Reformed Orthodoxy emerged from the complex upheaval of the Protestant Reformation in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.[1] Carlos M. N. Eire suggests that it would be more appropriate to speak of ‘Reformations’ in the plural rather than the singular to account for the diversity within the movement itself: Lutheran, Reformed, Radical, and Catholic.[2] Reformed Orthodoxy – though considerably indebted to Martin Luther (1483–1546) – emerged from the Reformed or Calvinistic branch of the Reformation beginning with the Swiss Reformation and the ministry of Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531).[3] Historians and theologians generally prefer to speak of ‘Reformed’ theology, rather than ‘Calvinistic’ theology since the movement itself owes much to many Reformed theologians besides John Calvin (1509–64). Alongside of Calvin were many other equally fascinating Reformed theologians such as the already named Huldrych Zwingli as well as Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), Theodore Beza (1519–1605), Thomas Cranmer (1489–56), and Richard Hooker (1554–1600) to name but a few.[4] Reformed theologians taught a doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) in agreement with Luther who famously railed against papal indulgences and argued that justification by faith alone was the material principle of Reformation.[5] In other words, salvation was a gift to be received with the empty hand of faith. The Reformers also argued that salvation was by grace alone (sola gratia) and not by good works or human merit, and that was mediated solely by Christ (solus Christus) under the authority of Scripture alone (sola scriptura) which became known as the formal principal of the Reformation.[6]
This paper will consider the developments in the history and theology of the early modern Reformed movement after the death of Calvin, paying particular attention to historical and theological developments in Britain.[7] The essay will consider John Calvin and his successors, the spread of Calvinism in Europe, English Puritanism, and Evangelical Calvinism during the eighteenth century.
John Calvin and his Successors
Naturally, John Calvin casts a long shadow over the history of Reformed theology in Europe.[8] Yet even Calvin stands upon the shoulders of giants – not least those of St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) to whom he owed an incalculable debt.[9] Augustine’s emphasis on the radical depravity of human nature and the necessity of the electing grace of God in the work of salvation was similarly echoed in Calvin’s published writings. It could plausibly be argued that Calvinism is Augustinianism – especially in its emphasis on salvation as a work of sovereign grace alone. John Calvin’s most famous publication The Institutes of the Christian Religion is littered with quotations from the writings of St. Augustine and the Church Fathers. It should be remembered that Protestants were trying to reform the Church, not obliterate it. They learned as much from their predecessors in patristic and medieval theology as did their Catholic opponents. As Calvin understood his mission, he was not doing something new or innovative, but returning ad fontes to the sources of antiquity – the theology of the Apostle Paul as interpreted and expressed in the writing of St. Augustine. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Calvin was not obsessed with a doctrine of ‘double predestination’ as his Institutes actually covers all the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, patterned after the structure of the Apostle’s Creed. Although Calvin does devote space to the doctrines of election and reprobation, he spends more time considering the doctrine of the Christian life and the importance of prayer than he does speculating about predestination itself. In fact, his Institutes of the Christian Religion is as much about piety as it is about predestination.
Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza adopted a more scholastic method than Calvin – though not essentially a different theology – and was generally regarded by Reformed theologians as the first to teach a form of high Calvinism known as supralapsarianism.[10] This was not a matter of orthodoxy verses heterodoxy, but an internal debate within a broadly Reformed consensus. Some Reformed theologians opposed Beza by arguing that God first ordained to permit the fall and then to save some by his electing grace – as was crystalised in the Canons of Dort (1618/19). These debates refer to a logical rather than a temporal sequence in the mind of God – since God who is eternal cannot be reduced to temporal sequences.[11] This latter view is known as infralapsarianism and gained a wide reception among continental reformers and moderate Calvinists in England and Wales. R. T. Kendall controversially argued that the Calvinism of the English Puritans was fundamentally different from the Calvinism of Calvin himself – placing “Calvin against the Calvinists”. The English Puritans, according to R. T. Kendall, followed the thought of Theodore Beza and his successors, rather than of Calvin himself – resulting in a stricter and more oppressive form of Calvinism than Calvin himself would have endorsed.[12] Paul Helm, however, has disputed Kendall’s thesis on philosophical grounds and argued that the theology of the English Puritans is broadly consistent with the theology of Calvin himself – and that there were no major differences between their respective theologies.[13] To settle this debate, Richard Muller has conclusively shown that there was no real argument between Calvin and Calvinists as Kendall suggests. According to Muller, the Puritans with Calvin shared a fundamental commitment to a broad-church Reformed Orthodoxy – albeit with somewhat different methodologies as Calvin himself was trained in the humanist tradition (though not averse to using scholastic distinctions himself), while many Puritans drew upon the scholastic methodology of their medieval forebears or the developments in logic and argumentation advocated by the French humanist logician and educational reformer Petrus Ramus (1515–72) in their attempts to codify and defend the Reformed faith. Scholasticism should not be seen as a particular ideology, but rather as a methodology or a way of doing theology.[14] According to Richard Muller, the word ‘scholastic’ essentially means something akin to our word ‘academic’: ‘The Latin adjective scholasticus translates, quite simply, not as “scholastic” in any highly technical or restrictive sense but as “academic” – with all of the positive and negative connotations that we today find in the word’.[15] Some of the key theologians of Reformed Orthodoxy and the scholastic method include Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711), John Owen (1616–83), Francis Turretin (1623–87), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), Hermann Witsius (1636–1708), Johannes Wollebius (1589–1629), and Girolamo Zanchi (1516–90).[16] While there may have been methodological differences between Calvin and the Calvinists, there was no substantial difference in theological content. Muller argues for the nuanced position that while there are strong continuities between Calvin and the Calvinists who followed him, there are also some discontinuities and nuances between their respective theologies.[17] In other words, there was no such thing as a monolithic Calvinistic tradition, but rather variegated strands of thought in a broadly Reformed consensus. There was plenty of room for disagreement within the bounds of Reformed Orthodoxy.
The Spread of Calvinism in Europe
Calvinism spread throughout Europe with varying degrees of success.[18] In France, Calvinism spread among the Huguenots or French Protestants who suffered fierce persecution for their faith. One of the bloodiest events in European history was the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in which the Catholic majority slaughtered thousands of Huguenots in 1572. Where there was more tolerance, there was also a tendency towards codification and confessionalisation. The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561) was written in the Netherlands and became one of the foundational documents of Dutch Reformed theology as part of the Three Forms of Unity which also included the Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort. Developments in England and Wales were decidedly more political. King Henry VIII was no Protestant Reformer, but his actions ultimately led to the separation of the Church of England from the influence and dominion of the Papacy.[19] His son Edward VI would go on to further the Reformation in England according to continental standards, but his reformation would be cut short by his untimely death – upon which his Roman Catholic successor Mary assumed the throne. Mary was the only child of Henry VIII by his first wife Catherine of Aragon, a devout Roman Catholic. Mary’s bloody reign of terror would be painted in fierce – if not quite historically accurate – colours in The Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church which was popularly known as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and published in 1563. It would become an instant bestseller and a major boon to Protestant propaganda. It remains one of the most printed and widely read books of the Protestant Reformation. Queen Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, would assume power after the death of Mary and restore Protestantism to England and Wales. She would oversee the publication of The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England which are broadly Calvinistic in tone (highlighting again the need for a codification of Reformed theology), as well as The Book of Common Prayer (1552) which brought a comprehensive Reformed liturgy in the vernacular to her subjects. Many however felt that Elizabeth’s reforms did not go far enough. These were the ‘hotter’ sort of Protestants also known as Puritans who wanted to see many of the Genevan style reforms brought to England, not to mention Presbyterian and Congregationalist forms of Church government.[20] By far the most famous Reformer in Scotland was John Knox (1514–72) who was largely responsible for the codification of Scottish Reformed theology in the Scots Confession (1560) which was modelled on influences from Calvin’s Geneva.[21] It remained a confession for the Church of Scotland until it was superseded by the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647. Knox would emerge as the primary leader of the Reformation in Scotland and in the developments of Presbyterian ecclesiology and church polity.[22]
Arminian theology has its origins in the writings of the Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). Arminius himself regarded his work as making important modifications to Calvin’s perspectives on election and reprobation, while remaining broadly within the Protestant tradition.[23] His views became the basis for the Remonstrant movement in the Netherlands which opposed the opinions of the Counter-Remonstrants. The Synod of Dort was held between 1618 and 1619 to settle the dispute regarding Arminian theology. The theology of the Remonstrants was formulated in their writings against Calvin’s theology in the Five Articles of Remonstrance published in 1610.[24] The Arminian theologians taught that election was based on God’s foreknowledge of human decision-making – including decisions to follow Christ and make a faith commitment to him. Election was therefore grounded in foreseen faith and regarded as being conditional. They argued that the atoning work of Christ upon the cross was unlimited in scope – meaning that Christ had died for all humanity without exception. They argued that God’s work of grace in the heart could be resisted by the obstinacy of the human will and even taught that it was possible to fall from grace and finally apostatise even if one had previously made a faith commitment to Christ.
