Calvin's other 'son' In the year 1564, the Reformer John Calvin passed from this earthly existence, and went to be with his Lord. He left behind him a rich legacy, having helped shape the Swiss canton of Geneva, and indeed all of Switzerland – both church and state; and even further afield, the whole Protestant Reformation, even down to the present day. When Calvin died, however, as is often the case when great leaders pass from the scene, the need was felt for someone to take his place. But who could fill the shoes of John Calvin? By popular acclaim, the 'prophet's mantle' fell to Theodore Beza. The life and times of Theodore Beza Like his mentor, Beza was born in France – only ten years Calvin's junior. In terms of social status, however, Beza was considered to be part of the aristocracy, whereas Calvin was merely raised in aristocratic circles. Both studied law at Orléans, though Beza went on in literature at the University of Paris. It is not entirely certain when Beza first subscribed to Protestantism. But some time in 1548, during a time of illness, guilt-feelings at hiding his Protestant views caused him to flee to Geneva. There his gifts and training in language and literature were quickly recognized, and he was appointed professor of Greek at the Lausanne Academy, followed by a teaching position in Geneva in 1558. Calvin and Beza grew increasingly close. Because of his nationality and aristocratic background, Beza was often chosen to represent the Reformed voice in the various councils and colloquies around Europe. He was chosen, for instance, to meet with the Lutherans in order to persuade them to aid the Huguenots in their struggles. He represented the French Protestants against the Roman Catholics at the Colloquy of Poissy (1561), and was often present at the synods of the former – or even with the Huguenot army. He was called upon several times to debate against the Lutherans on doctrinal matters, such as the Lord's Supper, predestination, and the extent of the atonement ('limited atonement'). In addition, he took the time to tackle some of Calvin's archrivals (for example, Jerome Bolsec and Sebastian Castellio). Thus, Calvin and Beza faced many of the same opponents. The correspondence between the two Reformers indicates a high degree of co-operation and interaction. At one point, fearing lest he might unintentionally promote any unbiblical ideas, Beza writes to his mentor, "My father...," asking Calvin to correct any errors that might be present. On the other hand, when Reformed men accused Beza of being too soft and compromising with the Lutherans on the subject of the Lord's Supper, Calvin defended his colleague, pointing out that Beza was simply trying to reconcile fierce men with "studied moderation." These examples might create an impression of a rather one-sided relationship: 'Father' Calvin, gently correcting and defending his 'son.' But Beza had something to contribute as well. We know that Calvin had a brilliant and systematic mind. Nevertheless, Beza was able to teach his 'father' a few things. When Calvin made some rather loose and concessive statements about predestination, in the debate against Castellio, Beza picked his ‘father’ up on those matters. Calvin apparently accepted the correction, deleting the offending parts from his written account of the debate. Calvin even recommended to Castellio that he read Beza's work on predestination, written to defend Calvin's views against Castellio and others like him. This demonstrates that Beza himself had an 1 agile and systematic mind, able to raise and explore issues with which Calvin had not dealt adequately. It is not surprising, then, that when Calvin passed away, Beza was hailed as his successor by the Genevan Church. It is also worth noting that although Beza had to deal with much the same issues as Calvin, he was also ten years younger, and lived another 41 years after Calvin. Each generation has its own problems, and Beza's struggles were not identical to Calvin's. Both men had to contend with Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, Libertines, Lutherans, Unitarians (forerunners of modern Liberalism) and semi-Pelagians (forerunners of the Arminians). But proportionally, Beza spent more time than Calvin on 'Lutheran affairs.' Much of what Beza writes is therefore a polemical response to Lutheran propositions. More Calvinistic than Calvin? Despite the evidence of a close and mutually profitable relationship between the two Reformers, many church historians today have come to the conclusion that Beza departed significantly from the theology of Calvin. It is often said that Beza was more Calvinistic than Calvin. What is meant by this charge is that Beza, like many students, pushed his teacher's views farther than the man himself would have found agreeable. This is a very old accusation, beginning at least in the writings of the French Reformed professor, Amyraut, in the seventeenth century. Amyraut claimed that Beza distorted Calvin's