago by Bob Kingdon, and very recently Orazio Bravi and Torrance Kirby have also enriched our understanding on this matter.51 I shall concentrate solely on ecclesiology. Like most of the Reformers, Calvin and Vermigli had to deal with the Radical Reformation in all its breadth, from the Anabaptists to the Libertines and the Anti-Trinitarians.52 They were both severely critical of those who considered

49 50 51

52

1858), 58: there was, “with the exception of Fagius,” nobody “who knew the Medieval rabbis better at that time.” See, for example, the interpretation of the word F=KL, in Genesis 4r, or the description of the rivers of the Paradise in Genesis, f. 10v – 11r. Emidio Campi, “Genesis 1 – 3 and the Sixteenth Century Reformers,” in Beyond Eden. The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2 – 3) and its Reception History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 251 – 271. Robert M. Kingdon, The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli (Geneva: Droz, 1980); Kingdon, “The Function of Law in the Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli,” in Reformatio perennis: Essays on Calvin and the Reformation in Honour of Ford Lewis Battles, ed. B.A. Gerrish and R. Benedetto (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1981), 159 – 172; Orazio Bravi, “Über die intellektuellen Wurzeln des Republikanismus von Petrus Martyr Vermigli,” in Humanism, Republicanism and Reformation, ed. Campi, 119 – 142; Torrance Kirby, “Peter Martyr Vermigli and Pope Boniface VIII: The Difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Power,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. James, 291 – 304; Kirby, The Zurich Connection. For Calvin see William Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

136

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

post-baptismal sin unforgivable and who excluded unworthy members of the community since they thought that the task of the church was to conserve in its bosom only those members who were disposed voluntarily to embrace a disciplined existence. For some such criticism may be surprising, especially coming from Calvin, who notoriously put emphasis on the importance of ecclesiastical discipline in the conduct of a well-ordered Christian life and linked this to the realization of a visible communion of saints. However, there is no paradox here, but rather a different understanding of what discipline means.53 In effect, the Anabaptists insisted on considering discipline to be an indispensable mark of the church, while Calvin judged that position to be dangerously confused and established a much clearer differentiation between distinctive marks (notae ecclesiae) of the church, on the one hand, and discipline or church government, on the other. The distinctive marks, which should serve to distinguish true from false church, are the pure preaching of and listening to the Word of God and the lawful administration of the sacraments, while discipline belongs within the ambit of the organization of the true church. Discipline, Calvin averred, is nothing but “a kind of curb to restrain and tame those who war against the doctrine of Christ” (Inst. 4.12.1). Its end is not the exclusion of imperfect members of the communion of believers so as to be able to follow a perfect purity and holiness, but rather to incite sinners to repent and to restore communion within the body of Christ, although everyday experience shows what and how many difficulties get in the way of realizing that end.54 In summary, in the context 1981). For Vermigli see John P. Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. James, 177 – 196. For the Anabaptist understanding of discipline, see Andrea Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003), 547 – 568; James M. Stayer, “Swiss-South German Anabaptism, 1526 – 1540,” in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521 – 1700, eds. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer (Leiden-Boston: Brill 2007), 83 – 117. 53 See Inst. 4.1.20.23 in which Calvin asserts that he is aiming at ethical perfection, and at the critical exclusion of a certain type of religious hypocrisy that can arise from such an ideal and continue until it produces seperation, in BriÀve instruction contre les Anabaptistes, CO 7: 77. See Robert M. Kingdon, “Social Control and Political Control in Calvin’s Geneva,” in Die Reformation in Deutschland und Europa = The Reformation in Germany and Europe. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the Society for Reformation Research and the Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, at the German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C., September 25 – 30, 1990, eds. Hans R. Guggisberg and Gottfried G. Krodel (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1993), 521 – 32; Kingdon, “Calvinist Discipline in the Old World and the New,” in ibid., 665 – 79; Kingdon, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Church Discipline,” in Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Campi, 67 – 76. 54 See Benjamin Ch. Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 179; Akira Demura, “From Zwingli to Calvin. A Comparative Study of Zwingli’s Elenchus and Calvin’s BriÀve Instruction,” in Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen, eds. Alfred Schindler and Hans Stickelberger (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 87 – 99, here 95 – 96; Herman J. Selderhuis, “Church on Stage: Calvin Dynamic Ecclesiology,” in Calvin and the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Theological Similarities and Differences

137

of resurgent Catholicism, which vaunted itself as the true church on the basis of its institutional unity, and of radical sectarianism, which suggested a model of separatist churches composed only of visible saints, Calvin took a middle path between the extreme ecclesiology of Rome and that of the Anabaptists.55 Calvin saw in the two notae ecclesiae the distinctive character of a church and in discipline an organizational instrument to use following a “judgment of charity,” according to which one presumes that members of the church are those who profess the Christian faith, behave appropriately, and take part in the sacraments (Inst. 4.1.8). What according to Vermigli might the true church be?56 His answer forswears the animosity that might be expected considering his spiritual journey. It is true, he says, that “they err grossly those who hold only the Roman as a Church,” but in the Apostle’s word in 1 Corinthians 1:2 is implicit a precious criterion to recognize which church fulfils that condition. A little later, an irenic affirmation emerges, supported by his own ministry among believers from so many nationalities and confessions. Vermigli declares: “among the churches the one we should most embrace is the one that most greatly flourishes for its spirit, doctrine and holiness.”57 He sets forth, moreover, that “we say that the Church is the Church: Papers Presented at the 13th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, May 24 – 26, 2001, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 2002), 46 – 64; Günter Haas, “Calvin, the Church and Ethics,” ibid., 72 – 91; Georg Plasger, “Ecclesiology,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 323 – 332; Matthias Freudenberg, “Calvin und die Entwicklung des reformierten Verständnisses der Kirche,” in Calvin und seine Wirkungen. Vorträge der 7. Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, eds. Matthias Freudenberg and J. Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, Foedus Verlag, 2009), 59 – 79; Frederik A.V. Harms, In God’s Custody: The Church, a History of Divine Protection. A Study of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology based on his Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 150 – 161; Emidio Campi, “Calvin et l’unit¦ de l’¦glise,” Êtudes Th¦ologiques et Religieuses 84 (2009): 329 – 344. 55 See Calvin’s explicit assertion in the Reply to Sadoleto, CO 5: 393 (OS 1, 465): “A duabus sectis oppugnamur : quae inter se plurimum videntur habere discriminis.” 56 A study of Vermigli’s ecclesiology is long overdue. Preliminary attempts to investigate this central theme in Vermigli’s theology are the essays by Luigi Santini, “Appunti sull’ecclesiologia di P. M. Vermigli e la edificazione della Chiesa,” in Bollettino della Societ— di Studi Valdesi 104 (1958), 69 – 75; Santini, “La tesi della fuga nella persecuzione nella teologia di P.M. Vermigli,” ibid., 108 (1960): 37 – 49; Santini, “‘Scisma’ e ‘eresia’ nel pensiero di P.M. Vermigli,” ibid., 125 (1969): 27 – 43, as well as Robert M. Kingdon, “Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Marks of the True Church,” in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History. Essays Presented to George Huntston Williams, eds. Brian A. Gerrisch, Robert Benedetto (Brill: Leiden, 1979), 198 – 214. 57 Peter Martyr Vermigli, In selectissimam D. Pauli priorem ad Corinthios epistolam, D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, ad Serenissimum Regem Angliae & c. Eduardum VI. Commentarii doctissimi, editio tertia, prioribus longe emendatior (Tiguri: Apud Christophorum Froschuerum, MDLXXIX), f. 5 s.: “Errant vehementer, qui solam Romanam habent pro ecclesia. Non inficiamur inter ecclesias ordinem esse, ver¾m non eum concedimus, qui

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

138

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

assembly of believers, the reborn, whom God gathers in Christ by means of the Gospel of the Holy Spirit, and who by means of the ministers directs them in the pureness of doctrine, in the lawful use of the sacraments and of discipline.”58 Alongside the Gospel and the sacraments, Vermigli numbers discipline among the distinctive signs of the church. One is not dealing here with an isolated text, as with Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto. Vermigli is utterly resolute on the question of discipline. One does not see an evolution in his thought on this; his conviction when he arrived in Strasbourg remained unchanged until his death. In fact, in 1561, a year before his death, in reply to a question posed to him by Polish Reformers on ways of building the Church, Vermigli was explicit in indicating three distinct signs: the pure preaching of the Gospel, the lawful administration of the sacraments, and the immediate introduction of discipline, which he calls “Evangelii regula de correctione fraterna.”59 The action of the church naturally makes itself explicit in the first place through the pure preaching of the Word, which is the best instrument (organum) to free it from vanity and establish the “veram religionem.” The best cure for the church should be the formation of faithful preachers so that “Evangelium exploditur et vera Eccelesiarum reformatio.”60 God wishes to gather to himself men “with persuasion,” which will happen by the preaching of his Word. This insistence on the primacy of the preaching of the Word does not exempt Vermigli from considering the use of discipline even in its most extreme form – excommunication.61 He undertook an enormous exegetical task of moral and of pastoral theology on this subject, an achievement that must not be overlooked. His mastery of the Old Testament and of the Patristic writings did not impede but rather reinforced his understanding of discipline in the light of the Gospels. With extreme solicitude, Martyr speaks of those who are “a corpore Christi resecti,” as he underlines that the end of excommunication is only salvation

58

59

60

61

pendeat ab opibus & dignitatibus huius mundi. Quare inter ecclesias illa potior est habenda, quae spiritu, doctrina & sanctitate magis floreat.” Peter Martyr Vermigli, In I Epist. ad Corinth. (1,2), f. 5: “Vox Ecclesiae deducitur — Graeco verbo jake?m, quod est vocare. Nulli enim partes eius haberi possunt, qui Dei vocatione ad eam non accesserint. Et si definienda sit, esse dicemus coetum credentium, ac renatorum, quos Deus in Christo colligit per Verbum & Spiritum sanctum, atque per ministros regit puritate doctrinae, legitimo sacramentorum usu, & disciplina.” Vermigli’s letter, Strasbourg, February 14, 1556, to “Dominis Polonis Evangelium profitentibus, & Ecclesiarum ministris,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci comunes […] ex variis ipsius authoris scriptis, in unum librum collecti & in quatuor Classes distribuiti (London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), ff. 1109 – 14: 1112. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Genesis (37,2), f. 150v : “Cognoscis itaque ex hoc loco fraternam correctionem, rem esse odiosissimam mundo, hinc fit ut magis caro amplectatur Missas qu—m versa & Christianas conciones, quandoquidem Missa neminem mordet, concio verý sacra in hoc est ut plurim¾m peccata exagitet, qua eadem causa Evangelium exploditur & vera Ecclesiarum reformatio.” Peter Martyr Vermigli, In I Epist. ad Corinth (Locus de excommunicatione), ff. 66r – 69v.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Theological Similarities and Differences

139

through penitence and the certain forgiveness of God.62 Christians must not avoid the excommunicated, but on the contrary must have contact with them to help them to reflect, so that they might see themselves anew and be put on the right road – “in viam.”63 And the greater glory is when in conscience they can once again draw near to Holy Communion, the “sacrament of unity and concord.”64 Here, once again, one sees a substantial theological commonality in what Calvin and Vermigli mean by discipline. However, there is some irony in the fact that this definition of the notae of the Church as including discipline comes from Vermigli and not from Calvin. No one has been more influential than Calvin in actually creating a disciplined church. Vermigli had never been involved in church building, and the churches in which he had been active – in Strasbourg, England, and Zurich – all restricted the exercise of discipline to secular government.65 And yet we should recognise that it was Vermigli (together with Oecolampadius and Bucer), rather than Calvin, who offered the arguments for the inclusion of discipline among the notae ecclesiae, an ecclesiological stance that was to have considerable relevance to Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, the Catechism of Emden,66 the Scottish Confession (1560),67 the Belgic Confession (1561),68 and the Westminster Confession (1648), the last of which reads: “Church Censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending Brethren.”69

62 Ibid., 5,5, f. 63v : “Finis excommunicatinois, ut h„c docemur, salus existimanda est.” 63 Ibid., (Locus de excommunicatione), f. 66v : “Excommunicationem antecedit correctio fraterna. Christus quippe dixit: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus. Neque putandus est non peccare in nos, qui peccat in Deum, cum simus filii eius & membra Christi. Imo sancti sunt ita comparati, ut facile negligant quod in se committitur, & suas iniurias facile condonent, nisi quantum vident illas in Deum recidere. Quod si peccatum publicum fuerit & notum omnibus, opus ne correctione fraterna erit? Non sane, quo ad Ecclesiam deferatur & manifestetur. Caeterum ea opus erit ut exploretur animus peccatoris, num resipiscere & redire in viam cogitet. Hoc proposito est adhortandus & admonendus qui publice peccat. Unde apparet, in omni peccato tam occulto qu—m publico opus esse fraterna correctione.” 64 Ibid., (11,18), f. 153v : “Cum hoc sacramentum sit unitatis atque concordiae, Corinthii debuerunt admoneri, ut factiones & inimicitias deponerent.” 65 The Church of England, however, retained ecclesiastical courts that were regulated under the royal supremacy but were administered by bishops and archdeacons. The “ecclesiastical jurisdiction” was in some sense “secular” but it was nonetheless distinguished from “civil jurisdiction.” See Kirby, The Zurich Connection. 66 Der Kleine Emder Katechismus, art. 51, in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 1/3, ed. Heiner Faulenbach et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 316, 23 – 31. 67 Confessio scotica, art. 18, in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 2/1, ed. Andreas Mühling et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 271 – 277: 273,6 – 277,3. 68 Confessio belgica, art. 29, in ibid., 337,28 – 338,16. 69 Westminster Confession, art. 30, in Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirchen, ed. E. F. K. Müller (Leipzig: Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1903), 607,16 – 608,23.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

140

5.