Calvinists responded by arguing that according to Scripture election is unconditional and based on God’s sovereign grace or unmerited favour. The atonement was said to be sufficient for all, but efficient or effective only for the elect rather than all humankind generally.[25] In other words, Christ actually died in order to save a particular people and not simply to make all humankind saveable. They argued that God’s work of grace in the heart was an effectual work and would bring to fruition the seed planted by the Holy Spirit in the heart and that it was impossible for someone who was truly saved to finally lose their salvation as they would persevere in faith and holiness to the eternal state. Christ had promised to save all his elect – and not one of them would be found missing on the Day of Judgement.[26] These counterpoints to Remonstrant theology in the Canons of Dort would become known as the five points of Calvinism often summarised by the acronym TULIP which stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.[27] The acronym would not find widespread use until the twentieth century, and some Calvinists find the specific terminology unhelpful – preferring to speak of definite atonement or particular redemption, for example, and effectual calling rather than irresistible grace.
English Puritanism
Before coming to a consideration of Puritanism in England, it may be helpful to reframe the historiographical question regarding Calvin and the Calvinists. In the older scholarly literature, there was a tendency to position the Protestant Reformation against Protestant Orthodoxy as if the two were diametrically opposed, or as the battle was framed: “Calvin against the Calvinists”.[28] This older thesis articulated by authors such as R. T. Kendall[29] and Alan C. Clifford[30] has been soundly discredited by the research of Richard A. Muller as was mentioned earlier. Muller not only reminded his readers that Calvin was just one of many theologians during the Reformation era, but also demonstrated both continuities and discontinuities between the thought of Calvin and the Calvinists who followed in his footsteps, soundly fending off the thesis that somehow Protestant Orthodoxy had distorted or corrupted Calvin’s original message. According to Muller, ‘Calvin was not the sole arbiter of Reformed confessional identity in his own lifetime – and he ought not to be arbitrarily selected as the arbiter of what was Reformed in the generations following his death’.[31] Applied to the emergence of English Puritanism, there was no monolithic entity known as “Calvinism” in Elizabethan England. On the contrary, a variegated Reformed tradition was embraced, articulated, and defended by some of the most able and highly trained theologians in the British Isles – often known simply as Puritans for their desire to further the Reformation of the Established Church in England and Wales.
