The Ecumenicalism Of John Calvin

By W. Stanford Reid

McGill University, Montreal.

THE church’s unity and its meaning is undoubtedly uppermost in the minds of a great many Christians today. With the world staggering as the result of a second World War, and with people in some quarters already prophesying a third, men and women in desperation are beginning to turn back to the church. Yet many feel that the professing Christian organization is not effective because it is outwardly disunited. If only it were united in one body, they feel, it could wield a much greater influence for good. Indeed, many would go so far as to say that unless ecclesiastical unity is actually attained, the church can and will accomplish nothing. To such people, therefore, today’s greatest ecclesiatical issue is that of the unity of the church; and ecumenicalism, as expressed in the World Council of Churches and similar movements, is said to be the contemporary church’s most significant development.

Not infrequently, if blame for the present divided condition of the church is laid on anyone, the major portion is allocated to the Protestant Reformers. There is a wistful looking back to the ecclesiastical unity of pre-Reformation days, and a hopeful looking forward to a time when in a sense, that unity will be restored. Because of what the church accomplished in the Middle Ages, or at least because of the influence which it wielded, it is hoped that the church will regain what is called its “former ecumenical character”. The disastrous disunity brought by the Reformation, it is said, will be obliterated. Only then will the church once again assume its rightful place in world society.

This diagnosis of the situation has much in its favour. It is true that the Reformers brought to the fore principles which helped to disrupt the organized church’s outward unity. For instance, they placed the Bible in the hands of laymen, telling them to read, learn and inwardly digest. Along with this the Reformation emphasized the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Combined, these two facets of Reformation thinking were to produce startling results, even though Luther’s doctrine of “the individual interpretation of the Scriptures” is not as simple as many would seem to think. It is true, therefore, that the Reformation has had much to do with the matter of the organized church’s present divisions.

Yet, while so much must be admitted, we tend, not infrequently, to look at the outcome of the Reformers’ activities from our own point of view, without endeavouring to understand the true nature of their thinking. If we feel that we must undo much of that for which they may be partially responsible, it seems reasonable that we should find out, first of all, what they thought of church unity. It may be that under stress of somewhat different circumstances they thought along lines which we have failed to follow. In this way we shall be able to see where they may have erred, and be enabled to avoid their mistakes. On the other hand, if we believe that God is always working in and through His church, to turn back to some of the church’s great thinkers may be a means of receiving help from them, as their writings point out errors in our thoughts and judgments. It is for this reason that the present study has been made concerning Calvin’s views on ecclesiastical ecumenicity.

There are a number of reasons why Calvin, rather than Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger or others, has been chosen. In the space available for such a study, it is impossible to deal with more than one man. Calvin has been chosen because of the fact that of the Reformers he would seem to have been the most international, as well as one of the most historically influential. Moreover, if we delve into the history of post-Reformation Protestantism, we find that the churches calling themselves Calvinistic seem to have had a tendency to “split”. For this reason Calvin usually receives considerable blame for the present Protestant denominational divisions. It is felt that only as Calvin’s influence dies out will church unity become a reality. Thus, the most logical choice for this study is the Genevan reformer.

Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church

In order to understand Calvin’s views on ecclesiastical unity, we must commence by dealing with his concept of the church. While much has been written on this subject, it is necessary to study it in the light of the specific purpose which we have in mind.

Calvin began with the idea that the church is not an hierarchical body possessed of priests, bishops and a pope; but rather it is a mystical body, God’s elect people. Outside of this body no salvation is possible. It “is the society of all the saints, a society,. .. spread over the whole world, and existing in all ages”.[1] It is a spiritual entity, based upon God’s sovereign decree of eternal election. This is what has been called since the Reformation “the church invisible”. While this appellation has no doubt been misrepresented and abused, yet it is important in that it emphasizes Calvin’s insistence on the fact that the church is fundamentally inward. It is not something which exists primarily in outward forms and fashion. It is a spiritual fellowship of the elect “bound together by the one doctrine, and the one Spirit of Christ”.[2]

