CALVIN AND ECUMENICITY

The mention of John Calvin in connection with church unity might strike some as unusual. Calvin was, after all, one of the Reformers who had consolidated the position of the Reformation as a definite break from the Roman church. Although he had not been the first to declare a breach with Rome, he certainly was instrumental in making this break an irreversible fact. The splintering of the Roman church into various factions such as the Anabaptist radicals, Lutherans, Zwinglians and Calvinists, to name a few, served to divide a church that had been unified for centuries. The Reformational movement in which Calvin was a key figure, it has been argued, paved the way for the ecclesiastical pluralism of our own day.

However, despite his role in the break from Rome, Calvin was in fact a passionate advocate of unity. The break with Rome was one that had been necessary, though undesirable, and for Calvin it was largely an accomplished fact rather than a personal choice - there was no other way. Yet for Calvin the splintering of the church constituted a sad and undesirable state of affairs that could not be reconciled with his doctrinal affirmation of the unity of the catholic church. Throughout his life, he was a tireless advocate of the unity of the church, particularly working for the restoration of the church's visible unity amongst the Reformed churches.

In Calvin's time, the Reformational movement revolved around the three centers of Wittenberg (Luther and Melanchthon), Zurich (Zwingli and Bullinger), and Geneva (Calvin and Beza). Calvin never ceased to work at uniting these three strands of the Reformation, and these efforts have led him to be regarded as an ecumenical pioneer among the Reformers.¹

The topic of this paper primarily concerns Calvin's attempts at uniting the different strands of the Reformational movement.² Firstly I shall make some preliminary remarks illustrating Calvin's desire for unity and the origin of this. Secondly I shall outline his attempts for unity, particularly his efforts at achieving reconciliation with the Zwinglians and Lutherans. Thirdly I shall briefly attempt to discern what Calvin perceived as the conditions for unity.

My primary concern is with the second section, namely to relate Calvin's quest for unity with the other Reformational movements. The danger of such a study is ever present that one colours Calvin with one's own perspective. For example, attempts have been made to marshal Calvin onto the front-lines of the contemporary Ecumenical Movement. Not only does this do injustice to the distinctives of the historical situation in which Calvin found himself, but it also fails to present an accurate representation of the Genevan Reformer's quest for unity. This I want to avoid. In order to do justice to Calvin and gain an accurate opinion of his attempts for unity, it is necessary to quote extensively from his writings, particularly his correspondence.³ This is not done to tire the reader, but in order to collate as comprehensively as possible the relevant sections of Calvin's writings, and so provide an accurate picture of Calvin's practical approach to the question of unity by uncovering the original sources, so retaining the personal flavour of his correspondence and writings.

Calvin's desire for unity was the result of an acute sense of the catholicity of the church, a vivid consciousness of the continuity with the apostolic church of all ages, times and places. It thus originated in his theology, a theology based on the Scriptural teaching that the church is one, and so must be united in one body. This is particularly evident from his Institutes IV. i., which has the title "The True Church with Which as Mother of All the Godly We Must Keep Unity." In Institutes IV. i. 2 Calvin wrote:

In speaking about the sin of schism in Institutes IV. i. 10 Calvin warned that one must not spurn the authority of the church,

It is thus clear from Calvin's Institutes that Calvin was convinced of the Scriptural truth of the unity. It was the confession of this Scriptural truth that fostered Calvin's desire that the church be one, and that this unity also receive a visible manifestation.

The same desire for the unity of the church is evident also in Calvin's commentaries. In his commentary on Ephesians 4:4, Calvin remarked:

On 1 Corinthians 14:36 Calvin gives the following commentary:

For Calvin, then, the doctrine concerning the unity of the church had to lead to a practical expression of this unity. In this expression, there was even room for "different practices".

Calvin's desire for the unity of the church thus had its root in his theology. It was precisely the recognition of the Scriptural truth that the church was one that led Calvin in an ongoing struggle to unite the brothers of the Reformation, particularly the Zwinglians and Lutherans.

There was practically unanimous agreement on all issues except one, namely the question of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Luther emphasized the words "This is my body". This resulted in the concept of consubstantiation, which affirmed the real presence of Christ in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. In contrast, Zwingli emphasized the words "Do this in remembrance of me." This resulted in a stress on the memorial character of the Lord's Supper, which affirmed the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament.

The dispute proved to be unresolvable. Luther was particularly adamant about the truth of his position, and refused to hold out to Zwingli the hand of fellowship, declaring "We are not of the same spirit."¹⁰ The resulting formulation of fifteen articles expressed general agreement, but the fifteenth and last article betrayed the lack of unanimity on the issue of the Lord's Supper.

In this conflict, Calvin's position appeared to be that which mediated the extremes of Luther and Zwingli, and reflected the true intention of both.¹² With Zwingli Calvin objected to Luther's idea of corporal presence. Consequently Calvin objected to the manner in which Bucer had achieved a consensus with Luther in the 1536 Wittenberg Concord, since this had involved making too many concessions to Luther's position.¹³ On the other hand, with Luther Calvin objected to Zwingli's idea of the Lord's Supper as a memorial. Consequently Calvin wrote on May 19, 1538 that Zwingli was "far too concerned to refute the superstitious belief in a physical presence of Christ, and at the same time destroying, or at least clouding, the true power of communion with Christ."¹⁴

Calvin's position on the Lord's Supper thus was indicative of his role that ensued with respect to the sacramentarian controversy. His view combined elements of Luther over against Zwingli, and elements of Zwingli over against Luther. For unity between Lutherans, Zwinglians and Calvinists to be successful, it would seem that this unity would have to be framed in Calvinistic terms acceptable both to Lutherans and Zwinglians. It was such a unity that Calvin tirelessly pursued, since it was in the framework of his conception of the Lord's Supper that Lutherans and Zwinglians could also be reconciled. Calvin seemed to have realized this, and thus the initiative was mostly his in attempting unity in the events that ensued. It is noteworthy that both Luther (Wittenberg) and Bullinger (Zurich) were not very optimistic about the possibility of unity with one another, and mostly resigned themselves to the fact that their positions were irreconcilable. It was Calvin, however, who understood that reconciliation was possible, and it was this that he endeavoured to achieve throughout his life.