John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli

Conclusion

After examining various aspects of the topic, we can draw the following conclusion. For too long, Peter Martyr Vermigli has been considered a monk with a scholastic background, only superficially touched by Humanism,70 or a Calvinist theologian lacking originality.71 It suffices to look at the judgment of his contemporaries, at his works, or at his correspondence to at least gain awareness of the extent to which the historic significance of Vermigli for the definition of the Reformed tradition has been grossly undervalued. There is some irony in the fact that no lesser figure than Calvin himself, who was far from ignorant in theology, seems to have been a sincere theological admirer of Vermigli. In a letter of May 22nd, 1558, declaring himself to be waiting impatiently to read one of Vermigli’s writings, Calvin exclaimed: “Isn’t there someone there [Zurich] who can rip from your hands what you are writing?“72 To be frank, is there anything better than receiving such a compliment from John Calvin?

70 Cantimori, Eretici italiani del Cinquecento, 39: “il Vermigli e lo Zanchi … conservano solo qualche traccia della cultura italiana dalla quale pure provenivano (lo Zanchi polemizza ancora nel 1564 contro il Pomponazzi): il che del resto À reso possibile dalla loro provenienza monastica, che indica, assieme al metodo dei loro scritti, cultura scolastica, solo superficialmente toccata dall’umanesimo e dal nuovo pensiero.” 71 Klaus Sturm, Die Theologie Peter Martyr Vermiglis während seines ersten Aufenthalts in Strassburg 1542 – 1547: ein Reformkatholik unter den Vätern der reformierten Kirche (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971), 56: “Seine [i.e., Vermigli’s] Theologie ist absichtlich unoriginelle Durchschnittstheologie, die vielleicht wegen ihres Mangels an auffälliger Originalität eine recht kunstvoll und gewiss bedacht komponierte Erfindung ist.” 72 CO 17: 175 – 176: “Cur non hic es, ut tibi de manibus vi extorqueantur quae nimis diu premis?”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

The topic of John Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation is not exactly a “commonplace” in Reformation history. While there is a longstanding tradition of studies on “Calvin and Geneva” and on “Calvin and the European Reformation,” much remains to be learned about “Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches.”1 Some years ago, the Amsterdam editors of Calvin’s letters drew attention to the subject,2 and more recently, the American historian Michael W. Bruening has highlighted the significance of religious, social, and political forces in the Pays de Vaud for a complete understanding of the development of Calvin’s theology as well as of Calvinism.3 A carefully formulated sentence in the introduction to Bruening’s book makes an excellent starting point for this essay : “By looking at Calvin in the context of Vaud and the Swiss Confederation, we can see him grow from a local city pastor into a regional religious leader and eventually into a figure of staggering international importance.”4 1 The subject enjoyed a short vogue at the beginning of the twentieth century, on the occasion of the four hundredth anniversary of the reformer’s birth. See Wilhelm Kolfhaus, “Der Verkehr Calvins mit Bullinger,” in Calvinstudien. Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins, ed. Josef Bohatec (Leipzig: Haupt, 1909), 27 – 125; Arnold Rüegg, “Die Beziehungen Calvins zu Heinrich Bullinger und der von ihm geleiteten Zürcher Kirche,” in Festschrift der Hochschule Zürich für die Universität Genf (Zurich: O. Füssli,1909); Paul Wernle, Calvin und Basel bis zum Tod des Myconius 1535 – 1552 (Basel: Reinhardt, 1909). See also two recent studies: Bruce Gordon, “Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches,” in Calvinism in Europe 1540 – 1620, eds. Andrew Pettegree et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 64 – 81; Emidio Campi and Christian Moser, “‘Loved and Feared’: Calvin and the Swiss Confederation,” in Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, 1509 – 2009, eds. Martin Ernst Hirzel and Martin Sallmann (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 14 – 34. 2 Cornelis Augustijn, “Farel und Calvin in Bern 1537 – 1538,” in Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation. Historische und theologische Beiträge zur Calvinforschung, ed. Peter Opitz (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 9 – 23; Frans Pieter van Stam, “Das Verhältnis zwischen Bullinger und Calvin während Calvins erstem Aufenthalt in Genf,” in ibid., 25 – 40. 3 Michael W. Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground. Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005). 4 Ibid., 4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

142

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

What, then, are we to make of the “Swiss Reformed Churches” in this context? Are they to be viewed as a distinct factor separated from the more purely theological culture of classical Calvinism? Is there an identifiable sense of continuity stretching from Geneva through the Swiss Confederation to Europe? I am not only persuaded that a more refined understanding of these questions could challenge many of the preconceptions which dominate our view of the European reformation but also confident that they constitute a welcome reminder of the kind of discoveries that make the study of the origins of the Reformed confession so exciting and fascinating. What follows is divided into three parts. First, I examine crucial events and essential patterns of Calvin’s relationship with the three major centers of the Confederation, viz. Bern, Basel, and Zurich. Secondly, I present some thoughts on the influence and importance of Calvin in the wider context of the European Reformation. Finally, I offer some briefer reflections on the thorny problem of Reformed confessionalization.

1.

Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches

Bern Calvin painted an extremely negative picture of his relationship with Bern in his Discours d’ adieu aux ministres, “The church [of Bern] has betrayed our church, and they have always feared me more than they have loved me there […] They were always afraid that I would trouble them in their doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.”5 While this statement of disillusionment was indeed one side of the coin, Calvin was in fact involved in numerous disputes with Bernese officials and theologians. The major problem was that the new Reformed order in Geneva and in the French-speaking territories of the Pays de Vaud, continually threatened by Savoy and France, needed the Bernese support. Bern, however, had officially adopted the Reformation in 1528 along Zwinglian lines and therefore the magistrates retained complete control over the church. This type of church-state relationship, to which Calvin would so strongly object, had been established also in the Pays de Vaud under Bernese political and military control prior to his arrival. Consequently, the authorities expected the implementation of their church polity, including the matter of discipline and liturgical practices. In 5 OC 9: 894. On the identity of the object of Calvin’s criticism, which was not directly named, cf. Calvin-Studienausgabe, vol. 2, ed. Eberhard Busch et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997), 303, n. 13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches

143

reality, however, Calvin had more theological influence among Vaudois pastors.6 The interaction had already been difficult during Calvin’s first period of ministry in Geneva with the so-called “Caroli Affair.”7 Nevertheless, it seemed that everyone was inclined to let bygones be bygones when Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541. However, the latent confessional antagonism re-emerged in 1547, when a serious dispute over the Lord’s Supper broke out in the Pays de Vaud between the Calvinist faction led by Pierre Viret and the Zwinglian faction led by Andr¦ Z¦b¦d¦e. With his controversial treatise De la vertu et usage du ministÀre, which presented essentially the Calvinist understanding of the Lord’s Supper and the use of excommunication, Viret had attacked both the role of Bernese magistrates in church affairs and the Zwinglian ministers.8 The so-called Z¦b¦d¦e Affair, which continued for over a year, not only illustrates how sensitive the Bernese Church was to differences of doctrine and practice, owing in large part to a deep awareness of its own Zwinglian tradition, but also provides an illustration of the dilemma facing the Reformed churches in the Confederation: how far were they to strive for union with Calvin?9 Far from being a detached observer in these events, the Genevan reformer became painfully aware of the great resentment that still persisted against his theology. This may well have convinced him of the need to reach a pan-Helvetic agreement on the Lord’s Supper. And yet, even this project, which was later to be known as the Consensus Tigurinus, was not enough to eliminate all doubts. Calvin was especially stricken by the fact that the two prominent Bern theologians Johannes Haller (1523 – 1575) and Wolfgang Musculus (1497 – 1563), in compliance with the city council’s decision to dismiss the

6 See Carl Bernhard Hundeshagen, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, Luthertums und Calvinismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche von 1532 – 1558 (Bern: Jenni, 1842); Kurt Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte (Bern: Haupt, 1958), 55 – 242; Id., “Calvin und Bern” in Festgabe Leonhard von Muralt zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 17. Mai 1970, überreicht von Freunden und Schülern, ed. Martin Haas and Ren¦ Hauswirth (Zurich: Berichthaus, 1970), 266 – 285; Amy Nelson Burnett, “The Myth of the Swiss Lutherans,” Zwingliana 32 (2005): 45 – 70. 7 Augustijn, “Farel und Calvin in Bern 1537 – 1538,” 10 – 13. 8 Pierre Viret, De la vertu et usage du ministere de la parolle de Dieu, et des sacrements, dependans d’icelle, et des differens qui sont en la chrestient¦, — cause d’iceux (Geneva: [Jean Girard], 1548). 9 On the Z¦b¦d¦e Affair, see Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 183 – 194; and Bruening, “Pierre Viret and Geneva,” ARG 99 (2008): 175 – 197. The issue here is the presence of Calvin’s sympathisers in the Bernese territories and the resoluteness of the authorities to hunt them down without tearing the fabric of the new Reformed order. In Bern, for example, they removed from office and banished Simon Sulzer and his two ministerial colleagues Beat Gering and Konrad Schmid, who were also favourable to “Lutheran” (i. e., Bucer’s and Calvin’s) teaching on the Eucharist and were rather isolated from the rest of the local clergy (see note 22). In Lausanne, by contrast, they did not depose Viret because he had the support of the majority of teachers and pastors, and this would have meant dismantling the Reformation there.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

144

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

Zurich Agreement, did not sign it, even though they agreed with the content.10 Nevertheless, despite the feeling that they had been outmanoeuvred by Bullinger and Calvin, the Bern Church finally adopted the Consensus, when it was published in 1551. The doctrine of predestination was another aspect of Calvin’s theology that came under the scrutiny of both friends and opponents in Bern. After J¦rúme Bolsec11 was arrested in Geneva in October 1551 for his public attacks on Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, Bern,12 alongside Zurich and Basel,13 urged a measured approach. In late December Bolsec was banished from the city and moved to Thonon, a safe haven in the Bernese lands, from where he not only continued to voice his criticism, but also quickly found supporters, such as Andr¦ Z¦b¦d¦e, united by their hatred of Calvin’s teaching. Protest letters from the Genevan ministers complaining that Bolsec and his allies did not even shrink from cursing Calvin as the Antichrist had no effect.14 The reaction of the magistrates showed Calvin unmistakably what sort of reputation he enjoyed in Bern. They requested that the Genevan Small Council ensure that its clergy end their criticism of Bern and its church.15 In the ensuing months, the increasingly obvious theological differences between the Bernese and the Genevans led to a ban on sermons in Bern and its territories concerning predestination and the Lord’s Supper in accordance with the Genevan rite.16 The use of Calvin’s Institutes at the Lausanne Academy was also regarded as “intolerable.”17 The negative influence of these actions became clear with the approach of the date of the negotiations with Bern about the renewal of the treaty of combourgeoisie, upon which Geneva relied. When 8 February 1556 arrived, Bern was so annoyed by the defeat of the Perrinist party and the victory of Calvin’s followers in the elections of November 1555 that they allowed the treaty to expire, thereby 10 See Calvin to Wolfgang Musculus, October 22, 1549, CO 13: 433 – 34, no. 1294; Viret to Calvin, November 4, 1549, CO 13: 443, no. 1300. 11 The most comprehensive account of the Bolsec affair remains Philip C. Holtrop, The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, from 1551 to 1555. The Statements of Jerome Bolsec, and the Responses of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and other Reformed Theologians (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993). See also Herman Selderhuis, “L’image de Calvin: chez Bolsec, Calvin et les autres,” Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’Histoire du Protestantisme FranÅais 155 (2009): 281 – 88. 12 CO 8: 238 – 42. 13 CO 8: 229 – 34 (Zurich); CO 8: 234 – 37 (Basel). 14 Genevan ministers to the Bern council, October 4, 1554, CO 15: 251 – 52, no. 2020; see also Genevan ministers to the ministers of Bern, October 6, 1554, CO 15: 256 – 58, no. 2023. 15 Bern council to the Geneva council, November 17, 1554, CO 15: 313 – 14, no. 2047. See also CO 15, 312, no. 2046. 16 Bern council to the ministers of Vaud, January 26, 1555, CO 15: 405, no. 2096; and Bern council to its baliffs, January 26, 1555, in CO 15: 406, no. 2097. 17 Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 220, n. 35.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches

145

leaving Geneva in a vulnerable situation. Protracted negotiations resumed with the help of the Swiss cities but with no results. Bern and Geneva were now divided by both theology and politics. What settled the question was the common threat to their freedom represented by the territorial claims of Duke Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy. On 9 January 1558 Bern and Geneva signed an alliance perp¦tuelle whereby both cities pledged to protect each other. However, after 1555 the “odium Calvini was so strong in Bern that he had no influence there at all.”18 In May 1555 Calvin addressed a long letter to the council of Bern defending his doctrine of predestination and making no attempt to conceal his deep conviction about the nature of ecclesiastical discipline, which he regarded as a crucial issue in the quarrel with Bern. But he did so with a sense of resignation because he saw no possibility of reconciliation. Indeed, he was increasingly turning his attention to France and the religious situation in Europe.19

Basel Calvin’s relations with the Basel Church were of a completely different nature.20 His epistolary contacts with the brilliant scholar Simon Grynaeus (1493 – 1541) are of particular note. Calvin in fact dedicated his 1540 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans to Grynaeus in appreciation of their conversations during his first stay in Basel in which they discussed exegetical questions extensively.21 Grynaeus’s death in 1541 left behind a gap in Calvin’s personal ties to Basel, which Oswald Myconius (1488 – 1552), the Antistes of the Basel Church, was unable to fill. The debates and events most relevant to our discussion did not, however, occur during Myconius’s term of office, but during that of his successor Simon Sulzer. A native of the Bernese Oberland, he had been in the early 1540s one of the leaders of the Bern Church, but being sympathetic to Bucer’s teaching 18 Ibid., 221. See also William G. Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 1541 – 1557 (Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1994), 208 – 210; Wulfert de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide, trans. Lyle D. Bierma (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 42 – 43. 19 Calvin to Bern Council, May 4, 1555, CO 15: 600 – 604, no. 2199. To put it in the somewhat provocative terms of Heiko A. Oberman: “Calvin was not a city reformer in any of the usual senses of the term. He regarded himself as a soldier stationed in Geneva, but at the same time as an officer directing a European army.” Oberman, “Europa afflicta. The Reformation of the Refugees,” ARG 83 (1992): 91 – 111. 20 See Wernle, Calvin und Basel bis zum Tod des Myconius 1535 – 1552; Uwe Plath, Calvin und Basel in den Jahren 1552 – 1556 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974). 21 John Calvin, Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, in Calvini Opera Recognita, series 2, vol. 13: 3 – 6. On the dedication to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, see Nicole Kuropka, “Calvins Römerbriefwidmung und der consensus piorum,” in Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation, ed. Opitz, 147 – 167.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

146

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

of the Lord’s Supper, in 1548 he was deposed from office and asked to leave the city. Sulzer moved to Basel, the native city of his wife, where he was appointed professor of theology and within five years became the Antistes of the Basel Church.22 Until the early 1550s there was a friendly understanding between Calvin, Sulzer and the Basel establishment, but it gradually faded away during the “Second Eucharistic Strife.” On one hand, they endorsed the indictment of Servetus, and gave their assent without hesitation to his execution.23 On the other hand, first in the Bolsec Affair and then during the trial of the Spaniard, massive opposition to Calvin began to mount in Basel, supported by humanistic religious refugees at or in the vicinity of the university, whose orthodoxy had always been viewed with doubt by the leaders of the Swiss Reformed churches. The members of this so-called Basel faction included Sebastian Castellio (1515 – 1563) of Savoy, who had fallen out with Calvin in Geneva in 1545, and Celio Secondo Curione (1503 – 1569) of Piedmont, who had come to the Lausanne Academy in 1542 and had begun his tenure at the University of Basel as a professor of rhetoric in 1546.24 After Calvin expressed his point of view in a letter to Sulzer on September 9, 1553,25 the Antistes promised him the support of the Basel Church,26 although he protected Castellio and Curione, who were voicing their opposition to Calvin’s theology. The first of a series of polemical treaties against Calvin promptly appeared in Basel in December 1553: the Historia de morte Serveti,27 which was very likely written by Castellio himself. Calvin, for his part, justified his actions in the Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra trinitate.28 Early March 1554 saw the 22 On the state of the Basel Church at the midcentury, see the important monograph by Amy Nelson Burnett, Teaching the Reformation. Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529 – 1629 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). On the Bucerian leanings of Simon Sulzer, Antistes of the Basel church and rector of the city’s university, see Burnett, “Simon Sulzer and the Consequences of the 1563 Strasbourg Consensus in Switzerland,” ARG 83 (1992): 154 – 179. 23 On these events, see Plath, Calvin und Basel. 24 On Castellio, see Hans Rudolf Guggisberg, Sebastian Castellio 1515 – 1563. Humanist und Verteidiger der religiösen Toleranz im konfessionellen Zeitalter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), trans. Bruce Gordon as Sebastian Castellio, 1515 – 1563: Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration in a Confessional Age (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003); Stefania Salvadori, Sebastiano Castellione e la ragione della tolleranza. L’ars dubitandi fra conoscenza umana e veritas divina (Milan: Mimesis, 2009). Modern literature on Curione is extremely limited. The most recent biography is Markus Kutter, Celio Secondo Curione, sein Leben und sein Werk (1503 – 1569) (Basel, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1955). See also Albano Biondi, “Celio Secondo Curione,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 31 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1985), 443 – 49. 25 CO 14:614 – 16, no. 1793. 26 Simon Sulzer to Calvin, September 18, 1553, CO 14:622 – 623. 27 Plath, Calvin und Basel, 88 – 93. 28 See the title page, CO 8:453; “Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra trinitate, contra prodigiosos

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches

147

publication of an alternative to Calvin’s views in the tiny but epoch-making pamphlet titled De haereticis, an sint persequendi. This book was also chiefly the work of Sebastian Castellio, but it was financed by the wealthy Italian Marchese Bonifacio d’Oria29 and co-authored by Celio Secondo Curione. It was, in fact, a product of the Basel liberal humanist faction. The pseudonymous authorship was not enough to prevent Calvin from suspecting the Basel circle immediately after its publication.30 He described the book as “full of unbearable blasphemies,”31 and its authors as “brazen scribes” who “not only obscure the light of pure doctrine with the fog of heresy, and rob the simple and less educated of their reason through their evil lunacies, but also take the liberty of destroying the entire religion through the unholy freedom of doubt.”32 Moreover, Curione who privately complained to Bullinger that Calvin was following Bucer on the issue of the Eucharist, in the same year, 1554, overtly opposed Calvin’s doctrine of predestination in a treatise with the programmatic title De amplitudine beati regni Dei.33 A brief account of the controversy that broke out between Calvin and Castellio on the persecution of heretics and the freedom of religion shows that the interaction of the Genevan Reformer with Basel produced a different kind of opposition than in Bern. In Basel an academic elite, who had little involvement in the life of the Reformed church and even experienced some disillusionment with the new faith, joined together in a loose coalition aimed at fostering a middle course between the Erasmian tradition of tolerance and the increasingly strident positions expressed by Calvin. Essentially this was possible because Sulzer must have turned a blind eye to the activities of Castellio, Curione, and others, like the influential Lucchese printer Pietro Perna and the Dutch Anabaptist David Joris.34

29

30 31 32 33

34

errores Michaelis Serveti Hispani, ubi ostenditur haereticos iure gladii coercendos esse, et nominatim de homine hoc tarn impio iuste et merito sumptum Genevae fuisse supplicium.” The work itself: CO 8:453 – 644. The most complete study – although one to be used with caution – on this extraordinary figure who has received little attention is Manfred E. Welti, Giovanni Bernardino Bonifacio, marchese d’Oria im Exil 1557 – 1597. Eine Biographie und ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Philippismus (Geneva: Droz, 1976). Calvin to Bullinger, March 28, 1554, CO 15: 93 – 96, no. 1935. Calvin to the congregation in Poitiers, February 10, 1555, CO 15:435-446, no. 2118; here 441. CO 15: 200. Curione tried to publish the book in Basel, but it was rejected. He found a printer, Dolfino Landolfi, in Poschiavo, a municipality in the “Freestate of the Three Leagues” (today the Swiss canton of Grisons/Graubünden), who published the treatise in 1554. See Uwe Plath, “Der Streit um B. S. Curione De amplitudine beati regni Dei im Jahre 1554 in Basel,” in Eresia e Riforma nell’Italia del Cinquecento (Florence: Sansoni; Chicago: The Newberry Library, 1974), 269 – 281. On Perna as supplier of books that promoted heretical thinkers at the origins of Socinianism, see Leandro Perini, La vita e i tempi di Pietro Perna (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2002); on Joris in Basel, see Guggisberg, Sebastian Castellio, 168 – 71.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

148

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

Moreover, the sympathy of the Antistes for middle positions or concealment led in the second dispute over the Lord’s Supper to a further cooling off of relations with Basel.35 When the Hamburg pastor Joachim Westphal (ca. 1510 – 1574) attacked the Consensus Tigurinus in two polemical treatises, Calvin and Bullinger wanted to reply on behalf of all Swiss Reformed churches. Sulzer, however, was not willing to support openly the two Reformers. He not only condemned Calvin for his excessive partisanship in the strife against Westphal, but also argued that the Consensus Tigurinus should never have been published in the first place.36 Calvin had no understanding for Sulzer’s ambiguous points of view and summed up his opinion with his usual clarity in a letter to Bullinger, “I have always feared that Sulzer would remain cold in order to be able to remain neutral. But I had in fact expected something better or at least less witless.”37

Zurich If we are to take the temperature of Calvin’s relationship with other Swiss reformed cities, there is no denying that the connection with Zurich formed the crucial relationship. Calvin travelled to Zurich five times – on three occasions with Farel – in order to discuss political and ecclesiastical affairs. In addition to his contact with Heinrich Bullinger, Calvin came to know a great number of Zurich’s theologians, including Leo Jud, Rudolf Gwalther, Konrad Pellikan, Theodor Bibliander, Konrad Gessner, and later, Peter Martyr Vermigli, whom Calvin held in particularly high esteem.38 These contacts soon led to extensive correspondence that reinforced strong personal bonds of sympathy and were characterized by an unusually intense exchange of thought on theological, ecclesiastical, and political issues, and included the correspondents’ literary and personal plans. Judging by the number of letters sent, Calvin’s correspondence 35 See Plath, Calvin und Basel, 173 – 92. 36 Sulzer to Bullinger, March 7, 1555, CO 15:491, no. 2141; Sulzer to Bullinger, March 23, 1555, CO 15:521, no. 2160; Sulzer to Calvin, March 28, 1555, CO 15: 531, no. 2168. 37 Calvin to Bullinger, June 5, 1555, CO 15:640 – 642, no. 2218, here 642. 38 On these lesser known but prominent Zurich scholars, see Schola Tigurina: die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550, ed. Hans Ulrich Bächtold (Zurich: Pano Verlag, 1999). Vermigli was particularly close to Calvin on the issue of predestination, which Bibliander opposed. This unleashed in 1560 a controversy over predestination in the Zurich church, whose ministers and professors supported Vermigli over Bibliander. On the relationship between Calvin and Vermigli, see Emidio Campi, “John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli. A Reassessment of their Relationship,” in Calvin und Calvinismus – Europäische Perspektiven, ed. Irene Dingel, and Herman J. Selderhuis (Mainz: Steiner, 2011), 85 – 102 (and in this volume, pp. 123 – 140). On the differences between Bibliander and Vermigli on predestination, see Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), chapter 4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches

149

with Bullinger and others in Zurich was only exceeded by his communication with Farel and Viret,39 which demonstrates in what high esteem Calvin held his colleagues from Zurich.40 The frequent concurrent letters exchanged between the Genevan and Zurich City Councils were further evidence of this strong bond. The results of these epistolary contacts, which have been recently studied in depth, are quite suggestive.41 They confirm in the first instance that the years 1541 to 1549 were affected by three closely related problems relevant to Calvin’s relations with the Swiss Confederates: the conflicts with Bern in matters of church polity, the efforts to form an alliance of the Protestant states of the Confederation with France, and the agreement with Zurich on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Calvin’s plan was to anchor Geneva in the Confederation, but on his terms. He hoped that he could attain a theological understanding with Bullinger concerning the Lord’s Supper that would make it possible to conclude the conflict with the Bernese Church. Moreover, along with the Council of Geneva he sought the help of Zurich to provide stability in the difficult, tumultuous relations with the Bern magistrates. Finally, Calvin expected to persuade the Bernese and the Zurichers to emerge from their isolation and to act as part of a central European political force for effecting religious change along Reformed lines. We must remember that with the Schmalkaldic League’s defeat and the imposition of the Augsburg Interim, it appeared to many that Lutheranism was dead, and that the final hope for the survival of the Reformation, therefore, lay in the Swiss Confederation. And we should not overlook the fact that the renewal of the alliance of the Swiss Confederates with King Henri II of France (1519 – 59) opened up the possibility of unity among the Swiss Protestants, or at the very least, of assisting the Protestants in France, who had come under considerable pressure. Calvin sought to campaign personally in Zurich for this political master plan and visited Bullinger twice to that end. On one hand, he did not see his hopes fulfilled. Bern and Zurich did not join in alliance with France, and Bern continued to play its role as military protector of Geneva. On the other hand, Bullinger and Calvin were at least able to agree on their understanding of the Lord’s Supper, an agreement that both parties went on to uphold. This was the result of a long chiefly private theological dialogue between Calvin and Bullinger from 1547 to 1549. Both Reformers spared no effort for this, exchanging numerous letters and ideas about a solution to the problem and meeting three times 39 See Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 178. 40 Calvin wrote a total of 115 letters to Bullinger, and Bullinger wrote 162 letters to Calvin between 1538 and 1564. 41 Consensus Tigurinus. Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, eds. Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009), esp. 9 – 41.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

150

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

in Zurich, with the assistance of Farel. A compromise made this agreement theologically possible by taking a number of Zwingli’s main views into account and through determining the presence of Christ, alongside granting that salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit.42 For sure, the compromise was uneasy and did not prevent Calvin from reverting to his former position on spiritual presence in 1561. However, there is no point in discussing here whether Calvinism prevailed over Zwinglianism or whether Calvin gave up his primary position in order to make this possible. It is far more important to emphasize the future impact of the text: in a lengthy, complex process that culminated with the Synod of Dort, the two streams would merge to form a completely new type of church, the Reformed Church, which solidly opposed Roman Catholicism within Western Christianity together with Lutheranism and other outgrowths of the Reformation. The second striking feature of the contacts with Zurich is that this “entente cordiale” did not exclude differences of opinion on a number of matters. Concerning the Bolsec Affair and the question of predestination more generally, Bullinger did not seek to hide his disagreement with Calvin, and the discussion became increasingly bitter. Calvin wrote to Farel about Bullinger, “I complained lately of the theologians of Basel, who, as compared with those of Zurich, are worthy of very great praise. I can hardly express to you, my dear Farel, how much I am annoyed by their rudeness. There is less humanity among us than among wild beasts.”43 Even after the dispute was resolved in Calvin’s favor and Bolsec was expelled from the city,44 Calvin was still unable to let things stand as they were. He wrote to Bullinger, “Although you disappointed my expectations, I nevertheless gladly offer you my friendship. Before the others I will maintain silence as if I was entirely satisfied.”45 While the disagreement between Calvin 42 The text of the Consensus Tigurinus is in CO 7: 735 – 744. A new critical edition of the Agreement (with a modern English translation) and of the preceding correspondence between Bullinger and Calvin is in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, 125 – 142. On the literary origins and the theological importance of the Consensus Tigurinus, see Ulrich Gäbler, “Das Zustandekommen des Consensus Tigurinus im Jahre 1549,” Theologische Literatur Zeitung 104 (1979): 321 – 332; Paul Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper (Bramcote/Nottingham: Grove Books, 1989); most recently Wim Janse has drawn attention to the importance of Calvin’s dynamic Eucharistic theology in his “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology. Three Dogma-Historical Observations,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 37 – 69. See also my essay in this volume, pp. 83 – 121. 43 Calvin to Farel, December 8, 1551, CO 14: 218 f., no. 1571; esp. 218. 44 Bolsec was expelled, not executed, because the Swiss Reformed churches were not keen to have him executed and because he had the protection of Bern. This shows the delicate course Calvin had to steer so as not to antagonize the confederate churches. See Philip C. Holtrop, The Bolsec Controversy, 451. 45 Calvin to Bullinger, late January 1552, CO 14:251 – 54, no. 1590; esp. 253.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches

151

and Bullinger eventually subsided,46 they continued to maintain differing opinions in regard to predestination.47 There was, however, no difference of opinion in the much more difficult matter of Michael Servetus. Both Bullinger and the Zurich pastors declared Servetus to be a heretic, and urged the Geneva Council to carry out its duty in the matter.48 Zurich’s position thus corresponded with the consensus of the time, which was questioned by only a few outsiders, who were often individuals like Castellio or Curione in danger of persecution themselves. One final point, of paramount importance in the relationship between Calvin and Bullinger, needs to be mentioned – their common efforts on behalf of religious refugees. The help extended by Geneva and Zurich in the sixteenth century to Reformed Christians under attack in Italy, France, England, Hungary, and Poland derived primarily from Calvin and Bullinger’s true empathy and strong commitment to the fates of the persecuted. Just to name a few examples: Calvin’s indefatigable efforts on behalf of the Waldensians, whose grave situation of persecution in the Luberon region of Provence in 1545, in Piedmont in 1560, and Calabria in 1561 was (as might be expected) first felt in Geneva, is quite well documented; less known, however, is that they then received support and found succor in both cities.49 Calvin and Bullinger’s support of Reformed Christians in France was even more extensive. Bullinger continually supported Calvin’s (and Beza’s) unflagging efforts, whether with material or literary assistance, or with petitions and common delegations, even though the two friends did not always agree on the type of assistance that was appropriate.50 46 Calvin to Bullinger, March 13, 1552, CO 14:302 – 5, no. 1612. 47 See Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger im Zusammenhang mit seiner Gotteslehre (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1957), 168 – 180; Gottfried W. Locher, “Bullinger und Calvin. Probleme des Vergleiches ihrer Theologien,” in Heinrich Bullinger 1504 – 1575. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag, 2 vols, eds. Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 2: 1 – 33; Richard Muller, Christ and the Decree. Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth Press, 1986); and Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination. 48 CO 8: 555 – 58. 49 See Arturo Pascal, “Le ambascerie dei cantoni e dei principi protestanti di Svizzera e Germania al re di Francia in favore dei Valdesi durante il periodo della dominazione francese in Piemonte (1535 – 1559),” in Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino (1913): 80 – 119, 314 – 333; (1914): 26 – 38; Euan Cameron, The Reformation of the Heretics: The Waldenses of the Alps, 1480 – 1580 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 237 – 239; Hans Ulrich Bächthold, “Ein Volk auf der Flucht. Die Schweiz als Refugium der Waldenser,” Jahrbuch für Europäische Geschichte 7 (2006): 23 – 42; Albert de Lange, Calvino, i Valdesi e l’ Italia (Turin: Claudiana, 2009). 50 On Bullinger’s influence on France see the seminal, yet often overlooked, work of Andr¦ Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, r¦formateur et conseiller oecum¦nique, le successeur de Zwingli, d’aprÀs sa correspondance avec les r¦form¦s et les humanistes de langue franÅaise (Neuch–tel: Delachaux et Niestl¦, 1940), 267 – 424, esp. 217 – 220, 247 – 248, 273 – 278, 293 – 296. The most

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

152

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

To sum up, Calvin’s relations with Bern were those most riddled with conflict. In Bern Calvin’s criticism of the liturgical rites and of the state’s role in the affairs of the church, combined with the eruption of the predestination polemic in the French-speaking communities, proved immensely threatening to significant sections of the magistracy and the clergy. Many were increasingly concerned about peace and order in the Bernese lands and feared losing their own theological tradition; thus they were solidly opposed to central aspects of Calvin’s thought and action. The Basel Church, influenced by the reserved Simon Sulzer, was essentially well disposed, but Calvin regarded this church as lacking in zeal and courage. The academic elite of the city under Castellio and Curione was a stronghold of fierce opposition that attempted with both eloquence and scholarship to provide alternatives to Calvin’s theology. Finally, Calvin found in Zurich a true comrade-in-arms, Heinrich Bullinger, who remained loyal to Calvin despite initial reservations, occasional theological differences, and differing positions with regard to church polity. The Consensus Tigurinus, the founding charter of Reformed Protestantism, remains to this very day an expressive symbol of the mutual respect and the personal friendship between Calvin and Bullinger. This overview of Calvin’s relationship with the Swiss Reformed cities of Bern, Basel, and Zurich thus most strongly demonstrates that as he stated in his Discours d’adieu, Calvin was indeed both “feared and loved” in the Swiss Confederation of his time.

2.

Calvin and the European Reformation

The second part of this essay presents some thoughts on the influence and importance of Calvin in the wider context of the European Reformation, where he elicited equally strong reactions, from enthusiastic admiration to vehement rejection. This is a subject that has been fairly thoroughly explored. I propose to address the question from a somewhat different angle than that of most of the writers who have concerned themselves with analyzing the continental expansion of Calvinism. For rather than address this question through a geographical analysis, I will offer a series of observations from a systematic perspective, namely, by examining Calvin’s relations with the Roman Church, the radical reformers, and the variegated Protestant camp.51 recent survey is Andreas Mühling, “Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 187 – 224; and Mühling, “Heinrich Bullingers politische Beziehungen nach Frankreich,” in Reformierte Retrospektive. Vorträge der zweiten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, Emder Beiträge zum reformierten Protestantismus, ed. Harm Klueting and Jan Rohls (Wuppertal: Foedus-Verlag, 2001), 25 – 36. 51 See, for example, John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the European Reformation

153

The Roman Church During the years 1539 to 1541, Calvin was active with other leading Reformers and urban politicians in efforts to reach the greatest possible degree of agreement with the Roman Church. He participated in the religious colloquies held at Frankfurt (1539), Hagenau (1540), Worms, and Regensburg (1541), although judging from his correspondence with Farel and Viret, he was scathing about attempts to compromise on essentials for the sake of an apparent unity.52 Even in the treatise Supplex exhortatio ad Carolum quintum (1543), Calvin constantly referred to “the church,” thus giving a glimpse of his view on its catholicity.53 This work, written at the request of Martin Bucer to clarify the issues in the relationship between the Protestants and Rome, along with his participation at the religious colloquies, earned Calvin the friendship of Melanchthon and the esteem of leading Protestant theologians.54 With the beginning of the Council of Trent in 1545, and the subsequent process of confessionalization, the various fronts became entrenched, and it proved increasingly obvious that no consensus would be possible. It comes as no University Press, 1954), which for decades was considered the standard work on the Reformed tradition, and the excellent survey of Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002). For further examples, see International Calvinism, ed. Menna Prestwich (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); Andrew Pettegree, “Calvinism in Europe,” in Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, eds. Hirzel and Sallmann, 35 – 48; The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 57 – 125; and Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 250 – 275, 304 – 328. 52 For example, CO 11:145 – 47, 171 – 73, 174 – 80, 262 – 63. See Wilhelm H. Neuser, “Calvins Beitrag zu den Religionsgesprächen von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg (1540 – 1541),” in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation. Festschrift fu¨ r Ernst Bizer, ed. Luise Abramowski and J. F. Gerhard Goeters (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 213 – 37. 53 For the text, see CO 6: 453 – 534. However, replying to the objection commonly leveled against the reformers that they promoted heresy and created schism in the church, he argued, “It is not enough simply to throw out the name of church, but judgment must be used to ascertain which is the true church, and what is the nature of its unity […] we mean a church which, from incorruptible seed, begets children for immortality, and, when begotten, nourishes them with spiritual food (that seed and food being the word of God), and which, by its ministry, preserves entire the truth which God deposited in its bosom. This mark is in no degree doubtful, in no degree fallacious, and it is the mark which God himself impressed upon his church, that she might be discerned thereby.” CO 6: 520. See Jan J. Steenkamp, “Calvin’s Exhortation to Charles V (1543),” in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997), 309 – 14. 54 See Irena Backus, “Un chapitre oubli¦ de la r¦ception de Calvin en France. La Vita Calvini de Jean-Papire Masson (1583). Introduction, ¦dition critique et traduction franÅaise annot¦e,” in Jean Calvin et la France. spec. ed. (Bernard Cottret and Olivier Millet) Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’Histoire du Protestantisme FranÅais 155 (2009), 181 – 207.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

