From the earliest days of antiquity to the defining moments of our
present day, questions of political policy, legal principle and religious
doctrine and practice have regularly been the subjects of vigorous debate. While
such discussions have often informally occurred in venues as diverse as the
Areopagus and the office water cooler, more formalized proceedings developed
throughout the progress of civilization for open engagement on issues of import.
Indeed, it could be said that every significant advancement in the arena of
human ideas has been accompanied and promoted by rigorous public dialogue.
This
was particularly true in the case of the Reformation. Luther’s posting of his
Ninety-five Theses to the Wittenberg church door in 1517 was the first step in
what by then had become a well-developed procedure calling for a public
disputation. Such a forum, as well as the many that soon would follow thereupon,
served as a chief means of persuasion spreading over the European continent
convincing arguments in support of the Reformers’ ideas. Of the numerous public
disputations that furthered the Reformation’s cause throughout Europe in the
16th century, one held in the city of Lausanne in October 1536, is especially
noteworthy. The Lausanne Disputation holds a unique place because is was at this
“famous disputation” that John Calvin “took a minor part” (Durant 469) that
would propel him into a prominent leadership role in the progress of the
Reformation.
This paper will examine the factors contributing to Calvin’s
emergence at Lausanne as a public leader of the Reformation. In conducting this
brief survey, we will first take a passing glance at the historical background
for the use of public disputation as a forum for civic and ecclesial dialogue.
We will then turn to what this paper will advance as the principal factors that
substantially prepared and prompted Calvin to rise to the question at Lausanne:
his legal education and the influence of Guillaume Farel. Finally, we will
analyze the rhetoric of Calvin’s two disputation discourses to discover the
characteristics of his argumentation that not only won the day at Lausanne but
also well advanced the purpose of God in Calvin’s own generation.
Historical
Background for the Use of Public Disputation
Public disputation has served a
vital role in the formation of civilized societies throughout recorded history.
Plutarch, in his De sollertia animaliaum, recounts one the earliest disputations
between two Greeks on the pressing issue of whether animals living on land
possessed superior intelligence to those living in water. (Lim 2) While the
question under review by the ancients may seem trifling, the significance of
Plutarch’s account is found in his description of the format and procedure by
which the issue was joined. First and foremost, a disputation was a ritualized
verbal contest in which antagonists debated each other while adhering to the
rules of a language game, whether of rhetoric or of dialectic.
In Plutarch’s
example, the debate entailed an exchange of reasoned arguments in successive
continuous speeches rather than a mutual cross fire, or dialectical
interrogation, by the two adversaries. Both forms of debate were common in
antiquity. (Lim 3) Public disputation also appears in a form in Luke’s record of
the early church’s development as her apostles, elders and leaders met and
addressed themselves to the question of the salvation of the Gentiles at the
Council of Jerusalem. (Acts 15) A few short centuries later, at least one of the
Church Fathers, Ambrose, warned of the dangers of relying upon dialectic in
resolving doctrinal disputes when he wrote: “Let the empty questions regarding
speech cease now, for the Kingdom of God, as it is written, consists not in the
persuasion of words, but in the exhibition of virtuous deeds.” (Lim 216; quoting
Ambrose)
Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian were heeding Ambrose’s
admonition when they convened the Council of Ephesus in 431 with these words of
instruction: With patience each shall hear whatsoever is said and each shall be
ready to reply or for reply to be made to him and thus by questions and by
replies and by solution the inquiry touching the true faith shall be judged
without any dispute and by common examination of our Saintliness it will reach a
happy agreement without dispute. (Lim 221; quoting Candidianus sent as comes
domesticorum by the emperors to the Council of Ephesus)
While recognizing the
dangers and the weaknesses of relying solely upon public disputation as
a means
of resolving doctrinal disputes, there is evidence, however, that church leaders
continued to use disputation as a successful forum for the resolution of
disputes as well as the promulgation of the truth. Eusebius chronicles the
experience of Dionysius of Alexandria who convened an open disputation in
Arsinoe. Dionysius reported, “I called together presbyters and teachers of the
brethren in the villages (there were present also such of the brethren as
wished), and I urged them to hold the examination of the question publicly.”
