Calvin's Doctrine of The Church - B. C. Milner Jr. [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

BENJAMIN CHARLES MILNER, Jr.

CALVIN’S DOCTEIN] OF THE CHURCH

j

THOMAS J. BATA LIBRARY TRENT UNIVERSITY

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/calvinsdoctrineoOOOOmiln

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT EDITED BY

HEIKO A. OBERMAN, Tubingen IN COOPERATION WITH

HENRY CHADWICK, Oxford EDWARD A. DOWEY, Princeton, N.J. JAROSLAV PELIKAN, New Haven, Conn. BRIAN TIERNEY, Ithaca, N.Y. VOLUME V BENJAMIN CHARLES MILNER, Jr.

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1970

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH BY

BENJAMIN CHARLES MILNER, Jr.

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1970

Copyright 1970 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

TO MARY JANE

£38026

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Preface

.

List of Abbreviations

ix

.xn

Introduction. I. Calvins’s Conception of Order. II. The Restoration of Order

.

1 7 46

III. The Fulfillment of the Covenant.

71

IV. The Marks of the Church.

99

V. The Ministry and Worship of the Church.134 VI. The Church as the Kingdom and Body of Christ.164 VII. Conclusion.190 Appendix. The Secret Impulse of the Spirit.197

Bibliography.204 Index.208

PREFACE The selection of Calvin’s doctrine of the church as the subject for a doctoral dissertation at Harvard University originally grew out of an ecumenical concern, and so out of a felt responsibility to do within the Reformed tradition what seemed to me ought to be done for all the branches of Christendom, vi\., to re-examine the foundations. Further impetus was added by the apparent lag between Calvin’s high regard for the church and the lack of concern for it among his theological descendants, an indifference which — or so it seemed to me—was surely related to the church’s tendancy to define itself in terms of new construction, membership drives, programs, budgets and the like. I felt the absence of a theological understanding of the church in the most intense way, and so turned to Calvin for instruction and guidance. Either way, it was my own concern for the church which initially inspired the present study. In the course of my investigations, however, I became increasingly aware that in working with Calvin’s doctrine of the church I was not laboring with an isolated aspect of his theology, but was, in fact, being led straight into the center of his thought. The very same discovery had been made some twenty-five years earlier in an article by Peter Barth, „Calvins Verstandnis der Kirche;” in the interval, however, no one came forward to develop the argument. The possi¬ bility, therefore, that this study might have some relevance for our understanding of the total structure of Calvin’s theology (eventually growing into a conviction) finally displaced the earlier interest as a primary source of motivation. It has been necessary to consult most of the works of Calvin in the completion of this study, including besides the Institutes of the Christian Religion his commentaries on the Scriptures and many smaller treatises as well. The basic sources for these works are the critically established text of the Institutes to be found in Johannis Calvini Opera Selecta, edited by P. Barth and W. Niesel, and volumes

XXIX-LXXXVIII of the Corpus Reformatorum, edited by G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, et. al., which includes all the extant works of Calvin. Because the thought of Calvin has itself become the object of much scholarly inquiry—especially since World War I—it has also been helpful and necessary to consider a sizable body of interpretive

PREFACE

X

material, as well as pertinent studies of a more general nature. In working with the Institutes, commentaries on the Scriptures, and theological treatises, I have freely used the translations of scholars, whose proficiency in this regard is greater than my own. I have, however, frequently altered these where the original Latin or French seemed to require it, and have occasionally dispensed with them altogether in favor of my own reading. While the actual basis for all the citations from Calvin’s works, then, is the original text, the reader should have no difficulty in locating them in the various translations. To that end I have cited for most quotations the precise location both in the source for the original text and in its correspond¬ ing translation. I should like to record here my gratitude to Professor Dr. H. A. Oberman, Direktor, Institut fur Reformationsgeschichte der Universitat Tubingen, for incorporating this text in the series of which he is the editor, “Studies in the History of Christian Thought”. I owe, besides, a special word of thanks to Professor Paul L. Lehmann, Union Theological Seminary, for initial inspiration and guidance; to Professors Richard R. Niebuhr, Harvard University, and Herbert W. Richardson, St. Michael’s College, Toronto, for con¬ cluding impetus and sound criticism; and, above all, to my wife and family for loving patience, assistance, and understanding. St. John’s College Annapolis, Maryland