154

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

surprise, therefore, that this circumstance modified Calvin’s view of the Roman Church. His most significant work was the Acta Synodi Tridentinae cum Antidoto of 1547, in which he lucidly delineated the theological and ecclesiastical issues dividing Rome and the Reformers.55 Impressed by Calvin’s treatise, Bullinger urged him to respond to the “popish” Augsburg Interim, which the Genevan reformer in his trenchant critique promptly branded as “The AdulteroGerman Interim”!56 The papal church became the opposite of the true church, and it was “better to be separated for the sake of union with Christ than to be united in apostasy.”57 Henceforth Calvin devoted himself more and more exclusively to the task of restoring the true church of the pure Word of God. One cannot read Calvin’s writings from the late 1540s on without being struck by this second strand of his thought. Certainly much is to be found in Book IV of the Institutes, but a great deal can be discovered by looking at various treatises, sermons, letters, and above all, at his commentaries on Scripture, which offer some of Calvin’s more mature reflections.58 A good example can be found in his Commentary on Isaiah, first published in 1550. Commenting on Isaiah 28 – 32, in which the prophet foretells the imminent restoration of the church and proclaims that God will still be gracious to his Church so as to restore her to integrity, Calvin discerns a parallel with the circumstances of his own day : Although, as a result of a near extinction of the light of faith, and a horrendous corruption of the worship of God, the people were deformed, they nevertheless boasted of their royal priesthood – just as we see the Papists shamelessly bragging in a similar war today, although a deadly confusion cries out that the entire form of the Church has perished among them. For this reason the prophet defines what the reformation of the Church will involve.59

55 For the text, see CO 7: 365 – 506. On Calvin’s reactions to the Council of Trent, see Theodore W. Casteel, “Calvin and Trent: Calvin’s Reaction to the Council of Trent in the Context of His Conciliar Thought,” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 91 – 117. 56 John Calvin Interim adultero-germanum, cui adiecta est vera christianae pacificationis, et ecclesiae reformandae ratio (1549), CO 7:545 – 674. Bullinger’s letter to Calvin, May 26, 1548, CO 12: 705 – 707, no. 1025. 57 Benjamin Ch. Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 156. 58 See, e. g., Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church, Lukas Vischer, Pia conspiratio: Calvin’s Commitment to the Unity of Christ’s Church (Geneva: Centre international r¦form¦ John Knox, 2000), and Eva-Maria Faber, “Mutual Connectedness as a Gift and a Task: On John Calvin’s Understanding of the Church,” in Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society, eds. Hirzel and Sallmann, 122 – 144. 59 CO 36: 475 – 476, see Pete Wilcox, “Calvin as Commentator on the Prophets,” in Calvin and the Bible, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 107 – 130, esp. 124 – 126.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the European Reformation

155

Isaiah’s prediction undoubtedly relates to the pious king Hezekiah and his reign, under which the church was restored to its former splendour. However, restorations such as these, Calvin argued, are not accomplished once and for all. They must be undertaken again and again, whenever the church is in a state of collapse. Thus, Hezekiah is depicted as an example for all ages, and not least, in Calvin’s estimation, for the church of his own day.60 Calvin evidently understood his work as “a part of that restorative process of the church […] which was there before him, a restoration of the true order of the church, and not a retreat into some ideal church above and beyond this world.”61 On account of this, Calvin was even prepared to admit that the Roman Church had not been altogether destroyed. It is still, as he wrote in his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:4, “The temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.”62 In a passage of his commentary on Ezekiel, he was again free to acknowledge that, although Rome had failed to reciprocate the faithfulness of God, there will always be “a church among them, but hidden and wonderfully preserved.”63 These are but a few representative examples, to illustrate Calvin’s manner of approaching the question of the relationship with the Roman Church.

60 Wilcox, “Calvin as Commentator on the Prophets,” 126. The other often commented upon passage, particularly by those scholars who have dealt with the question of ecclesiology, is the exposition of Malachi 2:4. Here Calvin makes an unequivocal statement, remarking that defiance of Roman orders is not defiance of, much less separation from, the (true) church: “When we resist the papal priests, we do not violate God’s covenant, that is, it is no departure from the order of the church, which ought ever to remain sacred and inviolable. We do not then, on account of men’s vices, subvert the pastoral office and the preaching of the word; but we assail the men themselves, so that true order may be restored … We therefore boldly attempt to subvert the whole of the papacy, with the full confidence that we minimize nothing of true doctrine … indeed, the order of the church, the preaching of the truth, and the very dignity of pastors cannot stand unless the church is purged of its defilements and its filth removed,” in CO 44: 433. For further examples in the context of the Minor Prophets, see Frederik A. V. Harms, In God’s Custody : The Church, a History of Divine Protection. A Study of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology Based on his Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), esp. 124 – 129. Jon Balserak, Establishing the Remnant Church in France. Calvin’s Lectures on the Minor Prophets, 1556 – 1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), esp. 19 – 52. See also Michael Jenkins, “Unintended Consequences: Schism and Calvin’s Ecclesiology,” Theology Today 66 (2009): 217 – 33. 61 Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church, 155. 62 CO 52: 199. 63 CO 40: 354.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

156

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

The Radical Reformation Like most reformers of his day, Calvin confronted the Radical Reformation in its full spectrum of Anabaptists, Unitarians, and Spiritualists of all kinds.64 In the Psychopannychia, one of his earliest works, in the BriÀve instruction contre les anabaptistes, published in 1544, and in the treatise Contre la secte phantastique et furieuse des libertines from the following year, Calvin offered a detailed discussion of their various doctrines.65 Above all, he clearly rejected the ethical rigor of those who regarded post-baptismal sin as unforgivable, excluding unworthy church members, and the conception of the church as consisting only of regenerate members who willingly embraced a life of discipleship.66 The last critique might come as a surprise since Calvin also stressed the importance of discipline for the ordering of the Christian life and yearned for a visible community of saints.67 This is no paradox, but rather the consequence of a very different understanding of discipline. The Anabaptists insisted that discipline was an indispensable mark of the true church. Significantly, Calvin regarded this assertion as dangerous confusion and distinguished carefully between marks and discipline. The marks, which he called the “saving doctrine of Christ,” constitute the life of the church, whereas the discipline, which he compared to the sinews that hold the body together, sustains the church.68 64 See William Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981); Bernard Cottret, Calvin. Biographie (Paris: Lattes, 1995), 280 – 286; Akira Demura: “From Zwingli to Calvin: A Comparative Study of Zwingli’s ‘Elenchus’ and Calvin’s ‘BriÀve Instruction’,” in Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen. Wissenschaftliche Tagung zum hundertjährigen Bestehen des Zwinglivereins (29. Oktober bis 2. November 1997 in Zürich), eds. Alfred Schindler and Hans Stickelberger (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 87 – 99. 65 Psychopannychia (written 1534, published 1544), CO 5: 165 – 232; BriÀve instruction pour armer tous bons fideles contre les erreurs des Anabaptistes, CO 7: 45 – 142; and Contre la secte phantastique et furieuse des libertin qui se nomment spirituels, CO 7: 145 – 248. For example, he attacked their notion of soul sleep between death and the resurrection. He refuted their views against infant baptism, their objections to the use of oaths, and their negative attitude toward the world and state combined with the conviction that a Christian could not hold the office of magistrate. He countered their claim to possess immediate revelations of the Spirit, which disparaged the importance of the ministry of the Word. 66 Thomas H. L. Parker, Calvin. An Introduction to his Thought (London: Chapman, 1995, repr. New York: Continuum, 2002), 132 – 33. 67 It is true that in the Institutes, before settling down to a close dissection of Anabaptist ecclesiology, Calvin noted that we should aim at ethical perfection, but he added that believing that one could achieve it on earth is a “devilish invention.” Inst. 4.1.20.23. As he said epigrammatically in the BriÀve instruction contre les anabaptistes, “Whenever, under the pretext of zeal for perfection, we cannot bear any imperfection either in the body or the members of the church, the devil is inflaming us with pride and seducing us through hypocrisy to abandon the flock of Jesus Christ,” CO 7: 77. 68 Inst. 4.12.1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the European Reformation

157

Discipline, then, pertained to external organization, not to the definition of the true church. In this manner, Calvin upheld the substance of the Anabaptist concern and at the same time refined their teaching. For him, in perfect keeping with Augustine’s ecclesiology, the church is constituted not by the quality of her members, but by the presence of the means of grace. Only the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments give the church her character of the body of Christ; discipline, however important, is “like a bridle to restrain and tame those who rage against the doctrine of Christ.”69 Besides, the intention of discipline is not to expel imperfect people from the fellowship of believers in order to attain ecclesial holiness, but rather to drive sinners to repentance, to restore communion, and to bring health to the body of Christ, although its daily exercise reveals that this ultimate aim can never be entirely achieved.70 Moreover, whereas the Anabaptists viewed the church as a fellowship of saints, the Reformer, invoking the authority of Augustine, regarded it as a corpus permixtum, composed of both sinners and the redeemed.71 Quoting the parable of the net (Matt. 13:47), in which all kinds of fish are caught but not separated until they are brought ashore, the reformer exhorted patience with sinners, certainly not indulging them, but nevertheless firmly endeavoring to purify the church.72 Through the preaching of the Word and the exercise of discipline, a constructive path should be found between antinomianism and legalism. Calvin saw it in “the judgment of charity,” by which we acknowledge that all members of the church, who confess faith, have an appropriate behavior and participate in the sacraments.73 Thus, in the context of both resurgent Catholicism boasting about its external institutional unity and radical sectarianism suggesting a separatist model of church consisting of visible saints, Calvin steered a middle course between the ecclesiological extremes of Rome and the Anabaptists.74 69 Ibid. 70 Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church, 179; Demura, “From Zwingli to Calvin,” 95 – 96; Gene Haas, “Calvin, the Church and Ethics,” in Calvin and the Church: Papers Presented at the 13th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, May 24 – 26, 2001, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids, Mich.: CRC Product Services, 2002), 72 – 91, here 87 – 88. 71 See, for example, Inst. 4.1.8; Calvin’s comments on Ps. 26:5, CO 31: 266. See Herman J. Selderhuis, “Church on Stage: Calvin’s Dynamic Ecclesiology,” in Calvin and the Church, ed. Foxgrover, 46 – 64, here 51 – 54. 72 Inst. 4.1.13. See also the Harmonia ex tribus Euangelistis composita (Matt. 13:47), CO 45: 376. 73 Inst. 4.1.8. 74 See Calvin’s explicit affirmation in Reply to Sadoleto: “We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods” CO 5: 393.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

158

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

Building Unity between Protestant Churches Protestants were one in rejecting the Roman Church, but every attempt to unite the Evangelical camp in the sixteenth century came to nothing, ostensibly because of the differing understandings of the Lord’s Supper. In the “Sacramentarian Controversy,” which had begun with the dispute between Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli, Calvin initially supported the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 as the basis for Protestant unity. However, the cool winds blowing from Wittenberg and Zurich in the mid-forties required him to take another path to express his own understanding of the reality of Christ’s presence in the sacrament. In his Petit traict¦ de la Saincte Cene (1541),75 perhaps the most balanced explanation of the Eucharist of the Reformation era, Calvin openly discussed the conflict between Lutherans and Zwinglians and was not afraid to criticize both with a striking independence.76 According to Calvin, what had remained underexposed in the longstanding dispute were the constitutive function of the Holy Spirit and the understanding of the Lord’s Supper as spiritual nourishment for the church.77 Significantly, when, in September 1544, Luther increased his criticism of the Zwinglians with another violent pamphlet, Kurzes Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl,78 Calvin wrote to Bullinger on 25 November 1544 urging him to be tolerant and make allowances for Luther’s temperament.79 Just as he praised Luther, describing him “as a quite outstanding servant of God” who has “always worked till now to break the rule of the Antichrist and spread the doctrine of salvation,” so also he appealed to Bullinger’s acumen to avoid a controversy, which would 75 Trait¦ Cene, CO 5: 433 – 460. 76 Trait¦ Cene, CO 5: 458 – 459. 77 Trait¦ Cene, CO 5: 460. In his irenical desire to bring together the opponents, he presented a proposal which is worth keeping before us: “Nous confessons doncq tous d’une bouche, que en recevant en Foy le Sacrement, selon l’ordonnance du Seigneur, nous sommes vrayment faictz participans de la propre substance du corps et du sang de Iesus Christ. Comment cela se faict, les uns le peuvent mieux desduire et plus clairement exposer que les autres. Tant y a que d’une part il nous fault, pour exclurre toutes phantasies charnelles, eslever les cueurs en hault au ciel, ne pensant pas que le Seigneur Iesus soit abaiss¦ iusque la, de estre enclos soubz quelques elemens corruptibles. D’aultre part, pour ne point amoindrir l’efficace de ce sainct mystere, il nous fault penser que cela se faict par la vertu secrete et miraculeuse de Dieu, et que l’Esprit de Dieu est le lien de ceste participation, pour la quelle cause elle est appell¦e spirituelle.” 78 WA 54: 141 – 67. 79 CO 11:772 – 75, no. 586. See Alasdair I. C. Heron, “‘Wenn Luther uns mit unserem Bekenntnis annehmen will’: Luther und die Abendmahlsfrage in den Briefen Calvins bis 1546,” in Frömmigkeit – Theologie – Frömmigkeitstheologie. Festschrift für Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Gudrun Litz et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 395 – 409.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the European Reformation