(Lim 21; quoting Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.24.6-7 (Oulton, ed. 2:194-95))
This
“public examination” extended for three full days “from morn till night.”
Dionysius would later describe the procedures and the attitudes displayed by the
participants during the disputation in these words: On that occasion I conceived
the greatest admiration for the brethren, their firmness, love of truth,
facility in following an argument, and intelligence as we propounded in order
and with forbearance the questions, the difficulties raised and the points of
agreement; on the one hand refusing to cling obstinately and at all costs (even
though they were manifestly wrong) to opinions once held; and on the other hand
not shirking the counter-arguments, but as far as possible attempting to grapple
with the questions in hand and master them. Nor, if convinced by reason, were we
ashamed to change our opinions and give our assent; but conscientiously and
unfeignedly and with hearts laid open to God we accepted whatever was
established by the proofs and teachings of the holy Scriptures. (Lim 21; quoting
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.24.8 (Oulton, ed., 2:194-95))
This same pattern of
“public examination” where the participants “propounded in order and with
forbearance the questions” would continue as a principal vehicle for the
contesting of truth down through the centuries. Indeed, it became one of the
chief means by which the propositions advanced by Luther, Calvin and their
colleagues would endeavor to reform the Church. The vital and effective function
of public disputation was concisely confirmed by Calvin in his personal
correspondence commenting upon the proceedings at Lausanne when he wrote: “The
Senate of Berne has declared that everyone is at liberty to state his objections
freely, without need to fear being disturbed in consequence of it. That is the
fittest means of exposing the ignorance of those who set themselves against the
Gospel.” (Merle 236; quoting Calvin, Letter to F. Daniel, Lausanne, October 13,
1536)
Thus, the forum was opened at Lausanne for a full and free public debate
of the issues of the day. But, was Calvin up to the task of rising to the
question? We will find that the answer is a resounding yes as we now turn our
consideration to his preparation for the task through his training at Orleans
and Bourges and his prompting to the task by his encounters with his friend and,
in some respects, mentor Guillaume Farel.
The Influence of Calvin’s Legal
Education
In early sixteenth century France, a legal education had become a
practical necessity for anyone aspiring to a career in the administrative
affairs of either church or state. (Jones 15) It was also highly valued by those
who sought only the prestige of a law degree though never intending to enter the
practice. (Jones) For Calvin, though, neither of these aspirations led him to
study law. Instead, after beginning his classical studies at the University of
Paris, he heeded the advice of his father, who was a notary himself, and
traveled to Orleans where he commenced his legal training. Such a change in
direction was not at all unusual for a young student of that day (or our own day
for that matter) who upon completing his legal studies turned away from the
courts and followed a more scholarly vocation that often led him further into
the exciting fray of the broad educational movement afoot at that time –
humanism. (Jones)
Lawyers who followed along this path often would engage the
theological questions that gave rise to and advanced the Reformation. Some
scholars have even contended that lawyers had as substantial an impact on the
Reformation as they did the Renaissance. (W.S. Reid 57) “From the new legal
exegetical and expository methods, the Protestant theologians learned much to
assist their study and interpretation of Holy Writ as well as in organization of
new churches. Among Reformers no one owed his legal training a greater debt than
did John Calvin.” (W.S. Reid) At Orleans, Calvin studied under Pierre Taisan de
l’Estoile, who was well known throughout France as an able exponent of Roman
law. (W.S. Reid 59) Pierre Taisan, however, followed the older technique in
teaching the law “basing his exposition on the medieval glossators, Bartolus and
Accurius.” (W.S. Reid)
Having already been introduced to the humanists, Calvin
along with some of his fellow like-minded legal scholars left Taisan’s lectures
in Orleans after a year and traveled to the University of Bourges where, they
learned, the Italian jurist Andrea Alicati had recently begun lecturing. (W.S.
