According To The Custom Of The Ancient Church?: Examining The Roots Of John Calvin’s Liturgy

By Daniel R. Hyde

John Calvin entitled his service book “The Form of Church Prayers and Hymns with the Manner of Administering the Sacraments and Consecrating Marriage According to the Custom of the Ancient Church.” [1] In reading this long title, we may gloss over it as just another title of a published liturgical service book for a Protestant enclave in the sixteenth century. Yet within the title is embedded a polemical claim: Reformed worship is according to the custom of the ancient church.

The validity of this claim has been challenged by no less than Yale liturgical scholar, Bryan D. Spinks, who says that Calvin’s claim was “wide of the mark,” given that “the Reformers did not have access to the many liturgical texts from the pre-Nicene and early post-Nicene Church.” [2] It is the thesis of this essay that John Calvin’s designation of the Genevan liturgy being “according to the ancient church” was accurate. I will seek to demonstrate this by setting Calvin’s Forme des Prieres in the context of the Reformation’s preoccupation with identifying the Reformation with the ancient church and by comparing Calvin’s liturgy with earliest extant liturgies of the church.

The Reformation And The Ancient Church

The Reformation was just that: a re-formation. It was an attempt to take the church that existed in the sixteenth century and reform it into its early form in the days of the church’s fathers. When it came to liturgy, our Protestant forefathers did not get rid of the existing liturgies in their regions by radically starting over, although this is asserted in popular literature. [3] Instead, the many Reformers took what existed and followed the dictum of the Renaissance: “[back] to the sources” (ad fontes). To be a Protestant, then, was not to be novel, as Rome accused, but to be truly catholic by protesting the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church as a means of aligning with the historic Catholic church. [4] In what follows, I will survey several treatises of the Reformers that attempt to do just this. In doing so, we will discover the appropriate context for Calvin’s liturgy.

Bucer: “Ground And Reason” (1524)

One of the first attempts to locate the reforming work of the sixteenth century within the ancient church liturgy was the Grund und Ursach (“Ground and Reason”). Written on behalf of the ministers in the imperial city of Strasbourg in 1524 by the Dominican-turned-Protestant, Martin Bucer (1491-1551), the Grund und Ursach sought to explain the reformation of worship in that city. What Roman Catholic apologists called Strasbourg’s “innovations” in worship, Bucer instead called “our restorations of that which is right, old and eternal.” He went on to explain that Strasbourg’s changes were not modern innovations “but a necessary and salutary reformation and restoration of the old and the eternal.” [5]

Bullinger: “The Old Faith” (1537)

Over a decade later, Heinrich Bullinger (1504 –1575), who was to become one of the most influential and international of the Reformers, wrote to explain the catholicity of the Reformation in Zürich. Bullinger is most often known for his Second Helvetic Confession, written on what he thought was his deathbed in 1561, which expressed his “life-long conviction and emphasis that the Reformed faith is nothing other than the old, catholic faith of the Scriptures and Christian tradition.” [6] yet decades before this, in 1537, he had already written a polemical treatise, Der Alt Gloub (“The Old Faith”), to express this conviction and which was translated into English in 1547.

The purpose of Der Alt Gloub was to demonstrate to Roman Catholics that since Christianity had existed since the creation, the Reformation’s return to and rediscovery of that faith meant that the Protestants were most ancient and that Roman dogma was the novel innovation. Bullinger explained his thesis by surveying the history of redemption, which taught that the saints of the Old Testament looked to Jesus Christ alone for salvation and not to their works. Therefore, since the Protestants believed and preached that doctrine along with the forefathers, they were the truly catholic Christians.

Bullinger’s survey showed that, in the Garden of Eden, God promised Adam eternal life on the condition of obedience and gave the tree of life as a sacrament of the blessedness of life in obedience to God. Yet Adam failed. This meant that God could have abandoned Adam—and us in him. But the good news is that He chose to save a people in Christ. Bullinger shows the doctrine of salvation by grace alone because of Christ alone in various Old Testament texts and stories: Genesis 3:15, the sacrificial clothing the lorD gave Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:21, the ark that saved Noah and his family, the fact that Abraham was justified by faith before the law, and Israel being redeemed by the Passover, which was a picture of Christ. Bullinger then poses the question of how this relates to the giving of the law. He turns to Paul in Galatians 3 to say that the law was meant to lead to Christ, not our obedience. Bullinger then returns to the Old Testament to show that in the person of David we see the clearest type of Christ. His Psalms testify to Christ’s deity, kingdom, gospel to the nations, priesthood, victory over His enemies, and death. Bullinger then says that David’s “faith and understanding of Christ was ever one faith and understanding with the faith we acknowledge” in the Creed. The prophets, he went on to explain, preached Christ and justification by Him alone, and since the New Testament is the exposition of the Old, the New also points us to Christ alone. Finally, Bullinger says this ancient faith was substituted by the Pope’s ceremonies, who sought “to suppress the old religion and to set up his own ordinances, which were unknown to our fathers of old time.”

