<div1 type =
“Title Page” title = “History of the Christian Church”>
This
volume constitutes the second part of
THE
HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION
by
Philip Schaff
It
is included as Volume VIII in the 8-volume
HISTORY
OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Volume
VII in this series, on the German
Reformation,
constitutes the first part of
this
2-volume unit on he The History of the
Reformation
HISTORY
of
the
CHRISTIAN
CHURCH*
by
PHILIP SCHAFF
professor of church history in the
union theological seminary
new york
<foreign lang="la">Christianus sum: Christiani nihil a me alienum puto
</foreign>
VOLUME
VIII.
MODERN
CHRISTIANITY
THE
SWISS REFORMATION
This
is a reproduction of the Third Edition, Revised
</div1><div1
type = “Preface”>
PREFACE.
This
volume concludes the history of the productive period of the Reformation, in
which Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were the chief actors. It follows the Protestant
movement in German, Italian, and French Switzerland, to the close of the
sixteenth century.
During
the last year, the sixth-centenary of the oldest surviving Republic was
celebrated with great patriotic enthusiasm. On the first day of August, in the year
1291, the freemen of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden formed, in the name of the
Lord "a perpetual alliance for the mutual protection of their persons,
property, and liberty, against internal and external foes. On the same day, in
1891, the great event was commemorated in every village of Switzerland by the
ringing of bells and the illumination of the mountains, while on the following
day—a Sunday—thanksgiving services were held in every church, Catholic and
Protestant. The chief festivities took place, from July 31 to Aug. 2, in the
towns of Schwyz and Brunnen, and were attended by the Federal and Cantonal
dignitaries, civil and military, and a vast assembly of spectators. The most
interesting feature was a dramatic representation of the leading events in Swiss
history—the sacred oaths of Schwyz, Brunnen, and Grütli, the poetic legend of
William Tell, the heroic battles for liberty and independence against Austria,
Burgundy, and France, the venerable figure of Nicolas von der Flue appearing as
a peacemaker in the Diet at Stans, and the chief scenes of the Reformation, the
Revolution, and the modern reconstruction. The drama, enacted in the open field
in view of mountains and meadows and the lake of Luzern, is said to have
equalled in interest and skill of execution the famous Passion Play of
Oberammergau. Similar celebrations took place, not only in every city and
village of Switzerland, but also in the Swiss colonies in foreign lands,
notably in New York, on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of September.2
Between
Switzerland and the United States there has always been a natural sympathy and
friendship. Both aim to realize the idea of a government of freedom without
license, and of authority without despotism; a government of law and order
without a standing army; a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people, under the sole headship of Almighty God.
At
the time of the Reformation, Switzerland numbered as many Cantons (13) as our
country originally numbered States, and the Swiss Diet was then a loose
confederation representing only the Cantons and not the people, just as was our
Continental Congress. But by the revision of the Constitution in 1848 and 1874,
the Swiss Republic, following the example of our Constitution, was consolidated
from a loose, aristocratic Confederacy of independent Cantons into a
centralized federal State,3with a popular as well as a cantonal
representation. In one respect the modern Swiss Constitution is even more
democratic than that of the United States; for, by the Initiative and the
Referendum, it gives to the people the right of proposing or rejecting national
legislation.
But
there is a still stronger bond of union between the two countries than that
which rests on the affinity of political institutions. Zwingli and Calvin
directed and determined the westward movement of the Reformation to France,
Holland, England, and Scotland, and exerted, indirectly, a moulding influence
upon the leading Evangelical Churches of America. George Bancroft, the American
historian, who himself was not a Calvinist, derives the republican institutions
of the United States from Calvinism through the medium of English Puritanism. A
more recent writer, Douglas Campbell, of Scotch descent, derives them from
Holland, which was still more under the influence of the Geneva Reformer than
England. Calvinism breeds manly, independent, and earnest characters who fear
God and nothing else, and favors political and religious freedom. The earliest
and most influential settlers of the United States—the Puritans of England, the
Presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland, the Huguenots of France, the Reformed
from Holland and the Palatinate,—were Calvinists, and brought with them the
Bible and the Reformed Confessions of Faith. Calvinism was the ruling theology
of New England during the whole Colonial Period, and it still rules in great
measure the theology of the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist Churches.
In
the study of the sources I have derived much benefit from the libraries of
Switzerland, especially the Stadtbibliothek of Zürich, which contains the
invaluable Simler collection and every important work relating to the
Reformation in Switzerland. I take great pleasure in expressing my obligation
to Dr. G. von Wyss, president, and Dr. Escher, librarian, for their courtesy
and kindness on repeated visits to that library.
The
sources on the Reformation in French Switzerland are now made fully accessible
by the new critical edition of Calvin’s works, by Herminjard’s collection of
the correspondence of the French-speaking Reformers (not yet completed), and by
the publications of the documentary history of Geneva during the period of
Calvin’s labors, including the registers of the Council and of the Consistory.
I
have freely quoted from Calvin’s works and letters, which give us the best
insight into his mind and heart. I have consulted also his chief
biographers,—French, German, and English: his enthusiastic admirers,—Beza,
Henry, Stähelin, Bungener, and Merle D’Aubigné; his virulent detractors—Bolsec,
Galiffe, and Audin; and his impartial critics,—Dyer, and Kampschulte. Dr.
Henry’s work (1844) was the first adequate biography of the great Reformer, and
is still unsurpassed as a rich collection of authentic materials, although not
well arranged and digested.4 Dr. Merle D’Aubigné’s "History of the
Reformation" comes down only to 1542. Thomas H. Dyer, LL. D, the author of
the "History, of Modern Europe," from the fall of Constantinople to
1871, and other historical works, has written the first able and readable
"Life of Calvin" in the English language, which is drawn chiefly from
Calvin’s correspondence, from Ruchat, Henry, and, in the Servetus chapter, from
Mosheim and Trechsel, and is, on the whole, accurate and fair, but cold and
unsympathetic. The admirable work of Professor Kampschulte is based on a
thorough mastery of the sources, but it is unfortunately incomplete, and goes
only as far as 1542. The materials for a second and third volume were placed
after his death (December, 1872) into the hands of Professor Cornelius of
Munich, who, however, has so far only written a few sections. His admiration
for Calvin’s genius and pure character (see p. 205) presents an interesting
parallel to Döllinger’s eloquent tribute to Luther (quoted in vol. VI. 741),
and is all the more valuable as he dissented from Calvin’s theology and church
polity; for he was an Old Catholic and intimate friend of Reusch and Döllinger.5
The
sole aim of the historian ought to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth.
I
have dedicated this volume to my countrymen and oldest surviving friends in
Switzerland, Dr. Georg von Wyss of Zürich and Dr. Fréderic Godet of Neuchâtel.
The one represents German, the other French Switzerland. Both are well known;
the one for his historical, the other for his exegetical works. They have
followed the preparation of this book with sympathetic interest, and done me
the favor of revising the proof-sheets.6
I
feel much encouraged by the kind reception of my Church History at home and
abroad. The first three volumes have been freely translated into Chinese by the
Rev. D. Z. Sheffield (a missionary of the American Board), and into Hindostani
by the Rev. Robert Stewart (of the Presbyterian Mission of Sialkot).
I
have made considerable progress in the fifth volume, which will complete the
history of the Middle Ages. It was delayed till I could make another visit to
Rome and Florence, and study more fully the Renaissance, which preceded the
Reformation. Two or three more volumes will be necessary to bring the history
down to the present time, according to the original plan. But how many works
remain unfinished in this world!
Ars longa, vita brevis.
June,
1892.
</div1><div1
type = “Postscript”>
POSTSCRIPT.
The
above Preface was ready for the printer, and the book nearly finished, when, on
the 15th of July last, I was suddenly interrupted by a stroke of paralysis at
Lake Mohonk (where I spent the summer); but, in the good providence of God, my
health has been nearly restored. My experience is recorded in the 103d Psalm of
thanksgiving and praise.
I
regret that I could not elaborate chs. XVII. and XVIII., especially the
influence of Calvin upon the Reformed Churches of Europe and America (§§ 162
and 163), as fully as I wished. My friend, the Rev. Samuel Macauley Jackson,
who happened to be with me when I was taken sick, aided me in the last chapter,
on Beza, for which he was well prepared by previous studies. I had at first
intended to add a history of the French Reformation, but this would make the
volume too large and delay the publication. I have added, however, in an
appendix, a list of literature which I prepared some time ago in the Library of
the Society of the History of French Protestantism at Paris, and brought down
to date. Most of the books are in my possession.
I
may congratulate myself that, notwithstanding this serious interruption, I am
enabled to publish the history of the Reformation of my native land before the
close of the fiftieth anniversary of my academic teaching, which I began in
December, 1842, in the University of Berlin, when my beloved teacher, Neander,
was in the prime of his usefulness. A year afterwards, I received, at his and
Tholuck’s recommendation, a call to a theological professorship from the Synod
of the German Reformed Church in the United States, and I have never regretted
accepting it. For it is a great privilege to labor, however humbly, for the
kingdom of Christ in America, which celebrates in this month, with the whole civilized
world, the fourth centennial of its discovery.
Thankful
for the past, I look hopefully to the future.
Philip
Schaff.
Union
Theological Seminary
New
York, October 12, 1892.
</div1><div1 type = “Preface” title = “Preface to
the Second Edition”>
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The
first edition (of 1500 copies) being exhausted, I have examined the volume and
corrected a number of typographical errors, mostly in the French words of the
last chapters. There was no occasion for other improvements.
P.
S.
August
9, 1893.
———————————
<added>
<insertContents level = “3” />
</added>
<deleted>
CONTENTS.
————
HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION
SECOND BOOK.
THE SWISS REFORMATION.
CHAPTER I.
introduction.
§ 1.
Switzerland before the Reformation.
§ 2. The
Swiss Reformation.
§ 3. The
Genius of the Swiss Reformation compared with the German.
§ 4.
Literature on the Swiss Reformation.
CHAPTER II.
zwingli's
training. a.d. 1484-1519.
§ 5. The
Zwingli Literature.
§ 6.
Zwingli’s Birth and Education.
§ 7.
Zwingli in Glarus.
§ 8.
Zwingli in Einsiedeln.
§ 9.
Zwingli and Luther.
CHAPTER III.
the
reformation in zürich. 1519–1526.
§ 10.
Zwingli called to Zurich.
§ 11.
Zwingli’s Public Labors and Private Studies.
§ 12.
Zwingli and the Sale of Indulgences.
§ 13.
Zwingli during the Pestilence.
§ 14. The
Open Breach. Controversy about Fasts. 1522.
§ 15.
Petition for the Abolition of Clerical Celibacy. Zwingli’s Marriage.
§ 16.
Zwingli and Lambert of Avignon.
§ 17. The
Sixty-seven Conclusions.
§ 18. The
Public Disputations. 1523.
§ 19. The
Abolition of the Roman Worship. 1524.
§ 20. The
Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
§ 21.
Other Changes. A Theological School. The Carolinum. A System of Theology.
§ 22. The
Translation of the Bible. Leo Judae.
§ 23.
Church and State.
§ 24.
Zwingli’s Conflict with Radicalism.
§ 25. The
Baptismal Controversy.
§ 26.
Persecution of the Anabaptists.
§ 27. The
Eucharistic Controversy. Zwingli and Luther.
§ 28. The
Works of Zwingli.
§ 29. The
Theology of Zwingli.
CHAPTER IV.
spread of the
reformation in german switzerland and the grisons.
§ 30. The
Swiss Diet and the Conference at Baden, 1526.
§ 31. The
Reformation in Berne.
§ 32. The
Reformation in Basel. Oecolampadius.
§ 33. The
Reformation in Glarus. Tschudi. Glarean.
§ 34. The
Reformation in St. Gall, Toggenburg, and Appenzell. Watt and Kessler.
§ 35.
Reformation in Schaffhausen. Hofmeister.
§ 36. The
Grisons (Graubuenden).
§ 37. The
Reformation in the Grisons. Comander. Gallicius. Campell.
§ 38. The
Reformation in the Italian Valleys of the Grisons. Vergerio.
§ 39.
Protestantism in Chiavenna and the Valtellina, and its Suppression. The
Valtellina Massacre. George Jenatsch.
§ 40. The
Congregation of Locarno.
§ 41.
Zwinglianism in Germany.
CHAPTER V.
the civil and
religious war between the roman catholic and reformed cantons.
§ 42. The
First War of Cappel. 1529.
§ 43. The
First Peace of Cappel. June, 1529.
§ 44.
Between the Wars. Political Plains of Zwingli.
§ 45. Zwingli’s
Last Theological Labors. His Confessions of Faith.
§ 46. The
Second War of Cappel. 1531.
§ 47. The
Death of Zwingli.
§ 48.
Reflections on the Disaster at Cappel.
§ 49. The
Second Peace o of Cappel. November, 1531.
§ 50. The
Roman Catholic Reaction.
§ 51. The
Relative Strength of the Confessions in Switzerland.
§ 52.
Zwingli. Redivivus.
CHAPTER VI.
the period of
consolidation.
§ 53.
Literature.
§ 54.
Heinrich Bullinger. 1504–1575.
§ 55.
Antistes Breitinger (1575–1645).
§ 56.
Oswald Myconius, Antistes of Basel.
§ 57. The
Helvetic Confessions of Faith.
THIRD BOOK.
THE
REFORMATION IN FRENCH SWITZERLAND, OR
THE
CALVINISTIC MOVEMENT.
CHAPTER VII.
the
preparatory work. from 1526 to 1536.
§ 58.
Literature on Calvin and the Reformation in French Switzerland.
§ 59. The
Condition of French Switzerland before the Reformation.
§ 60.
William, Farel (1489–1565).
§ 61.
Farel at Geneva. First Act of the Reformation (1535).
§ 62. The
Last Labors of Farel.
§ 63.
Peter Viret and the Reformation in Lausanne.
§ 64.
Antoine Froment.
CHAPTER VIII.
john calvin
and his work.
§ 65. John
Calvin compared with the Older Reformers.
§ 66.
Calvin’s Place in History.
§ 67.
Calvin’s Literary Labors.
§ 68.
Tributes to the Memory of Calvin.
CHAPTER IX.
from france to
switzerland. 1509-1536.
§ 69.
Calvin’s Youth and Training.
§ 70.
Calvin as a Student in the French Universities. A.D. 1528–1533.
§ 71.
Calvin as a Humanist. Commentary on Seneca.
§ 72.
Calvin’s Conversion. 1532.
§ 73.
Calvin’s Call.
§ 74. The
Open Rupture. An Academic Oration. 1533.
§ 75.
Persecution of the Protestants in Paris. 1534.
§ 76.
Calvin as a Wandering Evangelist. 1533–1536.
§ 77. The
Sleep of the Soul. 1534.
§ 78. Calvin
at Basel. 1535 to 1536.
§ 79.
Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.
§ 80. From
Basel to Ferrara. The Duchess Renée.
CHAPTER X.
calvin's first
sojourn and labors in geneva. 1536-1538.
§ 81.
Calvin’s Arrival and Settlement at Geneva.
§ 82.
First Labors and Trials.
§ 83. The
Reformers introduce Order and Discipline.
§ 84.
Expulsion of the Reformers. 1538.
CHAPTER XI.
calvin in
germany. from 1538 to 1541.
§ 85.
Calvin in Strassburg.
§ 86. The
Church of the Strangers in Strassburg.
§ 87. The
Liturgy of Calvin.
§ 88.
Calvin as Theological Teacher and Author.
§ 89.
Calvin at the Colloquies of Frankfurt, Worms, and Regensburg.
§ 90.
Calvin and Melanchthon.
§ 91.
Calvin and Sadolet. The Vindication of the Reformation.
§ 92. Calvin’s
Marriage and Home Life.
CHAPTER XII.
calvin's
second sojourn and labors in geneva. 1541-1564.
§ 93. The
State of Geneva after the expulsion of the Reformers.
§ 94.
Calvin’s Recall to Geneva.
§ 95.
Calvin’s Return to Geneva. 1541.
§ 96. The
First Years after the Return.
§ 97.
Survey of Calvin’s Activity.
CHAPTER XIII.
constitution
and discipline of the church of geneva.
§ 98.
Literature.
§ 99.
Calvin’s Idea of the Holy Catholic Church.
§ 100. The
Visible and Invisible Church.
§ 101. The
Civil Government.
§ 102.
Distinctive Principles of Calvin’s Church Polity.
§ 103.
Church and State.
§ 104. The
Ecclesiastical Ordinances.
§ 105. The
Venerable Company and the Consistory.
§ 106.
Calvin’s Theory of Discipline.
§ 107. The
Exercise of Discipline in Geneva.
§ 108.
Calvin’s Struggle with the Patriots and Libertines.
§ 109. The
Leaders of the Libertines and their punishment:—Gruet, Perrin, Ameaux, Vandel,
Berthelier.
§ 110.
Geneva Regenerated. Testimonies Old and New.
CHAPTER XIV.
the theology
of calvin.
§ 111.
Calvin’s Commentaries.
§ 112. The
Calvinistic System.
§ 113.
Predestination.
§ 114.
Calvinism examined.
§ 115.
Calvin’s Theory of the Sacraments.
§ 116.
Baptism.
§ 117. The
Lord’s Supper. The Consensus of Zuerich.
CHAPTER XV.
doctrinal
controversies.
§ 118.
Calvin as a Controversialist.
§ 119.
Calvin and Pighius.
§ 120. The
Anti-Papal Writings. Criticism of the Council of Trent. 1547.
§ 121.
Against the German Interim. 1549.
§ 122.
Against the Worship of Relics. 1543.
§ 123. The
Articles of the Sorbonne with an Antidote. 1544.
§ 124.
Calvin and the Nicodemites. 1544.
§ 125.
Calvin and Bolsec.
§ 126.
Calvin and Castellio.
§ 127.
Calvinism and Unitarianism. The Italian Refugees.
§ 128.
Calvin and Laelius Socinus.
§ 129.
Bernardino Ochino. 1487–1565.
§ 130.
Caelius Secundus Curio. 1503–1569.
§ 131. The
Italian Antitrinitarians in Geneva. Gribaldo, Biandrata, Alciati, Gentile.
§ 132. The
Eucharistic Controversies. Calvin and Westphal.
§ 133.
Calvin and the Augsburg Confession. Melanchthon’s Position in the Second
Eucharistic Controversy.
§ 134.
Calvin and Heshusius.
§ 135.
Calvin and the Astrologers.
CHAPTER XVI.
servetus: his
life, trial, and execution.
§ 136 The Servetus Literature.
§ 137.
Calvin and Servetus.
§ 138.
Catholic Intolerance.
§ 139.
Protestant Intolerance. Judgments of the Reformers on Servetus.
§ 140. The
Early Life of Servetus.
§ 141. The
Book against the Holy Trinity.
§ 142.
Servetus as a Geographer.
§ 143.
Servetus as a Physician, Scientist, and Astrologer.
§ 144.
Servetus at Vienne. His Annotations to the Bible.
§ 145.
Correspondence of Servetus with Calvin and Poupin.
§ 146.
"The Restitution of Christianity."
§ 147. The
Theological System of Servetus.
§ 148. The
Trial and Condemnation of Servetus at Vienne.
§ 149.
Servetus flees to Geneva and is arrested.
§ 150.
State of Political Parties at Geneva in 1553.
§ 151. The
First Act of the Trial at Geneva.
§ 152. The
Second Act of the Trial at Geneva.
§ 153.
Consultation of the Swiss Churches. The Defiant Attitude of Servetus.
§ 154.
Condemnation of Servetus.
§ 155.
Execution of Servetus. Oct. 27, 1553.
§ 156. The
Character of Servetus.
§ 157.
Calvin’s Defence of the Death Penalty for Heretics.
§ 158. A
Plea for Religious Liberty. Castellio and Beza.
CHAPTER XVII.
calvin abroad.
§ 159.
Calvin’s Catholicity of Spirit.
§ 160.
Geneva an Asylum for Protestants from all Countries.
§ 161. The
Academy of Geneva. The High School of Reformed Theology.
§ 162.
Calvin’s Influence upon the Reformed Churches of the Continent.
§ 163.
Calvin’s Influence upon Great Britain.
CHAPTER XVIII
closing scenes
in the life of calvin.
§ 164.
Calvin’s Last Days and Death.
§ 165.
Calvin’s Last Will, and Farewells.
§ 166.
Calvin’s Personal Character and Habits.
CHAPTER XIX.
theodore beza.
§ 167.
Life of Beza to his Conversion.
§ 168.
Beza at Lausanne and as a Delegate to the German Princes.
§ 169.
Beza at Geneva.
§ 170.
Beza at the Colloquy of Poissy.
§ 171.
Beza as the Counsellor of the Huguenot Leaders,
§ 172.
Beza as the Successor of Calvin, down to 1586.
§ 173.
Beza’s Conferences with Lutherans.
§ 174.
Beza and Henry IV.
§ 175.
Beza’s Last Days.
§ 176.
Beza’s Writings.
Appendix.
Literature
on the Reformation in France. (With a Portrait of Jacques Le Fevre)
</deleted>
HISTORY
of
THE
REFORMATION
SECOND
BOOK.
THE
SWISS REFORMATION.
</div1><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="I" title="Introduction">
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="1" title="Switzerland before the Reformation">
§ 1.
Switzerland before the Reformation.
Switzerland
belongs to those countries whose historic significance stands in inverse
proportion to their size. God often elects small things for great purposes.
Palestine gave to the world the Christian religion. From little Greece
proceeded philosophy and art. Switzerland is the cradle of the Reformed
churches. The land of the snow-capped Alps is the source of mighty rivers, and
of the Reformed faith, as Germany is the home of the Lutheran faith; and the
principles of the Swiss Reformation, like the waters of the Rhine and the
Rhone, travelled westward with the course of the sun to France, Holland,
England, Scotland, and to a new continent, which Zwingli and Calvin knew only
by name. Compared with intellectual and moral achievements, the conquests of
the sword dwindle into insignificance. Ideas rule the world; ideas are
immortal.
Before
the sixteenth century, Switzerland exerted no influence in the affairs of
Europe except by the bravery of its inhabitants in self-defence of their
liberty and in foreign wars. But in the sixteenth century she stands next to
Germany in that great religious renovation which has affected all modern
history.7
The
Republic of Switzerland, which has maintained itself in the midst of monarchies
down to this day, was founded by "the eternal covenant" of the three
"forest cantons," Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden, August 1, 1291, and
grew from time to time by conquest, purchase, and free association. Lucerne
(the fourth forest canton) joined the confederacy in 1332, Zurich in 1351,
Glarus and Zug in 1352, Berne in 1353, Freiburg and Solothurn (Soleur) in 1481,
Basle and Schaffhausen in 1501, Appenzell in 1513,—making in all thirteen
cantons at the time of the Reformation. With them were connected by purchase,
or conquest, or free consent, as common territories or free bailiwicks,8 the
adjoining lands of Aargau, Thurgau, Wallis, Geneva, Graubündten (Grisons,
Rhätia), the princedom of Neuchatel and Valangin, and several cities (Biel, Mühlhausen,
Rotweil, Locarno, etc.). Since 1798 the number of cantons has increased to
twenty-two, with a population of nearly three millions (in 1890). The Republic
of the United States started with thirteen States, and has grown likewise by
purchase or conquest and the organization and incorporation of new territories,
but more rapidly, and on a much larger scale.
The
romantic story of William Tell, so charmingly told by Egidius Tschudi, the
Swiss Herodotus,9 and by Johannes von Müller, the Swiss Tacitus, and embellished
by the poetic genius of Friedrich Schiller, must be abandoned to the realm of
popular fiction, like the cognate stories of Scandinavian and German mythology,
but contains, nevertheless, an abiding element of truth as setting forth the
spirit of those bold mountaineers who loved liberty and independence more than
their lives, and expelled the foreign invaders from their soil. The glory of an
individual belongs to the Swiss people. The sacred oath of the men of Grütli on
the Lake of Lucerne, at the foot of Seelisberg (1306 or 1308?), and the more
certain confederation of Dec. 9, 1315, at Brunnen, were renewals of the
previous covenant of 1291.10
The
Swiss successfully vindicated their independence against the attacks of the House
of Habsburg in the memorable battles of Morgarten ("the Marathon of
Switzerland" 1315), Sempach (1386), and Näfels (1388), against King Louis
XI. of France at St. Jacob near Basle (the Thermopylae of Switzerland, 1444),
and against Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy at Granson, Murten (Morat), and
Nancy (1476 and 1477).
Nature
and history made Switzerland a federative republic. This republic was
originally a loose, aristocratic confederacy of independent cantons, ruled by a
diet of one house where each canton had the same number of deputies and votes,
so that a majority of the Diet could defeat a majority of the people. This
state of things continued till 1848, when (after the defeat of the Sonderbund
of the Roman Catholic cantons) the constitution was remodelled on democratic
principles, after the American example, and the legislative power vested in two
houses, one (the Ständerath or Senate) consisting of forty-four deputies of the
twenty-two sovereign cantons (as in the old Diet), the other (the Nationalrath
or House of Representatives) representing the people in proportion to their
number (one to every twenty thousand souls); while the executive power was
given to a council of seven members (the Bundesrath) elected for three years by
both branches of the legislature. Thus the confederacy of cantons was changed
into a federal state, with a central government elected by the people and
acting directly on the people.11
This
difference in the constitution of the central authority must be kept in mind in
order to understand why the Reformation triumphed in the most populous cantons,
and yet was defeated in the Diet.12
The small forest cantons had each as many votes as the much larger
cantons of Zurich and Berne, and kept out Protestantism from their borders till
the year 1848. The loose character of the German Diet and the absence of
centralization account in like manner for the victory of Protestantism in
Saxony, Hesse, and other states and imperial cities, notwithstanding the
hostile resolutions of the majority of the Diet, which again and again demanded
the execution of the Edict of Worms.
The
Christianization of Switzerland began in the fourth or third century under the
Roman rule, and proceeded from France and Italy. Geneva, on the border of
France and Savoy, is the seat of the oldest church and bishopric founded by two
bishops of Vienne in Southern Gaul. The bishopric of Coire, in the
south-eastern extremity, appears first in the acts of a Synod of Milan, 452.
The northern and interior sections were Christianized in the seventh century by
Irish missionaries, Columban and Gallus. The last founded the abbey of St.
Gall, which became a famous centre of civilization for Alamannia. The first,
and for a long time the only, university of Switzerland was that of Basle
(1460), where one of the three reformatory Councils was held (1430). During the
Middle Ages the whole country, like the rest of Europe, was subject to the
Roman see, and no religion was tolerated but the Roman Catholic. It was divided
into six episcopal dioceses,—Geneva, Coire, Constance, Basle, Lausanne, and
Sion (Sitten). The Pope had several legates in Switzerland who acted as
political and military agents, and treated the little republic like a great
power. The most influential bishop, Schinner of Sion, who did substantial
service to the warlike Julius II. and Leo X., attained even a cardinal’s hat.