Reid) “Heralded as the premier reformer of juridical science, Alicati was
trained, as were most Italian humanists, in the art of classical rhetoric.”
(Jones 16) With his wide knowledge of both the Greek and Latin classics, Alicati
was able to come to the Roman law with a profound historical understanding of
it. The law, as expounded by Alicati, was not “a dead series of principles, but
a living social phenomenon.” (W.S. Reid 59) He encouraged his students to read
Roman law by placing it in its original rhetorical framework. (Jones 16)
Since
Calvin had already received a good humanist education during his initial years
of study at the University of Paris, he found that Alicati’s humanist method
approach to exegesis of Roman law was consistent with his prior training.
Consequently, Calvin was “able to combine both his legal and classical studies
to gain a sound historical understanding of the law’s growth and development as
a means of social control.” (W.S. Reid 60) It was during this period of Calvin’s
legal training that his first published writing appeared – his Antapologia, a
prefatory letter to the treatise of Nicolas Duchemin defending their first law
professor, Pierre Taisan, against a violent attack by Alicati on Taisan’s
“old-fashioned” teaching techniques. (W.S. Reid)
Thus, Calvin demonstrated an
independent and critical analysis of his own renowned law professor at Bourges.
Calvin’s skill as a legal rhetorician was gaining him some additional
recognition as he was asked to deliver lectures on rhetoric at a local
Augustinian convent. (Jones 16) About this same time, Calvin began to work on
what would become his first scholarly publication, a commentary on Seneca’s De
clementia. Though it received no popular scholarly acclaim at the time, Calvin’s
commentary has been described by a recent scholar as a “perfect specimen of
sixteenth-century scholarship” in that it exhibits the well-honed skills of a
writer “practiced in the arts of philology, textual criticism, and translation,
the three hallmarks of humanist scholarship.” (Jones)
Furthermore, this
commentary serves as perhaps the best evidence that by 1532, Calvin had become
an accomplished master in the art of classical rhetoric and in its
reconceptualization in the world of Renaissance humanism. (Jones) Although he
was the object of Calvin’s critique, Alicati did provide the young scholar with
the rhetorical methods that he used in the preparation of his commentary on
Seneca, and Calvin would go on to employ those same methods in all of his later
works, particularly his commentaries on the Bible. It was also Alicati who
stimulated Calvin to obtain a greater knowledge of the Greek classics, which
required him to intensify his efforts to master the Greek language. (W.S. Reid
60)
In addition to the substantial influence from his law professor Alicati, two
other humanist scholars shaped Calvin’s thinking during his legal training.
Bude, a contemporary, fortified the historical method and use of evidence that
Calvin had learned from Alicati. Both Bude and Alicati had inherited their
approach from Lorenzo Valla, a fifteenth-century humanist scholar. (W.S. Reid
61) The other writer, from a previous generation of scholars, who influenced
Calvin concerning the method of proper exegesis was Desiderius Erasmus. Calvin
called Bude the first pillar and Erasmus the second pillar of humanist
literature. (W.S. Reid 61)
“No one can appreciate the character of Calvin’s
writings unless he recognizes his legal education, which trained him in the art
of definitions, divisions, the asking of questions, the dealing with arguments
effectively and the taking out of a text all that it was susceptible of giving.”
(W.S. Reid 57; quoting A. Lefranc, Calvin et l’Eloquence Francaise, Paris, 1934)
From his legal training in rhetorical skills of analysis and exposition, Calvin
“understood how to establish the historical context as the essential first step
in the process and then to identify the personality of the author himself.”