Calvin's interest in church unity may have been fostered as a result of extensive contacts with Bucer in Strasbourg during his stay there between 1538 and 1541.¹⁵ However, already on February 21, 1538 he made a proposal to Bullinger, Zwingli's spiritual heir, that a public synod be held in order to reach a common consensus with regard to discipline and other issues.

Calvin evidently felt a kinship spirit between himself and Bullinger, and was desirous of attaining a broad peace among the churches of evangelical character.

Not long after, Calvin and Farel were forced out of Geneva. When they went to Berne, a synod was convened in Zurich in order to decide on their case.¹⁷ Representatives from Zurich, Berne, Basel, and other churches considered their actions, and on April 28, 1538 gave their approval to Calvin and Farel, subsequently commissioning Berne to attempt to bring about their reinstatement in Geneva. Although this proved to be unsuccessful, the good will shown to Calvin by Zurich and the other Swiss churches was indicative of a favorable attitude towards the Genevan Reformer, and afforded the hope of future peace and unity.

Calvin's ultimate objective was not only to reconcile Geneva with Zurich and Wittenberg, but especially to arrive at a concord between the Lutherans and Zwinglians. He thus expressed disappointment that the Zurichers had failed to attend a conference on the question of achieving agreement between the Lutherans and the Swiss. He wrote to Farel regarding this in October, 1538.

Bucer had already expressed his openness towards the Lutherans, but had consequently been received unfavorably in Zurich. Addressing this issue in an attempt to remove the differences between Strasbourg and Zurich, in a letter of March 12, 1540, Calvin appealed for Bullinger's "brotherly friendship", since

Luther was indeed partially the cause of the hesitation of the Zurichers. In 1539 he had portrayed Zwingli as a Nestorian in his Von den Konzielien und Kirchen. In his Ermahnung zum Gebet wider die Turken of 1541 he listed Zwingli with the Anabaptists and rebels. Calvin was shocked by the ferocity of Luther's uncompromising and unconciliatory attitude towards the Zwinglians. His irenic Short Treatise on the Supper of our Lord was the result.

Calvin's Short Treatise on the Supper of our Lord was written from Strasbourg in French in 1541. In it, Calvin insisted that the dispute between Luther and Zwingli was the result of confusion and misunderstanding. There can be no doubt that Calvin was saddened by the development of conflict between the different parties of the Reformation. Under "Recent Disputes on the Supper" (53) he wrote:

Under "God Sometimes Allows His own People to Fall into Error" (54), Calvin stated that such differences should not surprise us. God sometimes allows His servants to go into ignorance, and so "take away all ground of glorying from men, in order that he might alone be glorified."²¹

Calvin observed that Luther's view leaned more to an assertion of the corporal presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

In contrast, Zwingli and Oecolompadius reacted against the abuse of this sacrament in the Roman church, and so thought it was idolatry to worship Christ in the bread. They removed this terrible Roman error, and thought they detected it also in Luther.

Calvin contended that Luther's antagonism to the Zurichers was based on a misunderstanding of the Zwinglian conception of the Lord's Supper. Under the heading "Luther Impugns Their Views" (57), he wrote:

In Calvin's view, guilt lay on both sides. Under the heading "Attempted Reconciliation - Cause of Failure" (58) he wrote "We thus see wherein Luther failed on his side, and Zuinglius and Oecolompadius on theirs."²⁵ Calvin realized that Luther wanted to show that he did not establish a local presence as the Papists did, and did not mean to have the sacrament adored instead of God. But Luther went too far.

But the Zwinglians were also at fault. They were so intent in opposing the papists

Calvin thus believed that unity was possible, if both parties would take the time to understand each other and listen, rather than make concord impossible by their antagonism and vehemence. Under the heading "Duty of the Servants of God in Regard to the Advancement of Truth" he asserted:

Calvin's solution was to frame the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in terms that would be agreeable to all. He insisted that there was essential agreement on this issue, and that by focussing on Christ, unity was possible. Under his final heading "Fraternal Concord Among the Churches" (60), he concluded:

Calvin's Short Treatise on the Supper of our Lord is thus primarily conciliatory and irenic in character. To a large extent this treatise was successful. Unfortunately, it was only translated into Latin in 1545, so Luther only had access to it for the first time just prior to his death. According to Luther's confidant Christopher Pezel, Luther now realized the wisdom of Calvin's conception of the Lord's Supper. He even acknowledged that if the Zwinglians had expressed themselves in the terms of Calvin, the sacramentarian controversy would not been the dispute that it was. Pezel claims that when Luther had read Calvin's treatise, he said concerning Calvin:

Calvin's treatise did, however, pave the way for further dialogue with the Zwinglians, particularly Bullinger.

Calvin clearly had a high regard for the leader of the Zwinglians in Zurich. In a letter to Bullinger dated November 8, 1542, Calvin said:

The problem, however, was Luther. Luther continued his unrelenting tirade of criticism upon the Zwinglians with another violent pamphlet in September 1544, Kurzes Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl. Even Melanchthon was disturbed by Luther's harshness, and wrote to Bullinger on August 30, 1544, saying that he was deeply affected by the great violence with which Luther had renewed the controversy over the Lord's Supper, and by which the peace of the Church would be permanently disturbed.³²

Calvin was also deeply concerned about the conflict between Luther and the Zwinglians. In a letter to Farel on October 10, 1544, Calvin said of Bullinger and the Zwinglians:

Calvin also corresponded personally with Bullinger on November 25, 1544, urging him to give a moderate reply. He spoke highly of Luther, speaking of him as an "illustrious servant of God", a "most distinguished servant of Christ" who has done much "to overthrow the reign of the Antichrist". Bullinger was urged to bear with his "serious faults" and "to decline the contest" rather than increase needless controversy, which would result in "the general shipwreck of the Church." The relevant section of Calvin's irenic letter to Bullinger follows.