Benjamin Milner

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (See Bibliography for complete information) Ioannis Calvini Opera quae super sunt omnia CO Comm. Calvin's Commentaries Institutes of the Christian Religion Inst. The Library of Christian Classics LCC fohannis Calvini Opera Selecta OS T & T Calvin’s Tracts and Treatises

INTRODUCTION If we inquire after Calvin’s doctrine of the church, we are naturallyled to look for it first in Book IV of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, “The External Means or Aids by which God invites us into

the Society of Christ and holds us therein.” Certainly, much is to be found there, including extensive discussions of the “marks” of the church, the sacraments, ministerial orders and discipline. But Calvin’s doctrine of the church, i.e., his theologically unified conception of it, cannot be drawn alone, or even principally, from Book IV of the Institutes. That is so, first of all, because certain especially cogent

topics are not touched upon there. For example, Calvin’s treatment of worship (under the heading of prayer) and his discussion of the Christian life (surely not to be thought of apart from the church) are to be found in Book III, rather than Book IV. Secondly, at least one-half of the Book (Chapters 4-11, 13, 18, and 19) is devoted to historical analysis of, or polemic against, the claims and practice of Rome, and of the remainder more than a little involves controversy with Lutherans and sectarians. As valuable as all this may be for our understanding of Calvin’s ecclesiology, it cannot replace direct and positive teaching. For that we must consult not only the Institutes as a whole, but various treatises and, above all, the commentaries on Scripture.1 In this way, moreover, we shall avail ourselves of Calvin’s more mature reflections, for the contents of Book IV were largely composed by 1543, whereas Calvin had by that time only begun his commentaries.2 As a matter of fact, the Institutes as a whole belongs to the earlier period, the commentaries on Scripture to the la1 J- T. McNeill, “The Church in the 16th Century Reformed Theology,” Journal of Religion, XXII (July, 1942), 259: “So greatly was he [Calvin] pre¬ occupied with this topic [the church] that if we are to know the range of his thought upon it we must consult most of his works.” Cf. Joseph Haroutunian and Louise P. Smith, “General Introduction,” Calvin: Commentaries, LCC XXIII, 15-27, on the composition and reliability of the commentaries. 2 An analysis of the critically established text, OS V, discloses that the bulk of Book IV was written for the 1543 edition of the Institutes, and that the remainder largely comprises material from the 1536 and 1539 editions. Only in the chapters on the sacraments—especially the Supper—and in the opening discussion of the marks of the true church is there any substantial intrusion from subsequent years. By 1543, on the other hand, Calvin had brought out only his commentary on Romans. Studies in the History of Christian Thought, V

