John Calvin provides advice in disputes
Institutes
of the Christian Religion IV, i, 12
Others, again, which are the subject of
controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why
should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one,
without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the
soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak
positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord?1 [1]
Meaning:
12. Heeding the marks
guards against capricious separation
bThe pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments
are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as
church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to
the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it
otherwise swarms with many faults.
What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either
doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with
the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort.
Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by
all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is
God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among
the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not
break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—short of unbridled
contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to
heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced
nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this
one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are
perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God
shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently
indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters21
should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost,
we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with
ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone
delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of
religion and without loss of salvation.
But here I would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of
fostering them through flattery and connivance. But I say we must not
thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it
alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound
and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime,
if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul’s statement
applies to this: “If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the
first be silent” [1 Cor. 14:30 p.]. From this it is clear that every member of the
church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to
the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order.22
That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining
in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline.[2]
1 French, “Pour donner exemple, s’il advenoit qu’une
Eglise tint que les ames etant separeés des corps fussent transferés au ciel
incontinent: une autre, sans oser determiner du lieu pensât semplement qu’elles
vivent en Dieu; et que telle diversité fut sans contention et sans opiniatreté
pourquoy se diviseroient elles d’ensemble?”—To give an example, should
one church happen to hold that the soul when separated from the body is
forthwith transported to heaven, and should another, without venturing to
determine the place, simply think that it lives in God, and should such
diversity be without contention and obstinacy, why should they be divided?
[1] John
Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the
Christian Religion, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation
Society, 1845), 24–26.
b edition of 1539
21 Cf. IV. ii. 1. The distinction of fundamental and
nonfundamental articles of belief is woven into Calvin’s thought, though not
definitively treated by him. F. Wendel remarks on the importance of this
doctrine in Calvin’s championing of church unity, and cites Comm. 1 Cor. 3:11
(CR XLIX. 1354): “The fundamental doctrine, which it is nowise permissible to
break, is that we cleave to Christ, for he is the only foundation [unique fondament] of the church.” The
doctrines here named are introduced by the word qualia (such as) and are of course not a full enumeration of those
which Calvin would hold requisite. The notion of fundamental articles formed
the core of various liberal projects of union in the seventeenth century when
it was advanced by Georg Calixtus, Pierre Jurieu, Samuel Werenfels, J. A.
Turretin, and others. See Rouse and Neill, A
History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 79 ff., 92 f., 107, 111.
p. paraphrase, designates a Scripture quotation or near-quotation, not
conforming fully to any as yet ascertainable source; many of these are in oratio obliqua.
22 On 1 Cor. 14:29–33, 40, Reformed and Puritan
churches have rested their principle of participation by the members in
Scriptural discussions as an expression of the priesthood of all Christians.
(Calvin has inserted “better” in verse 30.) Cf. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, pp. 301, 318 f.; Pannier, Institution II. 133, note a, p. 386.
[2] John
Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford
Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1025–1026.