It is clear that Calvin was very disturbed by the ongoing progress of the sacramentarian controversy, and was eager to see its end. Just prior to the Council of Trent, Calvin expressed his anxieties in a letter to an unknown person, dated January 1545.

He mentions a renewed attack upon Osiander, who himself

Bullinger finally published his reply to Luther's hostile treatise in 1545, entitled Absoluta de Christi et ejus Ecclesiae Sacramentis Tractatio. He sent a copy to Calvin for his judgment, to which Calvin responded immediately. When Calvin got no response, he wrote again to Bullinger on September 19, 1547, in an attempt to continue the discussion.

This was followed by another letter to Bullinger on March 1, 1548, in which he wrote:

Calvin continued to be optimistic of such a unity. But as yet some disputes still needed to be resolved. Bullinger had refused to permit young men from Zurich to participate in the Lord's Supper in Strasbourg, even though they were asked to assent only to the Swiss confession. Calvin gently chastised Bullinger for this in a letter of June 26, 1548, saying "I indeed see no reason why the churches should be so rent asunder on this point."³⁹

In November 1548, Calvin sent 24 propositions on the sacraments to Bullinger, to which Bullinger responded with general approval.⁴⁰ These would become the basis of the Tigurinus Consensus in 1549. Calvin continued to engage in correspondence with Bullinger, and in a letter of January 21, 1549, observed his affection for Bullinger despite their differences.

On March 12, 1549, Calvin sent another set of articles, this time to a synod of pastors that would be convened in Berne. In the accompanying letter, he urged agreement on the Lord's Supper. The letter is addressed "To the pastors of the Church of Berne", and Calvin mentions, "among other matters, regarding the peace of the Church, of which the peculiar bond is harmony in purity of doctrine". Since Calvin supposed that there would be some discussion about sacraments, he thought it was his duty to bear testimony on this.

Calvin thus favoured a union between Geneva and Berne.

By this stage, Bullinger and Calvin were ready to come to agreement on the issue of the Lord's Supper, which was formalized with the Tigurinus Consensus of 1549.

Not long after the death of his wife, Calvin set out for Zurich on May 20, 1549. Farel joined him at Neuchatel, and they arrived together in Zurich. In a session that lasted just two-hours, an agreement with Bullinger was reached, undoubtedly on the basis of the articles Calvin had previously sent to Bullinger.⁴³ This agreement came to be known as the Tigurinus Consensus, also called the Zurich Agreement or the Accord de Zurich.

The 26 articles of the Tigurinus Consensus were essentially in agreement with Calvin's earlier treatise on the Holy Supper. The notion of the sacraments as a bare memorial was rejected, since it was affirmed that the sacraments represent to the senses what is announced in the Word, namely, what God accomplishes by His Spirit. At the same time, extreme Lutheran and Roman Catholic interpretations were explicitly rejected. The words "This is my body" are to be taken figuratively and involve no transfusion of substance (23), and thus transubstantiation is to be regarded as a gross and absurd fiction (24).

The Tigurinus Consensus was a significant development for the Reformational movement. It was promptly accepted by Zurich and many other Swiss churches, and within two years also by Basel, Berne, and other cities. It also gained the approval of Bucer, John a Lasco, and John Hooper. Previously, the Protestant movement had gravitated around Wittenberg, Zurich, and Geneva, but the Tigurinus Consensus had achieved the desired result of reconciling Zurich with Geneva. As Nijenhuis astutely observes,

It was thus a landmark achievement for the Reformation, by achieving a unity between Zurich and Geneva. Calvin continued to correspond to Bullinger, whom he addressed as his "brother in the Lord, and most honourable and accomplished man."⁴⁵ What remained, however, was an attempt to achieve reconciliation with the Lutherans.

During his stay in Strasbourg (1538-41), Calvin participated in several conferences aimed at achieving reconciliation between the Protestants and the Roman church. In fact, his involvement in the Colloquies of Hagenau, Worms, and Regensburg placed him alongside the Lutherans over against the Roman theologians. It was here that Calvin developed many friendships with the Lutheran theologians, especially Melanchthon. His close friendship with Melanchthon continued until Melanchthon's death in 1560, and is evident, for example, from what Calvin wrote to Melanchthon on February 16, 1543:

Calvin's involvement in these Colloquies was significant in that it placed him among the Lutheran cause. Calvin was only informally involved in the meeting at Hagenau (June 25 - July 28, 1540). He was, however, the official delegate sent by Strasbourg to the meeting at Worms (January 14 - 18, 1541). Here, however, due to problems over the number of representatives, he appeared in the assembly as the representative of the Duke of Luneburg. This Duke had signed the Augsburg Confession (Invariata) in 1539 and was known as "the Confessor". Calvin's involvement as part of a delegation in the name of this North German Lutheran ruler shows that there was a close knit unity among the evangelicals, and no serious division between Calvin and the Lutherans.

Calvin's involvement in the Colloquies in Germany not only resulted in friendships, but also required that he show his allegiance to the Lutheran confession, the Augsburg Confession. The nature of Calvin's relationship to the Augsburg Confession is a matter of dispute, particularly since it is questionable whether Calvin expressed his allegiance not only to the Confessio Augustana Variata of 1540, but also to the original Confessio Augstana Invariata of 1530, which was distinctly more Lutheran in its formulation of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Willem Nijenhuis' article "Calvin and the Augsburg Confession" is helpful in this regard.⁴⁸

Nijenhuis points out that although the Augsburg Confession functioned as a Lutheran confession, it was intended to be a catholic confession when presented at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. The name "Lutherans" was first employed by their opponents, and Melanchthon opposed this term, saying "We ought all to be catholic."⁴⁹

Nonetheless, the Augsburg Confession came to be identified with as a Lutheran confession. In 1540 Melanchthon made a significant change to the wording of the Augsburg Confession regarding the Lord's Supper in Article 10, softening the Lutheran elements.⁵⁰ The Variata was closer to Calvin on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and Calvin was probably one of those who had urged Melanchthon to make this change. It is undisputed that Calvin expressed his approval of the Variata as explained by Melanchthon.⁵¹ This is stated clearly in his Ultima Admonitio to Westphal.

