Benjamin G. Robinson
CH14
The Protestant Reformation: John Calvin
The Protestant Reformation has been evaluated from numerous perspectives. Undoubtedly, many factors contributed to its eventual form and content. Particularly significant to the overall shape of the Reformation were the individual reformers. In this paper I will argue that John Calvin understood the Protestant movement not as a revolt or schism but rather as a massive project of restoration. Giving primary attention to Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto, this paper will demonstrate Calvin’s view by unpacking his refutations of heresy and schism.
The two primary criteria Calvin utilized to refute Sadoleto’s injunctions were the word of God and the witness of antiquity. Calvin critiqued Sadoleto’s ecclesiology on the basis of its failure to append the Spirit’s guidance to the word of God. Sadoleto argued that the church’s teaching was grounded in the Spirit’s guidance, but Calvin contended that this guidance takes place by means of the Spirit illuminating the word of God (158). In addition, Calvin appealed to the ancient church to declare that the expansion and reform of the church depended on the prominence of the word (157). This became particularly important for Calvin’s argument regarding Sadoleto’s charge of novelty. Calvin did not articulate his understanding of the reform as innovative, but rather as one of purification (160). This purification was intended to restore the church, not create it anew.
Calvin used these two criteria to articulate the purity of the foundations of the church, that is doctrine, sacrament, and discipline (159). According to Calvin, the Protestant churches had more pure teaching and “a better form of church” (156). It is these marks of the church that Calvin saw debased in Catholicism. He implored Sadoleto:
“Will you here give the name of an enemy of antiquity to him who, zealous for ancient piety and holiness, and dissatisfied with the state of matters as existing in a dissolute and depraved church, attempts to ameliorate its conditions, and restore it to pristine splendor?” (159)
Calvin attempted to make it clear that he understood the Reformation as restoring the ancient tradition of the church and not deploring it.
Calvin considered it extremely important that Protestants were studying Scripture. Both the study and use of Scripture in Christian preaching caused the “absurdities” of Catholic teaching to “disappear” immediately (161). Calvin gave special priority to the doctrine of justification by faith. For Calvin, this doctrine was central to Christian religion and salvation, and without it the church was hopeless (161). Justification by faith meant that for sinners Christ “is their only righteousness” (162). God’s unmerited grace grants this righteousness to the elect, on the basis of faith (188). The main point Calvin contended is that justification could not be by works. Apparently Sadoleto argued that this doctrine led to antinomianism (163). But Calvin countered by affirming the inseparability of works and faith. Where there is faith, there is Christ, and where there is Christ, there is the Spirit who sanctifies. Furthermore, Calvin drew upon Ephesians 1:4 to describe the telos of election as holiness. Yet this doctrine had been erased from the minds of those like Sadoleto, and it needed to re-emerge (161, 163).
While Calvin’s argument for justification by faith was based primarily in the Scriptural texts, he defended his Eucharistic concerns by asserting continuity with the historical position of the church. In order to abridge his debate with Sadoleto, Calvin referred his interlocutor to Augustine’s Epistle to Dardanus (165). Referencing such a venerated Catholic theologian as Augustine in favor of Calvin’s position was undoubtedly an attempt to commandeer the tradition. But it was also a restorative measure. Calvin considered the Catholic practice to have profaned the Lord’s Supper, shrouding it in superstition and “sophistry” (166). In contrast, Calvin affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but found it repugnant to circumscribe the presence to the material bread and wine. Such a doctrine led to adoration of the elements where people “gaze stupidly at the visible sign, without any understanding of the spiritual mystery” (165). Calvin accused Sadoleto of hiding beneath the shadow of the ancient church in vain. After all, Calvin wrote, “we have not acted without the concurrence of the ancient church” (165). In response to other practices, such as yearly confession of all one’s sins before a priest, Calvin’s criteria were clear: Christ did not command it and the ancient church did not practice it (166).
It may seem strange that a Protestant such as Calvin would utilize the Christian tradition as a means to test the credibility of church doctrine and practice. The Reformation is sometimes reduced to solas. Yet it seems dubious that Calvin appealed to antiquity merely to refute the rhetoric of Sadoleto. Calvin vested far too much interest in collaborating with the Fathers for this to be the case (159). Rather, Calvin had a deep sense that something went seriously wrong in the church. Calvin put it this way: “the light of divine truth had been extinguished, the word of God buried, the virtue of Christ left in profound oblivion, and the pastoral office subverted” (167). Calvin’s reforms were thus an attempt to retrieve what was lost. It would seem he thought of his reform as being largely in congruence with “that holy antiquity” (166). The early church seemed to epitomize for Calvin “honor and respect to the church, in subordination, however, to Christ the church’s head” (167). Perhaps he saw its obedience recovered by the Protestants who tested “all obedience by the word of God” (167).
Calvin understood the Catholic church to have so deviated from this obedience that the very ministry of Christ was overthrown (166). The poor were neglected while the clergy became robbers and devourers. The sacred supper was substituted for a sacrifice. The sacraments were profaned by superstition. Christian liberty had been enslaved (166). The office of the clergy was wholly tarnished, as those in authority ruled like tyrants (168). According to Calvin the church “must be bound together by discipline as with sinews” (169). Such discipline was an integral component of Calvin’s ecclesiastical ordinances. He appointed deacons, after the orders of the ancient church, to ensure the poor and infirm were given care. He commissioned elders to watch over the character of Christian lives (175). The appointed ministers were to execute their office faithfully. Only such clergy who did so were trustworthy to be heard (169). Calvin wrote that there was more justice amongst robbers than in the Catholic clergy. He admonished Sadoleto: “let judgment be given after comparing our conduct with yours” (169). Calvin seemed bewildered that Catholics like Sadoleto would show more concern for honoring the church authority than for acting to extract the poison which had been imbibed in the church.
This paper has attempted to elucidate John Calvin’s understanding of the rationale and character of the Reformation. Particular attention was given to how Calvin understood the word of God and the ancient tradition to serve as a means by which the church could be purged. Calvin attempted to make it unintelligible to speak of the reformers as schismatics. The Protestants were reformers, restorationists, purifiers, but not schismatics. If anything they represented a more faithful and true understanding of what the church was supposed to be. Calvin summed it up well when, in exasperation, he wrote:
“Expostulate with us, if you can, for the injury which we inflicted on the Catholic church, by daring to violate its sacred sanctions. The fact is now too notorious for you to gain anything by denying it, viz., that in all these points, the ancient church is clearly on our side, and opposes you, not less than we ourselves do.” (166)