Recovering the First
Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (I)
The study of Church History is one dominated by narratives.
For some it's a question of progress, a narrative of the application of principles,
the expansion of the Kingdom in the form of Christendom and for others it's a
story of remnant groups persevering in the face of apostasy and relentless
persecution. Needless to say variations of the former model have proven to be
far more popular and marketable.
In the post-Hegelian milieu, progressive or historicist
models became even more popular and were built around coherentist themes and
lines of argument. This was certainly the case at Mercersburg Seminary located
in South-Central Pennsylvania. Under the leadership of Professors Philip Schaff
and John Nevin the school's name would be forever tied to a historiography that
would apply Hegel's famous dialectic to the study of Church History.
This would produce what would be the termed The Principle of Protestantism, the
concept that the Magisterial or Protestant Reformation was not a return to
primitivism or New Testament Christianity per
se but rather represented a development, a synthesis between currents at
work in Church History. Its advocates argued that Protestantism was the logical
outcome of a process that had been at work throughout the Early Church and
Middle Ages. Protestantism therefore was not in any way divorced from history –
as the Oxford-Tractarian Movement seemed to suggest nor was it merely a return
to primitivism, the practice and belief system of the Early Church. It was a
logical and necessary development and part of an ongoing and yet-to-be finished
process.
Nevin produced his famous articles on Early Christianity in 1851-52 in which he attacked both the Oxford
Movement's narrative regarding Roman Catholicism but in particular he focused
on what he called the 'Puritan View of Church History', the idea that the Early
Church's doctrine and liturgy were more or less parallel to post-Reformation
practice or rather that the Reformation restored the ethos of Early
Christianity. He considers this delusional and wishful thinking and the
articles are fairly cutting and at times even compelling.
And yet they are also fatally flawed. Using some travel
letters from a 19th century Protestant visitor to the Continent and
his commentary on Roman Catholic practice and culture as a foil, Nevin labours
to demonstrate the 'Puritan View' is divorced from reality.
Nevin was part of the German Reformed Church and a dedicated
Protestant but again he had nothing but disdain for any kind of primitivism or
narrative that didn't reckon with the Roman Catholic Church as being valid (as
opposed to apostate), and the veritable Church up until the time of the 16th
century Reformation. The rejection of Rome was not on the basis of apostasy and
gospel denial but because of the process of necessary development. On one level
it's interesting to consider because it's not an argument anyone in
conservative circles would make today. It's essentially a liberal argument that
was further applied throughout the 20th century and yet subsequent
generations certainly went in directions that would have appalled Nevin who
died in 1886. Indeed, progress narrative is not easily tamed.
Nevin attacks the notion of a Golden Age of Christianity and argues that the Early Church was in
fact the Roman Catholic Church in seed form. He attacks the way Protestant
authors disingenuously focus on certain points and aspects regarding famous
Catholic figures like Anselm and Bernard – Nevin argues that the Protestant
apologists hone in on idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies (which seem
anachronistically to be Protestant) and yet miss that these men were part and
parcel fully committed adherents of the Roman system and embraced its view of
religion in general and doctrine in particular. They were not Protestants and
by this reckoning they were not even proto-Protestants – meaning they were not
Magisterial-Confessionalist Protestants that had in an anachronous manner
appeared in history before the sixteenth century.
And in more than one sense Nevin is correct – if
Protestantism is technically defined as an adherence to the Solas of the
Reformation (such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide). If so, then it can be
safely said these men (Anselm, Bernard and others) were not in any way shape or
form Protestants.
Nevin's view allows for him to retain a rather positive view
of Roman Catholicism. He praises its Christianisation of the nations, argues
for its 'inherent goodness'. He refers to it as a 'very lovely religion' and
that it manifests apostolical sanctity.
He can say these things and yet reject Roman Catholicism
because he lives in the 19th century. Under his principles had one
lived in the 12th century, then Rome would be not just an acceptable
option but indeed a glorious God-honouring one. When framed that way, it's a
notion that a growing number of contemporary Evangelicals and even
Confessionalists could agree to. With regard to the latter, I've heard more
than one Westminster adherent suggest that Thomas and Bernard were 'Biblical
Christians' – which leaves one wondering how they define such terms let alone
their allegiance to the Confession.
Nevin demonstrates that the Early Church held to episcopacy
and embraced Apostolic Succession and with it the primacy of Rome. They
believed in liturgy, sacramental efficacy, the regenerating power and
supernatural virtue of Baptism and the Real Presence in the Supper. They
believed in the power of relics, the use of creeds, purgatory, saints,
celibacy, monasticism, and poverty.
At first glance his arguments seem powerful and convincing
but a careful read demonstrates the fatal flaws of his polemic – and yet not
all of his criticisms are invalid.