The question that remains, however, is whether Calvin was compelled to assert a similar support to the Invariata as a condition for his participation in the Colloquies in Hagenau, Worms, and Regensberg. Nijenhuis provides convincing evidence that Calvin did not sign the Invariata at this time.⁵³ Calvin's involvement would have only required that he sign the Augsburg Confession for the Colloquies in Worms and Regensburg. However, these Colloquies were both after 1540, and so by this time the constitutional document at both Worms and Regensburg was the Variata, and not the Invariata.

No extant copy of the Augsburg Confession has Calvin's signature. Some have appealed to a letter that Calvin wrote to Martin Schalling on March 15, 1557 as evidence that Calvin did sign it:

Nijenhuis doubts that this refers to an actual signing of the Augsburg Confession. The verb "subscribere" can mean "to sign", but Calvin frequently uses this word in the metaphorical sense of "to subscribe to, to support, to agree with." The addition "as the author himself explained it" probably indicates Calvin's agreement with the Augsburg Confession particularly as it was explained and defended by Melanchthon in the oral discussions with Eck at Regensburg. Even so, it is not unreasonable to assume that Calvin signed the Variata as a delegate at both Worms and Regensburg. In Nijenhuis' opinion, thus, Calvin did not formally sign the Invariata during the Colloquies.

However, this does not mean that Calvin never signed the Invariata or was required to express his agreement with it. When Calvin first arrived in Strasbourg in 1538, the official doctrinal formula of the church had since 1530 been the Tetrapolitan Confession. But when Strasbourg joined the Schmalkaldic League, one of the conditions was that they had to agree to sign the Augsburg Confession, the Invariata. In a sense, the church of Strasbourg officially endorsed two confessions, with the Augsburg Confession Invariata alongside the Tetrapolitan Confession. This was also the situation when Calvin arrived in Strasbourg in September 1538. Although there is no evidence of a formal obligation to sign both the Tetrapolitan Confession and the Augsburg Confession Invariata, Nijenhuis affirms that the authorities certainly would not have tolerated any preaching in conflict with either of them.

Nijenhuis also refers to an instance when the council of Strasbourg demanded that the minister of the French community, Jean Garnier, should sign the confession unconditionally without any further interpretation. Garnier apparently asked for Calvin's advice, who responded: "I fail to see why you hesitate to sign the Augsburg Confession."⁵⁶

Thus it can be affirmed with reasonable certainty that Calvin lived and worked as a supporter of the Invariata for at least two years. Yet there is good reason not to press this point too far. Calvin was very thankful that Melanchthon changed the formulation of the Augsburg Confession in 1540 with regard to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. From this point on he repeatedly affirmed his substantial agreement with the Variata.

Calvin's agreement with the Variata was not unconditional, however. Particularly in his dialogue with Westphal, he repeatedly stated that nothing in it conflicted with his own teaching, as long as it was interpreted in the way that Melanchthon explained it. This attitude is evident also in what Farel wrote:

We have already dealt with Calvin's involvement in the sacramentarian conflict between the Lutherans and Zwinglians from the perspective of his correspondence with Bullinger. We now consider this from the perspective of Calvin's correspondence with Luther and Melanchthon.

After Luther's fierce treatise against the Zwinglians in November 1544, Calvin wrote to Melanchthon on January 21, 1545. He submitted a copy of his two treatises against the so-called Nicodemites, the faint-hearted reform-minded Christians in France who from fear still took part in the Catholic mass.⁵⁸ Calvin valued the judgment of both Melanchthon and Luther, and their approval would be instrumental in gaining credence to Calvin's own views.

Part of the reason why Calvin had sent them to Melanchthon and Luther is that he wished them to know his opinion on this issue, and the reasons for it, and he had them translated into Latin for this very purpose.

In this letter Calvin expressed his heartfelt desire for unity:

The problem, however, was Luther's fierceness against the Zwinglians. Calvin also wrote to Luther, but wanted Melanchthon to decide whether or not it would be best for Luther to see the letter and accompanying treatises.

Calvin expressed his disappointment at the division which was apparent, saying "When I reflect how much, at so unseasonable a time, these intestine quarrels divide and tear us asunder, I almost entirely lose courage."⁶³ He also mentions the fact that the radical Lutheran Osiander had made another unnecessary attack on Zwinglians:

Calvin signed off, addressing Melanchthon as "most excellent sir, and my ever to be respected friend". Calvin evidently had a very amicable relationship with Melanchthon, and was hoping that Melanchthon would play a key role in moving the Lutheran camp towards reconciliation with the Swiss.

Along with his letter to Melanchthon, Calvin also submitted a letter to Luther, subject to the approval of Melanchthon. It is Calvin's only known to Luther. As it turned out, Melanchthon did not dare to present Calvin's letter to Luther, and so Luther never read it, as Melanchthon wrote to Calvin:

Calvin addressed Luther as "the very excellent pastor of the Christian Church, Dr. M. Luther, my much respected father".⁶⁶ With the letter, Calvin had included copies of his two treatises,

Luther's opinion was highly esteemed, and thus sought on the matter.

Calvin ended the letter with an expression of his desire to speak with Luther, and the confident hope that they would obtain the opportunity to converse in heaven.

