No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Probably They are God’s Children: Theodore Beza’s Doctrine Of Baptism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Extract
The discussion that took place between Theodore Beza and Jacob Andreae during the Colloquy of Montbeliard in 1586 highlights the differences among the French Reformed doctrine, the doctrine derived from the Basle Reformation, and the Lutheran doctrine. It also makes very clear how consistendy the Genevan Reformers related their sacramental theology, their understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit, and their doctrine of predestination.
- Type
- Part I. The Church in Europe
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1991
References
1 For the long history of the struggle between the Montbèliard Reformed and the Lutheran dukes of Württemberg, see Vienot, John, Histoire de la Reforme dans le Pays it Montbéliard depuis les originesjusqu’a la mort it P. Toussain, 1324–1373, 2 vols (Paris, 1900Google Scholar); Raitt, Jill, ‘The Emperor and the Exiles: the clash of religion and politics in the sixteenth century’, Church History, 52 (1983), pp. 145–56Google Scholar.
2 The other topics will be handled in extenso in my forthcoming book. The Colloquy of Mont beliard, 1386 (New York, 1992).
3 See, for example, Pfister, P., Le Colloque de Montbéliard (1586):Etude historique (Geneva, 1873)Google Scholar; Lods, Armand, ‘Les Actes du Colloque de Montbéliard (1586): Une Polémique entre Théodore de Beze et Jacques Andreae’, Bulletin historique et littéraire de la Societédé l’histoire du Protestantisme François, 46 (1897), p. 198Google Scholar. This article deals principally with the circumstances of the publication of the Acta of the colloquy.
4 Acta Colloquii Mon/tis Belligartensis: / Quod habitum est, Anno Christi 1586 (Tübingen, George Gruppenbach, 1587). Beza’s published response to Andreae’s Acta skips from the topic of the two natures of Christ to predestination. He does not respond to Andreae’s marginalia on the topics of this essay. Ad acta I colloquii / Montisbelgardensis /Tubingae edita, / Theodori Bezae I Responsio. / Genevae, / Excudebat Joannes le Preux. / M.D.LXXXVII. The second part is: Ad acta/Colloquii /Montisbelgardensis/Tubingae edita,/Theodori Bezae/Responsionis, Pars/Altera/Excudebat Joannes le Preux. / M.D.LXXXVIII.
5 The circumstances of the calling of the colloquy are much more complicated than this simple address indicates. Indeed, Henry of Navarre’s agent, the Baron de Clervant, invited Andreae to participate, and encouraged Beza to accept Frederick’s invitation. See my forthcoming book on the Colloquy of Montbèliard.
6 That this condition was met by neither party is a matter of discussion below.
7 It should be noted that Andreae kept at his table not only Count Frederick, but the initiative for formulating the theses.
8 There is irony in Andreae’s argument. Calvin had argued that nothing in Scripture should be kept from the faithful, including predestination, difficult doctrine though it was: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.21. 3.
9 Acta, pp. 378–81 for Andreae’s exhortation to Frederick.
10 Acta, pp. 268–9.
11 Ibid., p. 388.
12 Acta, pp. 389–427. Because there was general agreement on this topic, I shall discuss only those points that have historical or theological relevance, without presenting the complexities of the debate.
13 Acta, p. 394.
14 It should be recalled that the marginalia were added at the time the Acta were edited by Andreae. In addition, Andreae’s arguments at the colloquy form by far the larger part of the main text of Andreae’s publication.
15 I have summarized the theses and responses which, if they were presented in extenso, would prove tedious, without providing greater understanding.
16 There is no discussion of the necessary restriction of circumcision to boys and the extension of baptism to girls. Calvin discusses this point briefly, Institutes, 4.16.16.
17 Since there had been no time for Beza’s team to prepare written theses at this point in the Acta so that readers would have everything set out in an orderly fashion. In his Respose, pt 2, p. 41, Beza did not object to this arrangement.
18 Calvin does not make so specific a relation between water and the blood of Christ, but Beza’s development of this point may be based on Calvin’s position as expressed in his Commentary on Acts 22.16 in which Calvin says that Holy Spirit and the application of the blood of Christ are the constants in regeneration, while the means used by the Spirit to apply the blood of Christ vary. Among the means is the water of baptism, which signifies and offers washing in the blood of Christ, but ‘the grace of God is not tied to the sacraments’: Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles, 2, tr. Fraser, John W., ed. David, W. and Torrance, Thomas F. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1966), p. 218Google Scholar.
19 Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles, 2, p. 218. See also Raitt, Jill, ‘Three Inter-related principles in Calvin’s unique doctrine of infant baptism’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 11 (1980), pp. 51–61Google Scholar.
20 Acta, pp. 432–3: ‘Neque nos Sacramenta docemus nuda esse signa, sed externae tamen actioni negamus tribuendum esse, quod est unius Spiritus sancti. Sicut a Ioanne, March. 3. V.11. & a Petro. I. Epist. 3. V.2. non separantur quidem, sed dlstinguuntur: dicente etiam Apostolo, de universo Ministerio; eum, qui plantat & rigat, nihil esse.’ For the importance of the principle: ‘not separate but distinct’ in Calvin’s theology, see Raitt, ‘Three Inter-related Principles’.
21 See Rain, Jill, The Eucharistic Theology of Theodore Beza – AAR Studies in Religion, 4 (Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, 1972), pp. 55–6Google Scholar.
22 See p. 164, below.
23 Acta, p. 435: ‘Baptismus pars est Ministerii publici, quod est expresse Dei verbo mulieribus, imo eriam privatis personis interdictum: neque vel Baptismum videri potest contempsisse, qui nulla sua culpa excedens ex hac vita non baptizarur: neque necessitas ulla incidere potest, publici urgentis ministerii leges transgredi.’
24 Emphasis mine.
25 Apparently, there is neither male nor female in Christ, only in emergencies.
26 For a detailed discussion of the relation of divine, natural, and ecclesiastical order with regard to the ‘place’ of women in Calvin’s view, see Douglass, Jane Dempsey, Women, Freedom and Calvin (Philadelphia, 1985Google Scholar).
27 Acta, pp. 437–8.
28 Now while that argument may be made for the Lord’s Supper, so that the unworthy receive the body and blood of Christ to their condemnation, i.e., without the vivifying fruits of their communion, can the same be said for adults dragged unwillingly to be baptized, or who pretend to desire baptism? Are the sins of such persons washed away, in spite of their resistance or duplicity? This point was not raised by Beza or Andreae, however obvious it may seem.
29 Acta, p. 458.
30 The discussion regarding Simon Magus occurs in the Acta, pp. 461–3.
31 Acta, p. 463: ‘Quaero igitur: num David adulterium perpetrans cum Bathsheba, uxore Uriae, fidem & Spiritum sanctum amiserit?’
32 Acta, pp. 469–70.
33 The reader now as well as the audience then must be constantly aware that behind Beza’s doctrine of baptism lay his certainty of double predestination.
34 Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.2.17-25.
35 Acta, p. 478.
36 Acta, p. 479: ‘Idem in Baptismo quoque fit. quern multa millia infantum accipiunt, qui tamen nunquam regenerantur, sed in aeternum pereunt.’
37 Acta, pp. 490–1.
38 See Raitt, ‘The Emperor and the Exiles’, pp. 55–6.