The point of all of this, as Cornelis Venema writes, is that “the Reformed faith, which teaches that believers are saved by grace alone through the work of Christ alone, is the ancient and catholic faith of the holy Christian church.” To the objection of Rome that the Reformers were innovators, Venema says that “Bullinger turns the tables on the critics of the Reformation and insists that, to the contrary, their opponents had abandoned the old faith of the church.” [7]

Calvin: Reply To Sadoleto (1539)

Soon after Bullinger wrote Der Alt Gloub, John Calvin entered the fray. After Farel and Calvin were banished from Geneva, the Roman cardinal, Jacopo Sadoleto, took the opportunity to write a persuasive appeal to the Genevan city council, saying that “crafty men...had turned the faithful people of Christ aside from the way of their fathers and ancestors, and from the perpetual sentiments of the Catholic Church.” [8] Sadoleto’s appeal to return to Rome was based in Rome’s claim to be ancient while the Reformers’ doctrine was novel.

Calvin was persuaded to reply on behalf of the Genevans later in 1539. [9] He summarized Sadoleto’s accusation, saying, “For you teach that all which has been approved for fifteen hundred years or more, by the uniform consent of the faithful is, by our head-strong rashness, torn up and destroyed.” To this, Calvin replied:

you know, Sadoleto, and if you venture to deny, I will make it palpable to all that you knew, yet cunningly and craftily disguised the fact, not only that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours, but that all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was afterward flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction. [10]

Calvin went on to compare the Reformers’ efforts to preach the pure Word with the preaching of the fathers—Chrysostom, Basil, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine — as well as the prophets of the Old Testament before them. [11] In terms of Reformation doctrine, Calvin claimed its ancient roots when he said, “We hesitate not to appeal to the ancient Church.” [12]

Calvin then went on to deal with specific doctrines the Reformers abolished because, although Rome claimed their historicity, Calvin demonstrated their novelty in comparing them with the ancient church. When dealing with penance and satisfaction, Calvin said,

The ancient Church, I admit, had its satisfactions, not those, however, by which sinners might atone to God and ransom themselves from guilt, but by which they might prove that the repentance which they professed was not feigned, and efface the remembrance of that scandal which their sin had occasioned. For satisfactions were not regularly prescribed to all and sundry, but to those only who had fallen into some heinous wickedness. [13]

Calvin then tackled the specific doctrine of the Eucharist, countering Sadoleto’s accusation that the Reformers’ doctrine attempted “to confine the Lord of the universe, and His divine and spiritual power (which is perfectly free and infinite) within the corners of a corporeal nature with its circumscribed boundaries.” He explained that there is a great difference “between removing the local presence of Christ’s body and bread, and circumscribing His spiritual power within bodily limits.” This doctrine is not novel “since it was always held by the Church as an acknowledged point.” As evidence, Calvin referred Sadoleto to Augustine’s Epistle to Dardanus. [14]

On annual auricular confession, Calvin tersely responded: “For the present, take this for our answer, that it was neither commanded by Christ, nor practiced by the ancient Church.... The common books on ecclesiastical history show that it had no existence in an earlier age.” [15] On purgatory Calvin said, “We know that ancient churches made some mention of the dead in their prayers, but it was done seldom and soberly.... It was obvious that nothing more was meant than to attest in passing the affection which was felt toward the dead.” [16] Finally, the last points of doctrine Calvin took on were the purpose of the ministry, the worship of images, indulgences, and Christian liberty. On these Calvin said, summarizing his entire argument, “In all these points, the ancient Church is clearly on our side, and opposed you, not less than we ourselves do.” [17]

Calvin: The Necessity Of Reforming The Church (1544)

Five years later, John Calvin wrote to Charles V, who gathered with the princes of the Holy Roman Empire to “decide upon the means of ameliorating the present condition of the Church, which we all see to be very miserable, and almost desperate.” [18] Throughout this treatise as well, Calvin engages in apologetics against Rome as well as polemics with her by pointing Charles to the issue of who were the followers of the ancient church. In speaking of the evils of Rome’s church government, which did not allow for the “due and regular election and ordination of those who are to rule,” Calvin pointed to the Word of God but also to the “many decrees of ancient Churches which carefully and wisely provide for every thing which relates to the proper method of election.” [19]

In the section on the remedies for the various evils, Calvin challenged Charles to examine the doctrine, form of administering the sacraments, and method of governing the church when he said, “In none of these three things will it be found that we have made any change upon the ancient form, without attempting to restore it to the exact standard of the Word of God.” [20] In speaking of the remedy for worship, Calvin said,

When God is worshipped in images, when fictitious worship is instituted in His name, when supplication is made to the images of saints, and divine honours paid to dead men’s bones, against these, and similar abominations, we protest, describing them in their true colours. For this cause, those who hate our doctrine inveigh against us, and represent us as heretics who have dared to abolish the worship of God, as of old approved by the Church. [21]

Calvin continued to address the evils of Roman worship and the remedy for the idolatry of having images in worship, saying,

But, besides the clear testimonies which are everywhere met with in Scripture, we are also supported by the authority of the ancient Church. All the writers of a purer age describe the abuse of images among the Gentiles as not differing from what is seen in the world in the present day; and their observations on the subject are not less applicable to the present age than to the persons whom they then censured. [22]