views. Many later theologians have agreed, insisting that Beza went on to influence the whole Calvinistic world, convincing it that his distortion represented Calvin's true views. Calvinism, then, has followed in the harsher footsteps of Beza, rather than in those of the milder Calvin. To be more specific, Beza is accused of going beyond Calvin on the following issues: 1. Presbyterian Church-Government: Both Calvin and Beza were explicitly Presbyterian in their view of church-government, though Calvin seems to have been willing to allow more room for variations, according to the custom of the place and the time. The test-case was the Church of England. Calvin, writing at a time when the final direction of the Anglicans was not yet determined, seems to have been more tolerant – or at least more cautious in the way he writes of their situation. Calvin had been very hopeful for the Church of England. When John Knox unleashed his aggressive "First Blast on the Trumpet" against the female rulers of Europe, thus angering England's Elizabeth I, Calvin was horrified. Beza, on the other hand, writing after it became clear that the Church of England was going to remain hierarchical, not Presbyterian, is sharper. He claims, for instance, that the Presbyterian system is given by God, the Anglican by man, and the papacy by the devil. It is quite likely that the sharper polemic of Beza was useful to English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians who opposed the episcopal system. In this way, Beza may have helped entrench a system that Calvin certainly held – a system that has come down to us today, and is held by our churches in a fairly strong form. Also on the subject of the doctrine of the church, there is the question of the marks of the true church. Calvin said there were two: true teaching/preaching; and the proper administration of the sacraments. Discipline was included under the category of the administration of the Lord's Supper. Beza, on the other hand, indicated three marks (like the Belgic Confession), listing discipline along with the other two. 2. Church & State: In terms of civil government, Calvin apparently preferred an aristocracy-democracy hybrid, though again he allowed for variation according to local custom. Beza seems to have been a little narrower in his view, favouring a republic. Beza, more than Calvin, brings out the idea of social consent in the establishing of a government, seen by some as an early form of the 'social contract.' To the extent that Beza spells these things out more openly than Calvin, he is sometimes thought to have influenced modern political theory more than his predecessor. But neither man appears to have had a problem with the politics of the other. 2 3. Protestant scholasticism: The term "scholastic" is generally associated with the "Schoolmen" of the medieval church, the theology of the monastic schools and universities of the time. Often, today, the term is used in a negative way, to describe any theology governed by rationalism, speculation, and Greek philosophy. Others define scholasticism in a more neutral manner, as a method which seeks to arrive at precision in systematic theology. Some theologians, taking the first definition, tend to see Calvin as essentially negative towards medieval scholasticism and to the Greek philosophy that often stood behind it. Beza, on the other hand, they regard as more sympathetic to scholasticism – to Aristotle's philosophy and to a rationalistic approach to theology. In my opinion, both Reformers were equally negative about the (Greek) philosophy that underpinned much of scholastic thinking. Beza says that when you press the philosophers, you find that they "trample all the whole heavenly wisdom under their feet." At the same time, both were willing to use the terminology they had inherited from the Schoolmen, and even in some cases terminology that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. For example, Calvin seems to be quite comfortable with Aristotle's distinctions in the different kinds of causes – "ultimate"/"proximate," "efficient," "material," "instrumental" and "final" causes. Both Reformers also reject speculation – that which goes beyond what is revealed in the Scriptures – another feature said to mark the scholastic spirit. This is a danger to one who relies too much on rational argumentation and logic, not enough on exegesis of the text of Scripture. But again, close examination shows Beza providing a wealth of exegetical evidence for each doctrine he propounds. After all, reason, according to Beza, is "stark blind in the matters of great weight." On the subject of reprobation he therefore pleads for moderation, that "The height of God's judgements may at all times bridle our curious fancies." That is not to deny that Beza used logic – also in the form of "syllogistic reasoning" – "If A is true, and B is true, then it follows that..." But his use of logic was nearly always subservient to his Biblical exegesis.