Calvin however, did not leave the matter at this point. He realized that the church in its true, but invisible and spiritual existence, is not the same as the church which is actualized in history. He points out the the church visible is “the whole multitude, dispersed all over the world, who profess to worship one God and Jesus Christ.. .”.[3] It is the body of all those who profess to be in the church in its true and spiritual character. At the same time, Calvin recognized that this profession might be false. Hence he points out that false profession is common, and that the church itself cannot determine infallibly who are and who are not in the church invisible. If one makes a credible profession, lives an exemplary life, and partakes of the sacraments, he is to be regarded as a true Christian. Thus the church visible is made up of all those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ as Saviour and Lord.

This leads us a step further. We are now faced with the question of the visible church’s significance. To Calvin, the visible church is of the utmost importance to the Christian. It is Christ’s body on earth, “the mother of all who will have God for a father”. Because Christians are so weak and feeble, God has established it for their help. Thus the church’s existence is bound up with its work.

To Calvin, the principal phase of this work is that of bringing the Christian to a greater knowledge of his God, which is to be accomplished primarily “by the preaching of the Word”. This means instruction. At the same time the instruction is to be supported and driven home by the use of the sacraments, visible signs of God’s inward grace to the elect. The church’s greatest effort, therefore, is to be directed towards teaching its membership of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and how they should serve Him. Discipline is to be added to this in order that the wayward and ignorant may be corrected. To this end, the elders in Geneva were given work as overseers of the people’s lives and conduct. Thus the church’s whole activity is to be devoted to the building up of the Christian in his most holy faith.

Because the church visible is the only means by which men are instructed in their faith, it is absolutely necessary for all who profess the name of Christ to be of its number. It might be added here that Calvin seems at this point to lapse into an inconsistency, stating that we must believe in the existence of the church visible even though at times we cannot see it. He may have been thinking in terms of individuals who had come out of the Church of Rome and knew of no other Protestants to whom they could attach themselves. Yet Calvin seems to take it for granted that the church will generally be visible in some form; and to it all Christians should belong. In this way Christians are united to the body of Christ, fulfilling the will of God. Moreover, by membership in the visible church Christians are given the benefit of its ministrations. In this way, by its very existence, the church visible presents the Christian with an obligation to be one of its number.

Calvin’s View of Schism

The stress which Calvin laid upon the need for membership in the visible church becomes particularly clear when we consider his attitude towards schism. He maintains that separation from the church “is a renunciation of God and Christ”,[4] and that those who would cause ecclesiastical division should be detested “as if they would drive away the sheep from the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves”.[5] Because of the sinfulness of schism we cannot turn from the church unless it cease to be the church. For this reason, Christians should not separate themselves from the visible body of Christ merely because of the moral defects of some of its members. We find Calvin assuring Cardinal Sadoleto that it was not the corruption of the morals of the clergy which caused the break with Rome. Even minor errors in doctrine should not bring about division, for such matters as the place of the souls of the dead are more or less speculative. A Christian must, therefore, be extremely careful before he attempts to separate himself from the visible church. Indeed, it is only when the professing church has become unfaithful to the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, that a Christian can and must withdraw from its fellowship. Separation at that point ceases to be schism.

This leads us to the question of Calvin’s interpretation of the Reformation, and thence into the heart of Calvin’s whole system of doctrine. How can a Christian know when the church has become unfaithful and is no longer truly the church? As he acknowledged to Cardinal Sadoleto, the test is: Who has the truth? Calvin answered that question by saying that the true church is that over which Christ reigns by and through the Scriptures. We must, therefore, test every church with the standard that “if it have the order prescribed by the Lord in the word and sacraments, it will not deceive us; we may securely render to it the honour due to all churches. On the contrary, if it pretend to the name of a Church, without the word and sacraments, we ought to beware of such delusive pretensions”.[6] The test of a church’s true churchly character is its adherence to true doctrine and practice.