x

2

INTRODUCTION

ter,1 and this sequence is perhaps not unrelated to a shift in Calvin’s intention between the 1536 and 1539 editions of the Institutes, vi to provide not a “succinct exposition of Reformed doctrine, but a properly dogmatic introduction to the reading of Holy Scripture.” 2 But now the question must be asked: what is the character of this “dogmatic introduction,” or, more precisely, what is Calvin’s “governing intention” 3 in the construction of his theology ? There are, I think, two typical answers to this question, the one holding the field prior to World War I, the other predominant after. If the earlier answer was: the doctrine of God, and his sovereign predestinating will,4 the response of the later has tended to be: the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.5 Where the former was inclined to see in Calvin both a rationalist and a legalist, the latter defines him as a Christcentered and confessional thinker. With regard to the church, the “theological” type conceived it in the straight line between God and the elect, laid the greatest stress on sanctification, and sharply dis¬ tinguished the visible and the invisible church; the “christological” type has located the church rather in the communion of the faithful with Christ, mutes the distinction between visible and invisible, and emphasizes the role of justification. Although each of these types holds something of the truth, neither of them provides a satisfactory basis for our understanding of Calvin’s theology as a whole, chiefly because neither can account for the truth of the other. Having reached such an impasse as this, one is tempted by the provocative argument of Hermann Bauke, that Calvin’s theology has no “ ‘central teaching,’ or ‘basic doctrine’ out of which everything else could be derived,” 6 but is characterized rather by its “form,” 7 1 Calvin did not complete his commentaries on the Pauline corpus until 1550, and gave his lectures on the Old Testament, the four Gospels and Acts between 1551 and 1564 (cf. “Chronological Catalogue of the Works of Calvin,” CO LIX). While the Institutes expanded continuously, the later additions are increasingly polemical and editorial in nature (cf. Francois Wendel, Calvin, trans. Philip Mairet London: Collins, 1963, pp. 119-20). This does not gainsay the importance of that final ordering of the material (cf. ibid., p. 121, and E. A. Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology New York: Columbia University Press, 1952, pp. 41-49). 2 Wendel, p. 146. 3 Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 9. 4 Cf. Ernst Troeltsch, “Calvin and Calvinism,” Hibbert Journal, VIII (1909/10), 106. 5 Cf. Niesel, p. 17, who credits this to the influence of Karl Barth. 6 Hermann Bauke, Die Probleme der Theologie Calvins (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichsschen, 1922), pp. 11-12. 7 Ibid., p. 12.

INTRODUCTION

3

the distinguishing features of which are: (1) a formal rationalism, i.e., a dialectical method which has no “influence” upon “the content of theology,” 1 (2) a “complexio oppositorum,” i.e., a dialectical binding together of logical or metaphysical opposites,1 2 deriving from (3) a formal biblicism, i.e., the insistence that dogmatics should be “an exposition of biblical themes.” 3 With much of this we can agree: certainly Calvin thinks of himself as an expositor of Scripture, and the antinomies of his thought are widely acknowledged,4 however they are brought together. About the dialectical method, the purely formal rationalism, there is less agreement, no doubt because it is difficult to see how this could fail to influence the theological content. It is even more difficult to believe that there is no theologically unifying principle in Calvin’s thought, and the history of Calvin study since Bauke’s work bears witness to the continuing search for it.5 The question must be raised, therefore, whether there is not a unifying principle in Calvin’s thought which can, at the same time, account for what Bauke has described as a “complexio oppositorum”? The two most important attempts to move in this direction are to be found, I believe, in the work of E. A. Dowey, Jr., 6 and Wilhelm Niesel. With remarkable clarity and forcefulness, Niesel has tried to show that “Jesus Christ controls not only the content but also the form of Calvin’s thought,” 7 and that this unifying principle can at once account for the “opposites” of Calvin’s theology because it is construed in terms of the Chalcedonian definition, i.e., the distinction but not the separation of the two natures in the Person of the Mediator.8 Calvin does indeed make repeated use of the phrase, distinctio sed non separatio, or variations thereon, and we may agree with 1 Ibid., p. 14. 2 Ibid., p. 18. 3 Ibid., p. 20. 4 Cf. E. A. Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), pp. 37-40; Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teachings of the Christian Church, trans. Olive Wyon (2 vols.; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), II, 622-24; Wendel, p. 358. 5 Cf. Niesel, pp. 15-20. 6 Because I am closer to it, I have had to carry on a continuing dialogue with Dowey’s argument that the duplex cognitio Domini is “the principle for seeing the unity in Calvin’s thought, stronger than the oppositions of the various themes he derives from the Scriptures” (p. 40; cf. pp. 48-49). 7 Niesel, p. 247. 8 Ibid.