He concluded his comments to Charles by addressing the doctrine of salvation in general:

There is nothing absurd in our doctrine, or at variance either with Scripture or with the general consent of the ancient Church. Nay, we are able, without any difficulty, to confirm our doctrine to the very letter out of the mouth of Augustine; and, accordingly, several of those who are otherwise disaffected to our cause, but somewhat sounder in their judgments, do not venture to contradict us on this head. [23]

On the doctrine of salvation, Calvin tackled the specific issue of how one received the forgiveness of sins. In contrast to the Roman doctrine of the treasury of merits, Calvin spoke of the Reformation’s doctrine of forgiveness by grace alone on account of Christ alone, saying, “In the Scriptures we have clear proof of this our doctrine, which, indeed, ought to be called not ours, but rather that of the Church Catholic.”24 He went on to contrast the related doctrine of the saints’ works of supererogation by citing the fathers Augustine and Leo. [25]

Moving from doctrine to sacraments, Calvin spoke of the necessary remedies to Rome’s errors. With regards to the sacrament of baptism, Calvin explained,

Lastly, we have brought into our Churches the ancient custom of accompanying the administration of the sacraments with an explanation of the doctrine contained in it, and at the same time expounding with all diligence and fidelity both their advantages and their legitimate use; so that, in this respect, even our opponents cannot find any ground of censure. But nothing is more alien to the nature of a sacrament than to set before the people an empty spectacle, unaccompanied with explanation of the mystery. There is a well-known passage quoted by Gratian out of Augustine, “If the word is wanting, the water is nothing but an element.” What he means by word he immediately explains when he says, “That is, the word of faith which we preach.” [26]

Calvin spent a surprisingly great deal of time discussing the government of the church. In particular, he attacked the Roman doctrine and practice with relation to the sacred ministry: “The pastoral office we have restored, both according to the apostolic rule, and the practice of the primitive church, by insisting that every one who rules in the Church shall also teach.” [27] To the Reformers’ practice, Rome objected with their doctrine of apostolic succession. To this commonplace polemic, Calvin said, “This succession on which they pride themselves was long ago interrupted.” [28] What was his proof for this argument? Calvin adduced the church fathers themselves: “The ancient canons require, that he who is to be admitted to the office of bishop or presbyters shall previously undergo a strict examination, both as to life and doctrine.” The particular evidence he adduced was the fourth African Council, Leo, Cyprian, and Gregory. [29] In summary, Calvin said that Rome hid behind the “smoke of succession” while having no resemblance to the apostles or church fathers. [30]

As for the Protestant ceremony of ordination, Calvin said, “But the only ceremony we read of, as used in ancient times, was the laying on of hands.” Against the additional ceremonies added to this over the years by the Papacy, Calvin said,

It is absurd, therefore, to molest us about the form of ordination, in which we differ not either from the rule of Christ, or the practice of the apostles, or the custom of the ancient Church, whereas that form of theirs, which they accuse us of neglecting, they are not able to defend by the Word of God, by sound reason, or the pretext of antiquity. [31]

Calvin went on to speak of various practical customs such as eating meat and the celibacy of the priesthood, citing the practices of “the primitive and purer Church.” [32] His summary was, “In short, we have no controversy in this matter with the ancient Church.” [33] In listing the issues that had to be reformed without any wait, Calvin referred to the ancient church’s argument against the luxury of the priests, citing the Council of Aquila, Council of Carthage, Gregory, Jerome, and Ambrose. [34]

All of this came to its purpose at the end of The Necessity where Calvin answered “the last and principle charge...that we have made a schism in the Church.” Calvin’s brief reply was “that we neither dissent from the Church, nor are aliens from her communion.” [35] Calvin cited Cyprian against the position that one must be in communion with the Pope to be a member of Christ’s church. [36] He went on to adduce the Fathers, acts of the councils, and history to show that the papacy gradually grew and was not an ancient institution. [37]

Vermigli: “Whether Evangelicals Are Schismatics” (1562)

One last example from the Reformed side of the Reformation, written almost two decades after Calvin’s Necessity, is from Peter Martyr Vermigli. Although his writing is later than the period we are surveying, his treatise shows the ongoing necessity to place the Reformation in the context of the ancient church.

Vermigli was an Italian-born Reformer who made his way to Zürich and finally ended up lecturing at Cambridge university in the days of Edward VI and Elizabeth I. In 1562, while lecturing through the books of Kings, he paused to discuss a relevant theological issue: whether the Reformation was valid. This excursus was entitled “Whether Evangelicals Are Schismatics for Having Separated from the Papists.”

In the first section, Vermigli gave thirteen reasons why “Our Separation was for Just Causes,” including:

1. Rome has abandoned the faith by setting aside the Word for tradition. 

4. Rome forbids the free preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. 

6. If we join Rome we would be severed from other churches which do not submit to Rome. 

10. There are three necessary marks of the church (doctrine, sacraments, and discipline), which Rome has corrupted by denying justification sola fide, adding to and subtracting from the sacraments, and by calling good evil and evil good. 