It must be added here that Calvin did not consider a true statement of doctrine to be something short and vague. He points out that the doctrine of justification by faith involves many other doctrines, for example, those of sin, the person and work of Christ, works, and faith. Thus it is necessary to have a fairly large minimum of true doctrine if the professing church is to be adjudged a true church. It is this true doctrine, involving also the right use of the sacraments, “by which the Church is disjoined from meetings of Jews and Gentiles, both of whom want both sound doctrine and the Sacraments of the New Testament”.[7] Or as he put it in the Institutes: “If the foundation of the church be the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, which enjoins believers to place their salvation in Christ alone, how can the edifice stand any longer, when that doctrine is taken away?”[8] The church thus manifests its true character by its attitude towards the doctrine of Christ and the apostles; and separation from a church adhering to these doctrines is sin.

It should be pointed out, in passing, that Calvin specifically rejected the idea that there were historical criteria by which the church could be discerned. Cardinal Sadoleto in his letter to Geneva had appealed to the Roman Church’s history, antiquity and unity as proofs of its claims to be the true church. To none of these tests would Calvin give a moment’s heed. He pointed out that unity is a valid mark of the church only if it is unity in faith and obedience to the Scriptures. Truth is the only criterion of the validity of any specific church’s claims. If it does not hold to true Christian doctrine; then ipso facto, whatever else it may be, it is no longer a church. The final test is none other than God’s truth alone.

It is only against the background of this thinking that we can understand why Calvin, despite his opposition to schism, was prepared to leave the Church of Rome. While not denying that there were many Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, and while even admitting that some Romanist congregations were churches of Christ, he yet held that the Church of Rome as a whole was no true church. To remain in the older church was to take part in impiety as deplorable as that of the Jews. He sets forth his views in his reply to Sadoleto: “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”.[9] “The papists”, he states in a private letter, “wishing to maintain the order and abominations of their Roman idol, show themselves manifest enemies of the grace of Jesus Christ and his ordinances”.[10] In writing to the Duchess of Ferrara he terms that Mass “ung blaspheme intolerable”.[11] Thus separation from the Church of Rome was not schism, but was necessary in order to approach to Christ. In this way, rather than by being schismatics, the Protestants claimed to be truly in the church, having discriminated “between the true Church and a church adulterous and false”.[12] All that the Protestants had done was desert a false church in order to establish a church which would fulfill the duties committed to its charge by Christ.

Calvin’s Principle of Church Unity

When we turn to the question of the church’s unity, we find that Calvin holds that the true church cannot but be one body. “All the elect of God are so connected with each other in Christ, that as they depend upon one head, so they grow up together as into one body.. .; being made truly one, as living by one faith, hope, and charity, through the same Divine Spirit, being called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but also to a participation of one God and Christ”.[13] Consequently it is literally impossible that the church of Christ in its invisible and spiritual existence could ever be divided.

What is the basis of this unity? It is the common allegiance to Christ as revealed in the Scriptures and made effective through the in-working of the Holy Spirit. “Christ is the only bond of holy unity. He who departs from him disturbs and violates unity, while out of him there is nothing but sacrilegious conspiracy”.[14] As he states in his Psychopan-nychia, “we acknowledge no Unity except in Christ; no Charity of which He is not the bond; and that, therefore, the chief point in preserving Charity is to maintain Faith sacred and entire”.[15] Thus, for Calvin, the core of the whole question of the church’s unity is its agreement on the great cardinal doctrines of the faith, centering around Christ as Saviour and Lord. One could quote dozens of statements from his writings to exemplify this, but it does not seem necessary to add to those already mentioned. It is only too clear that Calvin believed that if those professing to be Christians are agreed in the fundamental beliefs, despite any other differences, the full unity of the church is preserved.