In 1545, the ministers of Zurich published an Apology in defense of their doctrine on the Lord's Supper, which had been vehemently attacked by Luther in his Short Confession upon the Supper.⁷⁰ This reply served only the irritate the radical Lutherans further. Calvin took the opportunity to write once again to Melanchthon on June 28, 1545, in support of the Zurichers over against the fierceness of Luther.

Calvin did not want the conflict to be resolved by giving in to a single individual, Luther, and bewailed Luther's tyranny.

Calvin hoped that this would serve to make Melanchthon provide a "fuller confession" on the issue of the Lord's Supper.

Although some differences remained, Calvin was convinced that there was essential agreement.

The completion of the Tigurinus Consensus in 1549 appeared to have been a major step in the direction of a united Protestantism in Europe. Calvin, it seemed, was hoping that with the Tigurinus Consensus, Zurich's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was sufficiently orthodox in that it was compatible with that of Geneva. However, the language of the Tigurinus Consensus was unmistakably critical not only of the papist doctrine of transubstantiation, but also of radical Lutheranism. Article 24 affirmed "We deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body."⁷⁵ Luther's disciples spared no measure in criticizing the Tigurinus Consensus, and were perhaps more uncompromising than their teacher.

Calvin's acquiescence to such language obviously unfriendly towards the Lutherans has been difficult to explain, particularly if it was his intention to win them over. Several reasons have been advanced as possible solutions. Firstly, Nijenhuis suggests that Calvin only intended to use the Tigurinus Consensus as a means to unite the Swiss Reformed in one stream, and so make Zurich palatable to the German Lutherans.⁷⁶ In this way, Zurich theology would be elevated to a level acceptable to the Lutherans, since it would be clear that they regarded the sacraments as more than just bare signs. McNeill agrees with this assessment.⁷⁷ Secondly, McNeill attributes the language to Bullinger's "habitual disinclination to move in the direction of Lutheranism".⁷⁸ Thirdly, the Tigurinus Consensus was never intended to function as a document for negotiation with Lutherans, but merely to introduce the Zurichers to the Wittenbergers. McNeill points out that from this perspective the Tigurinus Consensus was largely successful, for Melanchthon even remarked that prior to reading it he had never really understood the Swiss position.⁷⁹ Finally, Nijenhuis believes that Calvin abandoned his own principles and had given in to compromise.

This is tenuous, however, and it is doubtful that Calvin made such concessions to the Zwinglians. It is rather the case that since the Tigurinus Consensus was intended to function in the Swiss churches, there was no need to be careful on points with which there was disagreement with the Lutherans, as he had been in his earlier treatise on the Lord's Supper in 1541.

Nonetheless, the Tigurinus Consensus did serve to attract a barrage of criticism from the Lutheran camp. The radical Lutheran Joachim Westphal published his Farrago in 1552, and his Recta fides in 1553. At the request of Bullinger, Calvin answered with an apology entitled Defensio in 1555, a subsequent Secunda Defensio in 1556, and a Ultima Admonitio in 1557. There can be no doubt that the conflict served to increase the gulf between the Swiss and the Lutherans. Provoked by Westphal's inflammatory tactics, Calvin also fell "into expressing himself in an increasing caustic language."⁸¹

Even so, Calvin was optimistic of the possibility of union, and did not cease to hold hopes of a unity, despite the attempts of Westphal to destroy any such alliance. Calvin prefaced his Secunda Defensio with an epistle to the pastors of Saxony, dated 26 January 1556, where he dealt with his ideas about the unity of European evangelical Christianity. He urged them to use their powers for the peace and unity of the church.

Calvin was very desirous of removing all conflict, writing in his Secunda Defensio:

The conflict, however, grew in intensity, and so Calvin wrote to Bullinger in March 1556 that "the Lutherans have conspired to snow us under with a mass of polemical pamphlets". Yet Calvin continued the dialogue, constantly affirming his agreement with Luther and the Augsburg Confession. In the Ultima Admonitio he wrote

Calvin speaks of "this calamitous rending of the Church", concluding:

However, Calvin's hope of protestant unity began to recede as there was no progress. His appeals that Melanchthon assist by stating his opinion fell on deaf ears. Already in a letter of June 18, 1550, Calvin began to express dissatisfaction with Melanchthon, writing "Yet, forgive me if I do not consider you altogether free from blame."⁸⁶ Believing that he is "discharging the duty of a true friend" and yet affirming his "old affection and esteem" for Melanchthon, Calvin found it necessary to reprove Melanchthon.

Calvin was critical, for example, of the fact that Melanchthon has retained the use of the linen vesture, "with many other fooleries".

Calvin suspected that Melanchthon had been influenced and weakened by goadings such as

On 28 November 1552, Calvin wrote again to Melanchthon, expressing an earnest desire to continue their friendship. Calvin had heard that Melanchthon had torn to pieces one of Calvin's letters, but a recent letter from Melanchthon had confirmed his continuing friendship.

Calvin acknowledged that Melanchthon does not always agree with him, yet declared that to end their friendship would result in great injury to the church.

Calvin referred to those who had liberal views on "the free election of God" and the "bondage of the human will", and had appealed to the authority of Melanchthon as a support of their view. Calvin believed that "all my colleagues and myself openly professed to hold the same opinion on that doctrine which you hold", and wanted Melanchthon to speak candidly.

Consequently, Calvin was somewhat critical of Melanchthon's view of election and free will,

Calvin deeply desired to discuss this with Melanchthon.

Melanchthon is addressed in the conclusion as "most distinguished sir and heartily esteemed brother."

Melanchthon did not cooperate, however, and his silence was increasingly annoying to Calvin. On August 27, 1554, Calvin again begged for Melanchthon to break his silence and express his opinion on the sacramentarian controversy.

In 1555 he corresponded several times again with Melanchthon. In a letter of March 5, Calvin expressed gratefulness that Melanchthon has again corresponded with him, but disappointment that he still had not written about the sacramentarian controversy.