Zwingli, who knew him well, might have acquired the same dignity if he had
followed his example.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="2" title="The Swiss Reformation">
§ 2. The
Swiss Reformation.
The
Church in Switzerland was corrupt and as much in need of reform as in Germany.
The inhabitants of the old cantons around the Lake of Lucerne were, and are to
this day, among the most honest and pious Catholics; but the clergy were
ignorant, superstitious, and immoral, and set a bad example to the laity. The
convents were in a state of decay, and could not furnish a single champion able
to cope with the Reformers in learning and moral influence. Celibacy made
concubinage a common and pardonable offence. The bishop of Constance (Hugo von
Hohenlandenberg) absolved guilty priests on the payment of a fine of four
guilders for every child born to them, and is said to have derived from this
source seventy-five hundred guilders in a single year (1522). In a pastoral
letter, shortly before the Reformation, he complained of the immorality of many
priests who openly kept concubines or bad women in their houses, who refuse to
dismiss them, or bring them back secretly, who gamble, sit with laymen in
taverns, drink to excess, and utter blasphemies.13
The
people were corrupted by the foreign military service (called Reislaufen),
which perpetuated the fame of the Swiss for bravery and faithfulness, but at
the expense of independence and good morals.14 Kings and popes vied with each other in tempting offers to
secure Swiss soldiers, who often fought against each other on foreign
battle-fields, and returned with rich pensions and dissolute habits. Zwingli knew
this evil from personal experience as chaplain in the Italian campaigns,
attacked it before he thought of reforming the Church, continued to oppose it
when called to Zurich, and found his death at the hands of a foreign mercenary.
On
the other hand, there were some hopeful signs of progress. The reformatory
Councils of Constance and Basle were not yet entirely forgotten among the
educated classes. The revival of letters stimulated freedom of thought, and
opened the eyes to abuses. The University of Basle became a centre of literary
activity and illuminating influences. There Thomas Wyttenbach of Biel taught
theology between 1505 and 1508, and attacked indulgences, the mass, and the
celibacy of the priesthood. He, with seven other priests, married in 1524, and
was deposed as preacher, but not excommunicated. He combined several high
offices, but died in great poverty, 1526. Zwingli attended his lectures in
1505, and learned much from him. In Basle, Erasmus, the great luminary of
liberal learning, spent several of the most active years of his life (1514–1516
and 1521–1529), and published, through the press of his friend Frobenius, most
of his books, including his editions of the Greek Testament. In Basle several
works of Luther were reprinted, to be scattered through Switzerland. Capito,
Hedio, Pellican, and Oecolampadius likewise studied, taught, and preached in
that city.
But
the Reformation proceeded from Zurich, not from Basle, and was guided by
Zwingli, who combined the humanistic culture of Erasmus with the ability of a
popular preacher and the practical energy of an ecclesiastical reformer.
The
Swiss Reformation may be divided into three acts and periods, —
I.
The Zwinglian Reformation in the German cantons from 1516 to Zwingli’s death
and the peace of Cappel, 1531.
II.
The Calvinistic Reformation in French Switzerland from 1531 to the death of
Calvin, 1564.
III.
The labors of Bullinger in Zurich (d. 1575), and Beza in Geneva (d. 1605) for
the consolidation of the work of their older friends and predecessors.
The
Zwinglian movement was nearly simultaneous with the German Reformation, and
came to an agreement with it at Marburg in fourteen out of fifteen articles of
faith, the only serious difference being the mode of Christ’s presence in the
eucharist. Although Zwingli died in the Prime of life, he already set forth
most of the characteristic features of the Reformed Churches, at least in rough
outline.
But
Calvin is the great theologian, organizer, and discip-linarian of the Reformed
Church. He brought it nearer the Lutheran Church in the doctrine of the Lord’s
Supper, but he widened the breach in the doctrine of predestination.
Zwingli
and Bullinger connect the Swiss Reformation with that of Germany, Hungary, and
Bohemia; Calvin and Beza, with that of France, Holland, England, and Scotland.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="3" title="The Genius of the Swiss Reformation compared with
the German">
§ 3. The
Genius of the Swiss Reformation compared with the German.
On
the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions see Göbel,
Hundeshagen, Schnekenburger, Schweizer, etc., quoted in Schaff, Creeds of
Christendom, vol. I. 211.
Protestantism
gives larger scope to individual and national freedom and variety of
development than Romanism, which demands uniformity in doctrine, discipline,
and worship. It has no visible centre or headship, and consists of a number of
separate and independent organizations under the invisible headship of Christ.
It is one flock, but in many folds. Variety in unity and unity in variety are
the law of God in nature and history. Protestantism so far has fully developed
variety, but not yet realized unity.
The
two original branches of evangelical Christendom are the Lutheran and the
Reformed Confessions. They are as much alike and as much distinct as the Greek
and the Roman branches of Catholicism, which rest on the national bases of
philosophical Greece and political Rome. They are equally evangelical, and
admit of an organic union, which has actually been effected in Prussia and
other parts of Germany since the third anniversary of the Reformation in 1817.
Their differences are theological rather than religious; they affect the
intellectual conception, but not the heart and soul of piety. The only serious
doctrinal difference which divided Luther and Zwingli at Marburg was the mode
of the real presence in the eucharist; as the double procession of the Holy
Spirit was for centuries the only doctrinal difference between the Greek and
Roman Churches. But other differences of government, discipline, worship, and
practice developed themselves in the course of time, and overshadowed the
theological lines of separation.
The
Lutheran family embraces the churches which bear the name of Luther and accept
the Augsburg Confession; the Reformed family (using the term Reformed in its historic
and general sense) comprehends the churches which trace their origin directly
or indirectly to the labors of Zwingli and Calvin.15 In England the second or Puritan
Reformation gave birth to a number of. new denominations, which, after the
Toleration Act of 1689, were organized into distinct Churches. In the
eighteenth century arose the Wesleyan revival movement, which grew into one of
the largest and most active churches in the English-speaking world.
Thus
the Reformation of the sixteenth century is the mother or grandmother of at
least half a dozen families of evangelical denominations, not counting the
sub-divisions. Lutheranism has its strength in Germany and Scandinavia; the
Reformed Church, in Great Britain and North America.
The
Reformed Confession has developed different types. Travelling westward with the
course of Christianity and civilization, it became more powerful in Holland,
England, and Scotland than in Switzerland; but the chief characteristics which
distinguish it from the Lutheran Confession were already developed by Zwingli
and Calvin.
The
Swiss and the German Reformers agreed in opposition to Romanism, but the Swiss
departed further from it. The former were zealous for the sovereign glory of
God, and, in strict interpretation of the first and second commandments,
abolished the heathen elements of creature worship; while Luther, in the
interest of free grace and the peace of conscience, aimed his strongest blows
at the Jewish element of monkish legalism and self-righteousness. The Swiss
theology proceeds from God’s grace to man’s needs; the Lutheran, from man’s
needs to God’s grace.
Both
agree in the three fundamental principles of Protestantism: the absolute
supremacy of the Divine Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice;
justification by free grace through faith; the general priesthood of the laity.
But as regards the first principle, the Reformed Church is more radical in
carrying it out against human traditions, abolishing all those which have no
root in the Bible; while Luther retained those which are not contrary to the
Bible. As regards justification by faith, Luther made it the article of the
standing or falling Church; while Zwingli and Calvin subordinated it to the
ulterior truth of eternal foreordination by free grace, and laid greater stress
on good works and strict discipline. Both opposed the idea of a special
priesthood and hierarchical rule; but the Swiss Reformers gave larger scope to
the popular lay element, and set in motion the principle of congregational and
synodical self-government and self-support.
Both
brought the new Church into Close contact with the State; but the Swiss
Reformers controlled the State in the spirit of republican independence, which
ultimately led to a separation of the secular and spiritual powers, or to a
free Church in a free State (as in the free churches of French Switzerland, and
in all the churches of the United States); while Luther and Melanchthon, with
their native reverence for monarchical institutions and the German Empire,
taught passive obedience in politics, and brought the Church under bondage to
the civil authority.
All
the evangelical divines and rulers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
were inconsistently intolerant in theory and practice; but the Reformation,
which was a revolt against papal tyranny and a mighty act of emancipation, led
ultimately to the triumph of religious freedom as its legitimate fruit.
The
Reformed Church does not bear the name of any man, and is not controlled by a
towering personality, but assumed different types under the moulding influence
of Zwingli and Bullinger in Zurich, of Oecolampadius in Basle, of Haller in
Berne, of Calvin and Beza in Geneva, of Ursinus and Olevianus in the
Palatinate, of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley in England, of Knox in Scotland.
The Lutheran Church, as the very name indicates, has the stamp of Luther indelibly
impressed upon it; although the milder and more liberal Melanchthonian tendency
has in it a legitimate place of honor and power, and manifests itself in all
progressive and unionistic movements as those of Calixtus, of Spener, and of
the moderate Lutheran schools of our age.
Calvinism
has made a stronger impression on the Latin and Anglo-Saxon races than on the
German; while Lutheranism is essentially German, and undergoes more or less
change in other countries.
Calvin
aimed at a reformation of discipline as well as theology, and established a
model theocracy in Geneva, which lasted for several generations. Luther
contented himself with a reformation of faith and doctrine, leaving the
practical consequences to time, but bitterly lamented the Antinomian disorder
and abuse which for a time threatened to neutralize his labors in Saxony.
The
Swiss Reformers reduced worship to the utmost simplicity and naked
spirituality, and made its effect for kindling or chilling-devotion to depend
upon the personal piety and intellectual effort of the minister and the merits
of his sermons and prayers. Luther, who was a poet and a musician, left larger
scope for the esthetic and artistic element; and his Church developed a rich
liturgical and hymnological literature. Congregational singing, however,
flourishes in both denominations; and the Anglican Church produced the best
liturgy, which has kept its place to this day, with increasing popularity.
The
Reformed Church excels in self-discipline, liberality, energy, and enterprise;
it carries the gospel to all heathen lands and new colonies; it builds up a
God-fearing, manly, independent, heroic type of character, such as we find
among the French Huguenots, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the
Waldenses in Piedmont; and sent in times of persecution a noble army of martyrs
to the prison and the stake. The Lutheran Church cultivates a hearty, trustful,
inward, mystic style of piety, the science of theology, biblical and historical
research, and wrestles with the deepest problems of philosophy and religion.
God
has wisely distributed his gifts, with abundant opportunities for their
exercise in the building up of his kingdom.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="4" title="Literature on the Swiss Reformation">
§ 4.
Literature on the Swiss Reformation.
Compare
the literature on the Reformation in general, vol. VI. 89–93, and the German
Reformation, pp. 94–97. The literature on the Reformation in French Switzerland
will be given in a later chapter (pp. 223 sqq.).
The
largest collection of the Reformation literature of German Switzerland is in
the Stadtbibliothek (in the Wasserkirche) and in the Cantonalbibliothek of
Zürich. The former includes the 200 vols. of the valuable MSS. collection of
Simler (d. 1788), and the Thesaurus Hottingerianus. I examined these libraries
in August, 1886, with the kind aid of Profs. O. F. Fritsche, Alex. Schweizer,
Georg von Wyss, and Dr. Escher, and again in July, 1890.
For
lists of books on Swiss history in general consult the following works:
Gottlieb Emanuel von Haller: Bibliothek der Schweizer-Geschichte und aller
Theile, so dahin Bezug haben (Bern, 1785–’88, 7 vols.); with the continuations
of Gerold Meyer Von Knonau (from 1840–’45, Zür., 1850) and Ludwig Von Sinner
(from 1786–1861, Bern and Zürich, 1851). The Catalog der Stadtbibliothek in
Zürich (Zürich, 1864–’67, 4 Bde, much enlarged in the written catalogues). E.
Fr. von Mülinen: Prodromus einer Schweizer. Historiographie (Bern, 1874). The
author promises a complete Lexicon of Swiss chroniclers, etc., annalists and
historians in about 4 vols.
I.
Sources: The works Of Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Leo Judae, Bullinger, Watt
(Vadianus), and other Reformers of the Swiss cantons.
Herminjard:
Correspondance des Reformateurs. Genève, 1866–’86. 7 vols.
Bullinger
(Heinrich, Zwingli’s successor, d. 1575): Reformationsgeschichte, nach den
Autographen herausgeg. von J. J. Hottinger und H. H. Vögeli. Frauenfeld,
1838–’40, 3 vols. 8°. From 1519 to 1532. In the Swiss-German dialect.
Kessler
(Johannes, Reformer of St. Gallen): Sabbata. Chronik der Jahre 1523–’39. Ed. by
E. Götzinger. St. Gallen, 1866–’68. 2 parts. Kessler was the student whom
Luther met at Jena on his return to Wittenberg (see vol. VI. 385).
Simler
(Joh. Jac.): Sammlung alter und neuer Urkunden zur Beleuchtung der
Kirchengeschichte, vornehmlich des Schweizerlandes. Zürich, 1757–’63. 2 Bde in
6 Theilen. 8°. Also the first 30 vols. of his above-mentioned collection of
MSS., which includes many printed pamphlets and documents.
Die
Eidgenössischen Abschiede. Bd. III. Abth. 2: Abschiede von 1500–’20, bearbeitet
von Segesser (Luzern, 1869); Bd. IV. I a: a.d. 1521–’28, bearbeitet von
Strickler (Brugg, 1873); Bd. IV. 1 b: a.d. 1529–’32 (Zürich, 1876); Bd. IV. 1
c: a.d. 1533–’40, bearbeitet von Deschwanden (Luzern, 1878); Bd. IV. 1 d: a.d.
1541–’48, bearbeitet von Deschwanden (Luzern, 1882). The publication of these
official acts of the Swiss Diet was begun at the expense of the Confederacy,
a.d. 1839, and embraces the period from 1245 to 1848.
Strickler
(Joh.): Actensammlung zur Schweizerischen Reformationsgeschichte in den Jahren
1521–’32. Zürich, 1878–’84. 5 vols. 8°. Mostly in Swiss-German, partly in
Latin. The fifth vol. contains Addenda, Registers, and a list of books on the
history of the Reformation to 1533.
Egli
(Emil): Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation von 1519–’33.
Zürich, 1879. (Pages vii. and 947.)
Stürler
(M. v.): Urkunden der Bernischen Kirchenreform. Bern, 1862. Goes only to 1528.
On the
Roman Catholic side: Archiv für die Schweizer. Reformations-Geschichte,
herausgeg. auf Veranstaltung des Schweizer. Piusvereins. Solothurn, 1868’-76. 3
large vols. This includes in vol. I. the Chronik der Schweizerischen
Reformation (till 1534), by Hans Salat of Luzern (d. after 1543), a historian
and poet, whose life and writings were edited by Baechtold, Basel, 1876. Vol.
II. contains the papal addresses to the Swiss Diet, etc. Vol. III. 7–82 gives a
very full bibliography bearing upon the Reformation and the history of the
Swiss Cantons down to 1871. This work is overlooked by most Protestant
historians. Bullinger wrote against Salat a book entitled Salz zum Salat.
II.
Later Historical Works:
Hottinger
(Joh. Heinrich, an eminent Orientalist, 1620–’67): Historia Ecclesiasticae Novi
Test. Tiguri [Turici], 1651–’67. 9 vols. 8°. The last four volumes of this very
learned but very tedious work treat of the Reformation. The seventh volume has
a chapter of nearly 600 pages (24–618) de Indulgentiis in specie!
Hottinger
(Joh. Jacob, 1652–1735, third son of the former): Helvetische
Kirchengeschichten, etc. Zür., 1698–1729. 4 vols. 4°. Newly ed. by Wirz and
Kirchhofer. See below.
Miscellanea
Tigurina edita, inedita, vetera, nova, theologica, historica, etc., ed. by J.
J. Ulrich. Zür., 1722–’24. 3 vols. 8°. They contain small biographies of Swiss
Reformers and important documents of Bullinger, Leo Judae, Breitinger, Simler,
etc.
Füsslin
(or Füssli, Joh. Conr. F., 1704–1775): Beiträge zur Erläuterung der
Kirchenreformationsgeschichten des Schweizerlands. Zür., 1740–’53. 5 vols. 8°.
Contains important original documents and letters.
Ruchat
(Abrah., 1680–1750): Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse, 1516–1556.
Genève, 1727, ’28. 6 vols. 8°. New edition with Appendixes by L. Vulliemin.
Paris and Lausanne, 1835–’38. 7 vols. 8°. Chiefly important for the French
cantons. An English abridgment of the first four vols. in one vol. by J.
Collinson (Canon of Durham), London, 1845, goes to the end of a.d. 1536.
Wirz
(Ludw.) and Kirchhofer (Melch.): Helvet. Kirchengeschichte. Aus Joh. Jac.
Hottinger’s älterem Werke und anderen Quellen neu bearbeitet. Zürich, 1808–’19. 5 vols. The modern
history is contained in vols. IV. and V. The fifth vol. is by Kirchhofer.
Merle
D’Aubigné (professor of Church history at Geneva, d. 1872): Histoire de la
Réformation du 16 siècle. Paris, 1838 sqq. Histoire de la Réformation au temps
du Calvin. Paris, 1863–’78. Both works were translated and published in England
and America, in various editions.
Trechsel
(Friedr., 1805–1885): Beiträge zur Geschichte der Schweiz. Reformirten Kirche,
zunächst derjenigen des Cantons Bern. Bern, 1841, ’42, 4 Hefte.
Gieseler
(d. 1854): Ch. History. Germ. ed. III. A. 128 sqq.; 277 sqq. Am. ed. vol. IV.
75–99, 209–217. His account is very valuable for the extracts from the sources.
Baur
(d. at Tübingen, 1860): Kirchengeschichte. Bd. IV. 80–96. Posthumous, Tübingen,
1863.
Hagenbach
(Karl Rud., professor of Church history at Basel, d. 1874): Geschichte der
Reformation, 1517–1555. Leipzig, 1834, 4th ed. 1870 (vol. III. of his general
Kirchengeschichte). Fifth ed., with a literary and critical appendix, by Dr. F.
Nippold, Leipzig, 1887. English translation by Miss E. Moore, Edinburgh and New
York, 1878, ’79, 2 vols.
Chastel
(Étienne, professor of Church history in the University of Geneva, d.
1885):Histoire du Christianisme, Tom. IV.: Age Moderne (p. 66 sqq.). Paris,
1882.
Berner
Beiträge zur Geschichte der Schweizerischen Reformationskirchen. Von Billeter, Flückiger, Hubler,
Kasser, Marthaler, Strasser. Mit weiteren Beiträgen vermehrt und herausgegeben
von Fr. Nippold. Bern, 1884. (Pages 454.)
On
the Confessions of the Swiss Reformation see Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, New
York, 4th ed. 1884, vol. I. 354 sqq.
Biographies
of Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Leo Judae, Bullinger, Haller, etc., will be noticed
in the appropriate sections.
III.
General Histories Of Switzerland.
Müller
(Joh. von, the classical historian of Switzerland, d. 1809): Geschichte der
Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, fortgesetzt von Glutz-Blotzheim (d. 1818)
und Joh. Jac. Hottinger. Vols. V. and VII. of the whole work. A masterpiece of
genius and learning, but superseded in its earlier part, where he follows
Tschudi, and accepts the legendary tales of Tell and Grütli. The Reformation
history is by Hottinger ( b. 1783, d. 1860), and was published also under the
title Gesch. der Eidgenossen während der Zeit der Kirchentrennung. Zürich, 1825 and ’29, 2 vols It was continued by Vulliemin in his
Histoire de la confédération suisse dans les XVIIe et XVIIe siècles. Paris and
Lausanne, 1841 and ’42. 3 vols. The first of these three volumes relates to the
Reformation in French Switzerland, which was omitted in the German work of
Hottinger, but was afterwards translated into German by others, and
incorporated into the German edition (Zürich, 1786–1853, 15 vols.; the
Reformation period in vols. VI.–X.). There is also a complete French edition of
the entire History of Switzerland by Joh. von Muller, Glutz-Blotzheim,
Hottinger, Vulliemin, and Monnard (Paris et Genève, 1837–’51, 18 vols. Three
vols. from Vulliemin, five from Monnard, and the rest translated).
Other
general Histories of Switzerland by Zschokke (1822, 8th ed. 1849; Engl. transl.
by Shaw, 1848, new ed. 1875), Meyer von Knonau (2 vols.), Vögelin (6 Vols.),
Morin, Zellweger, Vulliemin (German ed. 1882), Dändliker (Zürich, 1883 sqq., 3
vols., illustr.), Mrs. Hug and Rich. Stead (London, 1890), and Dieraür (Gotha,
1887 sqq.; second vol., 1892).
Bluntschli
(J. C., a native of Zürich, professor of jurisprudence and international law at
Heidelberg, d. 1881): Geschichte des Schweizerischen Bundesrechts von den
ersten ewigen Bünden his auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart, 2d ed. 1875. 2 vols.
Important for the relation of Church and State in the period of the Reformation
(vol. I. 292 sqq.). L. R. von Salis: Schweizerisches Bundesrecht seit dem 29.
Mai 1874. Bern, 1892. 3 vols. (also in French and Italian).
E.
Egli: Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz bis auf Karl d. Gr. Zürich, 1892.
Comp.
Rud. Stähelin on the literature of the Swiss Reformation, from 1875–1882, in
Brieger’s "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte," vols. III. and VI.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="II" title="Zwingli’s
Training">
CHAPTER
II.
ZWINGLI’S
TRAINING.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="5" title="The Zwingli Literature">
§ 5. The
Zwingli Literature.
The
general literature in § 4, especially Bullinger’s History and Egli’s
Collection. The public libraries and archives in Zürich contain the various
editions of Zwingli’s works, and the remains of his own library with marginal
notes, which were exhibited in connection with the Zwingli celebration in 1884.
See Zwingli-Ausstellung veranstaltet von der Stadtbibliothek in Zürich in
Verbindung mit dem Staatsarchiv und der Cantonalbibliothek. Zürich, 1884. A
pamphlet of 24 pages, with a descriptive catalogue of Zwingli’s books and
remains. The annotations furnish fragmentary material for a knowledge of his
theological growth. See Usteri’s Initia Zwingli, quoted below.
I.
Sources:
Huldreich
Zwingli: Opera omnia, ed. Melchior Schuler (d. 1859) and Joh. Schulthess (d.
1836). Tiguri, 1828–’42. 8 vols. Vols. I. and II., the German writings;
III.–VI., Scripta Latina; VII. and VIII., Epistolae. A supplement of 75 pages
was ed. by G. Schulthess (d. 1866) and Marthaler in 1861, and contains letters
of Zwingli to Rhenanus and others. A new critical edition is much needed and
contemplated for the "Corpus Reformatorum" by a commission of Swiss
scholars. Zwingli’s Correspond. in Herminjard, Vols. I. and II.
The
first edition of Zwingli’s Works appeared at Zürich, 1545, in 4 vols. Usteri
and Vögelin: M. H. Zwingli’s Schriften im Auszuge, Zürich, 1819 and ’20, 2
vols. (A systematic exhibition of Zwingli’s teaching in modern German.) Another
translation of select works into modern German by R. Christoffel, Zür., 1843, 9
small vols.
Comp.
also Paul Schweizer (Staatsarchivar in Zürich, son of Dr. Alexander Schweizer):
Zwingli-Autographen im Staats-Archiv zu Zürich. 1885. (23 pages; separately
publ. from the "Theol. Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz.")
Joannis
Oecolampadii et Huldrichi Zwinglii Epistolarum libri IV. Basil. 1536.
Herminjard
(A. L.): Correspondance des Réformateurs. Genève, 1866 sqq. Letters of Zwingli
in vol. I. Nos. 82 and 146 (and eight letters to him, Nos. 17, 19, 32, etc.),
and in vol. II. No. 191 (and nine letters to him).
Briefwechsel
des Beatus Rhenanus. Gesammelt u. herausgeg. von Dr. Adelbert Horawitz und Dr.
Karl Hartfelder. Leipzig, 1886. Contains also the correspondence between
Rhenanus and Zwingli. See Index, p. 700.
II.
Biographies of Zwingli, including Short Sketches:
Oswald
Myconius: De Vita et Obitu Zw., 1536. Republ. in Vitae quatuor Reformatortum,
with Preface by Neander, 1840. Nüscheler, Zürich, 1776. J. Caspar Hess: Vie
d’Ulrich Zwingle, Geneva, 1810; German ed. more than doubled by a literary
appendix of 372 pages, by Leonh. Usteri, Zürich, 1811, 2 vols. (Engl. transl.
from the French by Aiken, Lond., 1812). Rotermund, Bremen, 1818. J. M. Schuler:
H. Zw. Gesch. seiner Bildung zum Reformator seines Vaterlandes. Zür., 1818, 2d
ed. 1819. Horner, Zür., 1818. L. Usteri, in the Appendix to his ed. of
Zwingli’s German works, Zür., 1819. Several sketches of Zwingli appeared in
connection with the celebration of the Zürich Reformation in 1819, especially
in the festal oration of J. J. Hess: Emendationis sacrorum beneficium, Turici,
1819. J. J. Hottinger, Zür., 1842 (translation by Th. C. Porter: Life and Times
of U. Z., Harrisburg, Penn., 1857, 421 pages). Robbins, in "Bibliotheca
Sacra," Andover, Mass., 1851. L. Mayer, in his "History of the German
Ref. Church," vol. I., Philadelphia, 1851. Dan. Wise, Boston, 1850 and
1882. Roeder, St. Gallen and Bern, 1855. R. Christoffel, Elberfeld, 1857 (Engl.
transl. by John Cochran, Edinb., 1858)., Salomon Vögelin: Erinnerungen an Zw.
Zür., 1865. W. M. Blackburn, Philad., 1868. *J. C. Mörikofer, Leipzig, 1867 and
’69, 2 vols. The best biography from the sources. Dr. Volkmar: Vortrag, Zür.,
1870 (30 pages). G. Finsler: U. Zw., 3 Vorträge, Zür., 1873. G. A. Hoff: Vie
d’Ulr. Zw., Paris, 1882 (pp. 305). Jean Grob, Milwaukee, Wis., 1883, 190 pages
(Engl. transl., N. York, 1884). Ch. Alphonse Witz: Ulrich Zwingli, Vorträge,
Gotha, 1884 (pp. 144). Güder, in "Herzog’s Encycl.," XVIII. 701–706;
revised by R. Stähelin in second ed., XVII., 584–635. E. Combe: U. Z.; le
réformateur suisse. Lausanne, 1884 (pp. 40). H. Rörich: U. Z. Notice
biographique, Genève, 1884 (pp. 40). J. G. Hardy: U. Zwingli, or Zurich and its
Reformer. Edinb., 1888.