4

INTRODUCTION

Niesel that it is related to the controlling center of his thought; but the argument that this unifying principle is Jesus Christ is not, I believe, convincing. Even if the relationship between the divine and the human word might seem to be elucidated on these grounds, is it really so that the problematics of justification and sanctification, the Old and the New Testaments, the law and the gospel, the visible and the invisible church, etc.,1 will be similarly resolved ? And again, what room will be left in this view for those prominent, inextinguish¬ able features of the older approach to Calvin—his severe doctrine of God, the austere conception of the church, the rationalistic and legalistic motifs ? Receiving essentially negative answers to these questions, at least as regards the doctrine of the church, I have been driven to seek another key to Calvin’s theology. At first I thought that I had located this in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit, but in the pursuit of this theme it became apparent to me that he characteristically does not speak of the Spirit apart from the order of the church—-or of the order of the church apart from the work of the Spirit. Was it then the dialec¬ tical relationship between the Spirit and order which would serve as the basis for an understanding of Calvin’s ecclesiology ? Might this not, furthermore, overcome the deficiencies inherent in both the “theological” and the “christological” approaches, enabling us to appropriate the contributions of each and to discern the unity under¬ lying the “complexio oppositorum” ? I thought so, and began my research with this in mind. The conclusions of that study, I may say, have confirmed the general outlines of that initial approach, but have also corrected it in a de¬ cisive way. The unifying principle in Calvin’s theology is not, as I thought, the dialectical relation between the Spirit and order, but the absolute correlation of the Spirit and the Word: it is the insepara¬ bility of the Spirit and the Son which is the criterion for all theological statements. To the expressions of that Word, however (and we only have the Word through such expressions), the Spirit is not bound, although he ordinarily works through them. When the work of the Spirit is correlated with those manifestations of the Word (ordinationes Dei), order—above all the order which describes the church— appears. Thus the church (order) can only be understood dialec¬ tically, as referring simultaneously to the Word and to the Spirit. 1 Ibid., pp. 248-49.

INTRODUCTION

5

It is to the full explication of this thesis that the following pages are devoted. We shall be in a better position to say in conclusion how the failure to discern this key has contributed to the one-sidedness of other interpretations, and, more importantly, how its appropriation provides us with the unifying ground for the polarities of Calvin’s thought.

CHAPTER ONE

CALVIN’S CONCEPTION OF ORDER A. The Church as Organism One cannot long pursue the study of Calvin’s doctrine of the church without being struck by his repeated usage of such metaphors as assimilate the church to an organism,1 i.e., to a created, living, and historically evolving reality. Aside from those well-known and im¬ portant metaphors which refer to the organic connection between the church and its members,2 there is a series of figures in which the church itself is depicted as a historically developing organism: it is “conceived” and “born,” grows from “infancy” and “youth” to “manhood,” 3 appears to die but is in fact “wonderfully preserved,” 4 and “rises” again to newness of life.5 The imagery frequently seems to suggest that this organic pattern recurs in history: Calvin can speak of a “first” and “second” birth of the church, 6 * 8 of a “maturing” 1 Cf. Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 188. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teachings of the Christian Church, trans. Olive Wyon (2 vols., Torchbook edition; New York: Harper and Bros., 1960), II, 619, rejects the idea of “organism” as applied to the thought of Calvin because it is a “vegetative” concept, implying lack of conscious¬ ness. Francois Wendel, Calvin, trans. Philip Mairet (London: Collins, 1963), pp. 295-297, refers to Bucer’s emphasis on the church as an organism, and to Bucer’s influence upon Calvin, but does not directly connect the two. 2 I have in mind especially the church as the “body of Christ” and as the “mother” of all the faithful. Cf. infra. 3 Comm. Is. 54.2, CO XXXVII, 270: “The church therefore conceived when the people returned to their native country; for the body of the people was gathered together from which Christ should proceed. . . . And after birth the church began to grow up (adolevit) from infancy (pueritia) until the gospel was preached. This was the true adolescence of the church (vera ecclesiae adolescentid). Then follows the age of manhood (virilis aetas).” 4 Comm. Rom. 11.2, CO XLIX, 213: “In the time of Elijah there was such a desolation that there remained no appearance of a church (nullus iam superesset ecclesiae conspectus), and yet, though no vestige of God’s grace appeared, the church of God was, as it were, hid in the grave, and was wonderfully preserved.” 8 Comm. Dan. 12.2, CO XLI, 290: “The manner in which he will preserve it must not be taken in the carnal sense, as the church will be like a dead body (similis erit mortuo cadeveri) until it shall rise again.” 8 Comm. Is. 43.19, CO XXXVII, 94-95: “The redemption from Egypt may be regarded as having been the first birth of the church (prima ecclesiae nativitas);. . . W'e ought to take the same view rrspi T(XUT7]t; TraXiYYeveaiap, by which the people were rescued from Babylon.” Cf. Comm. Dan. 8.1, CO XLI, 87.