After again requesting Melanchthon to give his opinion about the Tigurinus Consensus, Calvin concluded with the wish that God "always keep us in holy union, till at length he gather us into his heavenly kingdom."

In another letter the same year on August 23, Calvin emphasized the importance of seeking the approbation of God rather than that of men, and not trying to avoid the hatred of the world. "But for more important I hold it to follow the rule prescribed by our Master."⁹⁷ By this time Calvin's patience is beginning to wear thin.

A year later, Calvin was still impatiently awaiting Melanchthon's response. In a letter of September 17, 1556, he thus wrote:

Calvin also took the opportunity also to express the need for a conference to end the religious differences of Germany, and referring to a Synod assembled at Nuremberg which condemned the exaggerations of Westphal, wrote:

This final appeal to Melanchthon still did not bear fruit, and the following year on August 3, 1557, Calvin again wrote to Melanchthon, complaining of his long silence.

Calvin made a similar appeal to Melanchthon in his Ultima Admonitio of 1557, again insisting that his words were in harmony with the Augsburg Confession and Melanchthon, and that Melanchthon was in agreement with Calvin. He urged Westphal to attempt to gain any word from Melanchthon to support his case, confident that this was not possible.

Calvin's final letter to Melanchthon was dated November 19, 1558, and still contained exhortations to a fraternal union.

Even towards the very end, Calvin did not despair of Melanchthon's friendship, even though he occasionally received reports that Melanchthon had spoken ill of him.

However, Calvin was to be disappointed, and Melanchthon's failure to publicly vocalize his position chiefly contributed to the failure of Calvin's plans for unity. Calvin himself was convinced that if Luther had lived longer, he would have assented to the Tigurinus Consensus, as he wrote to Marbach, pastor in Strasbourg, on August 25, 1554.

As the conflict increased, Calvin grew tired, and believed that only a few genuine followers of Luther had remained. Thus he wrote in 1560 to Rector Matthias Schenck of Augsburg:

There is much truth to Calvin's assessment. Luther's hostility was primarily directed not against Geneva as such, but the Zwinglians. A month before his death Luther wrote:

But even at the very end of life, Luther realized that he had gone too far, and so Calvin may well have been right in asserting that Luther would have agreed with the Tigurinus Consensus. According to Christopher Pezel, Luther's confidant, Luther apparently said to Melanchthon before setting out on his last journey: "In this matter of the Sacrament we have gone much too far...I will commend the thing to the Lord. Do something after my death."¹⁰⁷

Calvin, at any rate, saw himself in essential agreement with Luther and Melanchthon, of whom he wrote:

The struggle which did result over the Tigurinus Consensus seems indeed to have been the result of the vehemence of radical and intolerant Lutherans who were completely hostile to the Swiss conception of the Lord's Supper. Although Calvin himself saw that reconciliation between the Swiss and the Germans was possible if the Augsburg Confession was interpreted as Melanchthon did, these extremist Lutherans regarded the difference between their teacher and the Swiss as irreconcilable. Calvin's attempts at unity, thus, were thwarted by such radicals who understood neither the true reality of the Swiss perspective, nor the true intention of Melanchthon with the Augsburg Confession.

In 1557, a year after the Westphal controversy had reached its height, Calvin sent William Farel and Theodore Beza on a reconciliatory mission to Strasbourg and Heidelberg. The goal, according to Richard Stauffer, was "to prove to the Lutherans that the Reformed see in the supper something other than a symbol; to show them that they there receive the body and the blood of Christ, and having proved this to them, to ask them to consider the Reformed as brothers."¹⁰⁹

Upon their return, they set out again, this time for Worms. Beza and Farel met here with Melanchthon and other Lutherans. On October 8, 1557, Beza presented a new confession in the name of the French Reformed churches, which was intended to function as a basis for a later conference. It affirmed "We hold that we and you are one true Church of the Son of God."¹¹⁰ The confession itself was phrased very carefully, particularly with respect to the Lord's Supper. The French teaching was carefully distinguished from the position in which the sacrament was regarded as a mere sign. The Lutherans responded by recommending that their princes send commissioners to France as the French had requested. When the sending of the commissioners was delayed, the impatient Calvin sent Beza on a third mission.¹¹¹

Beza visited the Germans a third time in 1558. On March 19, the Lutherans and Reformed together wrote a letter to Henry II, who asked them to stop troubling him on this issue. Since this visit also bore little fruit, Beza was commissioned a fourth time, and visited the German cities again in 1559. His attempt to seek a consensus with the Lutherans met with a favorable response only in Strasbourg. The reconciliatory missions thus also ended in failure.

Calvin's attitude to the Lutherans in Germany is also illustrated by his advice to the English members of the Lutheran congregation in Wesel. These English had to leave England under Bloody Mary because of their evangelical convictions, and took refuge in Germany. Here they were tempted not to attend the Lutheran worship service because it had retained the use of candles and the communion wafer. At the height of his conflict with Westphal, Calvin wrote to these English in Wesel on March 13, 1554. He urged them to praise God that "he has granted you a place of refuge in which you are at liberty to serve and worship him."¹¹² Calvin admitted that there was some validity to their concerns "With regard to the form to be observed in receiving the sacraments, it is not without reason that you entertain doubts and scruples." Indeed, deviating from the ordinance of Christ and usage of the apostles by mixing it with "human invention" was "a corruption."

But Calvin regarded these English in Germany as a special case: "But it seems to us that your condition is different from that of the pastors of the place and the great body of the people." As a rule, it is indeed necessary to exterminate all residue of Popish superstitions, but these English must exercise a certain amount of tolerance.

Calvin obviously did not see certain liturgical differences, although he was personally opposed to them, as a sufficient ground from breaking from the church.