III.
On Zwingli’s Wife:
Salomon
Hess: Anna Reinhard, Gattin und Wittwe von U. Zwingli. Zürich, 2d ed. 1820.
(Some truth and much fiction.) Gerold Meyer von Knonau: Züge aus dem Leben der
Anna Reinhard. Erlangen, 1835. (Reliable.)
IV.
Commemorative Addresses of 1884 at the Fourth Centennial of Zwingli’s Birth:
Comp.
the list in the Züricher Taschenbuch auf das Jahr 1885, pp. 265–268; and
Flaigg, in Theol. Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz, 1885, pp. 219 sqq. Some of the
biographies mentioned sub II. are commemorative addresses.
*Alex.
Schweizer (d. 1888): Zwingli’s Bedeutung neben Luther. Festrede in der
Universitätsaula, Jan. 6, 1884, weiter ausgeführt. Zur., 1884 (pp. 89). Also a
series of articles of Schweizer in the "Protestant. Kirchenzeitung,"
Berlin, 1883, Nos. 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, in defence of Zwingli against
the charges of Janssen. Joh. Martin Usteri (pastor at Affoltern, then Prof. at
Erlangen, d. 1889 Ulrich Zwingli, ein Martin Luther ebenbürtiger [?] Zeuge des
evang. Glaubens. Festschrift mit Vorrede von H. v. der Goltz. Zürich, 1883 (144
pp.); Zwingli und Erasmus, Zürich, 1885 (39 pp.); Initia Zwinglii, in the
"Studien und Kritiken" for 1885 (pp. 607–672), 1886 (pp. 673–737),
and 1889 (pp. 140 and 141). Rud. Stähelin: Huldreich Zwingli und sein
Reformations-werk. Zum vierhundertjahrigen Geburtstag Z.’s dargestellt. Halle,
1883 (pages 81). Ernst Stähelin: H. Z.’s Predigt an unser Schweizervolk und
unsere Zeit. Basel, 1884. Ernst
Müller: Ulrich Zw. Ein Bernischer Beitrag zur Zwinglifeier. Bern, 1884. E.
Dietz: Vie d’U. Z. à l’occasion du 400° anniversaire de sa naissance. Paris and
Strasbourg, 1884 (pp. 48). Herm. Spörri: Durch Gottes Gnade allein. Zur Feier
des 400 jähr. Geb. tages Zw.’s. Hamburg, 1884. Joh. (T. Dreydorff: U. Zw.
Festpredigt. Leipzig, 1884. Sal. Vögelin: U. Z. Zür., 1884. G. Finsler (Zwingli’s twenty-second successor as
Antistes in Zürich): Ulrich Zw. Festschrift zur Feier seines 400 jähr.
Geburtstags. Zür., 3d ed. 1884 (transl. into Romansch by Darms, Coire, 1884).
Finsler and Meyer von Knonau: Festvorträge bei der Feier des 400 jähr.
Geburtstags U. Z. Zür., 1884 (pp. 24). Finsler delivered also the chief address
at the unveiling of Zwingli’s monument, Aug. 25, 1885. Oechsli: Zur
Zwingli-Feier. Zür., 1884. Die
Zwinglifeier in Bern, Jan. 6, 1884. Several addresses, 80 pages. Alfred Krauss
(professor in Strassburg): Zwingli. Strassb., 1884 (pp. 19). Aug. Bouvier: Foi,
Culture et Patriotisme. Deux discours à l’occasion Du quatrième centenaire de
Ulrich Zwingli. Genève and Paris, 1884. (In "Nouvelles Paroles de Fol et
de Liberté," and separately.) W. Gamper (Reform. minister at Dresden): U.
Z. Festpredigt zur 400 jähr. Gedenkfeier seines Geburtstages. Dresden, 1884. G.
K. von Toggenburg (pseudonymous R. Cath.): Die wahre Union und die
Zwinglifeier. St. Gallen and Leipzig, 1884 (pp. 190). Zwingliana, in the
"Theol. Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz." Zür., 1884, No. II. Kappeler, Grob und Egg: Zur Erinnerung.
Drei Reden gehalten in Kappel, Jan. 6, 1884. Affoltern a. A. 1884 (pp. 27).—In
America also several addresses were delivered and published in connection with
the Zwingli commemoration in 1883 and ’84. Besides, some books of Zwingli’s
were republished; e.g. the Hirt (Shepherd) by Riggenbach (Basel, 1884); the
Lehrbüchlein, Latin and German, by E. Egli (Zür., 1884).
V. On
the Theology of Zwingli:
Edw.
Zeller (professor of philosophy in Berlin): Das theologische System Zwingli’s.
Tübingen, 1853.
Ch.
Sigwart: Ulrich Zwingli. Der Charakter seiner Theologie mit besonderer
Rücksicht auf Picus von Mirandola dargestellt. Stuttg. und Hamb., 1855.
Herm.
Spörri (Ref. pastor in Hamburg): Zwingli-Studien. Leipzig, 1886 (pp. 131).
Discussions on Zwingli’s doctrine of the Church, the Bible, his relation to
humanism and Christian art.
August
Baur (D. D., a Würtemberg pastor in Weilimdorf near Stuttgart): Zwingli’s
Theologie, ihr Werden und ihr System. Halle, vol. I. 1885 (pp. 543); Vol. II.
P. I., 1888 (pp. 400), P. II., 1889. This work does for Zwingli what Jul.
Köstlin did for Luther and A. Herrlinger for Melanchthon.
Alex.
Schweizer, in his Festrede, treats more briefly, but very ably, of Zwingli’s
theological opinions (pp. 60–88).
VI.
Relation of Zwingli to Luther and Calvin:
Merle
D’Aubigné: Le Lutheranisme et la Reforme. Paris, 1844. Engl. translation:
Luther and Calvin. N. York, 1845.
Hundeshagen:
Charakteristik U. Zwingli’s und seines Reformationswerks unter Vergleichung mit
Luther und Calvin, in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1862. Compare also
his Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgeschichte und Kirchenpolitik, Bd. I.
Wiesbaden, 1864, pp. 136–297. (Important for Zwingli’s church polity.)
G.
Plitt (Lutheran): Gesch. der ev. Kirche bis zum Augsburger Reichstage.
Erlangen, 1867, pp. 417–488.
A. F.
C. Vilmar (Luth.): Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli. Frankf. -a. -M., 1869.
G.
Uhlhorn (Luth.): Luther and the Swiss, translated by G. F. Krotel,
Philadelphia, 1876.
Zwingli
Wirth (Reformed): Luther und Zwingli. St. Gallen, 1884 (pp. 37).
VII.
Special Points in Zwingli’s History and Theology:
Kradolfer:
Zwingli in Marburg. Berlin, 1870.
Emil
Egli: Die Schlacht von Cappel 1531. Mit 2 Plänen und einem Anhang ungedruckter
Quellen. Zür., 1873 (pp. 88). By the same: Das Religionsgespräch zu Marburg.
Zür., 1884. In the "Theol. Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz."
Martin
Lenz: Zwingli und Landgraf Philipp, in Brieger’s "Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte" for 1879 (Bd. III.).
H.
Bavinck: De ethick van U. Zwingli. Kampen, 1880.
Jul.
Werder: Zwingli als politischer Reformator, in the "Basler Beiträge zur
vaterländ. Geschichte,"
Basel, 1882, pp. 263–290.
Herm.
Escher: Die Glaubensparteien in der Schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft und ihre
Beziehungen zum Auslande von 1527–’31. Frauenfeld, 1882. (pp. 326.) Important
for Zwingli’s Swiss and foreign policy, and his views on the relation of Church
and State.
W.
Oechsli: Die Anfänge des Glaubenskonfliktes zwischen Zürich und den
Eidgenossen. Winterthur, 1883 (pp. 42).
Marthaler:
Zw.’s Lehre vom Glauben. Zür., 1884.
Aug.
Baur: Die erste Züricher Disputation. Halle, 1883 (pp. 32).
A.
Erichson: Zwingli’s Tod und dessen Beurtheilung durch Zeitgenossen, Strassb.,
1883 (pp. 43); U. Zw. und die elsässischen Reformatoren, Strassb., 1884 (pp.
40).
Flückiger:
Zwingli’s Beziehungen zu Bern, in the "Berner Beiträge." Bern, 1884.
J.
Mart. Usteri: Initia Zwinglii, and Zw. and Erasmus. See above, p. 18.
H.
Fenner: Zw. als Patriot und Politiker. Frauenfeld, 1884 (pp. 38).
G.
Heer: U. Zw. als Pfarrer von Glarus. Zürich, 1884 (pp. 42).
Gust.
Weber (musical director and organist of the Grossmünster in Zürich): H.
Zwingli. Seine Stellung zur Musik und seine Lieder. Zürich and Leipzig, 1884
(pp. 68).
A.
Zahn: Zwingli’s Verdienste um die biblische Abendmahlslehre. Stuttgart, 1884.
G.
Wunderli; Zürich in der Periode 1519–’31. Zürich, 1888.
On
Zwingli and the Anabaptists, see the literature in § 24.
VIII.
In part also the biographies of Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Leo Judae, Haller,
etc.
The
best books on Zwingli are Mörikofer’s biography, Usteri on the education of
Zwingli, Baur on his theology, Escher and Oechsli on his state and church
polity, and Schweizer and R. Stähelin on his general character and position in
history.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="6" title="Zwingli’s Birth and
Education">
§ 6.
Zwingli’s Birth and Education.
Franz:
Zwingli’s Geburtsort. Beitrag zur reformator. Jubelfeier 1819. (The author was
pastor of Wildhaus.) St. Gallen,
1818. Schuler: Huldreich Zwingli. Geschichte seiner Bildung zum Reformator des
Vaterlandes. Zürich, 1819. (404 pp. Very full, but somewhat too partial, and
needing correction.)
Huldreich
or Ulrich Zwingli16 was born January 1, 1484, seven weeks after Luther, in a lowly
shepherd’s cottage at Wildhaus in the county of Toggenburg, now belonging to
the Canton St. Gall.
He
was descended from the leading family in this retired village. His father, like
his grandfather, was the chief magistrate (Ammann); his mother, the sister of a
priest (John Meili, afterwards abbot of Fischingen, in Thurgau, 1510–1523); his
uncle, on the father’s side, dean of the chapter at Wesen on the wild lake of
Wallenstadt. He had seven brothers (he being the third son) and two sisters.
The
village of Wildhaus is the highest in the valley, surrounded by Alpine meadows
and the lofty mountain scenery of Northeastern Switzerland, in full view of the
seven Churfirsten and the snow-capped Sentis. The principal industry of the
inhabitants was raising flocks. They are described as a cheerful, fresh and
energetic people; and these traits we find in Zwingli.17 The Reformation was introduced there in
1523. Not very far distant are the places where Zwingli spent his public
life,—Glarus, Einsiedeln, and Zurich.
Zwingli
was educated in the Catholic religion by his God-fearing parents, and by his
uncle, the dean of Wesen, who favored the new humanistic learning. He grew up a
healthy, vigorous boy. He had at a very early age a tender sense of veracity as
"the mother of all virtues," and, like young Washington, he would
never tell a lie.
When
ten years of age he was sent from Wesen to a Latin school at Basle, and soon
excelled in the three chief branches taught there,—Latin grammar, music and
dialectics.
In
1498 he entered a college at Berne under the charge of Heinrich Wölflin
(Lupulus), who was reputed to be the best classical scholar and Latin poet in
Switzerland, and followed the reform movement in 1522.18
From
1500 to 1502 he studied in the University of Vienna, which had become a centre
of classical learning by the labors of distinguished humanists, Corvinus,
Celtes, and Cuspinian, under the patronage of the Emperor Maximilian I.19 He studied scholastic philosophy,
astronomy, and physics, but chiefly the ancient classics. He became an enthusiast
for the humanities. He also cultivated his talent for music. He played on
several instruments—the lute, harp, violin, flute, dulcimer, and
hunting-horn—with considerable skill. His papal opponents sneeringly called him
afterwards "the evangelical lute-player, piper, and whistler." He regarded this innocent amusement as
a means to refresh the mind and to soften the temper. In his poetical and
musical taste he resembles Luther, without reaching his eminence.
In
1502 he returned to Basle, taught Latin in the school of St. Martin, pursued
his classical studies, and acquired the degree of master of arts in 1506; hence
he was usually called Master Ulrich. He never became a doctor of divinity, like
Luther. In Basle he made the acquaintance of Leo Jud (Judae, also called Master
Leu), who was graduated with him and became his chief co-laborer in Zurich.
Both attended with much benefit the lectures of Thomas Wyttenbach, professor of
theology since 1505. Zwingli calls him his beloved and faithful teacher, who
opened his eyes to several abuses of the Church, especially the indulgences,
and taught him "not to rely on the keys of the Church, but to seek the
remission of sins alone in the death of Christ, and to open access to it by the
key of faith."20
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="7" title="Zwingli in Glarus">
§ 7.
Zwingli in Glarus.
G.
Heer: Ulrich Zwingli als Pfarrer in Glarus. Zürich, 1884.
Zwingli
was ordained to the priesthood by the bishop of Constance, and appointed pastor
of Glarus, the capital of the canton of the same name.21 He had to pay over one hundred guilders
to buy off a rival candidate (Göldli of Zurich) who was favored by the Pope,
and compensated by a papal pension. He preached his first sermon in
Rapperschwyl, and read his first mass at Wildhaus. He labored at Glarus ten
years, from 1506 to 1516. His time was occupied by preaching, teaching,
pastoral duties, and systematic study. He began to learn the Greek language
"without a teacher,"22 that he might study the New Testament in the
original.23 He acquired
considerable facility in Greek. The Hebrew language he studied at a later
period in Zurich, but with less zeal and success. He read with great enthusiasm
the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, poets, orators, and historians. He
speaks in terms of admiration of Homer, Pindar, Demosthenes, Cicero, Livy,
Caesar, Seneca, Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch. He committed Valerius Maximus to
memory for the historical examples. He wrote comments on Lucian. He perceived,
like Justin Martyr, the Alexandrian Fathers, and Erasmus, in the lofty ideas of
the heathen philosophers and poets, the working of the Holy Spirit, which he
thought extended beyond Palestine throughout the world. He also studied the
writings of Picus della Mirandola (d. 1494), which influenced his views on
providence and predestination.
During
his residence in Glarus he was brought into correspondence with Erasmus through
his friend Loreti of Glarus, called Glareanus, a learned humanist and
poet-laureate, who at that time resided in Basle, and belonged to the court of
admirers of the famous scholar. He paid him also a visit in the spring of 1515,
and found him a man in the prime of life, small and delicate, but amiable and
very polite. He addressed him as "the greatest philosopher and
theologian;" he praises his "boundless learning," and says that
he read his books every night before going to sleep. Erasmus returned the
compliments with more moderation, and speaks of Zwingli’s previous letter as
being "full of wit and learned acumen." In 1522 Zwingli invited him to settle in Zurich; but Erasmus
declined it, preferring to be a cosmopolite. We have only one letter of Zwingli
to Erasmus, but six of Erasmus to Zwingli.24 The influence of the great scholar on Zwingli was
emancipating and illuminating. Zwingli, although not exactly his pupil, was no
doubt confirmed by him in his high estimate of the heathen classics, his opposition
to ecclesiastical abuses, his devotion to the study of the Scriptures, and may
have derived from him his moderate view of hereditary sin and guilt, and the
first suggestion of the figurative interpretation of the words of institution
of the Lord’s Supper.25
But he dissented from the semi-Pelagianism of Erasmus, and was a firm
believer in predestination. During the progress of the Reformation they were
gradually alienated, although they did not get into a personal controversy. In
a letter of Sept. 3, 1522, Erasmus gently warns Zwingli to fight not only
bravely, but also prudently, and Christ would give him the victory.26 He did not regret his early death.
Glareanus also turned from him, and remained in the old Church. But Zwingli
never lost respect for Erasmus, and treated even Hutten with generous kindness
after Erasmus had cast him off.27
On
his visit to Basle he became acquainted with his biographer, Oswald Myconius,
the successor of Oecolampadius (not to be confounded with Frederick Myconius,
Luther’s friend).
Zwingli
took a lively interest in public affairs. Three times he accompanied, according
to Swiss custom, the recruits of his congregation as chaplain to Italy, in the
service of Popes Julius II. and Leo X., against France. He witnessed the
storming of Pavia (1512),28 probably also the victory at Novara (1513),
and the defeat at Marignano (1515). He was filled with admiration for the
bravery of his countrymen, but with indignation and grief at the demoralizing
effect of the foreign military service. He openly attacked this custom, and
made himself many enemies among the French party.
His
first book, "The Labyrinth," is a German poem against the corruptions
of the times, written about 1510.29
It represents the fight of Theseus with the Minotaur and the wild beasts
in the labyrinth of the world,—the one-eyed lion (Spain), the crowned eagle
(the emperor), the winged lion (Venice), the cock (France), the ox (Switzerland),
the bear (Savoy). The Minotaur, half man, half bull, represents, he says,
"the sins, the vices, the irreligion, the foreign service of the Swiss,
which devour the sons of the nation." His Second poetic work of that time, "The Fable of the
Ox,"30 is likewise a figurative attack upon the military service by
which Switzerland became a slave of foreign powers, especially of France.
He
superintended the education of two of his brothers and several of the noblest
young men of Glarus, as Aegidius Tschudi (the famous historian), Valentine
Tschudi, Heer, Nesen, Elmer, Brunner, who were devotedly, and gratefully
attached to him, and sought his advice and comfort, as their letters show.
Zwingli
became one of the most prominent and influential public men in Switzerland
before he left Glarus; but he was then a humanist and a patriot rather than a
theologian and a religious teacher. He was zealous for intellectual culture and
political reform, but shows no special interest in the spiritual welfare of the
Church. He did not pass through a severe struggle and violent crisis, like
Luther, but by diligent seeking and searching he attained to the knowledge of
the truth. His conversion was a gradual intellectual process, rather than a
sudden breach with the world; but, after he once had chosen the Scriptures for
his guide, he easily shook off the traditions of Rome, which never had a very
strong hold upon him. That process began at Glarus, and was completed at
Zurich.
His
moral character at Glarus and at Einsiedeln was, unfortunately, not free from
blemish. He lacked the grace of continence and fell with apparent ease into a
sin which was so common among priests, and so easily overlooked if only proper
caution was observed, according to the wretched maxim, "Si non caste,
saltem caute." The fact rests
on his own honest confession, and was known to his friends, but did not injure
his standing and influence; for he was in high repute as a priest, and even
enjoyed a papal pension. He resolved to reform in Glarus, but relapsed in
Einsiedeln under the influence of bad examples, to his deep humiliation. After
his marriage in Zurich, his life was pure and honorable and above the reproach
of his enemies.
NOTES
ON ZWINGLI’S MORAL CHARACTER.
Recent
discussions have given undue prominence to the blot which rests on Zwingli’s
earlier life, while yet a priest in the Roman Church. Janssen, the ultramontane
historian, has not one word of praise for Zwingli, and violates truth and
charity by charging him with habitual, promiscuous, and continuous
licentiousness, not reflecting that he thereby casts upon the Roman Church the
reproach of inexcusable laxity in discipline. Zwingli was no doubt guilty of
occasional transgressions, but probably less guilty than the majority of Swiss
priests who lived in open or secret concubinage at that time (see § 2, p. 6);
yea, he stood so high in public estimation at Einsiedeln and Zurich, that Pope
Hadrian VI., through his Swiss agent, offered him every honor except the papal
chair. But we will not excuse him, nor compare his case (as some have done)
with that of St. Augustin; for Augustin, when he lived in concubinage, was not
a priest and not even baptized, and he confessed his sin before the whole world
with deeper repentance than Zwingli, who rather made light of it. The facts are
these: —
1)
Bullinger remarks (Reformationsgesch. I. 8) that Zwingli was suspected in
Glarus of improper connection with several women ("weil er wegen einiger
Weiber verargwohnt war"). Bullinger was his friend and successor, and
would not slander him; but he judged mildly of a vice which was so general
among priests on account of celibacy. He himself was the son of a priest, as
was also Leo Judae.
2)
Zwingli, in a confidential letter to Canon Utinger at Zurich, dated Einsiedeln,
Dec. 3, 1518 (Opera, VII. 54–57), contradicts the rumor that he had seduced the
daughter of an influential citizen in Einsiedeln, but admits his unchastity.
This letter is a very strange apology, and, as he says himself, a blateratio
rather than a satisfactio. He protests, on the one hand (what Janssen omits to
state), that he never dishonored a married woman or a virgin or a nun ("<foreign
lang="la">ea
ratio nobis perpetuo fuit, nec alienum thorum conscendere, nec virginem
vitiare, nec Deo dicatam profanare</foreign>"); but, on the other
hand, he speaks lightly, we may say frivolously, of his intercourse with the
impure daughter of a barber who was already, dishonored, and apologizes for
similar offences committed in Glarus. This is the worst feature in the letter,
and casts a dark shade on his character at that time. He also refers (p. 57) to
the saying of Aeneas Sylvius (Pope Pius II.): "<foreign lang="la">Non est qui vigesimum annum
excessit, nec virginem tetigerit</foreign>." His own superiors set him a bad
example. Nevertheless he expresses regret, and applies to himself the word, <scripRef passage
= "2 Pet. 2:22">2 Pet. 2:22</scripRef>, and says, "<foreign
lang="la">Christus
per nos blasphematur</foreign>."
3)
Zwingli, with ten other priests, petitioned the bishop of Constance in Latin
(Einsiedeln, July 2, 1522), and the Swiss Diet in German (Zurich, July 13,
1522), to permit the free preaching of the gospel and the marriage of the
clergy. He enforces the petition by an incidental confession of the scandalous
life of the clergy, including himself (Werke, I. 39): "<foreign
lang="de">Euer
ehrsam Wysheit hat bisher gesehen das unehrbar schandlich Leben, welches wir
leider bisher geführt haben (wir wollen allein von uns selbst geredet haben)
mit Frauen, damit wir männiglich übel verärgert und verbösert haben</foreign>." But this document with eleven
signatures (Zwingli’s is the last) is a general confession of clerical
immorality in the past, and does not justify Janssen’s inference that Zwingli
continued such life at that time. Janssen (Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker,
p. 47), moreover, mistakes in this petition the Swiss word rüw (Ruhe, rest) for
rüwen (Reue, repentance), and makes the petitioners say that they felt "no
repentance," instead of "no rest." The document, on the contrary, shows a decided advance of
moral sentiment as compared with the lame apology in the letter to Utinger, and
deeply deplores the state of clerical immorality. It is rather creditable to
the petitioners than otherwise; certainly very honest.
4)
In a letter to his five brothers, Sept. 17, 1522, to whom he dedicated a sermon
on "the ever pure Virgin Mary, mother of God," Zwingli confesses that
he was subject to Hoffahrt, Fressen, Unlauterkeit, and other sins of the flesh
(Werke, I. 86). This is his latest confession; but if we read it in connection
with the whole letter, it makes the impression that he must have undergone a
favorable change about that time, and concluded a regular, though secret,
connection with his wife. As to temperance, Bullinger (I. 305) gives him the testimony
that he was "very temperate in eating and drinking."
5)
Zwingli was openly married in April, 1524, to Anna Reinhart, a respectable
widow, and mother of several children, after having lived with her about two
years before in secret marriage. But this fact, which Janssen construes into a
charge of "unchaste intercourse," was known to his intimate friends;
for Myconius, in a letter of July 22, 1522, sends greetings to Zwingli and his
wife ("<foreign lang="la">Vale cum uxore quam
felicissime et tuis omnibus</foreign>," Opera, VII. 210; and
again: "<foreign lang="la">Vale cum uxore in Christo</foreign>," p. 253). The same is
implied in a letter of Bucer, April 14, 1524 (p. 335; comp. the note of the
editors). "The cases," says Mörikofer (I. 211), "were very
frequent at that time, even with persons of high position, that secret
marriages were not ratified by a religious ceremony till weeks and months
afterwards." Before the
Council of Trent secret marriages were legitimate and valid. (Can. et Decr.
Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIV., Decr. de reform. matrimonii.)
Zwingli’s
character was unmercifully attacked by Janssen in his Geschichte des deutschen
Volkes, III. 83 sq.; An meine Kritiker (1883), 127–140; Ein zweites Wort an
meine Kritiker (1888), 45–48; defended as far as truth permits by Ebrard,
Janssen und die Reformation (1882); Usteri, Ulrich Zwingli (1883), 34–47; Alex.
Schweizer, articles in the "Protest. Kirchenzeitung," Berlin, 1883,
Nos. 23–27. Janssen answered Ebrard, but not Usteri and Schweizer. The main
facts were correctly stated before this controversy by Mörikofer, I. 49–53 and
128), and briefly also by Hagenbach, and Merle (bk. VIII. ch. 6).
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="8" title="Zwingli in Einsiedeln">
§ 8.
Zwingli in Einsiedeln.
In
1516 Zwingli left Glarus on account of the intrigues of the French political
party, which came into power after the victory of the French at Marignano
(1515), and accepted a call to Einsiedeln, but kept his charge and expected to
return; for the congregation was much attached to him, and promised to build
him a new parsonage. He supplied the charge by a vicar, and drew his salary for
two years, until he was called to Zurich, when he resigned.
Einsiedeln31 is
a village with a Benedictine convent in the Catholic canton Schwyz. It was
then, and is to this day, a very famous resort of pilgrims to the shrine of a
wonder-working black image of the Virgin Mary, which is supposed to have fallen
from heaven. The number of annual pilgrims from Switzerland, Germany, France,
and Italy exceeds a hundred thousand.
Here,
then, was a large field of usefulness for a preacher. The convent library
afforded special facilities for study.
Zwingli
made considerable progress in his knowledge of the Scriptures and the Fathers.