8

calvin’s conception of order

of the church both before and after Christ,1 and, likewise, of repeated resurrections from death.2 But that should not be taken as an ar¬ gument for a cyclical view of church history; on the contrary, these very citations imply that the recurring phenomena are to be placed within the context of the unified and continuous growth of the organism. Confirmation of this, it seems to me, is discovered in Calvin’s repeated references to Abraham, and to Abraham only, as being “the father of the whole church.” 3 Calvin knows, to be sure, of a church prior to Abraham: the priestly genealogies constitute sufficient proof of this;4 * but it is, clearly, the church in embryo: Adam and Eve, with a few other of their children, were themselves true worshippers of God . . . We may rightly conclude that Seth was an upright and faithful servant of God. And after he begat a son, like himself, and had a rightly constituted family, the face of the church began distinctly to appear (exstare coepit distincta ecclesiae facies), and that worship of God was set up which might continue to posterity.6

As the distinctiveness of the embryonic face represents an advance which is yet continuous with previous growth, so the appearance of the church here is not to be thought of, on the one hand, as ex1 Comm. Ps. 50.1, CO XXXI, 495: “That the Jews were subjected to the rudiments of the world, which continued until the church matured (adolesceret), and what the apostle calls ‘the fullness of times’ arrived (Gal. iv.4) admits of no doubt.” Comm. Ps. 50.14, CO XXXI, 502: “He has extended a simpler form of worship to us who have matured (adolevimus) since the coming of Christ (post Christi adventum).” 2 Comm. Ps. 102.19, CO XXXII, 70: “Although the church had perished, he was persuaded that God, by his wonderful power, would make her rise again from death to renovated life. This is a remarkable passage, showing that the church is not always so preserved as to continue to outward appearance to survive, but that when she seems to be dead, she is suddenly created anew, whenever it so pleases God. Let no desolation, therefore, which befalls the church, deprive us of the hope, that as God once created the world out of nothing, so it is his proper work to bring forth the church from the darkness of death (ecclesiam ex mortis tenebris eruere).” 3 Comm. John 8.56, CO XLVII, 214: “Totius ecclesiae pater est.” Cf. Comm. Is. 41.2, CO XXXVII, 34, Comm. Gen. 15.7, CO XXIII, 215, Comm. Gen. 12.10, CO XXIII, 83. On these grounds, Sarah is thought of as “the mother of the people of God” (Comm. Gen. 16.1, CO XXIII, 256). 4 Comm. Gen. 11.10, CO XXIII, 169: “And although we have said that the father and grandfather of Abraham were apostates, and that,. . . probably, the defection did not begin with them; yet, because the church, by the election of God, was included in that race (inclusa erat ecclesiae) and because God had some who worshipped him in purity, and who survived even to the time of Abraham, Moses adduces a continuous line of descent {continuant lineam), and thus enrolls them in the catalogue of saints.” 6 Comm. Gen. 4.25, CO XXIII, 103.

