In 1539, in the midst of the Protestant Reformation, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto sent a letter to the people of Geneva encouraging them to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. The leaders of the city found themselves inadequate to supply the reply which they felt that the letter required. So, in order to provide the best answer possible, they sent for help. Calvin was not in Geneva at the time. He had been exiled from Geneva over a dispute with the city government, but when the need arose, the Genevois could think of no one better suited to the task than the great theologian. The result of these letters is one of the clearest presentations of the arguments on either side of the Reformation debate (the letters are published as A Reformation Debate, edited by John C. Olin).
Judging from his letter, Sadoleto seems to be either unaware of the key issues in the debate, unable to argue them, or unwilling to argue them. While his letter is profuse with confessions of love for the Genevois church, his arguments for their repentance are unsatisfying. He essentially gives an emotional appeal. His argument mostly consists of attacking the personal credibility of the reformers and encouraging the Genevois that they should at least try to save their own souls. He consistently assumes that the Roman Church is the true church. While he does briefly skirt the issue of justification by faith alone, he never engages the core issue of ecclesiology. Why is submission to the Pope necessary for membership in the church, and therefore, for salvation?
Calvin’s letter is quite polite as well (that’s one of the nice things about this conversation; it’s one of the most polite exchanges between Catholics and Protestants that I’ve seen from the 16th century). Calvin readily engages the ecclesiological question. He argues that the Roman hierarchy is not equivalent to the universal church, but that the Protestants actually have a greater similarity with the early church and a greater agreement with the Scriptures. He also provides ample examples of his arguments from the fathers and the Bible (something Sadoleto failed to do). One of the funniest things in the book is that in defense of his view of the Eucharist, Calvin does not offer any explanation of his own view but cheekily refers Sadoleto to read Augustine’s Epistle to Dardanus. The point is, Calvin’s theology is more true to the ancient traditions of the church than is the Cardinal’s, or even the Pope’s.
While more work has been done on both sides since then to develop these arguments, these letters provide a fascinating insight into the world of the 16th century when the reformation was born.
That is very encouraging to see, for normally 16th century conflict is so awful with its fire, sword, peasant uprisings, sectarian armies, Jew-killing and heresy trials. Indeed an older Calvin would be in support or Servetus' heresy trial for rejection of trinity and infant baptism, which always bummed me out (but he is very much a product of the time). With the exception of some future Mennonites and other side-lined oddballs, Christians in early modern Europe seemed as willing to kill as they were to die for their faith.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I'd say that Luther and Calvin were all willing to kill for the faith. Luther tried to discourage religiously motivated violence, and only supported state sponsored warfare when he thought that there were viable reasons. And although Calvin has a bit of a bad rap for the death of Servetus, it's important to understand what was going on politically. Of course, I can't say a lot for some of their followers. It's true, too often, people who haven't thought through their faith very well have used the name of Christ to justify the least Christ-like actions. Geez people, read the Bible!
ReplyDeleteYou are correct.
ReplyDeleteIndeed as Luther said, he did “not wish the Gospel defended by force and bloodshed. The world was conquered by the Word, the Church is maintained by the Word, and the Word will also put the Church back into its own, and Antichrist, who gained his own without violence, will fall without violence”
Sadly, vVarious contemporaries and successors would not be as pacifistic.