(Wilcox 310)
What has been said of Calvin’s writings is equally applicable to
his discourses. But, as we shall see through an analysis of his discourses at
the Lausanne Disputation, Calvin’s use of rhetoric was much more creative than
the rules of evidence and argumentation he had been taught in law school. (Jones
25) In fact, as one scholar has noted, Calvin’s preference for a lucid and
concise style in both Latin and French, void of unnecessary rhetorical
flourishes or distracting ornamentation, constituted a certain “sober literary
aesthetic” that differed significantly from the style adopted by his French
contemporaries. (Jones 26; citing Higman, Calvin the Writer)
Thus, the training
in law that Calvin had received in Orleans and more so in Bourges provided the
essential preparation that would enable him to argue the question at Lausanne.
What remained, however, was the urging of his friend and mentor Farel to prompt
Calvin to rise to his feet on that fateful fifth day of the Disputation.
The
Influence of Guillaume Farel
The occasion of Calvin’s first encounter with
Guillaume Farel remains a matter of speculation. One scholar has suggested that
they may have crossed paths in Basel shortly after Calvin had been expelled from
Paris following the Affairs of the Placards. (Jones 17) Another, commenting upon
Farel’s own account of his prevailing upon Calvin to join the work in Geneva,
posits that Farel’s words belie an earlier meeting than that momentous one in
the summer of 1536. (Wiley 190-91) Whether Farel had personally met Calvin prior
to July, 1536 or had come to know of him from his colleagues, he clearly
recognized in Calvin the qualities of scholarship and administration that could
well serve God’s purpose in Geneva.
Farel was at this time one of the few
outstanding Protestant leaders in France. (Partee 73) His influence upon and
relationship with Calvin has been described as “a kind of Caleb to Calvin’s
Joshua” as Farel’s leadership was “eclipsed by Calvin, not so much as a pioneer
and preacher, but as a thinker and organizer.” (Partee) Calvin, himself,
envisioned his relationship to Farel as analogous to that of Titus to Paul when
he wrote to Farel in the dedicatory preface to his 1549 commentary on Titus that
“the building Paul had begun but left uncompleted was undertaken by Titus, and I
stand almost in the same relationship to you.” (Wiley 187)
While both the
Caleb-Joshua and the Paul-Titus pictures are descriptive, the best biblical
analogy for Farel’s role in Calvin’s life is that of Barnabas, the son of
encouragement, to Paul. As Barnabas open-heartedly greeted, introduced and
prompted Paul into positions of ministry (see Acts 9:26-30; 11:25,26; 13:2,3),
so Farel exhorted Calvin to the work of ministry at Geneva and, as we propose
here, his characteristic urging most likely prompted the young Calvin to stand
forward and speak up at Lausanne. The likelihood that Farel pressed his
associate to the floor at Lausanne in October of 1536 is enhanced by recalling
Farel’s forceful proclamation of God’s will for Calvin just four months earlier
in Geneva.
Calvin recounts this defining moment in his life as follows: Farel,
who burned with marvelous zeal to advance the Gospel, went out of his way to
keep me. And after having heard that I had several private studies for which I
wished to keep myself free, and finding that he got no where with his requests,
he gave vent to an imprecation, that it might please God to curse my leisure and
peace for study that I was looking for, if I went away and refused to give them
support and help in a situation of such great need. (Wiley 190; quoting Alister
E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995, p. 95) While
Calvin’s version provides the perspective of the exhortee’s perception, Farel
expressed his intention in the exhortation in a letter to Fabri written shortly
after Calvin’s death. There he stated, “God caused Calvin to stop in Geneva
‘where he [i.e. Farel] had never expected to see him.’ Calvin was there
constrained by ‘many’ and ‘particularly by me who, in the name of God,
constrained him to do and take on affairs which were harder than death . . . .
