Augustinian reserve, Augustinian reverence - the BCP and Calvin on the Blessed Virgin

What does Calvin's commentary on Matthew 12:46-50 and its parallels suggest concerning a Reformed Marian piety?

Firstly, it re-affirms Augustine's declaration:

it means more for Mary to have been a disciple of Christ than to have been the mother of Christ. It means more for her, an altogether greater blessing, to have been Christ's disciple than to have been Christ's mother.

Calvin's restatement of this understanding leaves little room for mistaking its inspiration:

for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb ... the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son.

This was to be repeated by Jewel in controversy with Harding: "to be the child of God it is a great deal greater grace than to be the mother of God".

So, we begin here - the Reformed critique of the medieval Latin cultus was a retrieval of an Augustinian view obscured by that cultus.  It was an act of ressourcement, a recognition that late medieval Latin Marian piety had lost Augustine's emphasis:

Mary is holy, Mary is blessed, but the Church is something better than the Virgin Mary. Why? Because Mary is part of the Church, a holy member, a quite exceptional member, the supremely wonderful member, but still a member of the whole body. 

As Calvin puts it:

This woman, in applauding Christ, had left out what was of the very highest consequence, that in him salvation is exhibited to all; and, therefore, it was a feeble commendation, that made no mention of his grace and power, which is extended to all. Christ justly claims for himself another kind of praise, not that his mother alone is reckoned blessed, but that he brings to us all perfect and eternal happiness.

However, precisely because the Reformed critique was Augustinian means that it was also committed to a reverence for the Mother of the Lord.  Secondly, then, we note the titles given by Calvin in this short passage of his commentary to Mary:

the holy Virgin ... the holy mother.

Such titles are witnesses to her sanctity.  This is similarly found in the BCP's consistent use of the title Blessed Virgin Mary.

Thirdly, we see Calvin challenging even those Fathers who appear to diminish this sanctity:

Ambrose and Chrysostom accuse Mary of ambition, but without any probability. What necessity is there for such a conjecture, when the testimony of the Spirit everywhere bestows commendation on her distinguished piety and modesty?

Finally, Calvin adopts a reverential approach to the traditional belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.  This is indicated by how he describes the Gospel reference to "thy mother and thy brethren":

Christ’s mother and cousins.

It may be true - as some have argued - that Calvin was agnostic on this matter, but here he repeats the traditional reading of the Gospel text.  To this we might add his critique of Helvidius, the 4th century writer who challenged the belief:

The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.

This certainly appears to be more than mere agnosticism.  Calvin is displaying a reverence for the traditional teaching and its reading of Scripture.  This was to be repeated by Hooker:

As therefore Helvidius against whom St Jerome writeth abused greatly those words of Matthew concerning Joseph and the mother of our Saviour Christ, 'He knew her not til she had brought forth her first borne' ... against the honour of the blessed virgin - LEP V.45.2.

While BCP and Articles avoid the title 'ever-virgin' (probably out of a Reformed concern not to exalt virginity over the married state), they never refer to Mary apart from the title 'Virgin' - preserving, in Hooker's phrase, "the honour of the blessed virgin".

So, how can we summarise what Calvin's commentary on this passage means means for a Reformed Marian piety?  It is robustly Augustinian in its Christocentric emphasis, reverences Mary with titles recognising her sanctity, affirms and commends that sanctity, and refuses Helvidius' attack on the belief in her perpetual virginity. 

It is, in other words, a Marian piety that is both Catholic and Reformed.  It is a Marian piety embodied in the Book of Common Prayer, with its Augustinian reserve evident in a refusal to countenance Marian devotions which obscure the Christological centre and its Augustinian reverence seen in the consistent use of the title Blessed Virgin Mary, the confession of her significance in the mystery of the Incarnation, the observance of her feast days, and the daily praying of her Magnificat. And it is a Marian piety notably absent from contemporary evangelical, including evangelical Anglican, theology and practice.