11. Rome localizes the catholic church, equating Rome with the church, which was the error of the Donatists. 

13. Rome forbids those to worship who won’t participate in the Mass.

To these points Rome made certain objections, which Vermigli listed and to which he responded. In response to the objection that the Holy Spirit spoke as much through the church as the Word, Vermigli showed the limits to which the Reformers followed the ancient church since the church erred: the Council of Nicea was right on the doctrine of the Son but wrong on penance; the second council of Ephesus (“The Robber Synod”) approved the error of Eutyches; and the Council of Constantinople (753) removed images while the Council of Nicea (787) approved them. Further, to the objection that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and therefore popes were infallible in matters of faith, Vermigli agreed only insofar as he upholds the Word. After all, Pope John X XII declared that human souls perished with their bodies, Paul rebuked Peter, and, as Panormitanus (1386-1445), bishop of Palermo, said, “A layman who speaks according to the Scriptures has greater credibility than a Pope who ignores the Word of God.” Finally, to Rome’s claim of apostolic succession, Vermigli said:

We can also show that our doctrine is in harmony with their faith and conviction. We do not propose any novelty, but have rather returned to the fountainhead of pure and apostolic teaching. We value and maintain continuity, communion, and fellowship with all the holy Fathers and bishops who were truly orthodox. [38]

Based on these reasons, he went on to express the heart of the Reformed conviction that “we have not rejected the Church but returned to it.” The Roman Church was like the Hebrews who, in the days of impending destruction, cried out, “The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD” (Jer. 7) because they trusted in externals. Rome was also like the Hebrews who claimed to be the people of God in the time of Christ and yet rejected Christ; therefore, the apostles left them. And like the Christians who fled to Pella for refuge as Rome came to destroy the Second Temple, and the remnant Church that was taken into Babylon in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, so too the Reformers left Rome. As Vermigli said, “In parting company with the Romanists, therefore, we have not forsaken the Church but have fled from an intolerable yoke, and conspiracy formed against the doctrine of the Gospel.” [39] Vermigli compared this parting to a just divorce.

Here he takes up more objections and offers more responses. Rome responded with a question: if the papacy is antichrist, then were all who were in subjection to it lost? The answer was no, because the church existed before the papacy (cf. Bullinger). Vermigli turned this on its head when he asked: if the papacy were an article of faith that all must believe, what did Rome say of those not subjected to it before it existed? Another charge from Rome was that the inevitable conclusion of the Reformed was that the church did not exist until they arrived. To this Vermigli answered,

The godly should go where they could live and labor in keeping with God’s words and so continue in themselves the succession of apostolic faith and life that links them with those ancients who lived uprightly and sincerely in the primitive Church.... For us to separate from such a Church should not provoke rebuke but evoke praise, especially since we have now come to the catholic and apostolic Church. [40]

Summary

With the onset of the Reformation and inevitable separation from Rome, the Protestant theologians of the sixteenth century were accused of separating from the church and being schismatic. Instead of running from this charge, men like Bucer, Bullinger, Calvin, and Vermigli attacked it directly. Their conclusion was that they were not leaving the church but returning to it because Rome had already left it. Therefore, Reformation theology and practice was not innovative, but may have seemed so to those so steeped in the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church that they could not see the roots of the Reformation. In Vermigli’s words, Rome was no longer “the mother of the faithful” but in fact “their stepmother.” [41]

Calvin’s Liturgy

With this desire to conform doctrine and worship according to the custom of the ancient church, the Reformers set about to structure the various liturgies of the Reformation. In Forme des Prieres is found the liturgy of the churches in Geneva upon Calvin’s return from Strasbourg in 1541. It was published in 1542, while, in 1545, the liturgy he used in Strasbourg was published separately. For the sake of brevity I will only list as headings the elements of the liturgy for both of Calvin’s liturgies in Strasbourg and Geneva. [42]

Strasbourg

• Invocation (Psalm 124:8)
• Prayer of Confession
• Scriptural Words of Comfort
• Absolution
• Singing of the First Table
• Collect
• Singing of the Second Table
• Prayer for Illumination
• Scripture lesson
• Sermon
• Pastoral Prayer
• Singing of the Apostles’ Creed
• Eucharistic Prayer
• The Words of Institution
• Instruction on the Holy Supper
• The “Reformed” Sursum Corda
• Delivery
• Singing of Psalm 138
• Prayer of Thanksgiving
• Singing of the Song of Simeon
• Benediction (Num. 6:24 – 26)

Geneva

• Invocation (Psalm 124:8)
• Prayer of Confession
• Psalm
• Prayer for Illumination
• Scripture lesson
• Sermon
• Pastoral Prayer
• Eucharistic Prayer
• Recitation of the Apostles’ Creed
• The Words of Institution
• Instruction on the Holy Supper
• The “Reformed” Sursum Corda
• Delivery (while Psalms are sung or Scripture is read)
• Prayer of Thanksgiving
• Singing of the Song of Simeon
• Benediction (Num. 6:24 – 26)

Summary Of Calvin’s Liturgy

As can be seen from the above, Calvin’s liturgy was two-fold, with distinct sections of Word and Sacrament. The liturgy of the Word commences with the invocation and concludes with the pastoral prayer. The liturgy of the Sacrament commences with creed (Strasbourg)/Eucharistic prayer (Geneva) and concludes with the benediction. One constant throughout the liturgy is the singing of the Psalms, which itself was an ancient practice. [43]