Calvin's advice to the English in Frankfort was similar. He urged the Puritan objectors to the Prayer Book among the refugees not to desert the Lutheran services there. In a letter of January 13, 1555, he wrote:

It would be too much to conclude from this that Calvin regarded such liturgical matters as matters of indifference. Calvin clearly wanted to remove such abuses also, but firmly believed that such reasons could not constitute lawful grounds for breaking the church.

After 1540, the Anglican church began to grew in a direction leaning towards Calvinism. Several influential continental theologians of a Reformed persuasion were compelled to take refuge in England on account of persecution, and exerted a great influence there. Among them were John a Lasco (1548) and Martin Bucer (1549).

In 1552 archbishop Thomas Cranmer began planning an ecumenical synod. His aim was to establish agreement in the Reformed doctrine, and so lay the foundation for further unity amongst the different Reformed churches. Cranmer wrote to Calvin concerning this plan, requesting his opinion on the plan. Calvin concurred with Cranmer's proposal with great enthusiasm, replying as follows in April, 1552:

Calvin mentions Melanchthon and Bullinger, wishing that he himself could help obtain this, and says that he wishes "not only to encourage, but also to implore you to increase our exertions, until something at least shall have been accomplished, if not all that we could desire."

Due to a combination of circumstances, the intended meeting never took place. Calvin's interest in the project, however, is confirmed by the fact that in 1561 he wrote to Archbishop Matthew Parker to renew the proposals originated by Cranmer in the reign of Edward VI, the broad project being "a general assembly of all the Protestant clergy wherever dispersed" as prelude to the forging of a union of "all the Reformed and Evangelic churches".¹¹⁶

The treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (1559) had stipulated "the convening of a general council for the reformation of abuses and the re-establishment of religious unity in Europe."¹¹⁷ In connection with this Calvin sent to the Reformed Churches of France in December 1560 a Advice on the Holding of a Council which began with the words:

Amongst the conditions required for this council, Calvin listed several conditions. As to the place, it should be possible that all delegates could be ensured safe conduct to and from the council. As to the persons, even bishops could be allowed. Delegates should be elected persons, and proponents of reformation

In his concluding remarks, Calvin says:

Calvin intended to go to Poissy to confer with the French bishops, but friends who feared for his life prevented him, and so Beza went instead. Nonetheless, this confirms Calvin's ever-pressing desire for the unity of the church, and his relentless efforts to secure the practical expression of this unity.

Calvin touched on this matter on several occasions in his Institutes. It is first apparent in Institutes IV. i. 12.

Calvin also dealt with this further in Institutes IV. ii. 1 when dealing with the basic distinction between the false and the true church.

Calvin also mentioned this distinction in his commentaries. On 1 Corinthians 1:2, Calvin remarked concerning the Corinthian church:

On 1 Corinthians 3:11, Calvin commented:

Richard Stauffer also mentions Calvin and Farel's expulsion from Geneva in 1538. Calvin instructed his followers, the Guillermins, who were opposed to new pastors named by the magistrate, to remain in the communion of the Reformed Church, even if certain changes were introduced, as long as the fundamental principles of the Christian religion were still taught.¹²⁶

From the above we can draw some important conclusions. However, the idea that fundamental and secondary doctrines was Calvin's criterion for church unity is not one of them.

Firstly, when speaking about the distinction between fundamental and secondary doctrines, Calvin was not dealing with the question of unity.¹²⁷ Rather, Calvin was dealing with the question of separating oneself from the church, and estranging oneself from the communion of the church. This is explicit from Institutes IV. ii. 13, where Calvin made explicit reference to Donatist tendencies. It is also evident from the fact that in IV. ii 12 Calvin spoke about "estrange us from communion with the church" and "we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions." In his commentary in Corinthians also, Calvin was concerned with the identity of the Corinthian congregation as church. Calvin was not addressing the question of uniting different Reformed churches, but of removing oneself from a church in which certain doctrines are not agreeable.

Secondly, Calvin allowed no room for compromise in doctrine under the banner of "indifferent matters." For Calvin the boundary of tolerance is the boundary drawn by the Word of God, namely, true doctrine. This is clear from his reproving of Melanchthon with the words "several of those things which you consider indifferent, are obviously repugnant to the word of God." In his letter of June 18, 1550 to Melanchthon, Calvin had admonished his Lutheran friend as follows:

Whatever is contrary to the Word of God is necessarily not indifferent. Calvin was insistent that one must continually strive for pure doctrine and allow no room for that which is contrary to Scripture.

Thirdly, as long as the true doctrine is maintained, there can be toleration toward differences in ceremonial matters. Such differences are not a legitimate ground for breaking from the church, and thus Calvin insisted that the English in Wesel remain in the church, despite differences in opinion regarding ceremonial matters. In his letter to the English in Wesel on March 13, 1554, Calvin contended that there be some tolerance with respect to certain matters such as using lighted candles and wafers in the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

Although Calvin did not approve of such ceremonies, they "do not affect the substance of the faith" and so they must and can be tolerated. As long as there is "no compromise as to doctrine", concessions can be made so as to preserve the unity of the church. In practical terms, this meant that the English in Wesel had no good ground to separate themselves from the Lutheran church there. As long as the pure doctrine was maintained, they should be willing to tolerate many other matters of difference.

In his Reply to Sadoleto (1539), Calvin wrote:

For Calvin, then, the criterion for unity is the Word, and unity is possible only with a common confession of the truth. Clearly, Calvin was championing the principle of sola scriptura, and the principle of sola scriptura was also normative for the practice of church unity. Anything that abandoned this principle was thus intolerable. On Ezekiel 13:9, Calvin remarked:

In his dedication to his Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1541), he wrote:

Calvin thus insisted that the key to the process of unity is the truth. The church can only be united when it is built on the solid foundation of Scripture, the pure doctrine. Unity must indeed be striven for, but never at the cost of truth.