He's frustrated by Protestant caricatures of Roman
Catholicism and with good reason and yet he does not build his case on either
the Scriptures or by means of a solid historiography. Studiously avoiding
Constantine and the question of the 4th century Shift, he focuses
more on the norms of the 5th century – which effectively defeats his
argument as the advocates of the Constantinian Shift narrative would say its
effects were all but fully implemented by that time.
The Constantinian Shift is a confused concept that needed to
be addressed by Nevin and revisited in our day. And yet the discussion is further
complicated in contemporary debate because the older Protestant view has undergone
significant modification leaving the present-day record and testimony as mixed.
Generally speaking some Protestants reject aspects of the Shift and yet there are
certainly some elements of the argument they still embrace. For them the
profound changes that took place in the 4th century are troubling
but in their minds exaggerated and in no way did they compromise the character,
identity or status of the Church.
There is a heritage of dissenters that mark the Shift as the
'Fall of the Church', even though the term 'Constantinian Shift' wasn't coined
until after the Reformation. Interestingly one martyred 15th century
Waldensian leader described himself as part of the faithful that scorn the Donation of Constantine. The idea was
present long before the 16th century Magisterial Reformation even if
the exact terminology was not.
The idea suggests that when Constantine ended the persecution
of Christianity and embraced the religion and began to show it favour, there
was a profound shift that took place in the nature and ethics of the Church.
This is further demonstrated by Constantine's calling of the Council of Nicaea
and the visual image of him presiding over the meeting. The Church which had up
to that time rejected the sword, wealth and status and had embraced being a
deliberately suffering pilgrim people had changed, and would continue to be
transformed over the course of the 4th century – culminating in
Theodosius I, and his legislating of Christianity and subsequent persecution of
paganism. Some of the changes were rapid. The Council of Arles in 314 already
marked a shift in the Church's attitude toward the sword and Christians participating
in the military and by the time of Augustine (354-430) a full orbed concept of
Just War had been developed – something unthinkable before Constantine and
certainly outside the boundaries of the New Testament.
The situation was completely reversed over the 4th
century and the Church that emerged from it had come to embrace politics,
violence, wealth and philosophy. The world flooded into the Church and during
the 4th century many pagan customs and ideas were sanctified and
brought into liturgy as well. The Church of the 5th century was
almost unrecognizable or so advocates of the Shift would argue.
It must be admitted that this argument can be over-simplified
and many historians have done just that. And thus the critics of the Shift
(such as Nevin and Leithart) labour to dilute the changes and point to the
trends and trajectories at work prior to the Edict of Milan in 313. They also
argue that there was relatively little protest to the 4th century
changes and therefore there's no real controversy to be found. The Church
embraced these changes and sensed no break with previous values – and thus they
conclude – the Shift thesis is false.
Upon reading Nevin and today's apologists (who echo his claims
in modified form) one finds glaring problems. Nevin speaks of lovely religion
and godliness but these terms are not defined according to Scripture but from
the standpoint of cultural commentary and the ethics of Christendom. In other
words he judges the effects and outcome of the Shift through the lens of the Shift.
He is begging the question.
He constantly juxtaposes the 5th century witness
with Protestant thought and argues that Protestantism is in reality a different
religion and that the Church of the 5th century was Roman Catholic
or at least a prototype of it. This also touches on the debate as to when the
Old Catholic Church became the Roman Catholic Church. The lines are less than
clear as any honest historian will tell you but Nevin in many respects dispenses
with the argument. And yet I believe it to be an important distinction and it
marks yet another transition or 'shift' in Church history that took place
during the Middle Ages. It marks an epoch or transformative stage that helps to
explain the rise of dissent in the High Middle Ages.
No doubt by the 5th century the Roman See had
gained the position of primacy and while from a New Testament perspective this
may be bad enough, it's still a far cry from full-blown Roman Catholicism. Again whether that appears with Pope Gregory I
(d.604) or at the time of Charlemagne (d.814) or more likely in the 11th
century can be debated but to pretend there's organic unity with regard to the
papacy is not accurate or honest. In fact it strikes one as the kind of argument
given by some Catholic apologists.
The division is not found in the 5th century as indeed by
then the Shift had taken full effect and yet the effects would continue to work
themselves out over many centuries to come. The Shift does not mean that what
emerged in the 300's was suddenly a full-blown fully developed Roman
Catholicism. That's a caricature, a straw man used by those who would dismiss
the idea of the Shift or by handfuls of Fundamentalists who present history in
contrived and packaged myth-narrative.
Nevin argues that the Christians of this period did not
believe the Bible was the Rule of Faith. They did not hold to Sola Scriptura.
We can agree to a point, they were not Protestants in the Reformational sense.
But this does not mean they were Roman Catholics or that they retained a view
of authority that put tradition and the Magisterium (which did not yet exist)
on par with Scripture. The answer is more complicated and in many respects
defies the dominant models at work in both Roman Catholicism and
Magisterial-Confessionalist Protestantism.