Earliest Extant Liturgies Of The Church

In moving from the context and content of Calvin’s liturgy, we now move to a survey of the earliest descriptions of liturgy in the ancient church. [44] As we saw above, the sources to which Calvin constantly turned in his polemical treatises on reforming the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church were Scripture as well as the liturgies of the ancient church. [45] The reason for this was that Calvin and the other Reformers viewed these liturgies as testimonies testes veritas. [46]

Pliny: To Trajan (Ca. 112)

One of the earliest descriptions of ancient worship is from Pliny the younger, Governor of Asia Minor, who wrote to the Emperor Trajan about his persecution of Christians. When Christians were brought before interrogators, Pliny described the situation in this way:

But they declared that the sum of their guilt or error had amounted only to this, that on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not for the commission of any crime but to abstain from committing theft, robbery, adultery, and breach of faith, and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed. After the conclusion of this ceremony it was their custom to depart and meet again to take food, but it was ordinary and harmless food. [47]

In Pliny’s letter we learn that Christians gathered twice on the Lord’s Day, first “before daybreak” (ante lucem) in order to “recite a hymn (carmen) antiphonally” to Christ and to bind themselves together in a common life of morality, a possible reference to the confession of sins or perhaps the recitation of the Ten Commandments. [48] They gathered again in order to partake of food—most likely not the Lord’s Supper, since the Christians were willing to give it up as a concession to Pliny. [49] These elements of recitation/singing as well as the possible mention of confession of sins are elements included in Calvin’s liturgy, as we have already seen.

Didache (Ca. 120)

One of the earliest descriptions of worship comes from the Didache. This was a manual of how churches in Syria, most likely, were to be ordered in their various activities—baptism, preaching, Lord’s Supper, fasting, and prayer. In speaking of the Christian assembly on the Lord’s Day, the Didache says the purpose of assembling on the Lord’s Day was to celebrate the Eucharist and, before doing so, to make confession of sins:

1And on the Lord’s Day, after you have come together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, having first confessed your offenses, so that your sacrifice may be pure. 2But let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. 3For it was said by the Lord: ‘In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice, because I am the great king’; and also: ‘and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles’ (14:1 – 3). [50]

Previous to this statement, the Didache offered instructions on “the Eucharistic” (9:1) by giving three prayers to be offered. The first prayer was to be offered “in connection with the cup”:

2We give Thee thanks, Our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy son, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Son; to Thee be glory forever (9:2). [51]

The second prayer that was offered in chapter 9 was “in connection with the breaking of the bread”:

3We give Thee thanks, Our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast revealed to us through Jesus Thy Son; to Thee be glory forever. 4As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountain tops and after being harvested was made one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. [52]

Finally, chapter 10 continued with the third of these prayers to be offered—a prayer of thanksgiving after communion:

2We thank Thee, Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Son; to Thee be glory forever. 3Thou, Lord Almighty, hast created all things for Thy name’s sake and hast given food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son. 4For all things we render Thee thanks, because Thou art mighty; to Thee be glory forever. 5Remember, O Lord, Thy Church, deliver it from all evil and make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom, which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory forever. 6let grace come, and let this world pass away, “Hosanna to the God of David.” If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen. [53]

What we learn about “the custom of the ancient church” from the Didache, is that Christians gathered on the Lord’s Day, confessed their sins, prayed before celebrating the Eucharist, and offered thanks after celebrating the Eucharist, all of which were included in the liturgy of John Calvin.

Justin Martyr: First Apology (Ca. 155)

The most elaborate description of the worship that existed in the early church comes from the testimony of Justin Martyr, a convert to Christianity in the second century. Approximately in the year 155, Justin wrote his First Apology, meant to show the Caesar Titus the true nature of Christianity. In chapters 65-67, Justin describes what happened when believers gathered together.

In chapter 65, Justin transitions from his description of the ceremony for baptism (ch. 61) to the celebration of the Eucharist. He first gives a general description of what happened when a newly baptized Christian came into the assembly:

But we, after thus washing the one who has been convinced and has assented [to our instruction], lead him to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled; and we offer prayers in common for ourselves and for the one who has been illuminated and for all others everywhere, that we may be accounted worthy, having learned the truth, by our deeds also to be found good citizens and guardians of what is commanded, so that we may be saved with eternal salvation. [54]

Justin continued with a description of the liturgy of the Eucharist. We will see below that he backtracks and describes the liturgy of the Word, which preceded the Eucharist.