Such a position has also its negative side. It would seem that he did not consider complete uniformity necessary. Certainly he does not hold that the manifestation of the church’s unity requires uniformity of ceremonies. Nor does he seem to feel it necessary that the church should have one great universal organization. He acknowledges that there may be, for instance, geographical divisions. A body, unified on these minor points without unity based upon mutual obedience to the truth, “is a faction of the impious, and not an association of believers”.[16] Moreover, Calvin goes so far as to recognize that in this life, where sin still has a grip upon the Christian, full outward unity will never be attained. Such a unity will come only when Christ will “gather us out of our present dispersion into the fellowship of his body, that so, through his one Word and Spirit, we might join together with one heart and one soul”.[17] In this way Calvin reveals to us that while he holds strongly to the fundamental unity of all Christians, yet he does not call for uniformity, nor does he expect this unity to be completely attained upon this earth.

Calvin’s Application of His Principle

Calvin’s position is perhaps revealed most clearly in his actual dealings with the other Protestant churches of his day, and, indeed, even with the Church of Rome. On the one hand, he was always opposed to minimizing differences, particularly differences of doctrine. He was never guilty of drawing up agreements whose words could be given two different meanings at the same time. He believed that true unity came only by true agreement covering the greatest possible area. He rejected the idea that “provided what is fundamental remains safe, the loss of other things is tolerable.. . when the Son of God has given us the doctrines of his gospel to be enjoyed entire, to rend it by compact, in order to preserve some part for ourselves, is most sacrilegious”.[18] On the other hand, Calvin was always prepared to do his utmost to bring about unity, and even when he was not successful, as long as there was an agreement on essentials he was prepared to recognize those differing from him as Christians. Contrary to much popular thinking today, Calvin was not intolerant of those from whom he differed, as long as he felt that they did not disagree from pure wantonness or hatred of the truth. He was no Genevan pope, but rather sought for spiritual unity, instead of attempting to enforce a mere outward ecclesiastical uniformity. Throughout the whole time of his work at Geneva he demonstrated this attitude by his dealings with the other Reformers. Indeed he never seems to have been willing to give up the hope of winning back to the truth even the Church of Rome, although many of his statements give the impression that he had no great expectation of such an event.

An early example of Calvin’s ecumenicity is revealed in his relations with the church at Neuchâtel. Trouble had arisen between Farel and some of the congregation. Calvin, therefore, dispatched Viret to help bring peace. He did this, he explained in a letter, “inasmuch as we are members of the same body”. He then continues by saying that “it is the duty of our office, for the communion of the saints means first of all that neighboring churches have mutual care to confirm each other”.[19] Here is a good example of the church’s ultimate solidarity.

In all probability, however, Calvin’s application of his views on the church’s unity comes out most clearly in connection with the Colloquies at Ratisbon in 1540. The meetings took place at the desire of Charles V who was striving to bring concord between Rome and the Protestants. Cardinal Contarini led the Roman, and Melanchthon the Lutheran, delegation. Owing to the influence of Bucer and others, Calvin also was constrained to be present. Although he had little hope that anything would be accomplished, he took part largely because he felt that the gesture, though hopeless, should be made. The real importance of the Colloquies lay in the fact that they brought Calvin and Melanchthon together. Although it was soon clear that there was no possibility of reaching an agreement with Contarini, Calvin and Melanchthon were drawn very near to each other as Christians.

As Calvin explained to Farel after the Colloquies were over, there was no possibility of finding common ground with the Church of Rome for Protestants and Catholics differed on the questions of justification, of the church and its power, of confession and of invocation of the saints. In the discussions which took place, apparently Bucer and Melanchthon tended at times to compromise. They drew up a statement on the Lord’s Supper which could have both a Protestant and a Catholic interpretation. Calvin appreciated that they wished to take this action to aid Christ’s Kingdom. But, said he, “this policy does not please me”.[20] They were not clearing up the difficulty but rather increasing it. To Calvin there could be no compromise with the Mass, for it was plainly opposed to the teachings of the Scriptures. There could be no unity where such a basic division existed. He, therefore, threw his weight into the scale against any such attempt to hide the true state of affairs.