In his attempts for church unity, it is clear that the Calvin also implemented "pure doctrine" as the criteria. On the one hand, this meant a rejection of the Roman church as well as the Anabaptists radicals. In both cases, unity was impossible because both the Roman church and the sectarian Anabaptists failed to confess the truth of Scripture. In both cases, the principle of sola scriptura had been abandoned, as Calvin said in his Reply to Sadoleto (1539).

On the other hand, this also meant that where there was a confession of the truth, concessions could be made in other areas. Calvin's advice to the English in Wesel can be cited as an instance of this, as can his response to a questioner in France.

There is thus room for flexibility on ceremonies which are not prescribed by God's Word.

In short, Calvin's struggle for unity with the Zwinglians and the Lutherans was the result of his perception that these Reformatory movements, together with him, confessed the truth of God's Word. As far as Calvin was concerned, there was a common confession of the truth, and this constituted a sufficient basis for unity. At the same time, wherever the truth of God's Word was compromised, unity was impossible. It is thus correct to say that Calvin gave priority to the question of truth over the question of ecclesiastical unity.

Attempts have been made to marshal Calvin into the contemporary Ecumenical Movement. Cadier, for example, portrays Calvin as an ardent supporter of the Ecumenical Movement and the World Council of Churches:

Certainly it is true that Calvin was an ardent advocate of union, but Cadier goes too far in regarding him as a forefather of today's Ecumenical Movement. Champions of contemporary ecumenism would do well to go back to Calvin, and consider whether or not they have abandoned one of the chief components of Calvin's approach to unity, namely, an uncompromising attitude to toleration of false doctrine. Calvin's own articulation of this sums up his whole approach: "I burned for the unity of thy Church, provided thy truth were made the bond of concord."¹³⁶

1. The basis for Calvin's desire for the unity of the church was his theological conviction that the church was a single body united in Christ. His ecclesiology thus motivated his practice.
2. Calvin was very disturbed by the disunity which he perceived among the different parties of the Reformation, notably the Zwinglians and Lutherans.
3. Calvin regarded himself as a mediator between Luther and Zwingli with regard to their doctrines of the Lord's Supper. In his view, the Luther-Zwingli chasm was largely based on misunderstanding.
4. Calvin's desire for unity with the Zurichers bore fruit with the Tigurinus Consensus of 1549.
5. Calvin consistently endorsed the Augsburg Confession, on the condition that it was interpreted in the line of Melanchthon, and not Westphal.
6. Calvin regarded both Luther and Melanchthon as brothers, despite their differences, and constantly endeavoured for unity with them.
7. Calvin's attempts to heal the breach between the Lutherans and Zwinglians were hindered by Luther's vehemence, Melanchthon's silence, and Bullinger's hesitation.
8. Calvin sent Beza and Farel on several unsuccessful reconciliatory missions to Germany to move towards unity with the Lutherans.
9. Calvin supported plans for an ecumenical council of Reformed churches, particularly as this was proposed by Thomas Cranmer.
10. For Calvin the fundamental criterion for unity was pure doctrine. The common confession of the truth with Lutherans and Zwinglians was a sufficient condition for unity, and thus ceremonial differences were tolerable.

The question of church unity is one that faces us today just as much as it did Calvin, despite the historical differences. Certainly those who regard themselves as Calvinists would do well to consider well their heritage in John Calvin, and his ardent desire to see a church united in the truth.

At the same time, sorrow over the overwhelming religious pluralism that dominates our own ecclesiastical scene should not give way to despair. Calvin's encouragement to an unknown person in a letter in 1545 was just as much an encouragement for the recipient then as it is for us today:

When we, like Calvin, keep looking to the Lord of the Church, then we can be ever confident that on the marriage feast of the Lamb the bride will be presented to Christ without spot or wrinkle, as one body united in the one faith. Already now, like Calvin, we must labour toward that goal.

Bonnet, Jules (ed). Letters of John Calvin. New York: Burt Franklin Reprints, 1972.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974.

Calvin, John. Tracts and Treatises on the Doctrine and Worship of the Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1958.

Dillenberger, John (ed). John Calvin: Selections from His Writings. New York: Anchor Books, 1971.

McNeill, John T. (ed). Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960.

Olin, John C. (ed). A Reformation Debate: Sadoleto's Letter to the Genevans and Calvin's Reply. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Cadier, Jean. "Calvin and the Union of the Churches" in Duffield, G. E. (ed). John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1966.

De Vries, W. G. "Calvijns Oecumenische Betekenis" in Reformatie. Vol. 34, No. 40 (11 July, 1959).

McNeill, John T. "Calvin as an Ecumenical Churchman" in McNeill, John T. & Nichols, James Hastings. Ecumenical Testimony: The Concern for Christian Unity Within the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974.

McNeill, John T. "Ecumenical Outlook and Unitive Effort in the Calvinist Reformation" in Rouse, Ruth & Neill, Stephen Charles (eds). A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948. Second edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1968.

McNeill, John T. "Union Activities of Calvin and Beza" in Unitive Protestantism: The Ecumenical Spirit and Its Persistent Expression. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964.

Nijenhuis, W. "Calvin and the Augsburg Confession" in Ecclesia Reformata: Studies on the Reformation I. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.

Nijenhuis, W. "Calvin's Life and Work in the Light of the Idea of Tolerance" in Ecclesia Reformata: Studies on the Reformation I. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.

Nijenhuis, W. "Church Unity in Luther and Calvin" in Ecclesia Reformata: Studies on the Reformation II. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.

Nijenhuis, W. "Ecumenical Calvin: Calvin, Luther, and Lutheranism" in Ecclesia Reformata: Studies on the Reformation II. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994

Stauffer, Richard. "Calvin, Advocate of Evangelical Catholicity" in The Quest for Church Unity: From John Calvin to Isaac d'Huisseau. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1986.

Woolley, Paul. "Calvin and Toleration" in Bratt, John H. (ed). The Heritage of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1973.