Having ended the prayers we greet one another with a kiss. Then there is brought to the Ruler of the Brethren bread and a cup of water and [a cup] of wine mixed with water, and he taking them sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length for our being accounted worthy to receive these things from Him. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people present assent by saying, Amen. Amen in the Hebrew language signifies “so be it.” And when the Ruler has given thanks and all the people have assented, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present a portion of the eucharistized bread and wine and water, and they carry it away to those who are absent. [55]

Moving into chapter 67, Justin goes back to what he said in chapter 65 to fill in the rest of the liturgy with the liturgy of the Word, which precedes the Eucharist:

And on the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader has finished, the Ruler in a discourse instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers; and, as we said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought and wine and water, and the Ruler likewise offers up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the people assent, saying the Amen; and the distribution and the partaking of the eucharistized elements is to each, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who prosper, and so wish, contribute what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the Ruler, who takes care of the orphans and widows, and those who, on account of sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourning among us, and in a word [He] is the guardian of all those in need. [56]

The result of what Justin describes in his First Apology to Emperor Titus concerning the assembly of Christians on the Lord’s Day looks like this:

Service Of The Word (Ch. 65)

• Assembling
• Old Testament Readings
• New Testament Readings
• Sermon

Service Of The Sacrament (Ch. 67)

• Prayer
• Kiss
• Presentation of Bread/Wine
• Prayer and “Amen”
• Distribution of Bread/Wine
• Offering

Tertullian’s Apology (Ca. 197)

The North African theologian, Tertullian of Carthage, also wrote a description of Christian worship in his Apologeticum, chapter 39. What is so instructive is how similar Tertullian, writing from Carthage in North Africa, and Justin, writing from Rome, sound in their descriptions of worship. There truly was consensus on the principles and practice of Christian worship. Tertullian begins his description with the element of prayer, mentioning that prayer is made for the authorities, the world, and for the delay of the Second Coming, saying,

We come together for meeting and assembly, in order that having formed a band as it were to come before God we may encompass him with prayers. This violence is pleasing to God. We pray also for the emperors, for their ministers and those in authority, for the state of the world, for general quiet, for the postponement of the end. [57]

He then moves to describe the element of the Word of God, both its reading and preaching:

We meet to call one another to remembrance of the Scripture, if the aspect of affairs requires us either to be forewarned or to be reminded of anything. In any case we feed our belief on holy words, we raise our hope, we strengthen our confidence, we clinch the teaching none the less by driving home precepts. There too are pronounced exhortations, corrections and godly judgments. [58]

Tertullian further explained what happened in the liturgy when those assembled offered their own money, which was especially used for benevolence. This use of money in the Christian congregation is directly contrasted with the use of money in the world:

We are governed by the most approved elders, who have obtained this office not by purchase, but on testimony; for indeed nothing of God is obtainable by money. Even if we have a kind of treasury, this is not filled up from a sense of obligation, as of a hired religion. Each member adds a small sum once a month, or when he pleases, and only if he is willing and able; for no one is forced, but each contributes of his own free will. These are the deposits as it were made by devotion. For that sum is disbursed not on banquets nor drinking bouts nor unwillingly on eating-houses, but on the supporting and burying of the poor, and on boys and girls deprived of property and parents, and on aged servants of the house, also on shipwrecked persons, and any, who are in the mines or on islands or in prisons, provided it be for the cause of God’s religion, who thus become pensioners of their confession. [59]

Finally, Tertullian describes the place and meaning of the Lord’s Supper in the Christian liturgy in contrast to the extravagant dinner feasts of the world:

It is only the dining-room of the Christians that is objected to. Our dinner shows its significance by its name: it is called by the name which amongst the Greeks means affection. Whatsoever be its cost, it is a gain to incur expense in the name of religion, since by this refreshment we help those who are in need, not in the way that among you parasites eagerly strive for the glory of enslaving their freedom at the price of a belly that has to be filled amid insults; but in the way that with God greater regard is paid to them of low degree.... As it is concerned with our religious duty, it allows nothing base, nothing disorderly. We do not recline until we have first partaken of prayer to God; only so much is eaten as to satisfy hunger; only as much is drunk as becomes the chaste. Appetite is satisfied so far as is consistent with the remembrance that they have to worship God even in the night; they talk as those who know that the Master is listening. After the bringing in of water for washing the hands, and lights, each is invited to sing publicly to God as he is able from his knowledge of holy scripture or from his own mind; thus it can be tested how he has drunk. In like manner prayer closes the feast. The meeting then breaks up, not into riotous bands for assaulting the innocent, nor into disturbances in the streets, nor for outbursts of lasciviousness, but to the same care for orderliness and modesty, as those who have fed, not so much on meats as on instruction in righteousness. [60]

Conclusion

In summary, John Calvin’s liturgies follow the basic “custom of the ancient church” by ordering a liturgy in which confession of sins was made according to the prescription of the Didache. In terms of the Word being read and preached, it is impressive to see how Calvin followed the lectio continua method of preaching also according to the ancient church. For example, Origen is often considered the first extant witness of this practice in Christian congregations. In doing so, he would exposit a passage of Scripture for his sermon and not merely deliver a topical homily such as in the Second Epistle of Clement. [61] The lectio continua method came to bloom in the fourth and fifth centuries with John Chrysostom and Augustine and continued through the preaching and lecturing of Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas. [62] Calvin joined many other Reformers in rediscovering this method of expounding the Scriptures, rare in the Medieval churches. For example, in Metz, France, it was necessary to order that clergy preach. The Regula Canonicorum (ca. 755) of Chrodegang of Metz (712-66) required “almsfolk” to attend the cathedral every two weeks to hear the Word read and expounded, since the Word was confined to the monasteries. [63] It was necessary for the rise of the preaching order in the Dominicans and Franciscans in the thirteenth century to provide preachers for the people; in stark contrast, the Reformation was all about the centrality of the Word. [64]