Yet while certain that unity with Rome could not be achieved, Calvin’s relations with Melanchthon were most cordial. He spoke very frankly to the German leader concerning certain things in the Lutheran church, stating that many of the ceremonies retained by Luther were Judaistic. Melanchthon acknowledged the justice of Calvin’s stricture, but stated that they would be removed gradually. Despite Calvin’s plain talk, there was never any real break between the two men. They regarded each other as Christians and were ready at times to agree to disagree. By no means in complete accord on every point, they do not seem to have felt that complete identity of views was either possible or absolutely necessary.

The same attitude appeared in Calvin’s dealings with Luther. After the latter’s attacks upon Zwingli and his followers over the matter of the Lord’s Supper, one might have expected trouble also between Luther and Calvin. Yet the trouble never came. Apparently as a result of Melanchthon’s liking for Calvin, Luther was persuaded to adopt a moderate attitude towards the Genevan Reformer. At the same time Calvin did what he could to mitigate Luther’s attacks on the Zwinglians. In 1545 we find him writing Melanchthon urging him to persuade Luther to modify his anti-sacramentarian attacks. Simultaneously he was urging Bullinger to refrain from retaliation. He pointed out that nothing would be accomplished, except that they would give the Roman Catholics a chance to rejoice. In this way he succeeded in restraining the mutual recriminations which might have resulted from Luther’s violence.

It was as a result of these attacks by Luther, however, that we are given another demonstration of how Calvin applied his views on the church’s unity. After reading Luther’s pamphlets on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin entered into correspondence with Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor at Zurich. The question of the “real presence” was discussed for some time by this long range method. Then in 1549 Calvin and Farel visited Bullinger to talk over the whole matter face to face. The consequence was that agreement was at length attained, and the conclusions reached by the conference were published as the “Consensus Tigurinus”. Calvin stressed the importance of making the agreement known through publication, in order to show to the world the true unity of the Church. Yet although desiring to make this unity manifest, there does not seem to have been any idea that the two churches should become one in all ceremonies, nor that they should have a common government. Again it was a case of unity of spirit, rather than that of outward form.

Calvin’s dealings with the English church furnish us with another example of how he applied his theories. While he did not approve entirely of the two Edwardian Prayer Books, he by no means condemned them as useless or sinful. He regarded them as representing stages along the road of reform. He also acknowledged that there was a basic unity between himself and the English reformers. For instance, he favoured a common catechism for all Reformed churches including that of England, to demonstrate their unity. He also gave his support to Cranmer’s suggestion in 1551 that a general council of Protestants be held to make common statement of Protestant doctrine: “I wish it could be effected, that grave and learned men from the principal churches might meet together at a place appointed, and, after diligent consideration of each article of faith, hand down to posterity a definite form of doctrine according to their united opinion. But this also is to be reckoned among the greatest evils of our time, that the churches are so estranged from each other, that scarcely the common intercourse of society has place among them; much less that holy communion of the members of Christ, which all persons profess with their lips, though few sincerely honour it in their practice.. . As far as I am concerned, if I can be of any service, I shall not shrink from crossing ten seas, if need be, for that object.. . when the object sought after is an agreement of learned men, gravely considered and well framed according to the standard of scripture, by which churches that would otherwise be far separated from each other may be made to unite; I do not consider it right for me to shrink from any labours or difficulties. But I hope my want of ability will occasion me to be excused”.[21]

After the death of Edward VI and the flight to the Continent of the English Protestants, Calvin’s interest in the English church continued. He attempted to mediate in the dispute over the use of the Prayer Book in the English congregation in Frankfurt, without, however, attaining much success. Yet even those who clung most tenaciously to the Book of Common Prayer did not forfeit his regard as Christians. True, they might not agree with him, but they were still brethren in Christ. This attitude was continued after the accession of Elizabeth and the organization of the episcopacy, along with the imposition of the Prayer Book on the whole English church. To the more radical element among the exiles who returned, he advised moderation, and at the request of Bishop Grindal sent over ministers to the French congregation in London. Thus despite wide divergencies on system of government and form of worship, Calvin continued to recognize the Church of England as one with him and the church in Geneva.