He read the annotations of Erasmus and the commentaries of Origen, Ambrose,
Jerome, and Chrysostom. He made extracts on the margin of his copies of their
works which are preserved in the libraries at Zurich. He seems to have esteemed
Origen, Jerome, and Chrysostom more, and Augustin less, than Luther did; but he
also refers frequently to Augustin in his writings.32
We
have an interesting proof of his devotion to the Greek Testament in a MS.
preserved in the city library at Zurich. In 1517 he copied with his own hand
very neatly the Epistles of Paul and the Hebrews in a little book for constant
and convenient use. The text is taken from the first edition of Erasmus, which
appeared in March, 1516, and corrects some typographical errors. It is very
legible and uniform, and betrays an experienced hand; the marginal notes, in
Latin, from Erasmus and patristic commentators, are very small and almost
illegible. On the last page he added the following note in Greek: —
"These
Epistles were written at Einsiedeln of the blessed Mother of God by Huldreich
Zwingli, a Swiss of Toggenburg, in the year one thousand five hundred and
seventeen of the Incarnation, in the month of June.33 Happily ended."34
At
the same time he began at Einsiedeln to attack from the pulpit certain abuses
and the sale of indulgences, when Samson crossed the Alps in August, 1518. He
says that he began to preach the gospel before Luther’s name was known in
Switzerland, adding, however, that at that time he depended too much on Jerome
and other Fathers instead of the Scriptures. He told Cardinal Schinner in 1517
that popery had poor foundation in the Scriptures. Myconius, Bullinger, and
Capito report, in substantial agreement, that Zwingli preached in Einsiedeln
against abuses, and taught the people to worship Christ, and not the Virgin
Mary. The inscription on the entrance gate of the convent, promising complete
remission of sins, was taken down at his instance.35 Beatus Rhenanus, in a letter of Dec. 6,
1518, applauds his attack upon Samson, the restorer of indulgences, and says
that Zwingli preached to the people the purest philosophy of Christ from the
fountain.36
On
the strength of these testimonies, many historians date the Swiss Reformation
from 1516, one year before that of Luther, which began Oct. 31, 1517. But
Zwingli’s preaching at Einsiedeln had no such consequences as Luther’s Theses.
He was not yet ripe for his task, nor placed on the proper field of action. He
was at that time simply an Erasmian or advanced liberal in the Roman Church,
laboring for higher education rather than religious renovation, and had no idea
of a separation. He enjoyed the full confidence of the abbot, the bishop of
Constance, Cardinal Schinner, and even the Pope. At Schinner’s recommendation,
he was offered an annual pension of fifty guilders from Rome as an
encouragement in the pursuit of his studies, and he actually received it for
about five years (from 1515 to 1520). Pucci, the papal nuncio at Zurich, in a
letter dated Aug. 24, 1518, appointed him papal chaplain (Accolitus
Capellanus), with all the privileges and honors of that position, assigning as
the reason "his splendid virtues and merits," and promising even
higher dignities.37 He also offered to
double his pension, and to give him in addition a canonry in Basle or Coire, on
condition that he should promote the papal cause. Zwingli very properly
declined the chaplaincy and the increase of salary, and declared frankly that
he would never sacrifice a syllable of the truth for love of money; but he
continued to receive the former pension of fifty guilders, which was urged upon
him without condition, for the purchase of books. In 1520 he declined it
altogether,—what he ought to have done long before.38 Francis Zink, the papal chaplain at
Einsiedeln, who paid the pension, was present at Zwingli’s interview with
Pucci, and says, in a letter to the magistracy at Zurich (1521), that Zwingli
could not well have lived without the pension, but felt very badly about it,
and thought of returning to Einsiedeln.39 Even as late as Jan. 23, 1523, Pope Adrian VI., unacquainted
with the true state of things, wrote to Zwingli a kind and respectful letter,
hoping to secure through him the influence of Zurich for the holy see.40
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="9" title="Zwingli and Luther">
§ 9.
Zwingli and Luther.
Comp.
Vol. VI. 620–651, and the portrait of Luther, p. 107.
The
training of Zwingli for his life-work differs considerably from that of Luther.
This difference affected their future work, and accounts in part for their
collision when they met as antagonists in writing, and on one occasion (at
Marburg) face to face, in a debate on the real presence. Comparisons are odious
when partisan or sectarian feeling is involved, but necessary and useful if
impartial.
Both
Reformers were of humble origin, but with this difference: Luther descended
from the peasantry, and had a hard and rough schooling, which left its impress
upon his style of polemics, and enhanced his power over the common people;
while Zwingli was the son of a magistrate, the nephew of a dean and an abbot,
and educated under the influence of the humanists, who favored urbanity of
manners. Both were brought up by pious parents and teachers in the Catholic
faith; but Luther was far more deeply rooted in it than Zwingli, and adhered to
some of its doctrines, especially on the sacraments, with great tenacity to the
end. He also retained a goodly portion of Romish exclusivism and intolerance.
He refused to acknowledge Zwingli as a brother, and abhorred his view of the
salvation of unbaptized children and pious heathen.
Zwingli
was trained in the school of Erasmus, and passed from the heathen classics
directly to the New Testament. He represents more than any other Reformer,
except Melanchthon, the spirit of the Renaissance in harmony with the
Reformation.41 He was a
forerunner of modern liberal theology. Luther struggled through the mystic
school of Tauler and Staupitz, and the severe moral discipline of monasticism,
till he found peace and comfort in the doctrine of justification by faith. Both
loved poetry and music next to theology, but Luther made better use of them for
public worship, and composed hymns and tunes which are sung to this day.
Both
were men of providence, and became, innocently, reformers of the Church by the
irresistible logic of events. Both drew their strength and authority from the
Word of God. Both labored independently for the same cause of evangelical truth,
the one on a smaller, the other on a much larger field. Luther owed nothing to
Zwingli, and Zwingli owed little or nothing to Luther. Both were good scholars,
great divines, popular preachers, heroic characters.
Zwingli
broke easily and rapidly with the papal system, but Luther only step by step,
and after a severe struggle of conscience. Zwingli was more radical than
Luther, but always within the limits of law and order, and without a taint of
fanaticism; Luther was more conservative, and yet the chief champion of freedom
in Christ. Zwingli leaned to rationalism, Luther to mysticism; yet both bowed
to the supreme authority of the Scriptures. Zwingli had better manners and more
self-control in controversy; Luther surpassed him in richness and congeniality
of nature. Zwingli was a republican, and aimed at a political and social, as
well as an ecclesiastical reformation; Luther was a monarchist, kept aloof from
politics and war, and concentrated his force upon the reformation of faith and
doctrine. Zwingli was equal to Luther in clearness and acuteness of intellect
and courage of conviction, superior in courtesy, moderation, and tolerance, but
inferior in originality, depth, and force. Zwingli’s work and fame were
provincial; Luther’s, worldwide. Luther is the creator of the modern
high-German book language, and gave to his people a vernacular Bible of
enduring vitality. Zwingli had to use the Latin, or to struggle with an uncouth
dialect; and the Swiss Version of the Bible by his faithful friend Leo Judae remained
confined to German Switzerland, but is more accurate, and kept pace in
subsequent revisions with the progress of exegesis. Zwingli can never inspire,
even among his own countrymen, the same enthusiasm as Luther among the Germans.
Luther is the chief hero of the Reformation, standing in the front of the
battle-field before the Church and the world, defying the papal bull and
imperial ban, and leading the people of God out of the Babylonian captivity
under the gospel banner of freedom.
Each
was the right man in the right place; neither could have done the work of the
other. Luther was foreordained for Germany, Zwingli for Switzerland. Zwingli
was cut down in the prime of life, fifteen years before Luther; but, even if he
had outlived him, he could not have reached the eminence which belongs to
Luther alone. The Lutheran Church in Germany and the Reformed Church of
Switzerland stand to this day the best vindication of their distinct, yet
equally evangelical Christian work and character.
NOTES.
I
add the comparative estimates of the two Reformers by two eminent and equally
unbiassed scholars, the one of German Lutheran, the other of Swiss Reformed,
descent.
Dr.
Baur (the founder of the Tübingen school of critical historians) says:42 When the two men met, as at Marburg,
Zwingli appears more free, more unprejudiced, more fresh, and also more mild
and conciliatory; while Luther shows himself harsh and intolerant, and repels
Zwingli with the proud word: ’We have another spirit than you.’43 A comparison of their controversial
writings can only result to the advantage of Zwingli. But there can be no doubt
that, judged by the merits and effects of their reformatory labors, Luther
stands much higher than Zwingli. It is true, even in this respect, both stand
quite independent of each other. Zwingli has by no means received his impulse
from Luther; but Luther alone stands on the proper field of battle where the
cause of the Reformation had to be fought out. He is the path-breaking
Reformer, and without his labors Zwingli could never have reached the historic
significance which properly belongs to him alongside of Luther."44
Dr.
Alexander Schweizer (of Zurich), in his commemorative oration of 1884, does
equal justice to both: "Luther and Zwingli founded, each according to his
individuality, the Reformation in the degenerated Church, both strengthening
and supplementing each other, but in many respects also going different ways. How
shall we estimate them, elevating the one, lowering the other, as is the case
with Goethe and Schiller? Let us
rather rejoice, according to Goethe’s advice, in the possession of two such
men. May those Lutherans who wish to check the growing union with the Reformed,
continue to represent Luther as the only Reformer, and, in ignorance of
Zwingli’s deep evangelical piety, depreciate him as a mere humanistic
illuminator: this shall not hinder us from doing homage at the outset to
Luther’s full greatness, contented with the independent position of our Zwingli
alongside of this first hero of the Reformation; yea, we deem it our noblest
task in this Zwingli festival at Zurich, which took cheerful part in the
preceding Luther festival, to acknowledge Luther as the chief hero of the
battle of the Reformation, and to put his world-historical and personal
greatness in the front rank; and this all the more since Zwingli himself, and
afterwards Calvin, have preceded us in this high estimate of Luther."45
Phillips
Brooks (Bishop of Massachusetts, the greatest preacher of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States, d. 1893):, Of all the Reformers, in this
respect [tolerance], Zwingli, who so often in the days of darkness is the man
of light, is the noblest and clearest. At the conference in Marburg he
contrasts most favorably with Luther in his willingness to be reconciled for
the good of the common cause, and he was one of the very few who in those days
believed that the good and earnest heathen could be saved." (Lectures on Tolerance, New York, 1887,
p. 34.)
Of
secular historians, J. Michelet (Histoire de France, X. 310 sq.) shows a just
appreciation of Zwingli, and his last noble confession addressed to the King of
France. He says of him: "<foreign lang="fr">Grand docteur, meilleur
patriote, nature forte et simple, il a montré le type même, le vrai génie de la
Suisse, dans sa fière indépendance de l’Italie, de l’Allemagne. … Son langage à
François 1er, digne de la Renaissance, établissait la question de l’Église dans
sa grandeur</foreign>." He
then quotes the passage of the final salvation of all true and noble men, which
no man with a heart can ever forget.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="III" title="The Reformation In Zurich.
1519–1526">
CHAPTER
III.
THE
REFORMATION IN ZURICH. 1519–1526.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="10" title="Zwingli called to Zurich">
§ 10.
Zwingli called to Zurich.
The
fame of Zwingli as a preacher and patriot secured him a call to the position of
chief pastor of the Great Minster (Grossmünster), the principal church in
Zurich, which was to become the Wittenberg of Switzerland. Many of the
Zurichers had heard him preach on their pilgrimages to Einsiedeln. His enemies
objected to his love of music and pleasure, and charged him with impurity,
adding slander to truth. His friend Myconius, the teacher of the school connected
with the church, exerted all his influence in his favor. He was elected by
seventeen votes out of twenty-four, Dec. 10, 1518.
He
arrived in Zurich on the 27th of the month, and received a hearty welcome. He
promised to fulfil his duties faithfully, and to begin with the continuous
exposition of the Gospel of Matthew, so as to bring the whole life of Christ
before the mind of the people. This was a departure from the custom of
following the prescribed Gospel and Epistle lessons, but justified by the example
of the ancient Fathers, as Chrysostom and Augustin, who preached on whole
books. The Reformed Churches reasserted the freedom of selecting texts; while
Luther retained the Catholic system of pericopes.
Zurich,
the most flourishing city in German Switzerland, beautifully situated in an
amphitheatre of fertile hills, on the lake of the same name and the banks of
the Limmat, dates its existence from the middle of the ninth century when King
Louis the German founded there the abbey of Frauemünster (853). The spot was
known in old Roman times as a custom station (Turicum). It became a free
imperial city of considerable commerce between Germany and Italy, and was often
visited by kings and emperors.
The
Great Minster was built in the twelfth century, and passed into the Reformed
communion, like the minsters of Basle, Berne, and Lausanne, which are the
finest churches in Switzerland.
In
the year 1315 Zurich joined the Swiss confederacy by an eternal covenant with
Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden. This led to a conflict with Austria,
which ended favorably for the confederacy.46
In
the beginning of the sixteenth century Zurich numbered seven thousand
inhabitants. It was the centre of the international relations of Switzerland,
and the residence of the embassadors (sic) of foreign powers which rivalled
with each other in securing the support of Swiss soldiers. This fact brought
wealth and luxury, and fostered party spirit and the lust of gain and power
among the citizens. Bullinger says, "Before the preaching of the gospel
[the Reformation], Zurich was in Switzerland what Corinth was in Greece."47
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="11" title="Zwingli’s Public Labors and
Private Studies">
§ 11.
Zwingli’s Public Labors and Private Studies.
Zwingli
began his duties in Zurich on his thirty-sixth birthday (Jan. 1, 1519) by a
sermon on the genealogy of Christ, and announced that on the next day (which
was a Sunday) he would begin a series of expository discourses on the first
Gospel. From Matthew he proceeded to the Acts, the Pauline and Catholic
Epistles; so that in four years he completed the homiletical exposition of the
whole New Testament except the Apocalypse (which he did not regard as an
apostolic book). In the services during the week he preached on the Psalms. He
prepared himself carefully from the original text. He probably used for his
first course Chrysostom’s famous Homilies on Matthew. With the Greek he was
already familiar since his sojourn in Glarus. The Hebrew he learned from a
pupil of Reuchlin who had come to Zurich. His copy of Reuchlin’s Rudimenta
Hebraica is marked with many notes from his hand.48
His
sermons, as far as published, are characterized, as Hagenbach says, "by
spiritual sobriety and manly solidity." They are plain, practical, and impressive, and more ethical
than doctrinal.
He
made it his chief object "to preach Christ from the fountain," and
"to insert the pure Christ into the hearts."49 He would preach nothing but what he
could prove from the Scriptures, as the only rule of Christian faith and
practice. This is a reformatory idea; for the aim of the Reformation was to
reopen the fountain of the New Testament to the whole people, and to renew the
life of the Church by the power of the primitive gospel. By his method of
preaching on entire books he could give his congregation a more complete idea
of the life of Christ and the way of salvation than by confining himself to
detached sections. He did not at first attack the Roman Church, but only the
sins of the human heart; he refuted errors by the statement of truth.50 His sermons gained him great popularity
in Zurich. The people said, "Such preaching was never heard
before." Two prominent
citizens, who were disgusted with the insipid legendary discourses of priests
and monks, declared after hearing his first sermon, "This is a genuine
preacher of the truth, a Moses who will deliver the people from
bondage." They became his
constant hearers and devoted friends.
Zwingli
was also a devoted pastor, cheerful, kind, hospitable and benevolent. He took
great interest in young men, and helped them to an education. He was, as
Bullinger says, a fine-looking man, of more than middle size, with a florid
complexion, and an agreeable, melodious voice, which, though not strong, went
to the heart. We have no portrait from his lifetime; he had no Lucas Kranach
near him, like Luther; all his pictures are copies of the large oil painting of
Hans Asper in the city library at Zurich, which was made after his death, and
is rather hard and wooden.51
Zwingli
continued his studies in Zurich and enlarged his library, with the help of his
friends Glareanus and Beatus Rhenanus, who sent him books from Basle, the Swiss
headquarters of literature. He did not neglect his favorite classics, and read,
as Bullinger says, Aristotle, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Horace, Sallust, and
Seneca. But his chief attention was now given to the Scriptures and the
patristic commentaries.
In
the meantime Luther’s reform was shaking the whole Church, and strengthened and
deepened his evangelical convictions in a general way, although he had formed
them independently. Some of Luther’s books were reprinted in Basle in 1519, and
sent to Zwingli by Rhenanus. Lutheran ideas were in the air, and found
attentive ears in Switzerland. He could not escape their influence. The
eucharistic controversy produced an alienation; but he never lost his great
respect for Luther and his extraordinary services to the Church.52
</div3> <div3 type = "Section" n="12"
title="Zwingli and the Sale of Indulgences">
§ 12.
Zwingli and the Sale of Indulgences.
Bernhardin
Samson, a Franciscan monk of Milan, crossed the St. Gotthard to Switzerland in
August, 1518, as apostolic general commissioner for the sale of indulgences. He
is the Tetzel of Switzerland, and equalled him in the audacious profanation of
holy things by turning the forgiveness of sins and the release from purgatorial
punishment into merchandise. He gave the preference to the rich who were
willing to buy letters of indulgence on parchment for a crown. To the poor he
sold the same article on common paper for a few coppers. In Berne he absolved
the souls of all the departed Bernese of the pains of purgatory. In Bremgarten
he excommunicated Dean Bullinger (the father of Henry) for opposing his
traffic. But in Zurich he was stopped in his career.
Zwingli
had long before been convinced of the error of indulgences by Wyttenbach when
he studied in Basle. He had warned the people against Samson at Einsiedeln. He
exerted his influence against him in Zurich; and the magistracy, and even the
bishop of Constance (who preferred to sell indulgences himself) supported the
opposition. Samson was obliged to return to Italy with his "heavy,
three-horse wagon of gold."
Rome had learned a lesson of wisdom from Luther’s Theses, and behaved in
the case of Samson with more prudence and deference to the sentiment of the
enlightened class of Catholics. Leo X., in a brief of April, 1519, expressed
his willingness to recall and to punish him if he had transgressed his
authority.53
The
opposition to the sale of indulgences is the opening chapter in the history of
the German Reformation, but a mere episode in the Swiss Reformation. That
battle had been fought out victoriously by Luther. Zwingli came in no conflict
with Rome on this question, and was even approved for his conduct by Dr. Faber,
the general vicar of the diocese of Constance, who was then his friend, but
became afterwards his enemy.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="13" title="Zwingli during the Pestilence">
§ 13.
Zwingli during the Pestilence.
In the
summer of 1519 Zwingli went to the famous bath of Pfäffers at Ragatz to gather
strength for his prospectively onerous duties at Zurich, in view of the danger
of the approach of the plague from Basle. As soon as he learned, in August,
that the plague had broken out in Zurich, he hastened back without stopping to
visit his relations on the way. For several weeks he devoted himself, like a
faithful shepherd, day after day, to the care of the sick, until he fell sick
himself at the end of September. His life was in great danger, as he had worn
himself out. The papal legate sent his own physician to his aid. The pestilence
destroyed twenty-five hundred lives; that is, more than one-third of the
population of Zurich. Zwingli recovered, but felt the effects on his brain and
memory, and a lassitude in all limbs till the end of the year. His friends at
home and abroad, including Faber, Pirkheimer, and Dürer at Nürnberg,
congratulated him on his recovery.
The
experience during this season of public distress and private affliction must
have exerted a good influence upon his spiritual life.54 We may gather this from the three
poems, which he composed and set to music soon afterwards, on his sickness and
recovery. They consist each of twenty-six rhymed iambic verses, and betray
great skill in versification. They breathe a spirit of pious resignation to the
will of God, and give us an insight into his religious life at that time.55 He wrote another poem in 1529, and
versified the Sixty-ninth Psalm.56
Zwingli’s
Poems during the Pestilence, with a Free Condensed Translation.
I. Im
Anfang der Krankheit.
Hilf,
Herr Gott, hilf
In
dieser Noth;
Ich
mein’, der Tod
Syg57 an
der Thür.
Stand,
Christe, für;
Denn du
ihn überwunden hast!
Zu dir
ich gilf:58
Ist es
din Will,
Zuch us
den Pfyl,59
Din Haf63bin
ich,
Mach
ganz ald64
brich.
Dann
nimmst du hin
Den
Geiste min
Der
mich verwundt,
Nit
lass ein Stund
Mich
haben weder Rüw60 noch Rast!
Willt
du dann glych61
Todt
haben mich
Inmitts
der Tagen min,
So soll
es willig syn.
Thu,
wie Du willt,
Mich
nüt befilt.62
Von
dieser Erd,
Thust
du’s, dass er nit böser werd,
Ald
andern nit
Befleck
ihr Leben fromm und Sitt.
II.
Mitten in der Krankheit.
Tröst,
Herr Gott, tröst!
Die
Krankheit wachst,65
Weh und
Angst fasst
Min
Seel und Lyb.66
Darum
dich schybr67
Gen
mir, einiger Trost, mit Gnad!
Die
gwüss erlöst
Bin
jeden, der Sin herzlich B’ger
Und
Hoffnung setzt
In
dich, verschätzt.
Darzu
diss Zyt all Nutz und Schad.
Nun ist
es um;
Min
Zung ist stumm,
Mag
sprechen nit ein Wort;
Min
Sinn’ sind all verdorrt,
Darum
ist Zyt,68Dass
Du min Stryt69
Führist
fürhin;
So ich
nit bin
So
stark, dass ich
Mög
tapferlich
Thun
Widerstand
Des
Tüfels Facht70 und frefner Hand.
Doch
wird min Gmüth
Stät
bliben dir, wie er auch wüth.
III.
Zur Genesung.
G’sund,
Herr Gott, g’sund!
Ich
mein’, ich kehr
Schon
wiedrum her.
Ja,
wenn dich dunkt,
Der
Sünden Funk’
Werd
nit mehr bherrschen mich uf Erd,
So muss
min Mund
Din Lob
und Lehr
Ussprechen
mehr
Denn
vormals je,
Wie es
auch geh’
Einfältiglich
ohn’ alle G’fährd.
Wiewohl
ich muss
Des
Todes buss
Erliden
zwar einmal
Villicht
mit gröss’rer Qual,
Denn
jezund wär’
Geschehen,
Herr!
So ich
sunst bin
Nach71
gfahren hin,
So will
ich doch
Den
Trutz und Poch72
In
dieser Welt
Tragen
fröhlich um Widergelt,73
Mit Hülfe
din,
Ohn’
den nüt74
mag vollkommen syn.
I. In
the Beginning of his Sickness.
Help
me, O Lord,
My
strength and rock;
Lo, at
the door
I hear
death’s knock.
Uplift
thine arm,
Once
pierced for me,
That
conquered death,
And set
me free.
Yet, if
thy voice,
In
life’s mid-day
Recalls
my soul,
Then I
obey.
In
faith and hope,
Earth I
resign,
Secure
of heaven,
For I
am Thine.
II. In
the Midst of his Sickness.
My
pains increase;
Haste
to console;
For
fear and woe
Seize
body and soul.
Lo! Satan strains
To
snatch his prey;
I feel
his grasp;
Must I
give way?
Death
is at hand,
My
senses fail,
My
tongue is dumb;
Now,
Christ, prevail.
He
harms me not,
I fear
no loss,
For
here lie
Beneath
Thy cross.
III. On
Recovering from his Sickness.
My God!
my Lord!
Healed
by Thy hand,
Upon
the earth
Once
more I stand.
Though
now delayed,
My hour
will come,
Involved,
perchance,
In
deeper gloom.
Let sin
no more
Rule
over me;
My
mouth shall sing
Alone
of Thee.
But,
let it come;
With
joy I’ll rise,
And
bear my yoke
Straight
to the skies.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="14" title="The Open Breach. Controversy about Fasts.
1522">
§ 14.
The Open Breach. Controversy about Fasts. 1522.
Zwingli
was permitted to labor in Zurich for two years without serious opposition,
although he had not a few enemies, both religious and political. The magistracy
of Zurich took at first a neutral position, and ordered the priests of the city
and country to preach the Scriptures, and to be silent about human inventions
(1520). This is the first instance of an episcopal interference of the civil
authority in matters of religion. It afterwards became a settled custom in
Protestant Switzerland with the full consent of Zwingli. He was appointed canon
of the Grossmünster, April 29, 1521, with an additional salary of seventy
guilders, after he had given up the papal pension. With this moderate income he
was contented for the rest of his life.
During
Lent, 1522, Zwingli preached a sermon in which he showed that the prohibition
of meat in Lent had no foundation in Scripture. Several of his friends,
including his publisher, Froschauer, made practical use of their liberty.
This
brought on an open rupture. The bishop of Constance sent a strong deputation to
Zurich, and urged the observance of the customary fasts. The magistracy
prohibited the violation, and threatened to punish the offenders (April 9,
1522).75 Zwingli defended himself in a tract on
the free use of meats (April 16).76
It is his first printed book. He essentially takes the position of Paul,
that, in things indifferent, Christians have liberty to use or to abstain, and
that the Church authorities have no right to forbid this liberty. He appeals to
such passages as <scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
8:8; 10:25">1
Cor. 8:8; 10:25</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Col.
2:16">Col.
2:16</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Tim.
4:1">1
Tim. 4:1</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Rom.
14:1–3; 15:1, 2">Rom. 14:1–3; 15:1, 2</scripRef>.
The
bishop of Constance issued a mandate to the civil authorities (May 24),
exhorting them to protect the ordinances of the Holy Church.77 He admonished the canons, without
naming Zwingli, to prevent the spread of heretical doctrines. He also sought
and obtained the aid of the Swiss Diet, then sitting at Lucerne.
Zwingli
was in a dangerous position. He was repeatedly threatened with assassination.
But he kept his courage, and felt sure of ultimate victory. He replied in the Archeteles
("the Beginning and the End"), hoping that this first answer would be
the last.78 He protested that
he had done no wrong, but endeavored to lead men to God and to his Son Jesus
Christ in plain language, such as the common people could understand. He warned
the hierarchy of the approaching collapse of the Romish ceremonies, and advised
them to follow the example of Julius Caesar, who folded his garments around him
that he might fall with dignity. The significance of this book consists in the
strong statement of the authority of the Scriptures against the authority of
the Church. Erasmus was much displeased with it.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="15" title="Petition for the Abolition of Clerical Celibacy.
Zwingli’s Marriage">
§ 15.
Petition for the Abolition of Clerical Celibacy. Zwingli’s Marriage.
In
July of the same year (1522), Zwingli, with ten other priests, sent a Latin
petition to the bishop, and a German petition to the Swiss Diet, to permit the
free preaching of the gospel and the marriage of the clergy as the only remedy
against the evils of enforced celibacy. He quotes the Scriptures for the divine
institution and right of marriage, and begs the confederates to permit what God
himself has sanctioned. He sent both petitions to Myconius in Lucerne for
signatures. Some priests approved, but were afraid to sign; others said the
petition was useless, and could only be granted by the pope or a council.79
The
petition was not granted. Several priests openly disobeyed. One married even a
nun of the convent of Oetenbach (1523); Reubli of Wyticon married, April 28,
1523; Leo Judae, Sept. 19, 1523.
Zwingli
himself entered into the marriage relation in 1522,80 but from prudential
reasons he did not make it public till April 5, 1524 (more than a year before
Luther’s marriage, which took place June 13, 1525). Such cases of secret marriage
were not unfrequent; but it would have been better for his fame if, as a
minister and reformer, he had exercised self-restraint till public opinion was
ripe for the change.
His
wife, Anna Reinhart,81 was the widow of Hans Meyer von Knonau,82
the mother of three children, and lived near Zwingli. She was two years older
than he. His enemies spread the report that he married for beauty and wealth;
but she possessed only four hundred guilders besides her wardrobe and jewelry.