Seeing that what I demanded was according to God, he forced himself’ to do what
had to be done.” (Wiley 190-91)
Farel initially evidenced his “Barnabas traits”
when he previously discovered Pierre Viret, who would become Calvin’s closest
colleague and “most enduring friend.” (Linder 158) Viret met Farel in 1530 when
Viret returned to his hometown of Orbe following his studies in Paris at the
College de Montaigu; Calvin’s own alma mater. (Linder 136, 141) It appears from
the following account that Farel first honed his exhortative skills upon Viret:
Farel, seeing that he was a young man of great promise, attempted to introduce
him to the ministry at Orbe, which Viret resisted with all his power, because he
considered the high calling and difficulty of being a minister of the Gospel,
and because he was by nature shy and retiring.
Farel, knowing that Viret feared
God and had no wish to see the Gospel cease to be preached in Orbe, took off
from there, leaving Viret in his place, making him give strong assurances that
he would pursue the work which he [Farel] had begun. (Linder 136; quoting A.L.
Herminjard, ed. Correspondence des Reformateurs daus les pay de Langue
Francaise, Geneva: H. George, 1864-1897, vol. 2, no. 358, note 9) Viret would
later join Farel in Geneva and was present to witness Farel’s charge to Calvin.
Calvin was twenty-seven, and Viret twenty-five in 1536. “Soon they were engaged
in the most rugged kind of spiritual combat with a stubborn people in a
tumultuous struggle for religious and political reform. (Linder 140) Both had
been called to arms by Farel. Both were, by that year, “word-smiths of note: the
one, Calvin, choosing words primarily to elucidate, the other, Viret, primarily
to motivate.” (Linder 141)
Both joined Farel on the journey to Lausanne in the
fall of 1536. Viret stood, with several other colleagues from his home province,
for the Reform, but “the man who chiefly attracted attention was Farel. [He] was
accompanied by a young man, pale and modest, unknown by sight to most, who
appeared to be his assistant. It was John Calvin.” (Merle 236) As Farel’s
“second chair” at the Lausanne Disputation, Calvin would carefully attend to the
points of argument and offers of evidence adduced by their opposing counsel,
most likely passing Farel copious notes upon which he might draw in rebuttal, as
any good second chair worth his salt would do.
As the disputation progressed,
however, and the more intricate issues were joined, the day would shortly come
when Farel would urge his young second to leave off his note-taking and rise to
the question with his own voice. Calvin’s Participation at the Lausanne
Disputation Weeks earlier, Farel’s Ten Theses had been affixed to the doors of
all the churches in the surrounding cities and towns. They were entitled
“Conclusions which are to be discussed at Lausanne, a new province of Berne.”
(Merle 237) “On Sunday, October 1, all the bells were set a-going and a great
crowd filled the cathedral.” (Merle) Farel ascended the pulpit and delivered the
opening sermon concluding with these words: While Satan leads the sheep astray
in order to destroy them, our Lord seeks to bring them back to his holy flock in
order to save them. We shall never attain real unity except by means of the
truth. A safe-conduct has therefore been given all, to go and come, to speak and
to hear, as shall seem good to them, for the truth must not be hidden. May it be
the truth that wins the day! (Merle 238)
Since all the officials before whom the
disputation was to take place had not yet arrived in Lausanne, the proceedings
were adjourned after Farel’s sermon to resume the following morning. Monday at
7:00am, officials assembled in the cathedral and “presidents were chosen from
among the men of Berne and Lausanne. Then Farel rose and read his first thesis,
which treated man’s justification before God, developed and proved it. When he
had finished, the vice-bailiff of Lausanne said aloud, ‘If any man has aught to
say against these first conclusions, let him come forward and we shall willingly
listen to him.’” (Merle 239)
Rather than engage Farel’s first proposition on
theological grounds, the Roman Catholic canons of the cathedral raised a
procedural objection to the disputation as an improper forum for the
determination of doctrinal controversies. Canon Perrini asserted as grounds for
his “Motion to Dismiss” that “when doubts arise respecting the faith, they must
be resolved according to the true sense of the Scriptures. Now that is lawful
[according to Canon Law] only to the Church Universal [i.e. an ecumenical