Calvin’s liturgy also focused on offering intercessions for all the needs of the church and world, following the descriptions of Justin and Tertullian and example of Clement, and on the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper being celebrated with prayers before and after. [65]

What stands out in the descriptions of the Didache, Pliny, Justin, and Tertullian is how simple the ancient liturgies were and how John Calvin imitated that simplicity. By following these ancient patterns, Calvin stripped the worship that existed in his day in the overly elaborate Medieval Mass and brought the people back to a liturgy that was in substance “according to the custom of the ancient church.” The words of John Witvliet provide the best summary: “No wonder Calvin entitled his liturgy, ‘according to the custom of the ancient church.’ Calvin’s theology of liturgy is a remarkably catholic theology of liturgy —Trinitarian, christocentric, evangelical, and orthodox.” [66]

Notes

1. Pierre Pidoux, ed. Forme des Prieres et Chatz Ecclesiastiques, avec la maniered ’administrer les Sacremens, et consacrer le Mariage: selon la coustume de l’Eglise ancienne (Genève: Bärenreiter-Verlag Kassel, 1959).
2. Bryan D. Spinks, “Worshiping the lamb or Entertaining the Sheep? Evaluating Evangelical Practice By the Reformed Principles of Worship,” Modern Reformaton 8, 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1999):12-17.
3. E.g., A. Mitchell Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1950), 200.
4. For an example of how John Calvin interacted with the exegesis of the church fathers, see David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1995), 122 – 40. For a major study of Calvin’s use of the church fathers, see Anthony N. S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999).
5. Ottomar Frederick Cypris, “Basic Principles: Translation and Commentary of Martin Bucer’s ‘Grund und Ursach,’ 1524” (Th.D. Dissertation; union Theological Seminary, 1971), 73, 92.
6. Cornelis P. Venema, “Heinrich Bullinger’s Der Alt Gloub (“The Old Faith”): An Apology for the Reformation,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 15 (2004):16.
7. Ibid., 28.
8. John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, ed. John C. Olin (1966; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1976), 30-31; cf. 40, 41, 43.
9. For a comparison of Luther’s On the Councils and the Church and Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto, see David C. Steinmetz, “Luther and Calvin on Church and Tradition,” Michigan Germanic Studies 10 (1984):98-111.
10. Calvin and Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, 62. On Calvin’s reply to the charge of schism, see W. Stanford Reid, “The Ecumenicalism of John Calvin,” Westminster Theological Journal 11 (1948):34-36; G. S. M. Walker, “Calvin and the Church,” in Readings in Calvin’s Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 212-30.
11. Calvin and Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, 62-63.
12. Ibid., 64.
13. Ibid., 70.
14. Ibid., 70. On Calvin’s “Augustinian” Eucharistic theology, see G. R. Evans, “Calvin on Signs: An Augustinian Dilemma,” Renaissance Studies 3 (1989):35-45 and Joseph Fitzer, “The Augustinian Roots of Calvin’s Eucharistic Thought,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976):69-98. For a brief discussion of the tract war between Calvin and the Lutheran, Tilemann Hesshusen, see Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, 181; cf. John Calvin, “Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in Order to Dissipate the Mists of Tilemann Heshusius,” in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 2:520-23, 535-52.
15. Calvin and Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, 72; cf. John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church (Audubon, N.J.: Old Paths Publications, 1994), 63-64, where Calvin contrasts Innocent III with Cyprian.
16. Sadoleto and Calvin, A Reformation Debate, 73.
17. Ibid., 74.
18. Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1.
19. Ibid., 20-21.
20. Ibid., 25.
21. Ibid., 27. Calvin goes on to cite Ambrose as an example (ibid., 28).
22. Ibid., 29. Calvin went on to cite Augustine: “And we have too much experience of the absolute truth of St. Augustine’s sentiment” (Ep. xlix.). “No man prays or worships looking on an image without being impressed with the idea that it is listening to him.” And, likewise (in Psalm 115:4), “Images, from having a mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, are more effectual to mislead an unhappy soul than to correct it, because they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk.” Also, “The effect in a manner extorted by the external shape is, that the soul living in a body, thinks a body which it sees so very like its own must have similar powers of perception.”
23. Ibid., 40.
24. Ibid., 43.
25. Ibid., 44.
26. Ibid., 46-47. Cf. John Calvin, “The Form of Prayers and Songs of the Church, 1542: letter to the Reader,” trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Calvin Theological Journal 15, 2 (November 1980):160-65. The importance of explaining the sacraments before their administration also applied to the Lord’s Supper, of which Calvin said, “lastly, we have revived the practice of explaining the doctrine and unfolding the mystery to the people; whereas, formerly, the priest not only used a strange tongue, but muttered in a whisper the words by which he pretended to consecrate the bread and wine. Here our censurers have nothing to carp at, unless it be at our having simply followed the command of Christ. For he did not by a tacit exorcism command the bread to become his body, but with clear voice declared to his apostles that he gave them his body” (ibid., 49).
27. Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 50. Cf. Calvin’s comments against one minister having more than one church (ibid., 86).
28. Ibid., 51.
29. Ibid., 51-52, 54.
30. Ibid., 52 – 53.
31. Ibid., 55.
32. Ibid., 61– 62.
33. Ibid., 64.
34. Ibid., 89-90, 92.
35. Ibid., 94.
36. Ibid., 99-100.
37. Ibid., 101.
38. Peter Martyr Vermigli, “Schism and the True Church: Whether Evangelicals Are Schismatics for Having Separated from the Papists,” in Early Writings: Creed, Scripture, Church, trans. Mariano Di Gangi and Joseph C. Mclelland, ed. Joseph C. Mclelland, The Peter Martyr library, vol. 1 (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994), 195.
39. Vermigli, “Schism and the True Church,” 214.
40. Ibid., 218.
41. Ibid., 221.
42. Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), 197– 210. For a fascinating description of worship in Geneva, see Robert Kingdon, “Worship in Geneva Before and After the Reformation,” in Worship in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Change and Continuity in Religious Practice, ed. Karin Maag and John D. Witvliet (Notre Dame, Ind.: university of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 41-60. On Calvin’s theology of worship, see W. Robert Godfrey, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2009), 69-86; Hughes Oliphant Old, “Calvin’s Theology of Worship: The Prophetic Criticism of Worship,” in Calvin Studies III, ed. John H. Leith (Davidson, N.C.: Colloquium on Calvin Studies, 1986), 73-87; John D. Witvliet, “Images and Themes in Calvin’s Theology of liturgy: One Dimension of Calvin’s liturgical legacy,” in The Legacy of John Calvin: Calvin Studies Society Papers 1999 (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society/CRC Product Services, 2000), 130 –52.
43. On the place of the Psalms in Calvin’s liturgics, see John D. Witvliet, “Spirituality of the Psalter: Metrical Psalms in liturgy and life in Calvin’s Geneva,” in Calvin and Spirituality: Calvin Studies Society Papers 1995, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society/CRC Product Services, 1998), 93 –117. In his “letter to the Reader” at the beginning of The Form of Church Prayers, Calvin cites Augustine, Chrysostom, and Eusebius in explaining public prayer via song and said prayers (Calvin, “The Form of Prayers and Songs of the Church, 1542,” 163, 164).
44. For a summary of this section of the essay, see Daniel R. Hyde, “What is Reformed Worship? It is Historical,” The Outlook 57, 6 ( June 2007):6-9.
45. For a historical summary of Christian liturgy, see John Harper, The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy: From the Tenth to the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 16-23, cf. 109-112; Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century, ed. Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff in collaboration with Jean Leclercq (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 350-63, 365-81.
46. Hughes Oliphant Old, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 1, 233; Nichols, Corporate Worship in the Reformed Tradition, 14-15, 52-89. Cf. Robert G. Rayburn, O Come, Let Us Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 32.
47. Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1963), 3-4.
48. Robert E. Webber, Worship Old and New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 46.
49. Ibid.
50. “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., 1947), 182 – 83.
51. Ibid., 178.
52. Ibid., 179.
53. Ibid., 179-80.
54. St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, trans. Leslie William Barnard, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 56 (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 70.
55. Ibid., 70.
56. Ibid., 71.
57. Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Apologeticus, trans. Alex Souter (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1917), 112. For an example of the ancient prayers of intercession, see Clement of Rome (ca. 80-140), First Epistle to the Corinthians. In this letter, Clement included a prayer in which he interceded for: Sanctification of the saints (59:3); Afflicted (59:3, 4); Salvation of all men (59:4); Forgiveness of sins (60:1, 2, cf. Didache); Deliverance from enemies (60:3); Rulers (60:4, 61:1, 2); Final intercessions and doxology (64:1). On this prayer, see Webber, Worship Old and New, 52-53.
58. Ibid., 112-13.
59. Ibid., 113 –14.
60. Ibid., 116 –17.
61. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 79; cf. T. H. L. Parker, The Oracles of God: An Introduction to the Preaching of John Calvin (London and Redhill: Lutterworth Press, 1947), 14 –15.
62. Ibid., 80.
63. Jerome Bertram, The Chrodegang Rules: The Rules for the Common Life of the Secular Clergy from the Eighth And Ninth Centuries. Critical Texts With Translations And Commentary, Church, Faith and Culture in the Medieval West (Hants, England: Ashgate, 2005), 80-81.
64. Parker, The Oracles of God, 17.
65. Of note is the ancient sursum corda, first described by Hippolytus of Rome in his Apostolic Tradition (ca. 215), chapter 4:2 –13, and how Calvin followed Farel in adapting the sursum corda as an exhortation for right partaking.
66. John D. Witvliet, “Images and Themes in Calvin’s Theology of liturgy: One Dimension of Calvin’s liturgical legacy,” in The Legacy of John Calvin: Calvin Studies Society Papers 1999 (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society/CRC Product Services, 2000), 148; cf. Auguste Lecerf, “The liturgy of the Holy Supper at Geneva in 1542,” Reformed Liturgics 3 (1966): 17-24.