She ceased to wear her jewelry after marrying the Reformer.
We
have only one letter of Zwingli to his wife, written from Berne, Jan. 11, 1528,
in which he addresses her as his dearest house-wife.83 From occasional expressions of respect
and affection for his wife, and from salutations of friends to her, we must
infer that his family life was happy; but it lacked the poetic charm of
Luther’s home. She was a useful helpmate in his work.84 She contributed her share towards the
creation of pastoral family life, with its innumerable happy homes.85
In
Zwingli’s beautiful copy of the Greek Bible (from the press of Aldus in Venice,
1518), which is still preserved and called "Zwingli’s Bible," he
entered with his own hand a domestic chronicle, which records the names,
birthdays, and sponsors of his four children, as follows: "Regula Zwingli,
born July 13, 1524;86 Wilhelm Zwingli, born January 29, 1526;87
Huldreich Zwingli, born Jan. 6, 1528;88 Anna Zwingli, born May 4,
1530."89 His last male descendant was his grandson, Ulrich, professor of
theology, born 1556, died 1601. The last female descendant was his
great-granddaughter, Anna Zwingli, who presented his MS. copy of the Greek
Epistles of Paul to the city library of Zurich in 1634.
Zwingli
lived in great simplicity, and left no property. His little study (the
"Zwingli-Stübli"), in the official dwelling of the deacon of the
Great Minster, is carefully preserved in its original condition.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="16" title="Zwingli and Lambert of Avignon">
§ 16.
Zwingli and Lambert of Avignon.
In
July, 1522, there appeared in Zurich a Franciscan monk, Lambert of Avignon, in
his monastic dress, riding on a donkey. He had left his convent in the south of
France, and was in search of evangelical religion. Haller of Berne recommended
him to Zwingli. Lambert preached some Latin sermons against the abuses of the
Roman Church, but still advocated the worship of saints and of the Virgin Mary.
Zwingli interrupted him with the remark, "You err," and convinced him
of his error in a disputation.
The
Franciscan thanked God and proceeded to Wittenberg, where Luther received him
kindly. At the Synod of Homberg (1526) he advocated a scheme of Presbyterian
church government, and at the conference at Marburg he professed to be
converted to Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper.90
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="17" title="The Sixty-seven Conclusions">
§ 17.
The Sixty-seven Conclusions.
On
the Sixty-seven Conclusions and the Three Disputations see Zwingli: Werke, I.
A. 105 sqq.; Bullinger: I. 97 sqq.; Egli: 111, 114, 173 sqq.; Mörikofer: I. 138
sqq., 191 sqq. The text of the Sixty-seven Articles in Swiss-German, Werke, I.
A. 153–157; in modern German and Latin, in Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, III.
197–207.
Zwingli’s
views, in connection with the Lutheran Reformation in Germany, created a great
commotion, not only in the city and canton of Zurich, but in all Switzerland.
At his suggestion, the government—that is, the burgomaster and the small and
large Council (called The Two Hundred)—ordered a public disputation which
should settle the controversy on the sole basis of the Scriptures.
For
this purpose Zwingli published Sixty-seven Articles or Conclusions
(Schlussreden). They are the first public statement of the Reformed faith, but
they never attained symbolical authority, and were superseded by maturer
confessions. They resemble the Ninety-five Theses of Luther against
indulgences, which six years before had opened the drama of the German
Reformation; but they mark a great advance in Protestant sentiment, and cover a
larger number of topics. They are full of Christ as the only Saviour and
Mediator, and clearly teach the supremacy of the Word of God as the only rule
of faith; they reject and attack the primacy of the Pope, the Mass, the
invocation of saints, the meritoriousness of human works, the fasts,
pilgrimages, celibacy, purgatory, etc., as unscriptural commandments of men.
The
following are the most important of these theses: —
1.
All who say that the gospel is nothing without the approbation of the Church,
err and cast reproach upon God.
2.
The sum of the gospel is that our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, has
made known to us the will of his heavenly Father, and redeemed us by his
innocence from eternal death, and reconciled us to God.
3.
Therefore Christ is the only way to salvation to all who were, who are, who
shall be.
4.
Whosoever seeks or shows another door, errs—yea, is a murderer of
souls
and a robber.
7.
Christ is the head of all believers who are his body; but without him
the
body is dead.
8.
All who live in this Head are his members and children of God. And this is the
Church, the communion of saints, the bride of Christ, the Ecclesia catholica.
15.
Who believes the gospel shall be saved; who believes not, shall be damned. For
in the gospel the whole truth is clearly contained.
16.
From the gospel we learn that the doctrines and traditions of men are of no use
to salvation.
17.
Christ is the one eternal high-priest. Those who pretend to be highpriests
resist, yea, set aside, the honor and dignity of Christ.
18.
Christ, who offered himself once on the cross, is the sufficient and perpetual
sacrifice for the sins of all believers. Therefore the mass is no sacrifice,
but a commemoration of the one sacrifice of the cross, and a seal of the
redemption through Christ.
19.
Christ is the only Mediator between God and us.
22.
Christ is our righteousness. From this it follows that our works are good so
far as they are Christ’s, but not good so far as they are our own.
24.
Christians are not bound to any works which Christ has not commanded. They may
eat at all times all kinds of food.
26.
Nothing is more displeasing to God than hypocrisy.
27.
All Christians are brethren.
28.
Whatsoever God permits and has not forbidden, is right. Therefore marriage is
becoming to all men.
34.
The spiritual [hierarchical] power, so called, has no foundation in the Holy
Scriptures and the teaching of Christ.91
35.
But the secular power [of the state] is confirmed by the teaching and example
of Christ.92
37,
38. All Christians owe obedience to the magistracy, provided it does not
command what is against God.93
49.
I know of no greater scandal than the prohibition of lawful marriage to
priests, while they are permitted for money to have concubines. Shame!94
50.
God alone forgives sins, through Jesus Christ our Lord alone.
57.
The Holy Scripture knows nothing of a purgatory after this life.
58,
59. God alone knows the condition of the departed, and the less he has made
known to us, the less we should pretend to know.
66.
All spiritual superiors should repent without delay, and set up the cross of
Christ alone, or they will perish. The axe is laid at the root.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="18" title="The Public Disputations. 1523">
§ 18.
The Public Disputations. 1523.
The
first disputation was held in the city hall on Thursday, Jan. 29, 1523, in the
German language, before about six hundred persons, including all the clergy and
members of the small and large Councils of Zurich. St. Gall was represented by
Vadian; Berne, by Sebastian Meyer; Schaffhausen, by Sebastian Hofmeister.
Oecolampadius from Basle expected no good from disputations, and declined to
come. He agreed with Melanchthon’s opinion about the Leipzig disputation of Eck
with Carlstadt and Luther. Nevertheless, he attended, three years afterwards,
the Disputation at Baden. The bishop of Constance sent his general vicar, Dr.
Faber, hitherto a friend of Zwingli, and a man of respect, able learning and an
able debater, with three others as counsellors and judges. Faber declined to
enter into a detailed discussion of theological questions which, he thought,
belong to the tribunal of Councils or of renowned universities, as Paris,
Cologne and Louvain. Zwingli answered his objections, and convinced the
audience.95
On
the same day the magistracy passed judgment in favor of Zwingli, and directed
him "to continue to preach the holy gospel as heretofore, and to proclaim
the true, divine Scriptures until he was better informed." All other preachers and pastors in the
city and country were warned "not to preach anything which they could not
establish by the holy Gospel and other divine Scriptures," and to avoid
personal controversy and bitter names.96
Zwingli
prepared a lengthy and able defence of his Articles against the charges of
Faber, July, 1523.97
The
disputation soon produced its natural effects. Ministers took regular wives;
the nunnery of Oetenbach was emptied; baptism was administered in the
vernacular, and without exorcism; the mass and worship of images were neglected
and despised. A band of citizens, under the lead of a shoemaker, Klaus
Hottinger, overthrew the great wooden crucifix in Stadelhofen, near the city,
and committed other lawless acts.98
Zwingli
was radical in his opposition to idolatrous and superstitious ceremonies, but
disapproved disorderly methods, and wished the magistracy to authorize the
necessary changes.
Consequently,
a second disputation was arranged for October 26, 1523, to settle the question
of images and of the mass. All the ministers of the city and canton were
ordered to attend; the twelve other cantons, the bishops of Constance, Coire
and Basle, and the University of Basle were urgently requested to send learned
delegates. The bishop of Constance replied (Oct. 16) that he must obey the Pope
and the Emperor, and advised the magistracy to wait for a general council. The
bishop of Basle excused himself on account of age and sickness, but likewise
referred to a council and warned against separation. The bishop of Coire made
no answer. Most of the cantons declined to send delegates, except Schaffhausen
and St. Gall. Unterwalden honestly replied that they had no learned men among
them, but pious priests who faithfully adhered to the old faith of Christendom,
which they preferred to, all innovations.
The
second disputation was held in the city hall, and lasted three days. There were
present about nine hundred persons, including three hundred and fifty clergymen
and ten doctors. Dr. Vadian of St. Gall, Dr. Hofmeister of Schaffhausen, and
Dr. Schappeler of St. Gall presided. Zwingli and Leo Judae defended the
Protestant cause, and had the advantage of superior Scripture learning and
argument. The Roman party betrayed much ignorance; but Martin Steinli of
Schaffhausen ably advocated the mass. Konrad Schmid of Küssnacht took a
moderate position, and produced great effect upon the audience by his
eloquence. His judgment was, first to take the idolatry out of the heart before
abolishing the outward images, and to leave the staff to the weak until they
are able to walk without it and to rely solely on Christ.99
The
Council was not prepared to order the immediate abolition of the mass and the
images. It punished Hottinger and other "idol-stormers" by
banishment, and appointed a commission of ministers and laymen, including
Zwingli, Schmidt and Judae, who should enlighten the people on the subject by
preaching and writing. . Zwingli prepared his "Short and Christian
Introduction," which was sent by the Council of Two Hundred to all the
ministers of the canton, the bishops of Constance, Basle, and Coire, the
University of Basle, and to the twelve other cantons (Nov. 17, 1523).100 It may be compared to the instruction
of Melanchthon for the visitation of the churches of Saxony (1528).
A
third disputation, of a more private character, was held Jan. 20, 1524. The
advocates of the mass were refuted and ordered not to resist any longer the
decisions of the magistracy, though they might adhere to their faith.
During
the last disputation, Zwingli preached a sermon on the corrupt state of the
clergy, which he published by request in March, 1524, under the title "The
Shepherd."101
He represents Christ as the good Shepherd in contrast with the selfish
hirelings, according to the parable in the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John.
Among the false shepherds he counts the bishops who do not preach at all; those
priests who teach their own dreams instead of the Word of God; those who preach
the Word but for the glorification of popery; those who deny their preaching by
their conduct; those who preach for filthy lucre; and, finally, all who mislead
men away from the Creator to the creature. Zwingli treats the papists as
refined idolaters, and repeatedly denounces idolatry as the root of the errors
and abuses of the Church.
During
the summer of 1524 the answers of the bishops and the Diet appeared, both in
opposition to any innovations. The bishop of Constance, in a letter to Zurich,
said that he had consulted several universities; that the mass and the images
were sufficiently warranted by the Scriptures, and had always been in use. The
canton appointed a commission of clergymen and laymen to answer the episcopal
document.102 The Swiss Diet,
by a deputation, March 21, 1524, expressed regret that Zurich sympathized with
the new, unchristian Lutheran religion, and prayed the canton to remain
faithful to old treaties and customs, in which case the confederates would
cheerfully aid in rooting out real abuses, such as the shameful trade in
benefices, the selling of indulgences, and the scandalous lives of the clergy.
Thus
forsaken by the highest ecclesiastical and civil authorities, the canton of
Zurich acted on its own responsibility, and carried out the contemplated
reforms.
The
three disputations mark an advance beyond the usual academic disputations in
the Latin language. They were held before laymen as well as clergymen, and in the
vernacular. They brought religious questions before the tribunal of the people
according to the genius of republican institutions. They had, therefore, more
practical effect than the disputation at Leipzig. The German Reformation was
decided by the will of the princes; the Swiss Reformation, by the will of the
people: but in both cases there was a sympathy between the rulers and the
majority of the population.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="19" title="The Abolition of the Roman Worship. 1524">
§ 19.
The Abolition of the Roman Worship. 1524.
Bullinger,
I. 173 sqq. Füssli, I. 142 sqq. Egli, 234 sqq.
By
these preparatory measures, public opinion was prepared for the practical
application of the new ideas. The old order of worship had to be abolished
before the new order could be introduced. The destruction was radical, but
orderly. It was effected by the co-operation of the preachers and the civil
magistracy, with the consent of the people. It began at Pentecost, and was
completed June 20, 1524.
In
the presence of a deputation from the authorities of Church and State,
accompanied by architects, masons and carpenters, the churches of the city were
purged of pictures, relics, crucifixes, altars, candles, and all ornaments, the
frescoes effaced, and the walls whitewashed, so that nothing remained but the
bare building to be filled by a worshiping congregation. The pictures were
broken and burnt, some given to those who had a claim, a few preserved as
antiquities. The bones of the saints were buried. Even the organs were removed,
and the Latin singing of the choir abolished, but fortunately afterwards
replaced by congregational singing of psalms and hymns in the vernacular (in
Basle as early as 1526, in St. Gall 1527, in Zurich in 1598). "Within thirteen
days," says Bullinger, "all the churches of the city were cleared;
costly works of painting and sculpture, especially a beautiful table in the
Waterchurch, were destroyed. The superstitious lamented; but the true believers
rejoiced in it as a great and joyous worship of God."103
In
the following year the magistracy melted, sold, or gave away the rich treasures
of the Great Minster and the Frauenminster,—chalices, crucifixes, and crosses
of gold and silver, precious relics, clerical robes, tapestry, and other
ornaments.104 In 1533 not a
copper’s worth was left in the sacristy of the Great Minster.105 Zwingli justified this vandalism by the
practice of a conquering army to spike the guns and to destroy the forts and
provisions of the enemy, lest he might be tempted to return.
The
same work of destruction took place in the village churches in a less orderly
way. Nothing was left but the bare buildings, empty, cold and forbidding.
The
Swiss Reformers proceeded on a strict construction of the second commandment as
understood by Jews and Moslems. They regarded all kinds of worship paid to
images and relics as a species of idolatry. They opposed chiefly the paganism
of popery; while Luther attacked its legalistic Judaism, and allowed the
pictures to remain as works of art and helps to devotion. For the classical
literature of Greece and Rome, however, Zwingli had more respect than Luther.
It should be remarked also that he was not opposed to images as such any more
than to poetry and music, but only to their idolatrous use in churches. In his
reply to Valentin Compar of Uri (1525), he says, "The controversy is not
about images which do not offend the faith and the honor of God, but about
idols to which divine honors are paid. Where there is no danger of idolatry, the
images may remain; but idols should not be tolerated. All the papists tell us
that images are the books for the unlearned. But where has God commanded us to
learn from such books? "He
thought that the absence of images in churches would tend to increase the
hunger for the Word of God.106
The
Swiss iconoclasm passed into the Reformed Churches of France, Holland,
Scotland, and North America. In recent times a reaction has taken place, not in
favor of image worship, which is dead and gone, but in favor of Christian art;
and more respect is paid to the decency and beauty of the house of God and the
comfort of worshipers.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="20" title="The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper">
§ 20.
The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
Zwingli,
Werke, II. B. 233. Bullinger, I. 263. Füssli, IV. 64.
The
mass was gone. The preaching of the gospel and the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper by the whole congregation, in connection with a kind of Agape, took its
place.
The
first celebration of the communion after the Reformed usage was held in the
Holy Week of April, 1525, in the Great Minster. There were three
services,—first for the youth on Maundy-Thursday, then for the middle-aged on
Good Friday, and last for the old people on Easter. The celebration was plain,
sober, solemn. The communicants were seated around long tables, which took the
place of the altar, the men on the right, the women on the left. They listened
reverently to the prayers, the words of institution, the Scripture lessons,
taken from the <scripRef passage = "1 Cor. 11">1 Cor. 11</scripRef> and the mysterious
discourse in the sixth chapter of John on the spiritual eating and drinking of
Christ’s flesh and blood, and to an earnest exhortation of the minister. They
then received in a kneeling posture the sacred emblems in wooden plates and
wooden cups. The whole service was a commemoration of Christ’s atoning death
and a spiritual communion with him, according to the theory of Zwingli.
In
the liturgical part he retained more from the Catholic service than we might
expect; namely, the Introit, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, and several
responses; but all were translated from Latin into the Swiss dialect, and with curious
modifications. Thus the Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, and the Ps. 103 were
said alternately by the men and the women, instead of the minister and the
deacon, as in the Catholic service, or the minister and the congregation, as in
the Lutheran and Episcopal services.107 In most of the Reformed churches (except the Anglican) the
responses passed out of use, and the kneeling posture in receiving the
communion gave way to the standing or sitting posture.
The
communion service was to be held four times in the year,—at Easter, Whitsunday,
autumn, and Christmas. It was preceded by preparatory devotions, and made a
season of special solemnity. The mass was prohibited at first only in the city,
afterwards also in the country.
Zwingli
furnished also in 1525 an abridged baptismal service in the vernacular
language, omitting the formula of exorcism and all those elements for which he
found no Scripture warrant.108
The
Zwinglian and Calvinistic worship depends for its effect too much upon the
intellectual and spiritual power of the minister, who can make it either very
solemn and impressive, or very cold and barren. The Anglican Church has the
advantage of an admirable liturgy.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="21" title="Other Changes. A Theological School. The
Carolinum. A System of Theology">
§ 21.
Other Changes. A Theological School. The Carolinum. A System of Theology.
Other
changes completed the Reformation. The Corpus Christi festival was abolished,
and the Christian year reduced to the observance of Christmas, Good Friday,
Easter, and Pentecost. Processions and pilgrimages ceased. The property of
convents was confiscated and devoted to schools and hospitals. The matrimonial
legislation was reconstructed, and the care of the poor organized. In 1528 a
synod assembled for the first time, to which each congregation sent its
minister and two lay delegates.
A
theological college, called Carolinum, was established from the funds of the
Great Minster, and opened June 19, 1525. It consisted of the collegium
humanitatis, for the study of the ancient languages, philosophy and
mathematics, and the Carolinum proper, for the study of the Holy Scriptures,
which were explained in daily lectures, and popularized by the pastors for the
benefit of the congregation. This was called prophesying (<scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 14:1">1 Cor. 14:1</scripRef>).109 Zwingli wrote a tract on Christian
education (1526).110
He organized this school of the prophets, and explained in it several
books of the Old Testament, according to the Septuagint. He recommended eminent
scholars to professorships. Among the earliest teachers were Ceporin, Pellican,
Myconius, Collin, Megander, and Bibliander. To Zwingli Zurich owes its
theological and literary reputation. The Carolinum secured an educated
ministry, and occupied an influential position in the development of
theological science and literature till the nineteenth century, when it was
superseded by the organization of a full university.111
Zwingli
wrote in the course of three months and a half an important work on the true,
evangelical, as opposed to the false, popish faith, and dedicated it to Francis
I., king of France, in the vain hope of gaining him to the cause of the
Reformation.112 It completes his
theological opposition to the papacy. It is the first systematic exposition of
the Reformed faith, as Melanchthon’s Loci was the first system of Lutheran
theology; but it was afterwards eclipsed by Calvin’s Institutes, which were
addressed to the same king with no better effect. Francis probably never read
either; but the dedication remains as a connecting link between the Swiss and
the French Reformation. The latter is a child of the former.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="22" title="The Translation of the Bible. Leo Judae">
§ 22.
The Translation of the Bible. Leo Judae.
Metzger
(Antistes in Schaffhausen): Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung der
schweizerischen reformirten Kirche. Basel, 1876. Pestalozzi: Leo Judae.
Elberfeld, 1860.
A most
important part of the Reformation was a vernacular translation of the Bible.
Luther’s New Testament (1522) was reprinted at Basel with a glossary. In Zurich
it was adapted to the Swiss dialect in 1524, and revised and improved in
subsequent editions. The whole Bible was published in German by Froschauer at
Zurich in 1530, four years before Luther completed his version (1534).113 The translation of the Prophets and the
Apocrypha was prepared by Conrad Pellican, Leo Judae, Theodor Bibliander, and
other Zurich divines. The beautiful edition of 1531 contained also a new
version of the Poetical books, with an introduction (probably by Zwingli),
summaries, and parallel passages.
The
Swiss translation cannot compare with Luther’s in force, beauty, and
popularity; but it is more literal, and in subsequent revisions it has kept
pace with the progress of exegesis. It brought the Word of God nearer to the
heart and mind of the Swiss people, and is in use to this day alongside of the
Lutheran version.114
The
chief merit in this important service belongs to Leo Jud or Judae.115 He was born in 1482, the son of a
priest in Alsass, studied with Zwingli at Basle, and became his successor as
priest at Einsiedeln, 1519, and his colleague and faithful assistant as
minister of St. Peter’s in Zurich since 1523. He married in the first year of
his pastorate at Zurich. His relation to Zwingli has been compared with the
relation of Melanchthon to Luther. He aided Zwingli in the second disputation,
in the controversy with the Anabaptists, and with Luther, edited and translated
several of his writings, and taught Hebrew in the Carolinum. Zwingli called him
his "dear brother and faithful co-worker in the gospel of Jesus
Christ." He was called to
succeed the Reformer after the catastrophe of Cappel; but he declined on
account of his unfitness for administrative work, and recommended Bullinger,
who was twenty years younger. He continued to preach and to teach till his
death, and declined several calls to Wurtemberg and Basle. He advocated strict
discipline and a separation of religion from politics. He had a melodious
voice, and was a singer, musician, and poet, but excelled chiefly as a
translator into German and Latin.116 He wrote a Latin and two German catechisms, and translated
Thomas à Kempis’ Imitatio Christi, Augustin’s De Spiritu et Litera, the first
Helvetic Confession, and other useful books into German, besides portions of
the Bible. He prepared also a much esteemed Latin version of the Old Testament,
which is considered his best work. He often consulted in it his colleagues and
Michael Adam, a converted Jew. He did not live to see the completion, and left
this to Bibliander and Pellican. It appeared in a handsome folio edition, 1543,
with a preface by Pellican, and was several times reprinted.117 He lived on a miserable salary with a
large family, and yet helped to support the poor and entertained strangers,
aided by his industrious and pious wife, known in Zurich as "Mutter
Leuin." Four days before his
death, June 19, 1542, he summoned his colleagues to his chamber, spoke of his
career with great humility and gratitude to God, and recommended to them the
care of the church and the completion of his Latin Bible. His death was
lamented as a great loss by Bullinger and Calvin and the people of Zurich.118
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="23" title="Church and State">
§ 23.
Church and State.
The
Reformation of Zurich was substantially completed in 1525. It was brought about
by the co-operation of the secular and spiritual powers. Zwingli aimed at a
reformation of the whole religious, political, and social life of the people,
on the basis and by the power of the Scriptures.119
The
patriot, the good citizen, and the Christian were to him one and the same. He
occupied the theocratic standpoint of the Old Testament. The preacher is a
prophet: his duty is to instruct, to exhort, to comfort, to rebuke sin in high
and low places, and to build up the kingdom of God; his weapon is the Word of
God. The duty of the magistracy is to obey the gospel, to protect religion, to
punish wickedness. Calvin took the same position in Geneva, and carried it out
much more fully than Zwingli.
The
bishop of Constance, to whose diocese Zurich belonged, opposed the Reformation;
and so did the other bishops of Switzerland. Hence the civil magistracy assumed
the episcopal rights and jurisdiction, under the spiritual guidance of the
Reformers. It first was impartial, and commanded the preachers of the canton to
teach the Word of God, and to be silent about the traditions of men (1520).
Then it prohibited the violation of the Church fasts (1522), and punished the
image-breakers, in the interest of law and order (1523). But soon afterwards it
openly espoused the cause of reform in the disputation of 1523, and authorized
the abolition of the old worship and the introduction of the new (1524 and
1525). It confiscated the property of the churches and convents, and took under
its control the regulation of marriage, the care of the poor, and the education
of the clergy. The Church was reduced legally to a state of dependence, though
she was really the moving and inspiring power of the State, and was supported
by public sentiment. In a republic the majority of the people rule, and the
minority must submit. The only dissenters in Zurich were a small number of
Romanists and Anabaptists, who were treated with the same disregard of the
rights of conscience as the Protestants in Roman Catholic countries, only with
a lesser degree of severity. The Reformers refused to others the right of
protest which they claimed and exercised for themselves, and the civil
magistracy visited the poor Anabaptists with capital punishment.
The
example of Zurich was followed by the other cantons in which the Reformation
triumphed. Each has its own ecclesiastical establishment, which claims
spiritual jurisdiction over all the citizens of its territory. There is no
national Reformed Church of Switzerland, with a centre of unity.
This
state of things is the same as that in Protestant Germany, but differs from it
as a republic differs from a monarchy. In both countries the bishops, under the
command of the Pope, condemned Protestantism, and lost the control over their
flock. The Reformers, who were mere presbyters, looked to the civil rulers for
the maintenance of law and order. In Germany, after the Diet of Speier in 1526,
the princes assumed the episcopal supervision, and regulated the Church in
their own territories for good or evil. The people were passive, and could not
even elect their own pastors. In Switzerland, we have instead a sort of
democratic episcopate or republican Caesaropapacy, where the people hold the
balance of power, and make and unmake their government.
In
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Church and State, professing the same
religion, had common interests, and worked in essential harmony; but in modern
times the mixed character, the religious indifferentism, the hostility and the
despotism of the State, have loosened the connection, and provoked the
organization of free churches in several cantons (Geneva, Vaud, Neuchatel), on
the basis of self-support and self-government. The State must first and last be
just, and either support all the religions of its citizens alike, or none. It
owes the protection of law to all, within the limits of order and peace. But
the Church has the right of self-government, and ought to be free of the
control of politicians.120
Among
the ministers of the Reformation period, Zwingli, and, after his death,
Bullinger, exercised a sort of episcopate in fact, though not in form; and
their successors in the Great Minster stood at the head of the clergy of the
canton. A similar position is occupied by the Antistes of Basle and the
Antistes of Schaffhausen. They correspond to the Superintendents of the
Lutheran churches in Germany.
Zwingli
was the first among the Reformers who organized a regular synodical Church
government. He provided for a synod composed of all ministers of the city and
canton, two lay delegates of every parish, four members of the small and four
members of the great council. This mixed body represented alike Church and
State, the clergy and the laity. It was to meet twice a year, in spring and fall,
in the city hall of Zurich, with power to superintend the doctrine and morals
of the clergy, and to legislate on the internal affairs of the Church. The
first meeting was held at Easter, 1528. Zwingli presided, and at his side was
Leo Judae. The second meeting took place May 19, 1528. The proceedings show
that the synod exercised strict discipline over the morals of the clergy and
people, and censured intemperance, extravagance in dress, neglect of Church
ordinances, etc.121
But
German Switzerland never went to such rigors of discipline as Geneva under the
influence of Calvin.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="24" title="Zwingli’s Conflict with
Radicalism">
§ 24.