159

result in “the general shipwreck of the Church.” Calvin was all the more disappointed when in the following months the Zurich pastors replied sharply to Luther with the Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss,80 and Luther fired even more rudely back. On June 28, 1545, Calvin wrote to Melanchthon, exasperated with both sides – and deeply disillusioned by what he saw as Melanchthon’s weakness in the whole affair.81 The positions eventually moved closer, as we have already seen, with the Zurich Agreement of 1549. By that time Luther was already dead, so he was no longer around to express his opinion about the Consensus Tigurinus. However, there were plenty of Lutheran theologians who criticized the Zurich Agreement. The chief among them was the head pastor of Hamburg, Joachim Westphal, who published two pamphlets, Farrago in 1552 and Recta fides in 1553, both filled with truculent personal abuse: Calvin became the “cow” (das Kalbe) and Bullinger inevitably the “bull” (der Bulle). At the request of Bullinger, and in contact with Peter Martyr Vermigli, Calvin answered with an apology titled Defensio in 1555,82 a subsequent Secunda Defensio in 1556, and an Ultima Admonitio in 1557. Thus the so-called “Second Supper Strife” increased instead of lessening the conflict between the Swiss and the Lutherans.83 Even if the style is typical of sixteenth-century theological polemic, Calvin took a more conciliatory approach in an effort to achieve consensus with the Lutherans. Thus he insisted, for example, that the English exiles in Wesel remain in the Lutheran Church, despite differences in opinion regarding certain ceremonial matters such as using lighted candles and wafers in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.84 He prefaced his Secunda Defensio with an epistle to the pastors

80 HBBibl 1, 161 – 169. 81 CO 12: 98 – 100, no. 657. 82 Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de saramentis, CO 9:15 – 36. See Calvin’s letter to Vermigli, November 27, 1554, CO 15: 322 – 23, no. 2053. Moreover, Calvin did not conceal his own admiration concerning the depth of Vermigli’s comprehension of the Scriptural and Patristic foundations of the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper. In his Dilucida Explicatio sanae doctrinae de vera participatione carnis et sangunis Christi in sacra coena (1560) against Tilemann Heshusius, he declared without equivocation that nothing could be added to what Peter Martyr had already written, CO 9: 457 – 524, here 490. 83 Although it repeats some older inaccuracies about the Zurich Agreement (see Consensus Tigurinus, eds. Campi and Reich, 287 – 289) always helpful is Ernst Bizer, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreites im 16. Jahrhundert (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1940, repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962), 275 – 299. See also Joseph N. Tylenda, “The Calvin-Westphal Exchange: The Genesis of Calvin’s Treatises against Westphal,” Calvin Theological Journal 9 (1974): 182 – 209. 84 See Calvin’s letter to the English-speaking congregation in Wesel on March 13, 1554, CO 15: 78 – 81, no. 1929. A good interpretation of this significant document is found in Wilhem H. Neuser, “Die Aufnahme der Flüchtlinge aus England in Wesel (1553) und ihre Ausweisung trotz der Vermittlung Calvins und Melanchthons,” in Weseler Konvent 1568 – 1968. Eine

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

160

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

of Saxony dated 26 January 1556, where he urged them to use their powers for the peace and unity of the church.85 The debates continued and grew in intensity. Yet Calvin did not interrupt the dialogue, constantly affirming his agreement with Luther and the Augsburg Confession. In the Ultima Admonitio he declared: But as long as any hope of pacification appears, it will not be my fault if mutual goodwill is not maintained. Though from being unworthily provoked I have been more vehement in this writing than I was inclined to be, still were a time and place appointed for friendly discussion, I declare and promise that I will be ready to attend, and manifest a spirit of lenity which will not retard the desired success of a pious and holy concord. I am not one who delights in intestine dissension.86

Calvin repeatedly begged Melanchthon to express his opinion on the “Sacramentarian controversy,” but his appeals fell on deaf ears.87 For years before his death in 1560, the preceptor Germaniae was himself the object of enraged attacks from the Gnesiolutherans Tilemann Heshusius and Matthias Flacius, the selfappointed guardians of Luther’s legacy.88 Various reconciliatory missions of

85

86 87

88

Jubiläumsschrift (Düsseldorf: Presseverband der Evangelischen Kirche im Rheinland, 1968), 28 – 49. John Calvin, Secunda Defensio piae et orthodoxae: “Whatever procedure is proposed towards a union, I am not only inclined to accept it, but I would follow it with joy … what, then, do I say about myself ? It is rather a case of considering the holy alliance with so many churches which this Westphal is seeking to destroy. Whatever he may babble to the contrary, we may be sure of one thing: that, out of the wretched scattering of the papacy, we have not been joined merely humanly in such a unison of faith. Everywhere we all can and do proclaim the same doctrines of the one God and the true and right way to serve Him, the depravity of human nature, salvation by grace, the way to attain righteousness, the ministry and operation of Christ, repentance and its results, faith founded on the promises of the Gospel which gives us the assurance of salvation, prayer to God, and all other principal points. We also call on the one God our Father, trusting in the same Mediator, the same Spirit of divine adoption is the pledge of our future inheritance, by the same sacrifice Christ has atoned for us all, our hearts all trust in the same righteousness gained for us by Him, we all glory in the same Head. It would therefore be astonishing if Christ whom we extol as our peace, who has made an end of all strife, and has disposed God in heaven to be gracious to us, did not cause us to have as well brotherly love also on earth. Is it not, then, our task to fight every day under the same banner against the tyranny of Antichrist, against the vile distortions of Christianity, and against godless superstition and the desecration of all that is holy? To set at naught such pledges of solidarity and such agreement, clearly brought about, as they have been, by God, and to provoke divisions amongst those who follow the same Captain in the field, is a dismemberment of those who belong to Christ, as heartless as it is godless,” CO 9: 49 – 50. John Calvin, Ultima admonitio ad Ioachimum Westphalum, CO 9: 250. Lengthy quotations in English translation from the correspondence can be found in R. E. Pot, “Calvin and Ecumenicity,” in http://spindleworks.com/library/pot/calvin_ecumenicity.htm. See Timothy J. Wengert, “‘We Will Feast Together in Heaven Forever’: The Epistolary Friendship of John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon,” in Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence beyond Wittenberg, ed. Karin Maag (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 19 – 44. Provoked by the strict Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius’s (1527 – 1588) De praesentia corporis Christi in coena Domini contra sacramentarios (1560), Calvin wrote the treatise Dilucida

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the European Reformation

161

Theodore Beza to Germany between 1557 and 1559 ended in failure. To the strict Lutherans, the Consensus Tigurinus not only revived the ghost of the LutherZwingli controversy, but considering the simultaneous spread of Calvinism across Germany, the Zurich Agreement seemed in their eyes the proof that the Reformed, having perverted true doctrine, aimed to subvert true religion as well. Thus they mistrusted Calvin’s and Bullinger’s bridge-building attempts to establish Protestant unity, and even mistreated the “Calvinists.”89 Distressed, perhaps with a silent insight, Calvin noted in a letter from 1560 to Rector Matthias Schenck of Augsburg: “Wittenberg has produced, I confess, several pious and courageous personalities. But the majority believe themselves to be faithful imitators of Luther by inflating themselves with pretentious arrogance instead of the openness of mind which this man possessed.”90 The hopes of the early 1540s that the breach with the Lutherans would be healed and the three Protestant capitals, Wittenberg, Zurich, and Geneva, brought together were definitely dashed. Instead the “Second Supper Strife” established Calvin as the foremost reformer of the second generation. Admired by his supporters and criticized by his opponents, he enjoyed widespread influence throughout Europe and impressed his seal on the most eventful years for the process of confessionalization in the European continent. In addition, the Geneva church became the model for a resilient form of ecclesiastical organization that, although designed for one citystate, could be adapted to the larger needs of great states, especially when political authorities were hostile. Indeed, the Calvinist Reformation had an extensive capacity largely denied to Lutheranism, whose spread was mostly confined to German territories and Scandinavia, or to Zwinglianism, which put down hardly any roots beyond the Swiss Confederation, England excepted. The effect of this can be seen in Europe in the second half of the sixteenth century. Inevitably, Calvin’s greatest influence was in France, the land of his birth. The impetus for the foundation of these new churches emanated from him, but it would be misleading to single him out. Theodore Beza and Pierre Viret were highly regarded, and Bullinger was the most widely read non-French Reformer in France. Furthermore, while benefitting from the leadership of Genevan-trained ministers and Genevan literature, not least the Bible and the metrical psalms, French Protestants developed their own responses to the political explication sanae doctrinae de vera participatione carnis et sangunis Christi in sacra coena. (1561), CO 9: 457 – 524. On Heshusius, see David Steinmetz, “Calvin and his Lutheran Critics,” Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1990), 179 – 194. On Matthias Flacius, see Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002) (and the critical review by Martina Hartmann, in H-Soz-u-Kult, 17. 07. 2002, http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/FNZ-2002 – 006). 89 Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 202 – 229. 90 CO 18: 61 – 62.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

162

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

challenges of their homeland. Reduced to essentials, although Calvin continued to advise caution, the onward march of the Catholic state was opposed in the socalled Wars of Religion (1562 – 1598) by a Calvinist resistance movement led by Louis Prince of Cond¦ and Admiral Gaspard de Coligny.91 The extraordinary series of Protestant rebellious movements, which led to upheavals in Scotland and the Netherlands, looked to Geneva rather than to earlier forms of the Reformation such as Lutheranism and Zwinglianism. In Scotland, where in 1560 a Calvinist Reformation was established by an alliance of the reformer John Knox with the “Lords of the Congregation” who had successfully rebelled against the Catholic regent, Mary of Guise, the influence of Geneva was pervasive and included doctrine and liturgy as well as consistorial discipline.92 In the Low Countries the influence of Calvin on the Reformation was exerted through the Dutch exile churches gathered in London, Emden, Frankfurt, and Wesel, while Calvinism was able to bring together the disparate forces of Dutch evangelism. Calvin was already dead by the time of the outbreak of the Dutch revolt in 1566, but Calvinists played a significant role in the national uprising against Spain spearheaded by William of Orange. Through their sacrifices, “Calvinism was firmly embedded in the foundations of the free Dutch state.”93 Calvin’s great international stature as reformer is indicated also by his involvement in the English Reformation. Yet, his influence was arguably neither unique nor decisive, but built on previous efforts by other reformers to reach out to the church and theological leadership of the country. He became aware of events in England while in Strasbourg through Bucer, who had dedicated his 1536 commentary on Romans to Archbishop Cranmer. Yet, already in 1531 the distinguished Basel scholar Simon Grynaeus had established a link with the English church,94 and 1538 saw the first dedication of a book by a Zurich reformer to an English monarch. The author, Heinrich Bullinger, saw in England the potential for a powerful national Reformed church, and throughout his long life cultivated a close relationship to the English Church. The dedication of the 91 It is simply impossible to quote the vast literature. The groundbreaking works are Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France (1555 – 1563) (Geneva: Droz, 1956, repr. 2007); and Kingdon, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement (Geneva: Droz, 1967); for useful discussions and recent literature, see La R¦forme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes, ed. Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi, and Alain Tallon (Rome: Êcole franÅaise de Rome, 2007). 92 See Ian Hazlett, The Reformation in Britain and Ireland. An Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2003), 113 – 168. 93 Andrew Pettegree, “Religion and Revolt,” in The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt, ed. Graham Darby (London: Routledge, 2001), 67 – 83, here 82. 94 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer. A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 173.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the European Reformation