9

THE CHURCH AS ORGANISM

eluding Adam and Eve, or, on the other, as referring to a full-bodied church. Taken together, then, the metaphors suggest that the church is conceived with Adam and Eve, foetally develops under the patriarchs, is born at the Exodus, and—together with these—has Abraham for its

father!

From infancy on—adolescence,

maturity—it presses

toward a definite goal, although not without reversals and upheavals, and, decisively, not without being “born again.” Clearly, it is not just any organism, but the human organism, which Calvin has in mind in this delineation of the church. As will already have become apparent in the foregoing discussion, the comparison to the growth of the organism entails a historical understanding of the church.1 That growth, moreover, is not can¬ cerous, but harmonious and purposive; more subtly—but no less significantly—implicit in the notion of organism, therefore, is the conception of order. How important these two themes—history and order—are for Calvin’s doctrine of the church this and the following chapters will show. We begin with the conception of order because it is in many ways the presupposition for the history of the church; i.e., the history of redemption presupposes the order of creation. That is so, for Calvin, not only in the sense that it is the fall from his created state which necessitates the redemption of man, but also in the fact that redemption is essentially the restoration of the order established in creation. B. The Principle of Order

We meet Calvin’s conception of order, first of all, in his admiration of the cosmos. His attitude toward, his feeling for,

the created

world is almost ecstatic: Wherever you turn your eyes, there is no place in the universe in which you cannot discern at least some traces of his glory. You cannot at one glance survey this most spacious and beautiful system (amplissimam vero el pulcherrimam machinam) in all its vast extent, without being completely overwhelmed by its infinite brilliance.2 1 According to Myron P. Gilmore, The World of Humanism (Torchbook edition; “The Rise of Modem Europe Series”; New York: Harper and Row, 1962”). p. 201, “the Middle Ages had singularly lacked a sense of the reality of time,” and “at the beginning of the sixteenth century this sense of history, which was subsequently to triumph, was only beginning to be manifest in thought.” Calvin, it seems to me, certainly participates in this emerging “sense of history.” Cf. Wendel, p. 359. 2 Inst. I.v.l, OS III, 45.

10

calvin’s conception of order

Christians are urged, accordingly, to “take a pious delight in the works of God which are manifest and open in this most beautiful theater.” 1 What animates Calvin so in his contemplation of the universe—and it must be said that he is nowhere else so lyrical—is the “divine skill,” the “innumerable yet distinct and ordered (distincta et disposita) variety of the heavenly host.” 2 Indeed, “the har¬ monious disposition of the universe (concinna mundi positio) is a mirror (speculi) in which we may contemplate the otherwise invisible God.” 3 Not only the cosmos, as something external to us, is an order re¬ flective of God’s glory, but man, as microcosmos, is also figured as such a “mirror.” 4 There is presented to us in the whole order of nature (toto natura the most abundant matter for showing forth the glory of God, . . . But David here, with great propriety, commends the special grace toward the human race; for this, of all the subjects which come under our contemplation, is the brightest mirror (illustre speculum) in which we may perceive his glory.5 ordine),