The study of Puritanism in England and Wales is bedevilled with the problem of definition.[32] What exactly was a Puritan? According to J. I. Packer, ‘Puritans saw themselves as God’s pilgrims traveling home, God’s warriors battling against the world, the flesh, and the devil; and God’s servants under orders to do all the good they could as they went along’.[33] This is a filiopietistic definition to be sure, but one that does capture the pilgrim mentality at the heart of Puritanism. Puritans were in the world, but they were not of the world. They saw themselves as citizens of the kingdom of heaven and they participated in what might be called the practice of heavenly worldliness or the doing all things for glory and enjoyment of God. In the words of Perceval Wilburn, ‘The hotter sort of Protestants are called Puritans’.[34] The Puritans were zealous for what Karl Barth described as ecclesia semper reformanda or the concept that the church must always be reforming itself according to the standard of God’s word in Holy Scripture – hence their desire to reform the Book of Common Prayer and purge the Established Church from all traces of Roman Catholicism and superstition. Puritans were the masters of orthopraxy, and their sermons abound in practical uses and applications of doctrine to life. According to one Puritan known as the Learned Doctor William Ames (1576– 1633), ‘Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God … Men live to God when they live in accord with the will of God, to the glory of God, and with God working in them’.[35] Puritans were God-intoxicated people and sought to apply the knowledge of God to everyday life and vocational callings.[36]
Movements today sympathetic to Puritanism – such as those associated with the Banner of Truth – tend to be quite selective about the kind of Puritan they uphold for emulation. While orthodox Puritans like John Owen (1616–83), Richard Sibbes (1577–1635), Thomas Brooks (1608–80), Thomas Goodwin (1600–80), and William Perkins (1558–1602) make the cut, others like John Goodwin (1594– 665), an Arminian; John Milton (1608–74), an Arian; and Tobias Crisp (1600–43), an antinomian, fail to make the grade – not to mention social and political radicals like the Fifth Monarchists or the doctrinally unorthodox Quakers and their founder George Fox (1624–91).[37] Some Puritans defy classification. Richard Baxter (1615–91), for example, was certainly a Puritan, but because of his unorthodox views on justification by faith, he was widely considered to be an advocate of Neonomianism (from the Greek meaning ‘new law’).[38] Similarly, John Bunyan (1628–88) was also considered to be a Puritan, yet unlike most Puritans, he was a Baptist and spent much of his life in prison for unauthorised preaching.[39] In other words, the Puritans were a diverse group of people with a variety of theological and philosophical commitments.
The foremost summary of Puritan theology in England and Wales during the Cromwellian revolution is to be found in the documents of the Westminster Assembly – particularly The Westminster Confession of Faith which was originally published in 1646.[40] Among Congregationalists and Independents, The Savoy Declaration (1658) would draw heavily upon the Westminster Standards with some minor differences regarding the specifics of ecclesiology. Robert Letham rightly locates his study of the Westminster Assembly within the turbulent context of the English Reformation.[41] This is an important point to make against the Scottish and North American commentators who claim the Westminster Standards as their own confessional documents today, often to the neglect of its original English context. By the 1640s, trouble of eschatological proportions was brewing in England and Wales. According to Letham, the King ‘had abdicated his responsibilities to preserve the true Reformed religion. The spectre was not so much the danger of persecution as the fear of popery. Charles was being manipulated by unscrupulous papists at home and abroad, who were plotting to overthrow the Reformation. An apocalyptic battle with the forces of [the] Antichrist loomed’.[42] The future of the English Reformation balanced upon the edge of a knife.
When Charles decided to raise his banner at Nottingham in 1642, civil war broke out across England and Wales. It was into this turbulent context that Parliament called Puritan and Reformed theologians from across England and Wales to compose the Westminster Standards in order to provide a theological basis for a reconstitution of the Established Church. It says much about Puritanism that one of the main concerns of Parliament at this time of national crisis was to write a theological and confessionally Reformed document – a reminder that the issues at stake in society were often theological in nature and not merely political or sociological. Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads would win decisive victories against the Royalists.[43] However, power was inexorably shifting from Parliament who favoured Presbyterian forms of Church government to Cromwell’s army which favoured Independency and Congregationalism. Cromwell called for freedom and toleration of Independents and Congregationalists – an enlightened point of view for the times – but Parliament (perhaps unwisely) was not prepared to grant such freedoms in religious spheres for fear of antinomianism and political unrest. Charles I would soon find himself arrested, tried, and beheaded and Cromwell would rise to power as Lord Protector from 1563 until his death in September 1658. However, by 1660 the monarchy would be restored and the Act of Uniformity in 1662 would force some 2,000 Puritan and Reformed ministers out of their parishes – often known as the Great Ejection – which resulted in the emergence of English Nonconformity.