Zwingli’s Conflict with Radicalism.
Comp.
Literature in vol. VI., § 102, p. 606 sq.
I.
Sources:
In
the Staatsarchiv of Zurich there are preserved about two hundred and fifty
documents under the title, Wiedertäuferacten,—*Egli: Actensammlung zur Gesch.
der Zürcher Reformation, Zürich, 1879 (see the Alph. Index, p. 920, sub
Wiedertäufer). The official reports are from their opponents. The books of the
Anabaptists are scarce. A large collection of them is in the Baptist
Theological Seminary at Rochester, N. Y. The principal ones are the tracts of
Dr. Hübmaier (see vol. VI. 606); a few letters of Grebel, Hut, Reubli, etc.,
and other documents mentioned and used by Cornelius (Gesch. des Münsterschen
Aufruhrs); the Moravian, Austrian, and other Anabaptist chronicles (see Beck,
below); and the Anabaptist hymns reprinted in Wackernagel’s Deutsche
Kirchenlied, vols. III. and V. (see below).
Zwingli:
Wer Ursach gebe zu Aufruhr, wer die wahren Aufrührer seien, etc., Dec. 7, 1524.
A defence of Christian unity and peace against sedition. (Werke, II. A.
376–425.) Vom Touff, vom Wiedertouff, und vom Kindertouff, May 27, 1525 (in
Werke, II. A. 280–303. Republished in modern German by Christoffel, Zürich,
1843. The book treats in three parts of baptism, rebaptism, and infant
baptism). Answer to Balthasar Hübmaier, Nov. 5, 1525 (Werke, II. A. 337 sqq.).
Elenchus contra Catabaptistas, 1527 (Opera, III. 357 sqq.). His answer to
Schwenkfeld’s 64 Theses concerning baptism (in Op. III. 563–583; Comp. A. Baur,
II. 245–267). Oecolampadius: Ein gesprech etlicher predicanten zu Basel
gehalten mit etlichen Bekennern des Wiedertouffs, Basel, 1525. Bullinger
(Heinrich): Der Wiedertäufferen ursprung, fürgang, Sekten, etc. Zürich, 1560.
(A Latin translation by J. Simler.) See also his Reformationsgeschichte, vol. I.
II.
Later Discussions:
Ott
(J. H.): Annales Anabaptistici. Basel, 1672.
Erbkam
(H. W.): Geschichte der protestantischen Secten im Zeitalter der Reformation.
Hamburg und Gotha, 1848. pp. 519–583.
Heberle:
Die Anfänge des Anabaptismus in der Schweiz, in the "Jahrbücher fur
deutsche Theologie," 1858.
Cornelius
(C. A., a liberal Roman Catholic): Geschichte des Münsterschen Aufruhrs.
Leipzig, 1855. Zweites Buch: Die Wiedertaufe. 1860. He treats of the Swiss
Anabaptists (p. 15 sqq.), and adds historical documents from many archives (p.
240 sqq.). A very important work.
Mörikofer:
U. Zwingli. Zürich, 1867. I. 279–313; II. 69–76. Very unfavorable to the
Anabaptists.
R.
von Lilienkron: Zur Liederdichtung der Wiedertäufer. München, 1877.
*Egli
(Emil): Die Züricher Wiedertäufer zur Reformationszeit. Nach den Quellen des
Staatsarchivs. Zürich, 1878 (104 pp.). By the same: Die St. Galler Täufer.
Zürich, 1887. Important for the documents and the external history.
*Burrage
(Henry S., American Baptist): The Anabaptists in Switzerland. Philadelphia,
1882, 231 pp. An account from the Baptist point of view. Comp. his Baptist Hymn
Writers, Portland, 1888, pp. l-25.
Usteri
(J. M.): Darstellung der Tauflehre Zwingli’s, in the "Studien und
Kritiken" for 1882, pp. 205–284.
*Beck
(JOSEPH): Die Geschichtsbücher der Wiedertäufer in Oestreich-Ungarn ... von
1526 bis 1785. Wien, 1883. Publ. by the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
Strasser
(G.): Der schweizerische Anabaptismus zur Zeit der Reformation, in the
"Berner Beiträge," 1884.
Nitsche
(Richard, Roman Catholic): Geschichte der Wiedertäufer in der Schweiz zur
Reformationszeit. Einsiedeln, New York, Cincinnati and St. Louis (Benziger),
1885 (107 pp.). He gives a list of literature on pp. vi.-viii.
Keller
(Ludwig): Die Reformation und die ältern Reformparteien. Leipzig, 1885, pp.
364–435. He is favorable to the Anabaptists, and connects them with the
Waldensian Brethren and other mediaeval sects by novel, but arbitrary
combinations and conjectures. He mistakes coincidences for historical
connections.
Baur
(Aug.): Zwingli’s Theologie, vol. II. (1888), 1–267. An elaborate discussion
and defence of Zwingli’s conduct towards the radicals, with full extracts from
his writings, but unjust to the Baptists.
The
monographs of Schreiber on Hübmaier (1839 and 1840, unfinished), Keim on Ludwig
Hätzer (1856), and Keller on Hans Denck (Ein Apostel der Wiedertäufer, 1882),
touch also on the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland. Kurtz, in the tenth ed.
of his Kirchengeschichte (1887), II. 150–164, gives a good general survey of
the Anabaptist movement in Germany, Switzerland, and Holland, including the
Mennonites.
Having
considered Zwingli’s controversy with Romanism, we must now review his conflict
with Radicalism, which ran parallel with the former, and exhibits the
conservative and churchly side of his reformation. Radicalism was identical
with the Anabaptist movement, but the baptismal question was secondary. It
involved an entire reconstruction of the Church and of the social order. It
meant revolution. The Romanists pointed triumphantly to revolution as the
legitimate and inevitable result of the Reformation; but history has proved the
difference. Liberty is possible without license, and differs as widely from it
as from despotism.
The
Swiss Reformation, like the German, was disturbed and checked by the radical
excesses. It was placed between the two fires of Romanism and
Ultraprotestantism. It was attacked in the front and rear, from without and
within, by the Romanists on the ground of tradition, by the Radicals on the
ground of the Bible. In some respects the danger from the latter was greater.
Liberty has more to fear from the abuses of its friends than from the
opposition of its foes. The Reformation would have failed if it had identified
itself with the revolution. Zwingli applied to the Radicals the words of St.
John to the antichristian teachers: "They went out from us, but they were
not of us" (<scripRef passage = "1 John
2:19">1
John 2:19</scripRef>). He considered the
controversy with the Papists as mere child’s play when compared to that with
the Ultraprotestants.122
The
Reformers aimed to reform the old Church by the Bible; the Radicals attempted
to build a new Church from the Bible. The former maintained the historic
continuity; the latter went directly to the apostolic age, and ignored the
intervening centuries as an apostasy. The Reformers founded a popular
state-church, including all citizens with their families; the Anabaptists
organized on the voluntary principle select congregations of baptized
believers, separated from the world and from the State. Nothing is more
characteristic of radicalism and sectarianism than an utter want of historical
sense and respect for the past. In its extreme form it rejects even the Bible
as an external authority, and relies on inward inspiration. This was the case
with the Zwickau Prophets who threatened to break up Luther’s work at
Wittenberg.
The
Radicals made use of the right of protest against the Reformation, which the
Reformers so effectually exercised against popery. They raised a protest
against Protestantism. They charged the Reformers with inconsistency and
semipopery; yea, with the worst kind of popery. They denounced the state-church
as worldly and corrupt, and its ministers as mercenaries. They were charged in
turn with pharisaical pride, with revolutionary and socialistic tendencies.
They were cruelly persecuted by imprisonment, exile, torture, fire and sword,
and almost totally suppressed in Protestant as well as in Roman Catholic
countries. The age was not ripe for unlimited religious liberty and
congregational self-government. The Anabaptists perished bravely as martyrs of
conscience.123
Zwingli
took essentially, but quite independently, the same position towards the
Radicals as Luther did in his controversy with Carlstadt, Münzer, and Hübmaier.124 Luther, on the contrary, radically
misunderstood Zwingli by confounding him with Carlstadt and the Radicals.
Zwingli was in his way just as conservative and churchly as the Saxon Reformer.
He defended and preserved the state-church, or the people’s church, against a
small fraction of sectaries and separatists who threatened its dissolution. But
his position was more difficult. He was much less influenced by tradition, and
further removed from Romanism. He himself aimed from the start at a thorough,
practical purification of church life, and so far agreed with the Radicals.
Moreover, he doubted for a while the expediency (not the right) of infant
baptism, and deemed it better to put off the sacrament to years of discretion.125 He rejected the Roman doctrine of the
necessity of baptism for salvation and the damnation of unbaptized infants
dying in infancy. He understood the passage, Mark 16:16, "He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved," as applying only to adults who
have heard the gospel and can believe, but not to children. On maturer
reflection he modified his views. He learned from experience that it was
impossible to realize an ideal church of believers, and stopped with what was
attainable. As to infant baptism, he became convinced of its expediency in
Christian families. He defended it with the analogy of circumcision in the Old
Testament (<scripRef passage = "Col. 2:11">Col. 2:11</scripRef>), with the
comprehensiveness of the New Covenant, which embraces whole families and
nations, and with the command of Christ, "Suffer little children to come
unto Me," from which he inferred that he who refuses children to be baptized
prevents them from coming to Christ. He also appealed to <scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 7:14">1 Cor. 7:14</scripRef>, which implies the
church-membership of the children of Christian parents, and to the examples of
family baptisms in Acts 16:33, 18:8, and 1 Cor. 1:16.
The
Radical movement began in Zurich in 1523, and lasted till 1532. The leaders
were Conrad Grebel, from one of the first families of Zurich, a layman,
educated in the universities of Vienna and Paris, whom Zwingli calls the
corypheus of the Anabaptists; Felix Manz, the illegitimate son of a canon of
the Great Minster, a good Hebrew scholar; Georg Blaurock, a monk of Coire,
called on account of his eloquence "the mighty Jörg," or "the
second Paul;" and Ludwig Hätzer of Thurgau, chaplain at Wädenschwyl, who,
with Hans Denck, prepared the first Protestant translation of the Hebrew
Prophets,126 and acted as secretary of the second Zurich disputation, and
edited its proceedings. With them were associated a number of ex-priests and
ex-monks, as William Reubli, minister at Wyticon, Johann Brödli (Paniculus) at
Zollicon, and Simon Stumpf at Höng. They took an active part in the early
stages of the Reformation, prematurely broke the fasts, and stood in the front
rank of the image-stormers. They went ahead of public opinion and the orderly
method of Zwingli. They opposed the tithe, usury, military service, and the
oath. They denied the right of the civil magistracy to interfere in matters of
religion. They met as "brethren" for prayer and Scripture-reading in
the house of "Mother Manz," and in the neighborhood of Zurich, especially
at Zollicon.
The
German Radicals, Carlstadt and Münzer, were for a short time in Switzerland and
on the Rhine, but did not re-baptize and had no influence upon the Swiss
Radicals, who opposed rebellion to the civil authority. Carlstadt gradually sobered
down; Münzer stirred up the Peasants’ War, seized the sword and perished by the
sword. Dr. Hübmaier of Bavaria, the most learned among the Anabaptists, and
their chief advocate, took part in the October disputation at Zurich in 1523,
but afterwards wrote books against Zwingli (on the baptism of believers, 1525,
and a dialogue with Zwingli, 1526), was expelled from Switzerland, and
organized flourishing congregations in Moravia.
The
Radical opinions spread with great rapidity, or rose simultaneously, in Berne,
Basle, St. Gall, Appenzell, all along the Upper Rhine, in South Germany, and
Austria. The Anabaptists were driven from place to place, and travelled as
fugitive evangelists. They preached repentance and faith, baptized converts,
organized congregations, and exercised rigid discipline. They called themselves
simply "brethren" or "Christians." They were earnest and zealous,
self-denying and heroic, but restless and impatient. They accepted the New
Testament as their only rule of faith and practice, and so far agreed with the
Reformers, but utterly broke with the Catholic tradition, and rejected Luther’s
theory of forensic, solifidian justification, and the real presence. They
emphasized the necessity of good works, and deemed it possible to keep the law
and to reach perfection. They were orthodox in most articles of the common
Christian faith, except Hätzer and Denck, who doubted the doctrine of the
Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
The
first and chief aim of the Radicals was not (as is usually stated) the
opposition to infant baptism, still less to sprinkling or pouring, but the
establishment of a pure church of converts in opposition to the mixed church of
the world. The rejection of infant baptism followed as a necessary consequence.
They were not satisfied with separation from popery; they wanted a separation
from all the ungodly. They appealed to the example of the disciples in
Jerusalem, who left the synagogue and the world, gathered in an upper room,
sold their goods, and held all things in common. They hoped at first to carry
Zwingli with them, but in vain; and then they charged him with treason to the
truth, and hated him worse than the pope.
Zwingli
could not follow the Anabaptists without bringing the Reformation into
discredit with the lovers of order, and rousing the opposition of the
government and the great mass of the people. He opposed them, as Augustin
opposed the schismatical Donatists. He urged moderation and patience. The
Apostles, he said, separated only from the open enemies of the gospel, and from
the works of darkness, but bore with the weak brethren. Separation would not
cure the evils of the Church. There are many honest people who, though weak and
sick, belong to the sheepfold of Christ, and would be offended at a separation.
He appealed to the word of Christ, "He that is not against me, is for
me," and to the parable of the tares and the wheat. If all the tares were
to be rooted up now, there would be nothing left for the angels to do on the
day of final separation.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="25" title="The Baptismal Controversy">
§ 25.
The Baptismal Controversy.
The
opposition to the mixed state-church or popular church, which embraced all the
baptized, legitimately led to the rejection of infant baptism. A new church
required a new baptism.
This
became now the burning question. The Radicals could find no trace of infant
baptism in the Bible, and denounced it as an invention of the pope127
and the devil. Baptism, they reasoned, presupposes instruction, faith, and
conversion, which is impossible in the case of infants.128 Voluntary baptism of adult and
responsible converts is, therefore, the only valid baptism. They denied that
baptism is necessary for salvation, and maintained that infants are or may be
saved by the blood of Christ without water-baptism.129 But baptism is necessary for church
membership as a sign and seal of conversion.
From
this conception of baptism followed as a further consequence the rebaptism of
those converts who wished to unite with the new church. Hence the name
Anabaptists or Rebaptizers (Wiedertäufer), which originated with the
Pedobaptists, but which they themselves rejected, because they knew no other
kind of baptism except that of converts.
The
demand of rebaptism virtually unbaptized and unchristianized the entire
Christian world, and completed the rupture with the historic Church. It cut the
last cord of union of the present with the past.
The
first case was the rebaptism of Blaurock by Grebel in February, 1525, soon
after the disputation with Zwingli. At a private religious meeting, Blaurock
asked Grebel to give him the true Christian baptism on confession of his faith,
fell on his knees and was baptized. Then he baptized all others who were
present, and partook with them of the Lord’s Supper, or, as they called it, the
breaking of bread.130
Reubli introduced rebaptism in Waldshut at Easter, 1525, convinced
Hübmaier of its necessity, and rebaptized him with about sixty persons.
Hübmaier himself rebaptized about three hundred.131
Baptism
was not bound to any particular form or time or place or person; any one could
administer the ordinance upon penitent believers who desired it. It was first
done mostly in houses, by sprinkling or pouring, occasionally by partial or
total immersion in rivers.132
The
mode of baptism was no point of dispute between Anabaptists and Pedobaptists in
the sixteenth century. The Roman Church provides for immersion and pouring as
equally valid. Luther preferred immersion, and prescribed it in his baptismal
service.133 In England
immersion was the normal mode down to the middle of the seventeenth century.134 It was adopted by the English and
American Baptists as the only mode; while the early Anabaptists, on the other
hand, baptized by sprinkling and pouring as well. We learn this from the
reports in the suits against them at Zurich. Blaurock baptized by sprinkling,135
Manz by pouring.136
The first clear case of immersion among the Swiss Anabaptists is that of
Wolfgang Uliman (an ex-monk of Coire, and for a while assistant of Kessler in
St. Gall). He was converted by Grebel on a journey to Schaffhausen, and, not
satisfied with being "sprinkled merely out of a dish," was
"drawn under and covered over in the Rhine."137 On Palm Sunday, April 9, 1525, Grebel
baptized a large number in the Sitter, a river a few miles from St. Gall, which
descends from the Säntis and flows into the Thur, and is deep enough for
immersion.138 The Lord’s Supper
was administered by the Baptists in the simplest manner, after a plain supper
(in imitation of the original institution and the Agape), by the recital of the
words of institution, and the distribution of bread and wine. They reduced it
to a mere commemoration.
The
two ideas of a pure church of believers and of the baptism of believers were
the fundamental articles of the Anabaptist creed. On other points there was a
great variety and confusion of opinions. Some believed in the sleep of the soul
between death and resurrection, a millennial reign of Christ, and final
restoration; some entertained communistic and socialistic opinions which led to
the catastrophe of Münster (1534). Wild excesses of immorality occurred here
and there.139
But
it is unjust to charge the extravagant dreams and practices of individuals upon
the whole body. The Swiss Anabaptists had no connection with the Peasants’ War,
which barely touched the border of Switzerland, and were upon the whole, like
the Moravian Anabaptists, distinguished for simple piety and strict morality.
Bullinger, who was opposed to them, gives the Zurich Radicals the credit that
they denounced luxury, intemperance in eating and drinking, and all vices, and
led a serious, spiritual life. Kessler of St. Gall, likewise an opponent,
reports their cheerful martyrdom, and exclaims, "Alas! what shall I say of
the people? They move my sincere
pity; for many of them are zealous for God, but without knowledge." And Salat, a Roman Catholic contemporary,
writes that with "cheerful, smiling faces, they desired and asked death,
and went into it singing German psalms and other prayers."140
The
Anabaptists produced some of the earliest Protestant hymns in the German
language, which deserve the attention of the historian. Some of them passed
into orthodox collections in ignorance of the real authors. Blaurock, Manz,
Hut, Hätzer, Koch, Wagner, Langmantel, Sattler, Schiemer, Glait, Steinmetz,
Büchel, and many others contributed to this interesting branch of the great
body of Christian song. The Anabaptist psalms and hymns resemble those of
Schwenkfeld and his followers. They dwell on the inner life of the Christian,
the mysteries of regeneration, sanctification, and personal union with Christ.
They breathe throughout a spirit of piety, devotion, and cheerful resignation
under suffering, and readiness for martyrdom. They are hymns of the cross, to
comfort and encourage the scattered sheep of Christ ready for the slaughter, in
imitation of their divine Shepherd.
NOTES.
The
Anabaptist hymns appeared in a collection under the title "Aussbund
Etlicher schöner Christlicher Geseng wie die in der Gefengniss zu Passau im
Schloss von den Schweitzern und auch von anderen rechtgläubigen Christen hin
und her gedicht worden," 1583, and often. Also in other collections of the
sixteenth century. They are reprinted in Wackernagel, Das Deutsche Kirchenlied,
vol. III. (1870), pp. 440–491, and vol. V. (1877), pp. 677–887. He embodies
them in this monumental corpus hymnologicum, as he does the Schwenkfeldian and
the Roman Catholic hymns of the fifteenth century, but under express
reservation of his high-Lutheran orthodoxy. He refuses to acknowledge the
Anabaptists as martyrs any longer (as he had done in his former work on German
hymnology), because they stand, he says (III. 439), "ausserhalb der
Wahrheit, ausserhalb der heiligen lutherischen Kirche!" Hymnology is the
last place for sectarian exclusiveness. It furnishes one of the strongest
evidences of Christian union in the sanctuary of worship, where theological
quarrels are forgotten in the adoration of a common Lord and Saviour. Luther
himself, as Wackernagel informs us, received unwittingly in his hymn book of
1545 a hymn of the Anabaptist Grünwald, and another of the Schwenkfeldian
Reusner. Wackernagel is happily inconsistent when he admits (p. 440) that much
may be learned from the Anabaptist hymns, and that a noble heart will not
easily condemn those victims of Rome and of the house of Habsburg. He gives
first the hymns of Thomas Münzer, who can hardly be called an Anabaptist and
was disowned by the better portion.
Burrage,
in Baptist Hymn Writers, Portland, 1888, p. 1 sqq., gives some extracts of
Anabaptist hymns. The following stanza, from a hymn of Schiemer or Schöner,
characterizes the condition and spirit of this persecuted people:—
We are,
alas, like scattered sheep,
The
shepherd not in sight,
Each
far away from home and hearth,
And,
like the birds of night
That
hide away in rocky clefts,
We
have our rocky hold,
Yet
near at hand, as for the birds,
There
waits the hunter bold."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="26" title="Persecution of the Anabaptists">
§ 26.
Persecution of the Anabaptists.
We
pass now to the measures taken against the separatists. At first Zwingli tried
to persuade them in private conferences, but in vain. Then followed a public
disputation, which took place by order of the magistracy in the council hall,
Jan. 17, 1525. Grebel was opposed to it, but appeared, together with Manz and
Reubli. They urged the usual arguments against infant baptism, that infants
cannot understand the gospel, cannot repent and exercise faith. Zwingli
answered them, and appealed chiefly to circumcision and <scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
7:14">1
Cor. 7:14</scripRef>, where Paul speaks of the
children of Christian parents as "holy." He afterwards published his views in a book, "On
Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism" (May 27, 1525). Bullinger, who was
present at the disputation, reports that the Anabaptists were unable to refute
Zwingli’s arguments and to maintain their ground. Another disputation was held
in March, and a third in November, but with no better result. The magistracy
decided against them, and issued an order that infants should be baptized as
heretofore, and that parents who refuse to have their children baptized should
leave the city and canton with their families and goods.
The
Anabaptists refused to obey, and ventured on bold demonstrations. They arranged
processions, and passed as preachers of repentance, in sackcloth and girdled,
through the streets of Zurich, singing, praying, exhorting, abusing the old
dragon (Zwingli) and his horns, and exclaiming, "Woe, woe unto Zurich!"141
The
leaders were arrested and shut up in a room in the Augustinian convent. A
commission of ministers and magistrates were sent to them to convert them.
Twenty-four professed conversion, and were set free. Fourteen men and seven women
were retained and shut up in the Witch Tower, but they made their escape April
5.
Grebel,
Manz, and Blaurock were rearrested, and charged with communistic and
revolutionary teaching. After some other excesses, the magistracy proceeded to
threaten those who stubbornly persisted in their error, with death by drowning.
He who dips, shall be dipped,—a cruel irony.
It
is not known whether Zwingli really consented to the death sentence, but he
certainly did not openly oppose it.142
Six
executions in all took place in Zurich between 1527 and 1532. Manz was the
first victim. He was bound, carried to a boat, and thrown into the river Limmat
near the lake, Jan. 5, 1527. He praised God that he was about to die for the
truth, and prayed with a loud voice, "Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my
spirit!" Bullinger describes
his heroic death. Grebel had escaped the same fate by previous death in 1526.
The last executions took place March 23, 1532, when Heinrich Karpfis and Hans
Herzog were drowned. The foreigners were punished by exile, and met death in
Roman Catholic countries. Blaurock was scourged, expelled, and burnt, 1529, at
Clausen in the Tyrol. Hätzer, who fell into carnal sins, was beheaded for
adultery and bigamy at Constance, Feb. 24, 1529. John Zwick, a Zwinglian, says
that "a nobler and more manful death was never seen in Constance." Thomas Blaurer bears a similar testimony.143 Hübmaier, who had fled from Waldshut to
Zurich, December, 1525, was tried before the magistracy, recanted, and was sent
out of the country to recant his recantation.144 He labored successfully in Moravia, and was burnt at the
stake in Vienna, March 10, 1528. Three days afterwards his faithful wife, whom
he had married in Waldshut, was drowned in the Danube.
Other
Swiss cantons took the same measures against the Anabaptists as Zurich. In Zug,
Lorenz Fürst was drowned, Aug. 17, 1529. In Appenzell, Uliman and others were
beheaded, and some women drowned. At Basle, Oecolampadius held several
disputations with the Anabaptists, but without effect; whereupon the Council
banished them, with the threat that they should be drowned if they returned
(Nov. 13, 1530). The Council of Berne adopted the same course.
In
Germany and in Austria the Anabaptists fared still worse. The Diet of Speier,
in April, 1529, decreed that "every Anabaptist and rebaptized person of
either sex be put to death by sword, or fire, or otherwise." The decree was severely carried out,
except in Strassburg and the domain of Philip of Hesse, where the heretics were
treated more leniently. The most blood was shed in Roman Catholic countries. In
Görz the house in which the Anabaptists were assembled for worship was set on
fire. "In Tyrol and Görz," says Cornelius,145 "the number of
executions in the year 1531 reached already one thousand; in Ensisheim, six
hundred. At Linz seventy-three were killed in six weeks. Duke William of
Bavaria, surpassing all others, issued the fearful decree to behead those who
recanted, to burn those who refused to recant.... Throughout the greater part
of Upper Germany the persecution raged like a wild chase.... The blood of these
poor people flowed like water so that they cried to the Lord for help.... But
hundreds of them of all ages and both sexes suffered the pangs of torture
without a murmur, despised to buy their lives by recantation, and went to the
place of execution joyfully and singing psalms."
The
blood of martyrs is never shed in vain. The Anabaptist movement was defeated,
but not destroyed; it revived among the Mennonites, the Baptists in England and
America, and more recently in isolated congregations on the Continent. The
questions of the subjects and mode of baptism still divide Baptist and
Pedobaptist churches, but the doctrine of the salvation of unbaptized infants
is no longer condemned as a heresy; and the principle of religious liberty and
separation of Church and State, for which the Swiss and German Anabaptists
suffered and died, is making steady progress. Germany and Switzerland have
changed their policy, and allow to Baptists, Methodists, and other Dissenters
from the state-church that liberty of public worship which was formerly denied
them; and the state-churches reap the benefit of being stirred up by them to
greater vitality. In England the Baptists are one of the leading bodies of
Dissenters, and in the United States the largest denomination next to the Methodists
and Roman Catholics.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="27" title="The Eucharistic Controversy. Zwingli and
Luther">
§ 27.
The Eucharistic Controversy. Zwingli and Luther.