Finally, Calvin is stirred by yet a third speculum, zvy., political order,6 the exercise of which distinguishes man, as man, from “beasts.” 7 In deliberately describing these spheres—the cosmos, man, and the state—as “mirrors,” reflecting the glory of God, and in giving substance to the metaphor through the enumeration of such qualities as betoken the harmonious, balanced, and orderly workings in and through all three, Calvin aligns himself with one of the dominant notes of 15th and 16th century humanism: 1 Inst. I.xiv.20, OS III, 170. 2 Inst. I.v.2, OS III, 46. 3 Inst. I.v.l, OS III, 45. Cf. Comm. Heb. 11.3, CO LV, 146: “This world is correctly called the mirror of divinity (divinitatis speculum). Both T. H. L. Parker, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1952), p. 75, and T. F. Torrance, Calvin's Doctrine of Alan (London: Lutterworth Press, 1952), pp. 35-40, discuss the mirror imagery in some detail. 4 Inst. I.v.3, OS III, 46-47. 6 Comm. Ps. 8.1, CO XXXI, 88. 6 Comm. Ps. 82.1, CO XXXI, 768-69: “Political order (ordinem politicum) is called the assembly of God, for although the divine glory shone forth in every part of the world, yet when lawful government flourishes among men, it is reflected therefrom with pre-eminent luster.” 7 Comm. Is. 34.12, CO XXXVI, 586: “Men will scarcely differ from beasts if they are without government {politia)." Cf. Inst. I.iii.3, OS III, 40, and Inst. Il.ii. 17, OS III, 259, where this distinction is grounded in religio and ratio res¬ pectively.

THE PRINCIPLE OF ORDER

11

The state was endlessly compared with the individual on the one hand and with the universe on the other. The same principle of order was to be discerned at all three levels, and disorganization in one was followed or accompanied by disorganization in another. The planets in their courses, the rulers in the state, and the passions in the individual were clearly related.1 It would seem that not only humanistic, but Stoic conceptions as well are involved here; and, certainly, Calvin was not free from that influence.2 But what of the biblically oriented, Christian theologian ? In order to understand Calvin more adequately, we shall have to pursue his thoughts in each of these three areas. Only in this way shall we gain a solid grasp upon his theological conception of order.3 1. The Order of Creation About the divine act of creation itself, Calvin has remarkably little to say, other than to affirm the traditional teaching of a creatio 1 Gilmore, p. 71. The “principle of order” constitutes one of the main features of his interpretation of the period. Particularly, he selects Diirer’s Melancholia and St. Jerome as expressing, on the one hand, the contemporary anxiety over the confusion, disorder and frustration of man’s existence, and, on the other, the contemporary ideals of peace, harmonious and ordered creativity (p. 269). Just this anxiety, politically felt, gave rise to those characteristic admonitions to youthful rulers written by the humanists, e.g., Erasmus and Machiavelli (pp. 127131). And the ideal, again, was translated into the symmetrical and, finally, circular architecture of the Churches (pp. 239-40). On Calvin as a humanist, cf. John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), pp. 98-105 and Wendel, pp. 27-37. Precisely those hu¬ manistic works referred to by Gilmore may have influenced Calvin in the selection of the word Institutio for the title of his work. Cf. John T. McNeill, “Introduction,” Calvin-. Institutes of the Christian Religion (26 vols.; “The Library of Christian Classics”; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), XX, xxxi. 2 Quirinus Breen, John Calvin-. A Study in French Humanism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1931), pp. 67-72, 80-85, has shown the influence of Stoicism upon the young humanist scholar, particularly as regards the yearning for order. 3 Josef Bohatec, Calvin und das Recht (Feudingen in Westfalen: Buchdruckerei u. Verlagsanstalt G.m.b.H., 1934), p. 4, writes that “Calvin distinguishes the ius naturae (identical with the lex naturae) from the laws which govern and determine the actual being of and occurrences in the universe (fabrica mundi, orbis machina, universitas mundi). For this, as well as for the unchangable necessities of social and political life, Calvin prefers to employ the designation ordo naturae (ordre commun de nature).” Edward A. Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Oxford University Press 1952), p. 66, maintains that “the order of nature” refers to the orderliness and regularity of events within creation and implies proper relationships among all things, as well as the realization by every creature of its appropriate purpose.” Torrance, p. 47, points to the connection between order and rectitude, and defines the order of nature as “utter dependence upon the mercy of God.” We shall be in a better position to evaluate these definitions at the conlusion of our analysis.