In some ways, the emergence of Nonconformity in England and Wales meant that Puritanism had come to end when considered as a movement for the further reformation of the Established Church. However, the Puritan ethos largely remained active within English Nonconformity and spread overseas to America in Congregationalist and Independent forms of church government.[44] Some notable Nonconformists include the hymn-writer Isaac Watts (1674–1748), as well as the Bible commentator Matthew Henry (1662–1714), whose commentary on the whole Bible was treasured by subsequent generations of evangelicals – particularly George Whitefield (1714–70).[45] Some Nonconformists held to a stricter version of Calvinism sometimes pejoratively known as ‘hyper-Calvinism’. This is the name given to a variation of Calvinistic theology that emerged within English Nonconformity especially among particular Baptists between 1689 and 1765.[46] Notable theologians holding hyper-Calvinistic beliefs from this period include Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Gill (d. 1771), and John Brine (d. 1765). A hyper-Calvinist may be broadly defined as someone who denies the free or well-meant offer of the Gospel, the duty of everyone to repent of sin and believe savingly on Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of common grace or the notion that God has any kind of love or goodwill for the reprobate. Many evangelical Calvinists would come to strongly oppose the emergence of hyper-Calvinism among Nonconformists – notable opponents of hyper-Calvinism include Andrew Fuller (1754–1814) and Charles H. Spurgeon (1834–92).[47]
Evangelical Calvinism in the Eighteenth Century
The seventeenth century witnessed the rise of more moderate and evangelical forms of Calvinism – especially associated with the theology of Moïse Amyraut (1569–1663) and John Cameron (1579–1625) in France, and with John Davenant (1572–1641) in England.[48] Amyraldism revised the doctrine of particular redemption to include the idea of hypothetical universalism or the belief that the atonement was hypothetically available for all humanity but was applied only to those whom God had eternally chosen to save.[49] While evangelical Calvinists would not necessarily adopt the same theological reasonings as Moïse Amyraut, they would nonetheless moderate their tone regarding the doctrine of particular redemption and emphasise the universal and free offer of the Gospel in the overtures of grace for lost humanity. This was particularly true of the preaching of George Whitefield which had a strong emphasis on the willingness of God to save lost sinners by grace – even though Whitefield himself held orthodox views respecting particular redemption and the atonement. David Ceri Jones argues that the early Calvinistic Methodists in England and Wales adopted ‘a moderate version of Calvinism, which dovetailed perfectly with their overriding commitment to evangelism and religious renewal’.[50] Jones considers how Howell Harris (1714–73) navigated his way through the complexities of Reformed theology to adopt a moderate or evangelical view of Calvinism and similarly traces the importance of George Whitefield’s ministry in promoting a Gospel-centred Calvinism throughout the British Isles.[51] The predestinarian controversy between John Wesley (1703–91) and George Whitefield would result in a permanent bifurcation of evangelicalism in England and Wales into Reformed and Wesleyan camps.[52]
Conclusion
By way of conclusion, it should be evident that Reformed Orthodoxy was a diverse movement and not purely derived from the theology of Calvin alone but from many different Reformed theologians working throughout the British Isles and Europe. The older thesis of “Calvin against the Calvinists” has been soundly discredited by the work of Richard A. Muller and a more nuanced perspective on the history of Reformed Orthodoxy has been developed by theologians and historians following Muller’s thesis. There was a broad Reformed consensus across Europe with a variety of different nuances and perspectives among Reformed theologians on matters indifferent or adiaphora. There was no monolithic entity known as ‘Calvinism’ and it is generally preferable to speak of a Reformed tradition or consensus rather than using the misleading term ‘Calvinism’, though this is sometimes inevitable. This essay has explored the developments in Reformed or Calvinistic theology – considering Calvinism as a form or branch of Augustinianism – and tracing the developments from the high Calvinism of Theodore Beza to the evangelical Calvinism of George Whitefield. Consideration has been given to theological differences among Calvinists, the challenge of Arminianism and the Synod of Dort, the emergence of Puritanism in Elizabethan England and the process of Confessionalisation in documents such as the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. The essay closes by considering the emergence of more moderate and evangelical forms of Calvinism such as Amyraldism or hypothetical universalism as well as the moderate evangelical Calvinism of George Whitefield and of Calvinistic Methodists in England and Wales. It seems evident by way of conclusion that Calvinism or Reformed Orthodoxy represents a spectrum of diverse and variegated views within a broad reformed consensus committed to the priority of sovereign grace in the redemption of lost humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment