Laying the Patristic and Medieval Foundation

Chapter 2 Laying the Patristic and Medieval Foundation

2.1 Introduction

In order to attain some sense of the larger development of the doctrine of Christ’s twofold kingship, and to approximate the historian’s ideal integral approach as explained in the introductory chapter, we must first account for some of the key patristic and medieval precursors, thus laying the intellectual foundation for the early Reformers’ and Reformed orthodox understanding of Christ’s kingship. Certainly the early Reformers and Reformed orthodox theologians did not derive their theology (including their theology of Christ’s king- ly reign) independent of any other source or influence.1 Stressing his reliance on reputable theologians of the past, Francis Turretin, for example, prefaced his multi-volume work with the following comment, “Let other books, then, be condemned by their novelty. I do not want this statement to justify mine. I avoided it most diligently lest it should contain anything new, a stranger from the word of God and from the public forms received in our churches, and noth- ing is built up there that is not confirmed by the vote of our most proven theologians of highest reputation.”2 In similar fashion, Calvin claims his reliance on the early church fathers, stating in the preface to his Institutes, “Moreover, they [‘our adversaries’] unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic author- ity, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side.”3

1 This thesis has been articulated by Heiko Oberman, who argued for an organic relationship between the medieval and Reformation church. See especially Heiko Augustinus Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought, 1st Fortress Press ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981). 2 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1992–97), 1:xlii (hereafter IET). Cf. Francis Turretin, Francisci Turrettini Opera, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847), 1:xxvi [hereafter cited as FTO]. 3 Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics, no. 20–21 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), prefatory address to King Francis, (1:18). Unless otherwise indicated future references to the 1559 English translation of the Institutes will be from the Battles edition [hereafter Inst.]. True to their aims, James Dennison has identified some 3200 quotations or references from “classic, patristic, medieval, Jewish, Socinian, Lutheran, Arminian, Anabaptist, and Reformed authors” in the work of Francis Turretin, and Anthony Lane, drawing on the

In this chapter, I have chosen to focus on five figures of the early and medieval church: John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Pope Boniface VIII, Thomas Aquinas, and William of Ockham.4 These figures (two from the early church and three from the medieval church) were chosen in order to provide a win- dow into the long historical development leading up to the Reformation and Reformed orthodoxy. As seen below, each figure was instrumental in the doctri- nal development of the twofold kingdom of Christ; in the case of Chrysostom and Augustine, theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries explic- itly relied on their testimony to express this doctrine, whereas the expressions of Aquinas and Ockham are important as they help provide the intellectual context that especially the Reformers thought important when considering this doctrine. Constrained by the limits and purpose of this study, however, the treatment provided here is necessarily skeletal, selective, and introductory in nature; despite this, however, the following survey demonstrates that there was an organic relationship—whether real or perceived—between the early/ medieval church and the Protestant/Reformed orthodox church on the issue of Christ’s twofold kingdom.

2.2 John Chrysostom: “The Scripture Acknowledges Two Kingdoms of God”

While the Reformers and Reformed orthodox were selective in what they appropriated from the patristic fathers, they regularly relied upon their christological definitions and distinctions, especially as ironed out by Chalcedon (451). In large part due to the christological controversies leading up to Chalcedon’s formulation, John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), a favored and often-quoted author of the Reformation and post-Reformation era theologians, was one of the earli- est theologians to employ a two-kingdoms distinction. Chrysostom succinctly outlined his distinction in his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:24.

comprehensive tabulation of R.J. Mooi, lists over 3200 citations of the fathers in Calvin’s corpus. See respectively Turretin, IET 3:647; A.N.S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 28n.96. 4 In this same vein, William Wright has argued persuasively that Luther’s formulation of God’s two kingdoms was largely due to the influence of Italian rhetorical humanism, especially as mediated through Lorenzo Valla (1405–1457). Wright argues Luther appropriated the rhetorical skepticism of Italian humanism, but applied this only to matters of “this world”; certainty can only be had in the revelation of an incomprehensible God as expressed in Scripture. See Wright, God’s Two Kingdoms, chs. 2–3.