One could pile up example upon example of the way in which Calvin followed his own teaching on the unity of the church. He was anxious that the church of Christ should indeed be one as Christ and His Father are One. That he taught the necessity of such unity is very apparent. He also worked for it. His dealings with Luther, with Bullinger, with Cranmer all prove his anxiety to see the church possessing true unity. In the best sense of the term he was an ecumenical Christian.

Yet while emphasizing the desire of Calvin for unity we must also stress the fact that he seems to have cared relatively little for uniformity. He never seems to have been interested in a great super-church. He never talked in terms of one great interdenominational government, nor did he propose that everyone should have the same form of organization and worship, in order to maintain the idea of the church’s unity. He regarded these matters as of secondary importance, or perhaps we might say, he felt that with true spiritual unity in the church, these other matters would take care of themselves. All necessary uniformity would be attained without any great effort.

The emphasis laid by Calvin was upon unity of belief and obedience. He is never tired of reiterating that faith and loyalty to Jesus Christ, the divine Saviour, with all that that implies, is the real bond of Christian oneness. If the professing members of the church are in agreement there, nothing else is needed, Who can say that if Anabaptism and Arminianism had not arisen, that there would not have been an altogether different aspect to the Protestant church today? Both these other groups tended to deny that salvation is by sovereign grace alone, and to stress instead the part of man. It was Arminianism which split the church in Holland, and which became the Laudian theology in England. It was the development of Anabaptism which gave birth to a large number of small sects of various kinds, many of which remain unto this day.

If Calvin were able to speak to us at the present time he might admonish us not to blame the Reformers for the church’s present division. He would probably tell us that the Reformers laid a good foundation. They manifested the true unity of the church in their common faith and loyalty to Christ as Saviour and King. But he would also point out that it is really because men have forsaken this basic principle of unity, that the church is in a sense so divided. Therefore, if the church would be re-united, it must return to the true principle of unity: faith in Jesus Christ, and all that such faith implies. Conferences on church union — on church government and church worship — will all be ineffective unless there is first real unity of belief. Such a unity will result in unity of will and desire, enabling matters of external uniformity to take care of themselves. This is Calvin’s message to Christ’s church today, as it seeks for the greater measure of unity which should be its abiding possession.

Notes

1. John Calvin, “A Reply to the Letter of Cardinal Sadoleto to the Senate and People of Geneva,” Tracts Relating to the Reformation (Edinburgh, 1860), I, 33.
2. Idem.
3. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Allen, tr. (Philadelphia, sixth American edition), IV: i: 7.
4. Ibid., IV: i:10.
5. Ibid., IV: i:5.
6. Ibid. IV: i:11.
7. Calvin, “The Adultero-German Interim,” Tracts, III, 205.
8. Inst., IV: ii:1.
9. “A Reply to the Letter of Sadoleto,” p. 44.
10. J. Bonnet, ed., Lettres Françaises de Jean Calvin (Paris, 1854), I, 268.
11. Ibid., p. 50.
12. “Remarks on the Letter of Pope Paul III to Charles V” Tracts, I, 231.
13. Inst., IV: i:2.
14. “Remarks”, p. 230.
15. Tracts, III, 415.
16. Inst., IV: ii:5
17. “Reply”, p. 61.
18. Calvin, “The True Method of Giving Peace.. . and Reforming the Church,” Tracts, III, 240.
19. Bonnet, op. cit., I, 39.
20. Calvin, Opera (Amsterdam, 1667), IX, second p. 6.
21. H. Robinson, ed., Original Letters relative to the English Reformation (Parker Society, 1846–7), II, no. CCCXXXVII.