council] which is not liable to error. Therefore, we, the provost and canons of
this church do solemnly protest against this controversy and refer it to the
next council.” (Merle 240)
Farel opposed the canon’s argument for dismissal of
the proceedings citing both Biblical and patristic authorities, as well as the
examples of “provincial councils and all their [Roman Catholic] schools and
Sorbonnes, in which they hold conferences for the research of truth. (Merle)
Having thus established the procedural validity and jurisdiction of the
disputation as a forum for doctrinal inquiry, the participants engaged, one
after another, the substantive issues presented by Farel’s theses. On the
following day, one of the lay advocates for Rome addressed the assembly. His
name was Dr. Blancherose, a physician by profession, who is described in the
record as it tenait de la lune (“something of a lunatic”) (Merle 242)
Blancherose is worthy of note, not so much for his novel analogies for the
Trinity, but because Calvin would speak directly to him in his first discourse
two days later. The third day’s proceedings began with Farel’s second thesis
affirming “Jesus Christ . . . as the only chief and true priest, sovereign
mediator and true advocate of his Church.” (Cochrane 115) To this proposition no
one raised objection. (Merle 245) While some naïve observer might have suspected
a complete concession to all ten theses at this point, the battle was just about
to break loose as Farel stood to present his third proposition concerning the
true Church and the “corporeal presence” of Christ in heaven. (Cochrane)
The
initial volley from Blancherose, however, was pure folly. He “began to speak of
the sun and all sorts of things,” and then “undertook to prove the doctrine of
transubstantiation by the example of an egg, which converted into a chick, which
chick is afterwards eaten by a man.” (Merle 245) Viret’s sharp wit responded,
“That proof reverses the order of things. To make it applicable, it would be
necessary for the priest to sit on the object transformed, as hens sit on their
eggs.” (Merle) Such exchanges likely only exacerbated the attitudes on both
sides of the aisle.
On the fifth day, Mimard, a serious and thoroughly prepared
speaker for Rome’s cause, rose to present his manuscripted argument containing
thirteen distinct grounds for the real presence of Christ in the host. (Merle
246) His case, however, was built principally upon the bald assertion that “St.
Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose and St. Gregory, … all believed in the real
presence.” (Merle) Farel replied to each of Mimard’s thirteen arguments in turn,
well-supported by notes from his associate, Calvin who, it is said: Rejoiced to
hear his friends defending the true doctrine and who by reason of his youth and
his modesty has kept silent till that time…For four days he had sat without
speaking, contenting himself with the part of a hearer. But he had a brave
heart. That Ambrose, that Augustine, those other doctors, he was well acquainted
with them. He knew their words by heart… He could not be silent any longer; he
felt impelled to defend the principles which were brought to light by the
Reformation. But he also wished to restore to those great men of Christian
antiquity, and above all to his beloved Augustine, the honor which was due to
them. (Merle 246-47)
The full text of Calvin’s two discourses at the Lausanne
Disputation, the first presented on Thursday, October 5, and the second, brief
discourse delivered on Saturday, October 7, have been published in English
translation in The Library of Christian Classics in a volume entitled Calvin:
Theological Treatises, translated by J.K.S. Reid. (Copies of the relevant pages
thereof are appended to this paper; J.K.S. Reid 38-46). Calvin began his
discourse with a humble acknowledgement of the sufficient replies that had
already been advanced by Farel and Viret. (J.K.S. Reid 38) He then turned
succinctly to a thorough refutation of Mimard’s “groundless accusation.” He did
not, however, have at his disposal at the disputation the voluminous works of
the Church Fathers, but rather cited from memory not only Scripture but also
Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom and six separate passages from Augustine. (Merle
248)
Next, he addressed himself to Dr. Blancherose’s erroneous interpretation of
Psalm 139 and finally concluded by taking the arguments of the Roman Catholics,
founded upon the words of institution, and turned them on their heads. (J.K.S.