163

third and fourth Decades of Sermons to Edward VI, the hospitality to a group of Marian exiles between 1553 and 1558, and the involvement in the “Vestiarian Controversy” during the reign of Elizabeth I illustrate how the ties between Zurich and England deepened as time went on.95 Very important was also the invitation to Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Jan Łaski, to settle in England after the Augsburg Interim, since they helped to educate a generation of theologians who were to shape the future of English Protestantism. Calvin’s involvement in English religious politics began with the accession of Edward VI, and a selection of dedications to eminent persons – which was indeed a common sixteenth-century feature – exhibits his growing interest in England. He dedicated to the Duke of Somerset, regent to the boy-king Edward VI, his commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy (1548). Edward himself received the dedication of the commentary on James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude (1551), and of the first edition of the commentary on Isaiah (1551), whereas the second edition (1559) was dedicated to the young queen Elizabeth, who refused it, considering Geneva the source of the execrable ideas expressed by John Knox in his vitriolic tract The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. Although the affair damaged relations between Geneva and England,96 it is undisputed that Calvin exercised a profound and lasting influence over the English Church through the stranger churches in London, both French and Dutch.97 Furthermore, we are now aware how avidly the English read Calvin during the second half of sixteenth century. His sermons, biblical commentaries, and the Institutes were available in English editions and often reprinted. The number of Calvin’s works translated into English far surpassed that of his contemporaries, even Bullinger’s.98 95 Heinrich Bullinger, De scripturae sanctae authoritate deque episcoporum institutione et functione, ed. Emidio Campi (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009). See Carrie Euler, Couriers of the Gospel: England and Zurich, 1531 – 1558 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006), 61 – 62, 65. 96 See Beza’s September 3, 1566, letter to Bullinger, in The Zurich letters (second series), comprising the correspondence of several English bishops and others, with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth (Cambridge: University Press, 1842), 131: “For as to our Church, I would have you know that it is so hateful to the Queen [Elizabeth], that on this account she has never said a single word in acknowledgement of the gift of my Annotations. The reason of her dislike is twofold: one, because we are accounted too severe and precise, which is very displeasing to those who fear reproof; the other is, because formerly, though without our knowledge, during the lifetime of Queen Mary, two books were published here in the English language, one by Master Knox against the Government of Women, the other by Master Goodman on the Rights of the Magistrate.” 97 See Judith Becker, Gemeindeordnung und Kirchenzucht: Johannes a Lascos Kirchenordnung für London (1555) und die reformierte Konfessionsbildung (Leiden: Brill, 2007). This well researched dissertation gives a full picture of the theological developments in the stranger churches, including Calvin’s part in them. 98 See Francis Higman, “Calvin’s Work in Translation,” in Calvinism in Europe, ed. Pettegree,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

164

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

Hungary had strikingly little contact with Calvin. It was Basel that initially played an important role in establishing personal contacts with Hungarian and Transylvanian students through Simon Grynaeus, Oswald Myconius, and Sebastian Münster. Closer connections were established with Zurich from 1549, when Bullinger sent the Consensus Tigurinus to Hungary for approval. Then in 1551 he helped to secure the Reformed Church under the trauma of the Ottoman conquest with his Epistola ad Ecclesias hungaricas,99 and it was Bullinger who provided the decisive document of Hungarian Protestantism, namely the Confessio Helvetica Posterior. Calvin had considerably more connections with Poland than with Hungary and he made a real cultural impact, particularly among the nobility.100 The King, Sigismund II August (1548 – 1572), to whom the Reformer dedicated his commentary on Hebrews, was vividly interested in reforming the Polish Church. Although he remained a Catholic, with his advisor Francesco Lismanini (a Graeco-Italian brought up in Poland and confessor of Queen Bona Sforza) he tolerated the formation of Protestant congregations. While Lutheranism took roots in Royal Prussia and Great Poland, the nobles of Little Poland, Ruthenia, and Lithuania embraced Calvinism. Among the important correspondents with Calvin were in Lithuania Prince Mikołaj Radziwiłł, and Jan Łaski in Little Poland. Łaski, after a long period spent in foreign lands, returned to his homeland in 1556 to organize Polish Protestantism into a national church along Geneva lines, a mission cut short by his death in 1560. At the same time, Anabaptism, Unitarianism, and other forms of religious dissidence also found hospitable reception, so that by the end of the 1550s the situation in Poland had become extremely confused. Calvin had misgiving about this state of affairs, especially because of the protection afforded to “heretics” like Francesco Stancaro, Giorgio Biandrata, and other antitrinitarians. He issued strong warnings which, however, found little echo. Disappointed, he reduced his Polish involvement. Vermigli and Bullinger, conversely, kept a busy correspondence with a wide range of leading figures, hoping to combat radicalism.101 Duke, Lewis, 82 – 99; Andrew Pettegree, “The Reception of Calvinism in Britain,” in Andrew Pettegree, The French Book and the European Book World (Leiden: Brill 2007), 275 – 298. 99 HBBibl 1:383 – 385. 100 The literature in Western languages is extremely limited and fairly dated. See Willem Nijenhuis, Calvinus oecumenicus: Calvijn en de eenheid der Kerk in het licht van zijn briefwisseling (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1958); Oscar Bartel, “Calvin und Polen,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 45 (1965): 93 – 108; Ernst Walter Zeeden, Konfessionsbildung: Studien zur Reformation, Gegenreformation und katholischen Reform (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985). This collection of articles appeared between 1953 and 1980, those on Calvinism in the 1960s. See also n. 103. 101 See Michael G. Müller, “Protestant Confessionalisation in the Towns of Royal Prussia and the Practice of Religious Toleration in Poland-Lithuania,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, eds. Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 262 – 281; Jan Rohls, “A Lasco und die reformierte Bekenntnis-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Calvin and the European Reformation

165

To balance this brief presentation of Calvin’s presence in the European Reformation, it should be added, however, that Bullinger and Peter Martyr Vermigli were the two other luminaries of the Reformed world. Older studies generally have yielded to the temptation to construct an oversimplified model of Reformed Christianity, which is almost equated with Calvin, neglecting the remarkable Swiss impact on the formation of the Reformed tradition. Recent scholarship has shown that previous views of Calvin’s European influence must be largely revised, at least for England,102 Poland,103 and Hungary.104 As late as 1600, the official Church of England was marching to rhythms partly set in Zurich. And England was not unique in this: the Reformed Churches of Hungary and Transylvania were also troubled by tussles between the traditions of Zurich and Geneva. In Poland-Lithuania, Reformed concerns were by no means represented by Calvin alone, and the picture that is starting to emerge reveals Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s conspicuous theological ability and political competence in dealing with that splintered situation. Furthermore, as new studies indicate, while Geneva did indeed give direction to reform in France, this should not blind us to the significant role played by the Swiss Reformed Churches, and above all by Bullinger, in supporting their coreligionists.105

102

103

104 105

bildung,” in Johannes a Lasco: (1499 – 1560): polnischer Baron, Humanist und europäischer Reformator, ed. Christoph Strohm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 101 – 124. For Calvin’s correspondence with Poland, see Wulfert de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, 167 – 168, 201 – 203; for Vermigli’s correspondence, see John P. Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper Reformanda, ed. Frank A. James (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177 – 196, esp. 186 – 196; for Bullinger’s correspondence, see Erich Bryner, “‘Den rechten Glauben bewahren’. Bullingers Anliegen in seinen Briefen an polnischen Theologen 1556 bis 1561,” in Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen, eds. Schindler and Stickelberger, 415 – 424. Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Heinrich Bullinger and the English-speaking World,” in Heinrich Bullinger. Life, Thought, Influence, eds. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 891 – 934, here 933. On the immense, yet often overlooked, influence exerted in England by Vermigli, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Peter Marty Vermigli and Thomas Cranmer,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli. Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 173 – 201; and Torrance Kirby, The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007). See Mark Taplin, The Italian Reformers and the Zurich Church, c. 1540– 1620 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 170– 214; Andreas Mühling, “Calvin and Eastern Europe,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Selderhuis, 97– 104; Erich Bryner, “Die religiöse Toleranz in Siebenbürgen und Polen-Litauen im Kontext der europäischen Kirchengeschichte,” in Bewegung und Beharrung. Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520 – 1650. Festschrift für Emidio Campi, eds. Christian Moser and Peter Opitz (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 361 – 381. See Jan Andrea Bernhard’s latest contribution: “Konrad Gessner und Ungarn: Kommunikations- und bibliotheksgeschichtliche Erkenntnisse,” in Bewegung und Beharrung, 159 – 191. See Mühling, Heinrich Bullinger europäische Kirchenpolitik, 187 – 224; Mühling, “Heinrich Bullingers politische Beziehungen nach Frankreich”; and Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

166

3.

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

Reformed Confessionalization

Finally I offer some brief reflections on the thorny problem of Reformed confessionalization.106 Over the past 25 years, no other theory has played a more prominent role in the historiographical debate about the Reformation. A number of case studies have been used to weigh the merits of the confessionalization approach. Church historians have been reluctant to draw clear boundaries among the confessions, particularly between the Lutheran and the Reformed confessions. They argue that pluralism, and not confessional uniformity, was a fact of life in the second half of the sixteenth century.107 This pertains above all to Reformed Protestantism. The theological differences between Zurich and Geneva testify eloquently to this, and so does the existence of the various confessional formularies of Reformed Protestantism. I am emphasizing this point because the most common and long-standing approach is to equate Reformed Protestantism with the name of the Genevan reformer. But what exactly was Calvinism? If it is defined according to the criteria of the Synod of Dort of 1618 and the Formula Consensus ecclesiarum helveticarum of 1675, in many respects even Calvin himself cannot be regarded as a Calvinist. Moreover scholars concerned with the history of Calvinism (e. g. Kingdon, Muller, Benedict) have been unable to force it into a single mold. While his pre-eminence in the Reformed tradition is unquestionable, a number of historians have begun to realize more recently that the richness of the source materials commonly employed breeds an excessively Geneva-centric approach.108 Only in the last few years, for example, have we returned to a fully Leben, Werk und Wirkung, 2 vols. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005), 2: 115 – 143, 185 – 207. 106 For a good, brief summary in English of the confessionalization thesis, see Heinz Schilling, “Confessional Europe,” in Handbook of European History 1400 – 1600, 2 vols. ed. Thomas A. Brady, Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 2: 641 – 681. 107 The concept of “confessionalization” has been criticized and modified in recent research. See, for example, Thomas Kaufmann, “Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche und Gesellschaft,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 121 (1996): 1008 – 1025, 1113 – 1121; Heinrich Richard Schmidt, “Sozialdisziplinierung? Ein Plädoyer für das Ende des Etatismus in der Konfessionalisierungsforschung,” Historische Zeitschrift 265 (1997): 639 – 682; Harm Klueting, “Die Reformierten im Deutschland des 16. und 17. Jahrhundert und die Konfessionalisierung-Debatte der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft seit 1980,” in Profile des reformierten Protestantismus aus vier Jahrhunderten. Vortra¨ ge der Ersten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus, ed. Matthias Freudenberg (Wuppertal: Foedus, 1999), 17 – 47; and Marc R. Forster, Catholic Revival in the Age of the Baroque: Religious Identity in Southwest Germany, 1550 – 1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 108 Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University, 2000); esp. 3 – 17; and Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), esp. 25 – 102. See also Christoph Strohm, “Methodology in Discussion of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Reformed Confessionalization

167

conscious awareness that Bullinger’s ecclesiastical politics had at least the same wide-ranging European dimension as those of Calvin, and that the influence of both reformers quickly stretched from the old continent to the New World.109 But this is by no means the entire picture. Considering the current orientation of the historical literature, in which an increasing amount of attention is given to less known founding fathers of the Reformed churches, one has and must continue to ask: How much of what has been peddled under the label “Calvinism” should really be attributed to the thought of Bucer,110 Zwingli,111 Oecolampadius,112 Farel,113 Viret,114 Musculus,115 Łaski,116 or Vermigli?117 Enormous holes are still gaping in our understanding of Reformed confessionalization. Herein lies a complicated historical problem that must be discussed in the context of the confessionalization theory with due attention paid to the latest research results; the solution cannot be found in a single succinct formula, or as the result of

109 110 111 112 113 114

115

116 117

‘Calvin and Calvinism,’” in Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 65 – 105. Mühling, Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik; and Mühling, “Bullingers Bedeutung für die europäische Reformationsgeschichte,” Evangelische Theologie 64 (2004): 94 – 105. See Martin Bucer zwischen Luther und Zwingli, ed. Matthieu Arnold and Berndt Hamm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). See Anthony N. S. Lane, “Was Calvin a Crypto-Zwinglian?” in Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe: Essays in Honour of Brian G. Armstrong, ed. Mack P. Holt (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 21 – 42. Olaf Kuhr, Die Macht des Bannes und der Busse: Kirchenzucht und Erneuerung der Kirche bei Johannes Oekolampad (1482 – 1531) (Bern: Peter Lang, 1999). The publication of Farel’s work will no doubt shed light on Farel’s status vis — vis Calvin and within the Reformed confession. See Guillaume Farel, Trait¦s messins, ed. Reinhard Bodenmann and FranÅoise Briegel (Geneva: Droz, 2009). See Bernhard Roussel, “Pierre Viret en France,” Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’Histoire du Protestantisme FranÅais 144 (1998): 803 – 839; Dominique-Antonio Troilo, Pierre Viret et l’anabaptisme: un R¦form¦ face aux dissidents protestants (Lausanne: Association Pierre Viret, 2007); Michael W. Bruening, “Pierre Viret and Geneva,” ARG 99 (2008): 175 – 197. See Wolfgang Musculus (1497 – 1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, eds. Rudolf Dellsperger, Rudolf Freudenberger, and Wolfgang Weber (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997); Reinhard Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus (1497 – 1563); destin d’ un autodidacte lorrain au siÀcle des R¦formes (Geneva: Droz, 2000); Reinhardt Henning, “Das Itinerar des Wolfgang Musculus (1536),” ARG 97 (2006): 28 – 82; and Jordan Ballor, Covenant, Causality, and Law: A Study of the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). See Rohls, “A Lasco und die reformierte Bekenntnisbildung,” in Johannes a Lasco, ed. Strohm; Michael S. Springer, Restoring Christ’s Church: John a Lasco and the “Forma ac ratio” (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). See Kirby, The Zurich Connection; Luca Baschera, Tugend und Rechtfertigung: Peter Martyr Vermiglis Kommentar zur Nikomachischen Ethik im Spannungsfeld von Philosophie und Theologie (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, Zurich, 2008); Jason Zuidema, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499 – 1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008); A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, eds. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