Zwingli’s
eucharistic writings: On the Canon of the Mass (1523); On the same, against
Emser (1524); Letter to Matthew Alber at Reutlingen (1524); The 17th ch. of his
Com. on the True and False Religion (in Latin and German, March 23, 1525);
Answer to Bugenhagen (1525); Letter to Billicanus and Urbanus Rhegius (1526);
Address to Osiander of Nürnberg (1527); Friendly Exegesis, addressed to Luther
(Feb. 20, 1527); Reply to Luther on the true sense of the words of institution
of the Lord’s Supper (1527); The report on the Marburg Colloquy (1529). In
Opera, vol. II. B., III., IV. 173 sqq.
For
an exposition of Zwingli’s doctrine on the Lord’s Supper and his controversy
with Luther, see vol. VI. 520–550 and 669–682; and A. Baur, Zwingli’s Theol.
II. 268 sqq. (very full and fair).
The
eucharistic controversy between Zwingli and Luther has been already considered
in connection with the German Reformation, and requires only a brief notice
here. It lasted from 1524 to 1529, and culminated in the Colloquy at Marburg,
where the two views came into closer contact and collision than ever before or
since, and where every argument for or against the literal interpretation of
the words of institution and the corporal presence was set forth with the
clearness and force of the two champions.
Zwingli
and Luther agreed in the principle of a state-church or people’s church
(Volks-Kirche), as opposed to individualism, separatism, and schism. Both
defended the historic continuity of the Church, and put down the revolutionary
radicalism which constructed a new church on the voluntary principle. Both retained
infant baptism as a part of Christian family religion, against the Anabaptists,
who introduced a new baptism with their new church of converts. Luther never
appreciated this agreement in the general standpoint, and made at the outset
the radical mistake of confounding Zwingli with Carlstadt and the Radicals.146
But
there was a characteristic difference between the two Reformers in the general
theory of the sacraments, and especially the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli stood
midway between Luther and the Anabaptists. He regarded the sacraments as signs
and seals of a grace already received rather than as means of a grace to be
received. They set forth and confirm, but do not create, the thing signified.
He rejected the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and of the corporal
presence; while Luther adhered to both with intense earnestness and treated a
departure as damnable heresy. Zwingli’s theory reveals the spiritualizing and
rationalizing tendency of his mind; while Luther’s theory reveals his realistic
and mystical tendency. Yet both were equally earnest in their devotion to the
Scriptures as the Word of God and the supreme rule of faith and practice.
When
they met face to face at Marburg,—once, and only once, in this life,—they came
to agree in fourteen out of fifteen articles, and even in the fifteenth article
they agreed in the principal part, namely, the spiritual presence and fruition
of Christ’s body and blood, differing only in regard to the corporal presence
and oral manducation, which the one denied, the other asserted. Zwingli showed
on that occasion marked ability as a debater, and superior courtesy and
liberality as a gentleman. Luther received the impression that Zwingli was a
"very good man,"147 yet of a "different spirit," and
hence refused to accept his hand of fellowship offered to him with tears. The
two men were differently constituted, differently educated, differently
situated and equipped, each for his own people and country; and yet the results
of their labors, as history has proved, are substantially the same.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="28" title="The Works of Zwingli">
§ 28.
The Works of Zwingli.
A
list of Zwingli’s works in the edition of Schuler and Schulthess, vol. VIII.
696–704; of his theological works, in Baur, Zwingli ’s Theol., II. 834–837.
During
the twelve short years of his public labors as a reformer, from 1519 to 1531,
Zwingli developed an extraordinary literary activity. He attacked the Papists
and the Radicals, and had to reply in self-defence. His advice was sought from
the friends of reform in all parts of Switzerland, and involved him in a vast
correspondence. He wrote partly in Latin, partly in the Swiss-German dialect.
Several of his books were translated by Leo Judae. He handled the German with
more skill than his countrymen; but it falls far short of the exceptional force
and beauty of Luther’s German, and could make no impression outside of
Switzerland. The editors of his complete works (Schuler and Schulthess) give,
in eight large octavo volumes, eighty German and fifty-nine Latin books and
tracts, besides two volumes of epistles by Zwingli and to Zwingli.
His
works may be divided into seven classes, as follows: —
1.
Reformatory and Polemical Works: (a) against popery and the papists (on Fasts;
on Images; on the Mass; Against Faber; Against Eck; Against Compar; Against
Emser, etc.); (b) on the controversy with the Anabaptists; (c) on the Lord’s
Supper, against Luther’s doctrine of the corporal real presence.
2.
Reformatory and Doctrinal: The Exposition of his 67 Conclusions (1524); A
Commentary on the False and True Religion, addressed to King Francis I. of
France (1525); A Treatise on Divine Providence (1530); A Confession of Faith
addressed to the Emperor Charles V. and the Augsburg Diet (1530); and his last
confession, written shortly before his death (1531), and published by
Bullinger.
3.
Practical and Liturgical: The Shepherd; Forms of Baptism and the Celebration of
the Lord’s Supper; Sermons, etc.
4.
Exegetical: Extracts from lectures on Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah, and
Jeremiah, the four Gospels, and most of the Epistles, edited by Leo Judae,
Megander, and others.
5.
Patriotic and Political: Against foreign pensions and military service;
addresses to the Confederates, and the Council of Zurich; on Christian
education; on peace and war, etc.
6.
Poetical: The Labyrinth and The Fable (his earliest productions); three German
poems written during the pestilence; one written in 1529, and a versified Psalm
(69th).
7.
Epistles. They show the extent of his influence, and include letters to Zwingli
from Erasmus, Pucci, Pope Adrian VI., Faber, Vadianus, Glareanus, Myconius,
Oecolampadius, Haller, Megander, Beatus Rhenanus, Urbanus Rhegius, Bucer,
Hedio, Capito, Blaurer, Farel, Comander, Bullinger, Fagius, Pirkheimer, Zasius,
Frobenius, Ulrich von Hutten, Philip of Hesse, Duke Ulrich of Württemberg, and
other distinguished persons.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="29" title="The Theology of Zwingli">
§ 29.
The Theology of Zwingli.
I.
Zwingli: Commentarius de Vera et Falsa Religione, 1525 (German translation by
Leo Judae); Fidei Ratio ad Carolum V., 1530; Christianae Fidei brevis et clara
Expositio, 1531; De Providentia, 1530 (expansion of a sermon preached at
Marburg and dedicated to Philip of Hesse).
II. The
theology of Zwingli is discussed by Zeller, Sigwart, Spörri, Schweizer, and
most fully and exhaustively by A. Baur. See Lit. § 5, p. 18. Comp. Schaff,
Creeds of Christendom, I. 369 sqq, and Church History, VI. 721 sqq.
The
dogmatic works of Zwingli contain the germs of the evangelical Reformed
theology, in distinction from the Roman and the Lutheran, and at the same time
several original features which separate it from the Calvinistic System. He
accepted with all the Reformers the oecumenical creeds and the orthodox
doctrines of the Trinity, and the divine-human personality of Christ. He
rejected with Luther the scholastic additions of the middle ages, but removed
further from the traditional theology in the doctrine of the sacraments and the
real presence. He was less logical and severe than Calvin, who surpassed him in
constructive genius, classical diction and rhetorical finish. He drew his
theology from the New Testament and the humanistic culture of the Erasmian
type. His love for the classics accounts for his liberal views on the extent of
salvation by which he differs from the other Reformers. It might have brought
him nearer to Melanchthon; but Melanchthon was under the overawing influence of
Luther, and was strongly prejudiced against Zwingli. He was free from
traditional bondage, and in several respects in advance of his age.
Zwingli’s
theology is a system of rational supernaturalism, more clear than profound,
devoid of mysticism, but simple, sober, and practical. It is prevailingly
soteriological, that is, a doctrine of the way of salvation, and rested on
these fundamental principles: The Bible is the only sure directory of salvation
(which excludes or subordinates human traditions); Christ is the only Saviour
and Mediator between God and men (which excludes human mediators and the
worship of saints); Christ is the only head of the Church visible and invisible
(against the claims of the pope); the operation of the Holy Spirit and saving
grace are not confined to the visible Church (which breaks with the principle
of exclusiveness).
1.
Zwingli emphasizes the Word of God contained in the Bible, especially in the
New Testament, as the only rule of Christian faith and practice. This is the
objective principle of Protestantism which controls his whole theology. Zwingli
first clearly and strongly proclaimed it in his Conclusions (1523), and
assigned to it the first place in his system; while Luther put his doctrine of
justification by faith or the subjective principle in the foreground, and made
it the article of the standing or falling church. But with both Reformers the
two principles so-called resolve themselves into the one principle of Christ,
as the only and sufficient source of saving truth and saving grace, against the
traditions of men and the works of men. Christ is before the Bible, and is the
beginning and end of the Bible. Evangelical Christians believe in the Bible
because they believe in Christ, and not vice versa. Roman Catholics believe in
the Bible because they believe in the Church, as the custodian and infallible
interpreter of the Bible.
As
to the extent of the Bible, or the number of inspired books, Zwingli accepted
the Catholic Canon, with the exception of the Apocalypse, which he did not
regard as an apostolic work, and hence never used for doctrinal purposes.148 Calvin doubted the genuineness of the
Second Epistle of Peter and the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Both accepted the canon on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, rather
than the external authority of the Church. Luther, on the one hand, insisted in
the eucharistic controversy on the most literal interpretation of the words of
institution against all arguments of grammar and reason; and yet, on the other
hand, he exercised the boldest subjective criticism on several books of the Old
and New Testaments, especially the Epistle of James and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, because he could not harmonize them with his understanding of Paul’s
doctrine of justification. He thus became the forerunner of the higher or
literary criticism which claims the Protestant right of the fullest
investigation of all that pertains to the origin, history, and value of the
Scriptures. The Reformed Churches, especially those of the English tongue,
while claiming the same right, are more cautious and conservative in the
exercise of it; they lay greater stress on the objective revelation of God than
the subjective experience of man, and on historic evidence than on critical
conjectures.
2.
The doctrine of eternal election and providence. Zwingli gives prominence to
God’s sovereign election as the primary source of salvation. He developed his
view in a Latin sermon, or theological discourse, on Divine Providence, at the
Conference of Marburg, in October, 1529, and enlarged and published it
afterwards at Zurich (Aug. 20, 1530), at the special request of Philip of
Hesse.149 Luther heard the
discourse, and had no objection to it, except that he disliked the Greek and
Hebrew quotations, as being out of place in the pulpit. Calvin, in a familiar
letter to Bullinger, justly called the essay paradoxical and immoderate. It is
certainly more paradoxical than orthodox, and contains some unguarded
expressions and questionable illustrations; yet it does not go beyond Luther’s
book on the "Slavery of the Human Will," and the first edition of
Melanchthon’s Loci, or Calvin’s more mature and careful statements. All the
Reformers were originally strong Augustinian predestinarians and denied the
liberty of the human will. Augustin and Luther proceeded from anthropological
premises, namely, the total depravity of man, and came to the doctrine of
predestination as a logical consequence, but laid greater stress on sacramental
grace. Zwingli, anticipating Calvin, started from the theological principle of
the absolute sovereignty of God and the identity of foreknowledge and
foreordination. His Scripture argument is chiefly drawn from the ninth chapter
of Romans, which, indeed, strongly teaches the freedom of election,150
but should never be divorced from the tenth chapter, which teaches with equal
clearness human responsibility, and from the eleventh chapter, which prophesies
the future conversion of the Gentile nations and the people of Israel.
Zwingli
does not shrink from the abyss of supralapsarian-ism. God, he teaches, is the
supreme and only good, and the omnipotent cause of all things. He rules and
administers the world by his perpetual and immutable providence, which leaves
no room for accidents. Even the fall of Adam, with its consequences, is
included in his eternal will as well as his eternal knowledge. So far sin is
necessary, but only as a means to redemption. God’s agency in respect to sin is
free from sin, since he is not bound by law, and has no bad motive or
affection.151 Election is free
and independent; it is not conditioned by faith, but includes faith.152 Salvation is possible without baptism,
but not without Christ. We are elected in order that we may believe in Christ
and bring forth the fruits of holiness. Only those who hear and reject the
gospel in unbelief are foreordained to eternal punishment. All children of
Christian parents who die in infancy are included among the elect, whether
baptized or not, and their early death before they have committed any actual
sin is a sure proof of their election.153 Of those outside the Church we cannot judge, but may
entertain a charitable hope, as God’s grace is not bound. In this direction
Zwingli was more liberal than any Reformer and opened a new path. St. Augustin
moderated the rigor of the doctrine of predestination by the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration and the hypothesis of future purification. Zwingli
moderated it by extending the divine revelation and the working of the Holy
Spirit beyond the boundaries of the visible Church and the ordinary means of
grace.
It
is very easy to caricature the doctrine of predestination, and to dispose of it
by the plausible objections that it teaches the necessity of sin, that it leads
to fatalism and pantheism, that it supersedes the necessity of personal effort
for growth in grace, and encourages carnal security. But every one who knows
history at all knows also that the strongest predestinarians were among the
most earnest and active Christians. It will be difficult to find purer and
holier men than St. Augustin and Calvin, the chief champions of this very system
which bears their name. The personal assurance of election fortified the
Reformers, the Huguenots, the Puritans, and the Covenanters against doubt and
despondency in times of trial and temptation. In this personal application the
Reformed doctrine of predestination is in advance of that of Augustin.
Moreover, every one who has some perception of the metaphysical difficulties of
reconciling the fact of sin with the wisdom and holiness of God, and
harmonizing the demands of logic and of conscience, will judge mildly of any
earnest attempt at the solution of the apparent conflict of divine sovereignty
and human responsibility.
And
yet we must say that the Reformers, following the lead of the great saint of
Hippo, went to a one-sided extreme. Melanchthon felt this, and proposed the
system of synergism, which is akin to the semi-Pelagian and Arminian theories.
Oecolampadius kept within the limits of Christian experience and expressed it
in the sound sentence, "Salus nostra ex Deo, perditio nostra ex nobis." We must always keep in mind both the
divine and the human, the speculative and the practical aspects of this problem
of ages; in other words, we must combine divine sovereignty and human
responsibility as complemental truths. There is a moral as well as an intellectual
logic,—a logic of the heart and conscience as well as a logic of the head. The
former must keep the latter in check and save it from running into
supralapsarianism and at last into fatalism and pantheism, which is just as bad
as Pelagianism.
3.
Original sin and guilt. Here Zwingli departed from the Augustinian and Catholic
system, and prepared the way for Arminian and Socinian opinions. He was far
from denying the terrible curse of the fall and the fact of original sin; but
he regarded original sin as a calamity, a disease, a natural defect, which
involves no personal guilt, and is not punishable until it reveals itself in
actual transgression. It is, however, the fruitful germ of actual sin, as the
inborn rapacity of the wolf will in due time prompt him to tear the sheep.154
4.
The doctrine of the sacraments, and especially of the Lord’s Supper, is the
most characteristic feature of the Zwinglian, as distinct from the Lutheran,
theology. Calvin’s theory stands between the two, and tries to combine the
Lutheran realism with the Zwinglian spiritualism. This subject has been sufficiently
handled in previous chapters.155
5.
Eschatology. Here again Zwingli departed further from Augustin and the
mediaeval theology than any other Reformer, and anticipated modern opinions. He
believed (with the Anabaptists) in the salvation of infants dying in infancy,
whether baptized or not. He believed also in the salvation of those heathen who
loved truth and righteousness in this life, and were, so to say, unconscious
Christians, or pre-Christian Christians. This is closely connected with his
humanistic liberalism and enthusiasm for the ancient classics. He admired the
wisdom and the virtue of the Greeks and Romans, and expected to meet in heaven,
not only the saints of the Old Testament from Adam down to John the Baptist,
but also such men as Socrates, Plato, Pindar, Aristides, Numa, Cato, Scipio,
Seneca; yea, even such mythical characters as Hercules and Theseus. There is,
he says, no good and holy man, no faithful soul, from the beginning to the end
of the world, that shall not see God in his glory.156
Zwingli
traced salvation exclusively to the sovereign grace of God, who can save whom,
where, and how he pleases, and who is not bound to any visible means. But he
had no idea of teaching salvation without Christ and his atonement, as he is
often misunderstood and misrepresented. "Christ," he says (in the
third of his Conclusions) "is the only wisdom, righteousness, redemption,
and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Hence it is a denial of
Christ when we confess another ground of salvation and satisfaction." He does not say (and did not know)
where, when, and how Christ is revealed to the unbaptized subjects of his
saving grace: this is hidden from mortal eyes; but we have no right to set
boundaries to the infinite wisdom and love of God.
The
Roman Catholic Church teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, and
assigns all heathen to hell and all unbaptized children to the limbus infantum
(a border region of hell, alike removed from burning pain and heavenly bliss).
Lutheran divines, who accept the same baptismal theory, must consistently
exclude the unbaptized from beatitude, or leave them to the uncovenanted mercy
of God. Zwingli and Calvin made salvation depend on eternal election, which may
be indefinitely extended beyond the visible Church and sacraments. The Scotch
Presbyterian Confession condemns the "horrible dogma" of the papacy
concerning the damnation of unbaptized infants. The Westminster Confession
teaches that "elect infants dying in infancy," and "all other
elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of
the word, are saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where,
and how he pleaseth."157
The
old Protestant eschatology is deficient. It rejects the papal dogma of
purgatory, and gives nothing better in its place. It confounds Hades with Hell
(in the authorized translations of the Bible 158), and obliterates the
distinction between the middle state before, and the final state after, the
resurrection. The Roman purgatory gives relief in regard to the fate of
imperfect Christians, but none in regard to the infinitely greater number of
unbaptized infants and adults who never hear of Christ in this life. Zwingli
boldly ventured on a solution of the mysterious problem which is more
charitable and hopeful and more in accordance with the impartial justice and boundless
mercy of God.
His
charitable hope of the salvation of infants dying in infancy and of an
indefinite number of heathen is a renewal and enlargement of the view held by
the ancient Greek Fathers (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Gregory of Nyssa). It was adopted by the Baptists, Armenians, Quakers, and
Methodists, and is now held by the great majority of Protestant divines of all
denominations.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="IV" title="Spread Of The Reformation In
Switzerland">
CHAPTER
IV.
SPREAD
OF THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="30" title="The Swiss Diet and the Conference at Baden,
1526">
§ 30.
The Swiss Diet and the Conference at Baden, 1526.
Thomas
Murner: Die Disputacion vor den XII Orten einer löblichen Eidgenossenschaft ...
zu Baden gehalten. Luzern, 1527. This is the official Catholic report, which
agrees with four other protocols preserved in Zurich. (Müller-Hottinger, VII.
84.) Murner published also a Latin
edition, Causa Helvetica orthodoxae fidei, etc. Lucernae, 1528. Bullinger, I.
331 sqq. The writings of Zwingli, occasioned by the Disputation in Baden, in
his Opera, vol. II. B. 396–522.
Hottinger:
Geschichte der Eidgenossen während der Zeit der Kirchentrennung, pp. 77–96.
Mörikofer: Zw., II. 34–43. Merle: Reform., bk. XI. ch. 13. Herzog: Oekolampad,
vol. II. ch. 1. Hagenbach: Oekolampad, pp. 90–98. A. Baur: Zw.’s Theol., I.
501–518.
The
Diet of Switzerland took the same stand against the Zwinglian Reformation as
the Diet of the German Empire against the Lutheran movement. Both Diets
consisted only of one house, and this was composed of the hereditary nobility
and aristocracy. The people were not directly represented by delegates of their
own choice. The majority of voters were conservative, and in favor of the old
faith; but the majority of the people in the larger and most prosperous cantons
and in the free imperial cities favored progress and reform, and succeeded in
the end.
The
question of the Reformation was repeatedly brought before the Swiss Diet, and
not a few liberal voices were heard in favor of abolishing certain crying
abuses; but the majority of the cantons, especially the old forest-cantons
around the lake of Lucerne, resisted every innovation. Berne was anxious to
retain her political supremacy, and vacillated. Zwingli had made many enemies
by his opposition to the foreign military service and pensions of his
countrymen. Dr. Faber, the general vicar of the diocese of Constance, after a
visit to Rome, openly turned against his former friend, and made every effort
to unite the interests of the aristocracy with those of the hierarchy.
"Now," he said, "the priests are attacked, the nobles will come
next."159 At last the Diet
resolved to settle the difficulty by a public disputation. Dr. Eck, well known
to us from the disputation at Leipzig for his learning, ability, vanity and
conceit,160 offered his services to the Diet in a flattering letter of
Aug. 13, 1524. He had then just returned from a third visit to Rome, and felt
confident that he could crush the Protestant heresy in Switzerland as easily as
in Germany. He spoke contemptuously of Zwingli, as one who "had no doubt
milked more cows than he had read books." About the same time the Roman counter-reformation had begun
to be organized at the convent of Regensburg (June, 1524), under the lead of
Bavaria and Austria.
The
disputation was opened in the Catholic city of Baden, in Aargau, May 21, 1526,
and lasted eighteen days, till the 8th of June. The cantons and four bishops
sent deputies, and many foreign divines were present. The Protestants were a
mere handful, and despised as "a beggarly, miserable rabble." Zwingli, who foresaw the political aim
and result of the disputation, was prevented by the Council of Zurich from
leaving home, because his life was threatened; but he influenced the
proceedings by daily correspondence and secret messengers. No one could doubt
his courage, which he showed more than once in the face of greater danger, as
when he went to Marburg through hostile territory, and to the battlefield at
Cappel. But several of his friends were sadly disappointed at his absence. He
would have equalled Eck in debate and excelled him in biblical learning.
Erasmus was invited, but politely declined on account of sickness.
The
arrangements for the disputation and the local sympathies were in favor of the
papal party. Mass was said every morning at five, and a sermon preached; the
pomp of ritualism was displayed in solemn processions. The presiding officers
and leading secretaries were Romanists; nobody besides them was permitted to
take notes.161 The disputation
turned on the real presence, the sacrifice of the mass, the invocation of the
Virgin Mary and of saints, on images, purgatory, and original sin. Dr. Eck was
the champion of the Roman faith, and behaved with the same polemical dexterity
and overbearing and insolent manner as at Leipzig: robed in damask and silk,
decorated with a golden ring, chain and cross; surrounded by patristic and
scholastic folios, abounding in quotations and arguments, treating his
opponents with proud contempt, and silencing them with his stentorian voice and
final appeals to the authority of Rome. Occasionally he uttered an oath,
"Potz Marter." A
contemporary poet, Nicolas Manuel, thus described his conduct: —
"Eck
stamps with his feet, and claps his hands,
He
raves, he swears, he scolds;
’I do,’
cries he, ’what the Pope commands,
And
teach whatever he holds.’ "162
Oecolampadius
of Basle and Haller of Berne, both plain and modest, but able, learned and
earnest men, defended the Reformed opinions. Oecolampadius declared at the
outset that he recognized no other rule of judgment than the Word of God. He
was a match for Eck in patristic learning, and in solid arguments. His friends
said, "Oecolampadius is vanquished, not by argument, but by
vociferation."163
Even one of the Romanists remarked, "If only this pale man were on
our side!" His host judged
that he must be a very pious heretic, because he saw him constantly engaged in
study and prayer; while Eck was enjoying rich dinners and good wines, which
occasioned the remark, "Eck is bathing in Baden, but in wine."164
The
papal party boasted of a complete victory. All innovations were forbidden;
Zwingli was excommunicated; and Basle was called upon to depose Oecolampadius
from the pastoral office. Faber, not satisfied with the burning of heretical
books, advocated even the burning of the Protestant versions of the Bible.
Thomas Murner, a Franciscan monk and satirical poet, who was present at Baden,
heaped upon Zwingli and his adherents such epithets as tyrants, liars,
adulterers, church robbers, fit only for the gallows! He had formerly (1512) chastised the vices of priests and
monks, but turned violently against the Saxon Reformer, and earned the name of "Luther-Scourge
"(Lutheromastix). He was now made lecturer in the Franciscan convent at
Lucerne, and authorized to edit the acts of the Baden disputation.165
The
result of the Baden disputation was a temporary triumph for Rome, but turned
out in the end, like the Leipzig disputation of 1519, to the furtherance of the
Reformation. Impartial judges decided that the Protestants had been silenced by
vociferation, intrigue and despotic measures, rather than refuted by sound and
solid arguments from the Scriptures. After a temporary reaction, several
cantons which had hitherto been vacillating between the old and the new faith,
came out in favor of reform.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="31" title="The Reformation in Berne">
§ 31.
The Reformation in Berne.
I.
The acts of the disputation of Berne were published in 1528 at Zurich and
Strassburg, afterwards repeatedly at Berne, and are contained, together with
two sermons of Zwingli, in Zwingli’s Werke, II. A. 63–229. Valerius Anshelm:
Berner Chronik, new ed. by Stierlin and Wyss, Bern, 1884, ’86, 2 vols. Stürler:
Urkunden der Bernischen Kirchenreform. Bern, 1862. Strickler: Aktensammlung,
etc. Zurich, 1878 (I. 1).
II.
Kuhn: Die Reformatoren Berns. Bern, 1828. Sam. Fischer: Geschichte der Disputation
zu Bern. Zürich, 1828. Melch. Kirchhofer: Berthold Haller oder die Reformation
zu Bern. Zürich, 1828. C. Pestalozzi: B. Haller, nach handschriftl. und
gleichzeitigen Quellen. Elberfeld, 1861. The monographs on Niclaus Manuel by
Grüneisen, Stuttgart, 1837, and by Bächthold, Frauenfeld, 1878. Hundeshagen:
Die Conflicte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums und Calvinismus in der Bernischen
Landeskirche von 1532–’58. Bern,
1842. F. Trechsel: articles Berner Disputation and Berner Synodus, and Haller,
in Herzog2, II. 313–324, and V 556–561. Berner Beiträge, etc., 1884, quoted on
p. 15. See also the Lit. by Nippold in his Append. to Hagenbach’s Reform.
Gesch., p. 695 sq.
III.
Karl Ludwig von Haller (a distinguished Bernese and convert to Romanism,
expelled from the Protestant Council of Berne, 1820; d. 1854): Geschichte der
kirchlichen Revolution oder protestantischen Reform des Kantons Bern und
umliegender Gegenden. Luzern, 1836 (346 pages). French translation, Histoire de
la revolution religieuse dans la Swiss occidentale. Paris, 1839. This is a
reactionary account professedly drawn from Protestant sources and represents
the Swiss Reformation as the mother of the Revolution of 1789. To the French
version of this book Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore (he does not mention the
original) confesses to be "indebted for most of the facts" in his
chapter on the Swiss Reformation which he calls a work established "by
intrigue, chicanery, persecution, and open violence!" Hist. of the Prot. Ref. in Germany and
Switzerland, I. 181, 186 (8th ed., Baltimore, 1875).
Berne,
the largest, most conservative and aristocratic of the Swiss cantons, which
contains the political capital of the Confederacy, was the first to follow
Zurich, after considerable hesitation. This was an event of decisive
importance.