12

calvin’s conception of order

exnihilo} to expound in a straightforward way the history provided by Moses,1 2 and to refer his readers to the pious elaborations of Basil and Ambrose.3 He is much more concerned, rather, to insist that the creation is not a static, once-for-all event belonging to the past, but a creatio continua, indissolubly joined to the providential activity of God. It would be absurd to circumscribe creation within such narrow limits, as though it were witness to a momentary and vanishing power of God; rather, it ought to be extended to a continuous administration.4 Otherwise, we shall have no clear understanding of what it means to say that God is the creator.5 It is at just this nexus that the conception of the order of nature is brought into the theological framework, for it can be identified with the providence of God. That men are rightly under the power of God, so that he should everywhere be acknowledged as king, is confirmed by the order of creation (creationis ordine) itself; for the providence of God is openly reflected on the face of the whole earth.6 As a matter of fact, Calvin will even permit the identification of the order of nature with God himself—provided that it be done “piously”—but, he goes on to say, “it is a harsh and improper manner of speaking, since Nature is rather an order prescribed by God (potius natura sit ordo a Dei praescriptus).” 7 Precisely this is the dis¬ tinction which is to be made between the order of creation and providence, as well. That is, the order of creation is dependent upon the providential activity of God: Nothing is more natural than the succession in turn of spring to winter, summer to spring, autumn to summer. Yet in this series so much and such unequal diversity may be perceived that every year, month and day easily appears to be regulated by a new and particular providence of God.8 1 Inst.I.xiv.20, OS III, 170. 2 Comm. Gen. passim, CO XXIII. 3 Inst. I.xiv.20, OS III, 170. 4 Comm. Is. 37.16, CO XXXVI, 626. 6 Inst. I.xvi.l, OS III, 187: “Unless we proceed to his providence, we will not understand what it means that God is creator.” 6 Comm. Ps. 24.2, CO XXXI, 244. 7 Inst. I.v.5, OS III, 50. 8 Inst. I.xvi.2, OS III, 190.

THE PRINCIPLE OF ORDER

13

What Calvin achieves by means of this distinction is, first of all, a refutation of the idea “that now the order of nature stands by itself, and that God sits idle in the heavens,” 1 secondly, that God not only preserves the order of nature but actively governs it,2 and, thirdly, that this governance extends as far as the destination, the end, of each particular creature.3 Because “providence” is a term which has both a theocentric and an anthropocentric referent, thereby making possible those ambiguous identifications of God, or his providence, and the order of nature, the conception characteristically made use of by Calvin to sharpen the distinction is that of the ordination of God (Dei ordinatio).4 5 Systematically speaking, we may say that under the general heading of Providence, or creatio continua, are embraced the conceptions of the ordinatio Dei and the or do naturae which is dependent upon it. Here, as in certain other respects, Calvin is willing to use a wide variety of synonyms (imperium, decretum, mandatum) 5 in order to convey precisely what he means by ordinatio. None of these, however, is quite so revealing or ultimately significant as one less frequently used, vi%., verbum.6

1 Comm. Ps. 148.5, CO XXXII, 434. 2 Inst. lxvi. 4, OS III, 194: “The world is governed by God, not only as he supports the order of nature fixed by himself, but as he maintains a peculiar care over each of his works.” Cf. Comm. Jer. 10.1, 2, CO XXXIV, 60: “Thus God has given this property to both sun and moon, and all the stars, that he himself rules and changes the seasons as he decides. . . . Therefore, this diversity in nature itself shows that God has not resigned his power to the stars, but so operates by the stars that he holds the helm.” 3 Inst. I.xvi.7, OS III, 198: “Whence we gather that not only does his general providence flourish over the creatures, to extend the order of nature, but that by his admirable counsel they are adapted to a certain and special end.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 148.5, CO XXXII, 434. 4 Bohatec, p. 62, blurs this distinction when he says that “the conception of order rules the thought of the Reformer so much that he understands by ‘ordinatio’ . . . not only political order (ordo politicus) but condition of order (in distinction from