168

Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation

logical deduction or induction, but rather only by groping, seeking, advancing, and finally through the careful perusal of heterogeneous source materials. It is certain, however, that the linear metaphor of the “founder,” the myth of the solitary hero, is historically much too short-sighted, not only in view of Luther in relation to Lutheranism, but also in view of Calvin and the Reformed world. None of this is intended to diminish Calvin’s decisive personal role, nor is it to challenge Calvin’s preeminent significance for the Reformed tradition. However, the progress of scholarship, which of course deserves further analytical testing, has demonstrated specifically and convincingly that a great deal of what was transmitted is not accurately designated “Calvinism,” but rather a more variegated Reformed tradition. From my point of view two research considerations ensue. First: Reformation scholarship should not be blinded by the didactically reasonable, but historiographically problematic nineteenth-century Schleiermacherian tradition of theological subjectivity ; rather it should aspire to emphasize the importance of reciprocal interaction between persons and situations.118 Secondly, this implies abandoning the idea that Swiss-Upper Rhine Reformation research and Calvin research properly belong in “separate spheres” –as has often been the case unto this day. This is more than just a methodological point. It is indeed a demanding standard involving important historical connections, which are in danger of being hidden away. It is certainly ironic that Calvin’s contemporaries understood their strongly bonded affinity better than modern historians.

118 “[E]s ist … für die historische Theologie … angemessen … an das Leben vorzüglich wirksamer Einzelner anzuknüpfen” … “die Elemente jeder historisch-theologischen Darstellung sind weit mehr biographisch, als historisch.” Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums (Leipzig, 1910; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993), 96, § 251.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

Theodore Beza and Heinrich Bullinger in Light of Their Correspondence

For a long time Theodore Beza and Heinrich Bullinger ranked among the less widely known leading figures of the Reformation period. Only in recent years have more extensive studies given due emphasis to their lifework, their originality, and their influence. This little renaissance of research on Beza and Bullinger1 has also benefitted considerably from the lively editorial activity of recent decades, especially of the Correspondance de Th¦odore de BÀze and the Briefwechsel von Heinrich Bullinger. It is no doubt largely thanks to the editors of the Correspondance that I am able to write an essay entitled “Beza and Bullinger in Light of their Correspondence.” As a result of their unflagging efforts, the surviving correspondence between the Genevan reformer and the Zurich reformer is now available in a most meticulously and knowledgeably annotated edition, which is extremely reliable and informative.

1 On Beza see most recently Jeffrey Mallinson, Faith, Reason, and Revelation in Theodore Beza, 1519 – 1605 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); John F. Southworth Jr., Theodore Beza, Covenantalism, and Resistance to Political Authority in the Sixteenth Century (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI, 2004); Shawn D. Wright, Our Sovereign Refuge: The Pastoral Theology of Theodore Beza (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004); Alain Dufour, Th¦odore de BÀze. PoÀte et th¦ologien (Geneva: Droz, 2006); Th¦odore de BÀze (1519 – 1605). Actes du Colloque de GenÀve (septembre 2005), ed. Irena Backus (Geneva: Droz, 2007). On Bullinger see Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger : Leben, Werk, und Wirkung, 2 vols. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004, 2005); Heinrich Bullinger und seine Zeit. Eine Vorlesungsreihe, ed. Emidio Campi (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004); Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504 – 1575, eds. Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Press, 2004); Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe. Eine Studie zu den “Dekaden” (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004); Heinrich Bullinger. Life – Thought – Influence, Zurich, Aug. 25 – 29, 2004, International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504 – 1575), eds. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz, 2 vols. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

170

Theodore Beza and Heinrich Bullinger in Light of Their Correspondence

1.

Data and Statistics

This correspondence, which commences with a letter from Beza to Bullinger dated 16 February 1550 and concludes with one dated 19 September 1575, that is, two days after Bullinger’s death, contains 414 letters. 248 in total are written by Beza and 166 by Bullinger. I would stress that these numbers vary depending on the criteria used for selection. Thus the Bullinger databank lists 267 letters from Beza to Bullinger and 170 from Bullinger to Beza; on the other hand, the Beza databank lists 253 from Beza and 171 from Bullinger.2

95 90 85 80 75 70 65

Number of letters

60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Year

Diagram 1: Correspondence between Bullinger & Beza (l.g.) in relation to Beza’s total correspondence (u.g.)

Diagrams 1 and 2 show the relation of Beza’s correspondence with Bullinger to Beza’s total correspondence.3 They illustrate the increase in Beza’s corre2 See www.unizh.ch/irg/briefwechseldb/index.html and www.droz.org.corrBeze/index.html. 3 The following representations of the correspondence between Beza and Bullinger are based on surviving inventory. Consequently, they do not constitute a reflection of the sixteenth-century

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

171

Data and Statistics

percentage of total correspondence

spondence beginning in the 1560s, a clear indication of the growing importance of his correspondence with Bullinger. Bullinger’s share of the total correspondence varies from barely 10 % in 1551 to more than 60 % in 1553 and 1569, with peak values in 1553, 1564, and 1569.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Year

Diagram 2: Bullinger / Beza correspondence (as percentage)

The ratio of letters sent to letters received in the Bullinger-Beza correspondence, as illustrated in diagram 3, indicates that of the letters addressed from Bullinger to Beza only those written after around 1560 have survived in substantial numbers. Only Beza’s letters from the years 1550 – 1552, 1554, 1556, and 1558 – 9 have survived; by contrast, each writer’s share in the correspondence of the years 1561, 1563, 1564, 1568 – 70, and 1573 – 74 is roughly equal. The discovery that a higher percentage of the letters addressed by Beza to Bullinger has survived reflects a well-known phenomenon that can also be observed in the case of many of Bullinger’s other correspondents: the reason for this is, first of all, Bullinger’s own careful preservation of letters addressed to him and, secondly, the favour-

situation, but only a broken projection of it. To attain an image that comes as close as possible to the actual situation, it is necessary to look beyond the surviving inventory, incorporating the specific conditions of transmission into our analysis, as well as taking into account the actual and relative values of the correspondence between other reformers. The following diagrams are thus to be understood only as visual representations of the sources that are physically accessible to us today, that is to say, only as an overview of the currently available source material, and at most as indicative of trends or tendencies.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

172

Theodore Beza and Heinrich Bullinger in Light of Their Correspondence

able circumstances for transmission that prevailed in Zurich, which was spared wars and catastrophes, and also possessed a long-functioning archival system. Such an impressive correspondence raises questions, all the more so in light of the fact that hardly anything comparable is to be found either in the databank of the Bullinger-Briefwechsel or in that of the Correspondance de BÀze. To list just a few examples: in the Bullinger-Briefwechsel, 662 letters from Johannes Haller to Bullinger are preserved, 56 from Bullinger to Haller ; 391 letters from Fabricius Montanus to Bullinger, 304 from Bullinger to Fabricius Montanus; 114 from Calvin to Bullinger, 169 from Bullinger to Calvin; 145 from Vergerio to Bullinger, 7 from Bullinger to Vergerio; 56 from Bucer to Bullinger, 24 from Bullinger to Bucer ; 11 from Melanchthon to Bullinger, and 14 from Bullinger to Melanchthon. In Beza’s Correspondance, 97 letters from Beza to Gwalther are preserved, 68 from Gwalther to Beza; 73 from Beza to Calvin and 26 from Calvin to Beza; 26 from Beza to Haller, 9 from Haller to Beza; 23 from Beza to Farel, 1 from Farel to Beza; 8 from Beza to Peucer, 17 from Peucer to Beza; 6 from Beza to Simler, 6 from Simler to Beza; 5 from Beza to Zanchi, 10 from Zanchi to Beza; 3 from Beza to Vermigli, 7 from Vermigli to Beza; 4 from Beza to Olevianus, 5 from Olevianus to Beza; 1 from Beza to Łaski, 6 from Łaski to Beza; 2 from Beza to Erastus, 2 from Erastus to Beza.4 Diagram 4 illustrates the significance of Bullinger’s share in Beza’s total correspondence compared with that of Beza’s other major correspondents. These twelve correspondents exchanged a total of 819 letters with Beza, of which the Beza-Bullinger correspondence accounts for 414 letters, more than 50 %, followed by 165 (20 %) belonging to the correspondence with Gwalther, Bullinger’s successor in office, and 99 with Calvin (12 %). Farel, Haller, and Peucer wrote and received considerably fewer letters, although here too – this must be emphasized – in order to estimate the actual significance of their correspondence it would be necessary to investigate the specific conditions under which the letters were transmitted in each case. The number of letters addressed to Beza by Bullinger speaks for itself. It demonstrates conclusively that Beza continually kept his eye on Bullinger and events in Zurich pertaining to theology, ecclesiastical politics, and publishing. This simple fact becomes all the more pressing if we take into consideration Beza’s correspondence with other Zurich theologians, such as Konrad Gessner, Johannes Wolf, Ludwig Lavater, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Josias Simler, and Rudolf Gwalther. From a purely statistical perspective, it is evident that the Reformation in Zurich was of greater importance to Beza than that in Bern, Strasbourg, Wittenberg, or England. In connection with this the following may also be of interest: the gradually aging Antistes is always addressed by Beza as “mi pater,” 4 See note 2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

54 6 0

Table of data for diagram 3 Year 50 51 52 53 Be ! Bu 1 2 4 7 Bu ! Be 0 0 0 1

55 3 1

15

16

7

12

6

Beza Total

3

55 4

Table of data for diagram 1 and 2 Year 50 51 52 53 54 Bull./Beza 1 2 4 8 6

56 3 0

20

56 3

57 9 1

38

57 10

58 4 0

21

58 4

59 2 0

8

59 2

60 2 1

9

60 3

61 3 3

67

61 6

62 3 1

35

62 4

63 11 10

46

63 21

64 23 18

73

64 41

65 14 9

68

65 23

66 14 8

83

66 22

67 19 7

62

67 26

68 19 18

68

68 37

69 23 25

76

69 48

70 16 14

88

70 30

71 13 9

69

71 22

72 11 8

78

72 19

73 14 14

77

73 28

74 12 12

69

74 24

75 10 6

66

75 16

Data and Statistics

173

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

174

Theodore Beza and Heinrich Bullinger in Light of Their Correspondence

100% 90% 80%

Percentage

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Year Beza to Bullinger

Bullinger to Beza

Diagram 3: Ratio of letters sent to letters received in the Bullinger-Beza correspondence

or “pater mihi plurimum observandum” – clearly an expression of respect, and at the same time of a deep appreciation for Bullinger’s theological and ecclesiastical authority.5 The correspondence between Beza and Bullinger does not, however, merely reflect the entente between the two reformers. European politics, confessional and internal Protestant tensions, and the fate of Europe’s reformed churches in France – as well as in Germany, England, Italy, and occasionally also in Poland and Hungary – are always central. In addition to these principal topics the letters contain many personal reports of daily life and provide insights into the correspondents’ scholarly activities; above all, however, the letters raise and address a variety of theological and ecclesiastical questions. It is astonishing that existing scholarship has paid relatively little attention to 5 Beza’s letters of 1575 provide an especially good source for demonstrating his long-standing and close attachment to Bullinger. In his letters, Corr. de B., 16, nos. 1124, 1126, 1135, 1139, 1144, 1148, 1149, 1151, and 1159, Beza expresses his concern for his ailing colleague. Bullinger died on 17 September, less than three weeks after Johannes Haller. Beza’s grief at Bullinger’s death is preserved in his epitaph (Corr. de B., 16, Appendix VI, 288 – 289), of which, unfortunately, no precise rhetorical analysis has yet been undertaken, as well as in his letter to L. Dürnhoffer of 7 November 1575 (no. 1165): “amisimus communem illum nostrum parentem D. Bullingerum, mi frater; plura nunc quidem prae moerore non possum.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550656 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550657

175

Data and Statistics

Peucer (25) 3% Łaski (7) Olevianus (9) 1% 1% Haller (35) Farel (24) 4% 3%

Erastus (4)