Calvin's own words will be in
blue.
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s "brothers" are sometimes mentioned.(
Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From
Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)
[On Matt 1:25:]
The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called "first-born"; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.(Pringle,
ibid., vol. I, p. 107)
Under the word "brethren" the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.(Pringle,
ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )
David F. Wright, in his book,
Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, pp. 173, 175), stated:
. . . his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it. . . . (Calvin) commonly speaks of Mary as "the holy Virgin" (and rarely as simply as "Mary" preferring "the Virgin", etc.).
That would be my exact position on the matter, too.
Thomas Henry Louis Parker, in his
Calvin: an Introduction to his Thought (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), concurs:
. . . the Virgin Birth, which Calvin holds, together with the perpetual virginity of Mary. (p. 66)
He is the author of several books about Calvin, such as
John Calvin: A Biography (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), and
Oracles Of God: An Introduction To The Preaching Of John Calvin (Lutterworth Press, 2002),
Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (S.C.M. Press, 1971),
Calvin’s Preaching (Westminster John Knox Press, 1992),
Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), and several other Calvin-related volumes, and translator of Calvin’s
Harmony of the Gospels in its 1995 Eerdmans edition.
The article “Mary” (by
David T. Wright) in the
Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith (edited by
Donald K. McKim, Westminster John Knox Press,1992, p. 237), proclaims:
Calvin was likewise less clear-cut than Luther on Mary’s perpetual virginity but undoubtedly favored it. Notes in the Geneva Bible (Matt. 1:18, 25; Jesus' "brothers") defend it, as did Zwingli and the English reformers . . .
Donald G. Bloesch, in his
Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006, p. 87), joins the crowd:
Protestantism . . . remained remarkably open to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among others, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wollebius, Bullinger and Wesley claimed that Mary was ever-virgin (semper virgo). The Second Helvetic Confession and the Geneva Bible of the Reformed faith and the Schmalkald Articles of the Lutheran churches affirm it.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley in his article, “Mary the Mother of Jesus” in
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P (edited by Bromiley, revised edition of 1994 published by Eerdmans [Grand Rapids, Michigan], p. 269), wrote:
The post-partum or perpetual virginity concept is held by some Protestants and was held by many Reformers (e.g., Calvin in his sermon on Mt. 1:22-25) . . .
Calvin’s successor
Theodore Beza argued that Catholics and Protestants agreed on the perpetual virginity of Mary, at the Colloquy of Poissy in 1561 (see William A. Dyrness,
Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: the Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards, [Cambridge University Press, 2004], pp. 86-87).
Also, Calvin habitually calling Mary
“the virgin” or
“holy virgin” (as Calvin scholar T.H.L. Parker noted), is further evidence, since that had always been understood in Church history (I’m pretty sure) as a belief in perpetual virginity, and was clearly understood as such in Calvin’s time. Examples:
Institutes of the Christian Religion II, 10:4 . . .
the blessed Virgin . . . [footnote: “Beata Virgo.” French, “la Vierge Marie;”—the Virgin Mary]
II, 13:3 . . .
being descended of the Virgin; . . . nourished to maturity in the Virgin’s womb. . . . Matthew does not here describe the Virgin . . .
II, 13:4 . . .
conceived miraculously in the Virgin’s womb . . .
II, 14:1 . . .
he made choice of the Virgin’s womb as a temple in which he might dwell. II, 14:4 . . .
the name of the Son of God is given to him who is born of a Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called the mother of our Lord (Luke 1:32, 43). II, 14:5 . . .
he was begotten in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit. . . . We indeed acknowledge that the Mediator who was born of the Virgin is properly the Son of God. II, 14:6 . . .
He who was born of a Virgin, . . .
II, 14:8 . . .
he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit . . Harmony of the Gospels Matthew 1:18 . . .
the virgin . . .
Matthew 1:19 . . .
the virgin . . .
Matthew 1:22 . . .
the virgin . . . [twice]
Matthew 1:23 . . .
the virgin . . .
Matthew 2:16 . . .
the virgin . . .
Matthew 5:6 . . .
the Virgin . . .
Luke 1:26 . . .
the virgin . . .
Luke 1:28 . . .
the virgin . . .
Luke 1:30
The holy virgin . . .
Luke 1:31 . . .
the virgin . . . [twice]
Luke 1:32 . . .
the holy virgin . . .
Luke 1:34
The holy virgin appears to confine the power of God . . . the mind of the virgin,. . . the holy virgin . . . the virgin . . . the virgin . . .
[Calvin in the same section denies that this passage suggests a vow of perpetual virginity made by Mary]
Luke 1:35
He only leads the virgin . . .
Luke 1:36 . . .
the mother of the holy virgin . . .
Luke 1:38 . . .
the holy virgin . . . [three times]
Luke 1:39 . . .
the Virgin . . .
Luke 1:46 . . .
the holy virgin . . . [twice]
Luke 1:48 . . .
the holy virgin . . .
Luke 1:49 . . .
the holy virgin . . .
Luke 2:34
The holy virgin . . .
Luke 2:35 . . .
the holy virgin . . .
Luke 2:48 . . .
the holy virgin . . . [twice]
This is not simply referring to the Virgin Birth. Think about it. We don’t call women who are married now and sexually active, “virgins” their whole lives and thereafter. That would make no sense, since they ceased being virgins. It is as illogical as calling them “children” when they are adults. They’re not lifetime eunuchs or celibates or virgins. They were simply one thing and then another, by virtue of getting older and passing into the state of marriage. They did not have the gift of celibacy that Calvin acknowledged, per clear Pauline teaching.
Calvin didn’t even use the phraseology of
Theotokos “Mother of God” (as Luther and many other Protestants — even in some confessions — did), so I think that if he continued to use “holy virgin” that it is more plausible to believe that he retained the traditional view than that he did not. Otherwise, it stands to reason that he would cease using that title for her, too, since he was well familiar with historical usage and patristic teachings.
Therefore this is another relevant evidence of Calvin’s position, by both linguistic and commonsense criteria.
Author