Reid 43-45) From his first extemporaneous discourse it became clear that Calvin
“knew how to capture the attention of his audience, how to hold them attentive
to his words, how to appeal to their deepest fears and loftiest expectations,
how to spin an argument of fine and simple beauty, how to move and compel them
to action. In short, Calvin was . . . one of the grandest French orators of his
time, a reputation that has since earned him the title “founder of modern French
eloquence.” (Jones 12; quoting Francis Higman, Calvin the Writer manuscript,
1989) Furthermore, his first discourse demonstrated that Calvin could turn the
arguments of his opponents against themselves. In so doing, he exhibited his own
facility with rhetorical skills and logical analysis that he had learned from
Alicati and Bude. (Jones 33)
In his second brief discourse on the seventh day of
the disputation, Calvin refuted the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation
by resort to a tract by Cardinal Beno that provided ready fodder for blasting
Pope Gregory VII’s original formulation of that dogma. (J.K.S. Reid 45,46) Here
Calvin displayed, in a concise manner, his rhetorical skills at an even more
refined level. In these few words, he used “voices from the past” to buttress
his own position – a notable rhetorical technique in its own right. But, Calvin
did not feel constrained to use these “voices” as they had previously been used.
“Rather, keeping his own discursive agenda ever before him, he assessed them in
terms of their pragmatic usefulness and employed them only insofar as they
served to promote what he considered to be sound teaching.” (Jones 34)
Conclusion
Thus, Calvin’s two discourses demonstrate the thoroughness of his
preparation for the task and the timeliness of his prompting to the task as he
stood to engage the issues at Lausanne. Calvin’s emergence as a public leader of
the Reformation is captured by Merle’s description of the scene immediately
following his first speech, in these words: “The young man, whose face was
unknown but full of expression, had been listened to with astonishment, and
people recognized in him a master. Everyone felt the force of his words, and no
one raised an objection . . . The minds of the hearers seemed to be enlightened
by fresh knowledge.” (Merle 250) Without controversy, Calvin – fully prepared by
his legal education and forcefully prompted by the presence of his mentor Farel
– rose to the question.
Authorities Relied Upon and Works Cited
Cochrane, Arthur
C., ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1966.
Durant, Will, The Story of Civilization: Part VI – The Reformation,
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957.
Foxgrover, David, ed., Calvin Studies
Society Papers: Calvin and Spirituality/Calvin and His Contemporaries,
Colleagues, Friends and Conflicts, Grand Rapids, MI: Calvin Studies Society,
1998.
Gamble, Richard C., ed., Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. I, The
Biography of Calvin, New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1992.
Jones, Serene,
Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,
1995.
Merle, J.H., History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin,
vol. VI, Scotland, Switzerland and Geneva, New York: Robert Carter & Bros.,
1880.
Lim, Richard, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late
Antiquity, Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1995.
Linder, Robert D., Brothers in
Christ: Pierre Viret and John Calvin as Soul-mates and Co-laborers in the Work
of the Reformation in Foxgrover, Calvin Studies Society Papers, pp. 134-158.
Partee, Charles, Farel’s Influence on Calvin: A Prolusion, in Gamble, Articles
on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. I, pp. 73-85.
Reid, J.K.S., Calvin: Theological
Treatises – Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1954
Reid, W. Stanford, John Calvin, Lawyer and Legal Reformer, in Gamble,
Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. I, pp. 57-72.
Wilcox, Donald J., In
Search of God & Self: Renaissance and Reformation Thought, Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press, 1987.
Wiley, David N., Calvin’s Friendship with Guillaume Farel
in Foxgrover, Calvin Studies Society Papers, pp. 187-204.
No comments:
Post a Comment