The
Reformation was prepared in the city and throughout the canton by three
ministers, Sebastian Meyer, Berthold Haller, and Francis Kolb, and by a gifted
layman, Niclaus Manuel,—all friends of Zwingli. Meyer, a Franciscan monk, explained
in the convent the Epistles of Paul, and in the pulpit, the Apostles’ Creed.
Haller, a native of Würtemberg, a friend and fellow-student of Melanchthon, an
instructive preacher and cautious reformer, of a mild and modest disposition,
settled in Berne as teacher in 1518, was elected chief pastor at the cathedral
1521, and labored there faithfully till his death (1536). He was often in
danger, and wished to retire; but Zwingli encouraged him to remain at the post
of duty. Without brilliant talents or great learning, he proved eminently
useful by his gentle piety and faithful devotion to duty. Manuel, a poet,
painter, warrior and statesman, helped the cause of reform by his satirical
dramas, which were played in the streets, his exposure of Eck and Faber after
the Baden disputation, and his influence in the council of the city (d. 1530).
His services to Zwingli resemble the services of Hutten to Luther. The Great
Council of the Two Hundred protected the ministers in preaching the pure
gospel.
The
Peasants’ War in Germany and the excesses of the Radicals in Switzerland
produced a temporary reaction in favor of Romanism. The government prohibited
religious controversy, banished Meyer, and ordered Haller, on his return from
the Baden disputation, to read Romish mass again; but he declined, and declared
that he would rather give up his position, as he preferred the Word of God to
his daily bread. The elections in 1527 turned out in favor of the party of
progress. The Romish measures were revoked, and a disputation ordered to take
place Jan. 6, 1528, in Berne.
The
disputation at Berne lasted nineteen days (from Jan. 6 to 26). It was the
Protestant counterpart of the disputation at Baden in composition, arrangements
and result. It had the same effect for Berne as the disputations of 1523 had
for Zurich. The invitations were general; but the Roman Catholic cantons and
the four bishops who were invited refused, with the exception of the bishop of
Lausanne, to send delegates, deeming the disputation of Baden final. Dr. Eck,
afraid to lose his fresh laurels, was unwilling, as he said, "to follow
the heretics into their nooks and corners"; but he severely attacked the
proceedings. The Reformed party was strongly represented by delegates from
Zurich, Basel, and St. Gall, and several cities of South Germany. Zurich sent
about one hundred ministers and laymen, with a strong protection. The chief
speakers on the Reformed side were Zwingli, Haller, Kolb, Oecolampadius,
Capito, and Bucer from Strassburg; on the Roman side, Grab, Huter, Treger,
Christen, and Burgauer. Joachim von Watt of St. Gall presided. Popular sermons
were preached during the disputation by Blaurer of Constance, Zwingli, Bucer,
Oecolampadius, Megander, and others.
The
Reformers carried an easy and complete victory, and reversed the decision of
Baden. The ten Theses or Conclusions, drawn up by Haller and revised by
Zwingli, were fully discussed, and adopted as a sort of confession of faith for
the Reformed Church of Berne. They are as follows: —
1.
The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the Word of
God, and abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger.
2.
The Church of Christ makes no laws and commandments without the Word of God.
Hence human traditions are no more binding on us than as far as they are
founded in the Word of God.
3.
Christ is the only wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and satisfaction for the
sins of the whole world. Hence it is a denial of Christ when we confess another
ground of salvation and satisfaction.
4.
The essential and corporal presence of the body and blood of Christ cannot be
demonstrated from the Holy Scripture.
5.
The mass as now in use, in which Christ is offered to God the Father for the
sins of the living and the dead, is contrary to the Scripture, a blasphemy
against the most holy sacrifice, passion, and death of Christ, and on account
of its abuses an abomination before God.
6.
As Christ alone died for us, so he is also to be adored as the only Mediator
and Advocate between God the Father and the believers. Therefore it is contrary
to the Word of God to propose and invoke other mediators.
7.
Scripture knows nothing of a purgatory after this life. Hence all masses and
other offices for the dead166 are useless.
8.
The worship of images is contrary to Scripture. Therefore images should be
abolished when they are set up as objects of adoration.
9.
Matrimony is not forbidden in the Scripture to any class of men; but
fornication and unchastity are forbidden to all.
10.
Since, according to the Scripture, an open fornicator must be excommunicated,
it follows that unchastity and impure celibacy are more pernicious to the
clergy than to any other class.
All
to the glory of God and his holy Word.
Zwingli
preached twice during the disputation.167 He was in excellent spirits, and at the height of his fame
and public usefulness. In the first sermon he explained the Apostles’ Creed,
mixing in some Greek and Hebrew words for his theological hearers. In the
second, he exhorted the Bernese to persevere after the example of Moses and the
heroes of faith. Perseverance alone can complete the triumph. (Ferendo vincitur
fortuna.) Behold these idols
conquered, mute, and scattered before you. The gold you spent upon them must
henceforth be devoted to the good of the living images of God in their poverty.
"Hold fast," he said in conclusion, "to the liberty wherewith
Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1). You know how much we have suffered in our
conscience, how we were directed from one false comfort to another, from one
commandment to another which only burdened our conscience and gave us no rest.
But now ye have found freedom and peace in the knowledge and faith of Jesus
Christ. From this freedom let nothing separate you. To hold it fast requires
great fortitude. You know how our ancestors, thanks to God, have fought for our
bodily liberty; let us still more zealously guard our spiritual liberty; not
doubting that God, who has enlightened and drawn you, will in due time also
draw our dear neighbors and fellow-confederates to him, so that we may live
together in true friendship. May God, who created and redeemed us all, grant
this to us and to them. Amen."
By
a reformation edict of the Council, dated Feb. 7, 1528, the ten Theses were
legalized, the jurisdiction of the bishops abolished, and the necessary changes
in worship and discipline provisionally ordered, subject to fuller light from
the Word of God. The parishes of the city and canton were separately consulted
by delegates sent to them Feb. 13 and afterwards, and the great majority
adopted the reformation by popular vote, except in the highlands where the
movement was delayed.
After
the catastrophe of Cappel the reformation was consolidated by the so-called
"Berner Synodus," which met Jan. 9–14, 1532. All the ministers of the
canton, two hundred and twenty in all, were invited to attend. Capito, the
reformer of Strassburg, exerted a strong influence by his addresses. The Synod
adopted a book of church polity and discipline; the Great Council confirmed it,
and ordered annual synods. Hundeshagen pronounces this constitution a
"true masterpiece even for our times," and Trechsel characterizes it
as excelling in apostolic unction, warmth, simplicity and practical wisdom.168
Since
that time Berne has remained faithful to the Reformed Church. In 1828 the
Canton by order of the government celebrated the third centenary of the
Reformation.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="32" title="The Reformation in Basel. Oecolampadius">
§ 32.
The Reformation in Basel. Oecolampadius.
I.
The sources are chiefly in the Bibliotheca Antistitii and the University
Library of Basel, and in the City Library of Zürich; letters of Oecolampadius
to Zwingli, in Bibliander’s Epistola Joh. Oecolampadii et Huldr. Zwinglii
(Basel, 1536, fol.); in Zwingli’s Opera, vols. VII. and VIII.; and in
Herminjard, Correspondance des Réformateurs, passim. Several letters of Erasmus, and his Consilium Senatui Basiliensi
in negotio Lutherano anno 1525 exhibitum. Antiquitates Gernlerianae, Tom. I.
and II. An important collection of letters and documents prepared by direction
of Antistes Lukas Gernler of Basel (1625–1676), who took part in the Helvetic
Consensus Formula. The Athenae Rauricae sive Catalogus Professorum Academics
Basiliensis, by Herzog, Basel, 1778. The Basler Chroniken, publ. by the Hist.
Soc. of Basel, ed. with comments by W. Vischer (son), Leipz. 1872.
II.
Pet. Ochs: Geschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Basel. Berlin and Leipzig,
1786–1822. 8 vols. The Reformation is treated in vols. V. and VI., but without
sympathy. Jak. Burckhardt: Kurze Geschichte der Reformation in Basel. Basel,
1819. R. R. Hagenbach: Kirchliche Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte Basels seit
der Reformation. Basel, 1827 (pp. 268). The first part also under the special
title: Kritische Geschichte und Schicksale der ersten Basler Confession. By the
same: Die Theologische Schule Basels und ihrer Lehrer von Stiftung der
Hochschule 1460 bis zu De Wette’s Tod 1849 (pp. 75). Jarke (R. Cath.): Studien
und Skizzen zur Geschichte der Reformation. Schaffhausen (Hurter), 1846 (pp. 576). Fried. Fischer: Der
Bildersturm in der Schweiz und in Basel insbesondere. In the "Basler
Jahrbuch "for 1850. W. Vischer: Actenstücke zur Geschichte der Reformation
in Basel. In the "Basler Beiträge zur vaterländischen Geschichte,"
for 1854. By the same: Geschichte der Universität Basel von der Gründung 1460
bis zur Reformation 1529. Basel, 1860. Boos: Geschichte der Stadt Basel. Basel,
1877 sqq. The first volume goes to 1501; the second has not yet appeared.
III.
Biographical. S. Hess: Lebensgeschichte Joh. Oekolampads. Zürich, 1798 (chiefly
from Zürich sources, contained in the Simler collection). J. J. Herzog (editor
of the well-known "Encyclopaedia" d. 1882): Das Leben Joh.
Oekolampads und die Reformation der Kirche zu Basel. Basel, 1843. 2 vols. Comp.
his article in Herzog2, Vol. X. 708–724. K. R. Hagenbach: Johann Oekolampad und
Oswald Myconius, die Reformatoren Basels. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften. Elberfeld,
1859. His Reformationsgesch., 5th ed., by Nippold, Leipzig, 1887, p. 386 sqq.
On Oecolampadius’ connection with the Eucharistic Controversy and part in the
Marburg Colloquy, see Schaff, vol. VI. 620, 637, and 642.
The
example of Berne was followed by Basel, the wealthiest and most literary city
in Switzerland, an episcopal see since the middle of the eighth century, the
scene of the reformatory Council of 1430–1448, the seat of a University since
1460, the centre of the Swiss book trade, favorably situated for commerce on
the banks of the Rhine and on the borders of Germany and France. The soil was
prepared for the Reformation by scholars like Wyttenbach and Erasmus, and by
evangelical preachers like Capito and Hedio. Had Erasmus been as zealous for
religion as he was for letters, he would have taken the lead, but he withdrew
more and more from the Reformation, although he continued to reside in Basel
till 1529 and returned there to die (1536).169
The
chief share in the work fell to the lot of Oecolampadius (1482–1531). He is the
second in rank and importance among the Reformers in German Switzerland. His
relation to Zwingli is similar to that sustained by Melanchthon to Luther, and
by Beza to Calvin,—a relation in part subordinate, in part supplemental. He was
inferior to Zwingli in originality, force, and popular talent, but surpassed
him in scholastic erudition and had a more gentle disposition. He was, like
Melanchthon, a man of thought rather than of action, but circumstances forced
him out of his quiet study to the public arena.
Johann
Oecolampadius170 was born at Weinsberg in the present kingdom of Würtemberg in
1482, studied law in Bologna, philology, scholastic philosophy, and theology in
Heidelberg and Tübingen with unusual success. He was a precocious genius, like
Melanchthon. In his twelfth year he composed (according to Capito) Latin poems.
In 1501 he became Baccalaureus, and soon afterwards Master of Arts. He devoted
himself chiefly to the study of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. Erasmus gave
him the testimony of being the best Hebraist (after Reuchlin). At Tübingen he
formed a friendship with Melanchthon, his junior by fifteen years, and
continued on good terms with him notwithstanding their difference of opinion on
the Eucharist. He delivered at Weinsberg a series of sermons on the Seven Words
of Christ on the Cross, which were published by Zasius in 1512, and gained for
him the reputation of an eminent preacher of the gospel.
In
1515 he received a call, at Capito’s suggestion, from Christoph von Utenheim,
bishop of Basel (since 1502), to the pulpit of the cathedral in that city. In
the year following he acquired the degree of licentiate, and later that of
doctor of divinity. Christoph von Utenheim belonged to the better class of prelates,
who desired a reformation within the Church, but drew back after the Diet of
Worms, and died at Delsberg in 1522. His motto was: "The cross of Christ
is my hope; I seek mercy, not works."171
Oecolampadius
entered into intimate relations with Erasmus, who at that time took up his
permanent abode in Basel. He rendered him important service in his Annotations
to the New Testament, and in the second edition of the Greek Testament
(concerning the quotations from the Septuagint and Hebrew). The friendship
afterwards cooled down in consequence of their different attitude to the
question of reform.
In
1518 Oecolampadius showed his moral severity and zeal for a reform of the
pulpit by an attack on the prevailing custom of entertaining the people in the
Easter season with all kinds of jokes. "What has," he asks, "a
preacher of repentance to do with fun and laughter? Is it necessary for us to yield to the impulse of nature
? If we can crush our sins by
laughter, what is the use of repenting in sackcloth and ashes? What is the use of tears and cries of
sorrow? … No one knows that Jesus
laughed, but every one knows that he wept. The Apostles sowed the seed weeping.
Many as are the symbolic acts of the prophets, no one of them lowers himself to
become an actor. Laughter and song were repugnant to them. They lived
righteously before the Lord, rejoicing and yet trembling, and saw as clear as
the sun at noonday that all is vanity under the sun. They saw the net being
drawn everywhere and the near approach of the judge of the world."172
After
a short residence at Weinsberg and Augsburg, Oecolampadius surprised his friends
by entering a convent in 1520, but left it in 1522 and acted a short time as
chaplain for Franz von Sickingen at Ebernburg, near Creuznach, where he
introduced the use of the German language in the mass.
By
the reading of Luther’s writings, he became more and more fixed in evangelical
convictions. He cautiously attacked transubstantiation, Mariolatry, and the
abuses of the confessional, and thereby attracted the favorable attention of
Luther, who wrote to Spalatin (June 10, 1521): "I am surprised at his
spirit, not because he fell upon the same theme as I, but because he has shown
himself so liberal, prudent, and Christian. God grant him growth." In June, 1523, Luther expressed to
Oecolampadius much satisfaction at his lectures on Isaiah, notwithstanding the
displeasure of Erasmus, who would probably, like Moses, die in the land of
Moab. "He has done his part," he says, "by exposing the bad; to
show the good and to lead into the land of promise, is beyond his power." Luther and Oecolampadius met personally
at Marburg in 1529, but as antagonists on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, in
which the latter stood on the side of Zwingli.
In
Nov. 17, 1522, Oecolampadius settled permanently in Basel and labored there as
preacher of the Church of St. Martin and professor of theology in the
University till his death. Now began his work as reformer of the church of
Basel, which followed the model of Zürich. He sought the friendship of Zwingli
in a letter full of admiration, dated Dec. 10, 1522.173 They continued to co-operate in
fraternal harmony to the close of their lives.
Oecolampadius
preached on Sundays and week days, explaining whole books of the Bible after
the example of Zwingli, and attracted crowds of people. With the consent of the
Council, he gradually abolished crying abuses, distributed the Lord’s Supper
under both kinds, and published in 1526 a German liturgy, which retained in the
first editions several distinctively Catholic features such as priestly
absolution and the use of lights on the altar.
In
1525 he began to take an active part in the unfortunate Eucharistic controversy
by defending the figurative interpretation of the words of institution:
"This is (the figure of) my body," chiefly from the writings of the
fathers, with which he was very familiar.174 He agreed in substance with Zwingli, but differed from him
by placing the metaphor in the predicate rather than the verb, which simply
denotes a connection of the subject with the predicate whether real or figurative,
and which was not even used by our Lord in Aramaic. He found the key for the
interpretation in John 6:63, and held fast to the truth that Christ himself is
and remains the true bread of the soul to be partaken of by faith. At the
conference in Marburg (1529) he was, next to Zwingli, the chief debater on the
Reformed side. By this course he alienated his old friends, Brentius,
Pirkheimer, Billican, and Luther. Even Melanchthon, in a letter to him (1529),
regretted that the "horribilis dissensio de Coena Domini" interfered
with the enjoyment of their friendship, though it did not shake his good will
towards him ("benevolentiam erga te meam"). He concluded to be
hereafter, a spectator rather than an actor in this tragedy."
Oecolampadius
had also much trouble with the Anabaptists, and took the same conservative and
intolerant stand against them as Luther at Wittenberg, and Zwingli at Zürich.
He made several fruitless attempts in public disputations to convince them of
their error.175
The
civil government of Basel occupied for a while middle ground, but the
disputation of Baden, at which Oecolampadius was the champion of the Reformed
doctrines,176 brought on the crisis. He now took stronger ground against
Rome and attacked what he regarded as the idolatry of the mass. The triumph of
the Reformation in Berne in 1528 gave the final impetus.
On
the 9th of February, 1529, an unbloody revolution broke out. Aroused by the
intrigues of the Roman party, the Protestant citizens to the number of two
thousand came together, broke to pieces the images still left, and compelled
the reactionary Council to introduce everywhere the form of religious service
practised in Zürich.
Erasmus,
who had advised moderation and quiet waiting for a general Council, was
disgusted with these violent, measures, which he describes in a letter to
Pirkheimer of Nürnberg, May 9, 1529. "The smiths and workmen," he
says, "removed the pictures from the churches, and heaped such insults on
the images of the saints and the crucifix itself, that it is quite surprising
there was no miracle, seeing how many there always used to occur whenever the
saints were even slightly offended. Not a statue was left either in the
churches, or the vestibules, or the porches, or the monasteries. The frescoes
were obliterated by means of a coating of lime; whatever would bum was thrown
into the fire, and the rest pounded into fragments. Nothing was spared for
either love or money. Before long the mass was totally abolished, so that it
was forbidden either to celebrate it in one’s own house or to attend it in the
neighboring villages."177
The
great scholar who had done so much preparatory work for the Reformation,
stopped half-way and refused to identify himself with either party. He
reluctantly left Basel (April 13, 1529) with the best wishes for her
prosperity, and resided six years at Freiburg in Baden, a sickly, sensitive,
and discontented old man. He was enrolled among the professors of the
University, but did not lecture. He returned to Basel in August, 1535, and died
in his seventieth year, July 12, 1536, without priest or sacrament, but
invoking the mercy of Christ, repeating again and again, "O Lord Jesus,
have mercy on me!" He was
buried in the Minster of Basel.
Glareanus
and Beatus Rhenanus, humanists, and friends of Zwingli and Erasmus, likewise
withdrew from Basel at this critical moment. Nearly all the professors of the
University emigrated. They feared that science and learning would suffer from
theological quarrels and a rupture with the hierarchy.
The
abolition of the mass and the breaking of images, the destruction of the papal
authority and monastic institutions, would have been a great calamity had they
not been followed by the constructive work of the evangelical faith which was
the moving power, and which alone could build up a new Church on the ruins of
the old. The Word of God was preached from the fountain. Christ and the Gospel
were put in the place of the Church and tradition. German service with
congregational singing and communion was substituted for the Latin mass. The
theological faculty was renewed by the appointment of Simon Grynäus, Sebastian Münster,
Oswald Myconius, and other able and pious scholars to professorships.
Oecolampadius
became the chief preacher of the Minster and Antistes, or superintendent, of
the clergy of Basel.
On
the 1st of April, 1529, an order of liturgical service and church discipline
was published by the Council, which gave a solid foundation to the Reformed
Church of the city of Basel and the surrounding villages.178 This document breathes the spirit of
enthusiasm for the revival of apostolic Christianity, and aims at a reformation
of faith and morals. It contains the chief articles which were afterwards
formulated in the Confession of Basel (1534), and rules for a corresponding
discipline. It retains a number of Catholic customs such as daily morning and
evening worship, weekly communion in one of the city churches, the observance
of the great festivals, including those of the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, and
the Saints.
To
give force to these institutions, the ban was introduced in 1530, and confided
to a council of three pious, honest, and brave laymen for each of the four
parishes of the city; two to be selected by the Council, and one by the
congregation, who, in connection with the clergy, were to watch over the
morals, and to discipline the offenders, if necessary, by excommunication.—In
accordance with the theocratic idea of the relation of Church and State,
dangerous heresies which denied any of the twelve articles of the Apostles’
Creed, and blasphemy of God and the sacrament, were made punishable with civil
penalties such as confiscation of property, banishment, and even death. Those,
it is said, "shall be punished according to the measure of their guilt in
body, life, and property, who despise, spurn, or contemn the eternal, pure,
elect queen, the blessed Virgin Mary, or other beloved saints of God who now
live with Christ in eternal blessedness, so as to say that the mother of God is
only a woman like other women, that she had more children than Christ, the Son
of God, that she was not a virgin before or after his birth," etc. Such
severe measures have long since passed away. The mixing of civil and
ecclesiastical punishments caused a good deal of trouble. Oecolampadius opposed
the supremacy of the State over the Church. He presided over the first synods.
After
the victory of the Reformation, Oecolampadius continued unto the end of his
life to be indefatigable in preaching, teaching, and editing valuable commentaries
(chiefly on the Prophets). He took a lively interest in French Protestant
refugees, and brought the Waldenses, who sent a deputation to him, into closer
affinity with the Reformed churches.179 He was a modest and humble man, of a delicate constitution
and ascetic habits, and looked like a church father. He lived with his mother;
but after her death, in 1528, he married, at the age of forty-five, Wilibrandis
Rosenblatt, the widow of Cellarius (Keller), who afterwards married in
succession two other Reformers (Capito and Bucer), and survived four husbands.
This tempted Erasmus to make the frivolous joke (in a letter of March 21,
1528), that his friend had lately married a good-looking girl to crucify his
flesh, and that the Lutheran Reformation was a comedy rather than a tragedy,
since the tumult always ended in a wedding. He afterwards apologized to him,
and disclaimed any motive of unkindness. Oecolam-padius had three children,
whom he named Eusebius, Alitheia, and Irene (Godliness, Truth, Peace), to
indicate what were the pillars of his theology and his household. His last days
were made sad by the news of Zwingli’s death, and the conclusion of a peace
unfavorable to the Reformed churches. The call from Zürich to become Zwingli’s
successor he declined. A few weeks later, on the 24th of November, 1531, he
passed away in peace and full of faith, after having partaken of the holy
communion with his family, and admonished his colleagues to continue faithful
to the cause of the Reformation. He was buried behind the Minster.180
His
works have never been collected, and have only historical interest. They
consist of commentaries, sermons, exegetical and polemical tracts, letters, and
translations from Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Cyril of Alexandria.181
Basel
became one of the strongholds of the Reformed Church of Switzerland, together
with Zürich, Geneva, and Berne. The Church passed through the changes of German
Protestantism, and the revival of the nineteenth century. She educates
evangelical ministers, contributes liberally from her great wealth to
institutions of Christian benevolence and the spread of the Gospel, and is
(since 1816) the seat of the largest Protestant missionary institute on the
Continent, which at the annual festivals forms a centre for the friends of
missions in Switzerland, Würtemberg, and Baden. The neighboring Chrischona is a
training school of German ministers for emigrants to America.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="33" title="The Reformation in Glarus. Tschudi.
Glarean">
§ 33.
The Reformation in Glarus. Tschudi. Glarean.
Valentin
Tschudi: Chronik der Reformationsjahre 1521–1533. Mit Glossar und Commentar von
Dr. Joh. Strickler. Glarus, 1888 (pp. 258). Publ. in the "Jahrbuch des
historischen Vereins des Kantons Glarus," Heft XXIV., also separately
issued. The first edition of Tschudi’s Chronik (Beschryb oder Erzellung, etc.)
was published by Dr. J. J. Blumer, in vol. IX. of the "Archiv für
schweizerische Geschichte," 1853, pp. 332–447, but not in the original
spelling and without comments.
Blumer
and Heer: Der Kanton Glarus, historisch, geographisch und topographisch
beschrieben. St. Gallen, 1846. DR. J. J. Blumer: Die Reformation im Lande
Glarus. In the "Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins des Kantons
Glarus." Zürich and Glarus,
1873 and 1875 (Heft IX. 9–48; XI. 3–26). H. G. Sulzberger: Die Reformation des
Kant. Glarus und des St. Gallischen Bezirks Werdenberg. Heiden, 1875 (pp. 44).
Heinrich
Schreiber: Heinrich Loriti Glareanus, gekrönter Dichter, Philolog und
Mathematiker aus dem 16ten Jahrhundert. Freiburg, 1837. Otto Fridolin Fritzsche
(Prof. of Church Hist. in Zürich): Glarean, sein Leben und seine Schriften.
Frauenfeld, 1890 (pp. 136). Comp. also Geiger: Renaissance und Humanismus
(1882), pp. 420–423, for a good estimate of Glarean as a humanist.
The
canton Glarus with the capital of the same name occupies the narrow Linththal
surrounded by high mountains, and borders on the territory of Protestant Zürich
and of Catholic Schwyz. It wavered for a good while between the two opposing
parties and tried to act as peacemaker. Landammann Hans Aebli of Glarus, a
friend of Zwingli and an enemy of the foreign military service, prevented a
bloody collision of the Confederates in the first war of Cappel. This is
characteristic of the position of that canton.
Glarus
was the scene of the first public labors of Zwingli from 1506 to 1516.182 He gained great influence as a
classical scholar, popular preacher, and zealous patriot, but made also enemies
among the friends of the foreign military service, the evils of which he had
seen in the Italian campaigns. He established a Latin school and educated the
sons of the best families, including the Tschudis, who traced their ancestry
back to the ninth century. Three of them are connected with the
Reformation,—Aegidius and Peter, and their cousin Valentin.
Aegidius
(Gilg) Tschudi, the most famous of this family, the Herodotus of Switzerland
(1505–1572), studied first with Zwingli, then with Glarean at Basel and Paris,
and occupied important public positions, as delegate to the Diet at Einsiedeln
(1529), as governor of Sargans, as Landammann of Glarus (1558), and as delegate
of Switzerland to the Diet of Augsburg (1559). He also served a short time as
officer in the French army. He remained true to the old faith, but enjoyed the
confidence of both parties by his moderation. He expressed the highest esteem
for Zwingli in a letter of February, 1517.183 His History of Switzerland extends from a.d. 1000 to 1470,
and is the chief source of the period before the Reformation. He did not
invent, but he embellished the romantic story of Tell and of Grütli, which has
been relegated by modern criticism to the realm of innocent poetic fiction.184 He wrote also an impartial account of
the Cappeler War of 1531.185
His
elder brother, Peter, was a faithful follower of Zwingli, but died early, at
Coire, 1532.186
Valentin
Tschudi also joined the Reformation, but showed the same moderation to the
Catholics as his cousin Egidius showed to the Protestants. After studying
several years under Zwingli, he went, in 1516, with his two cousins to the
classical school of Glarean at Basel, and followed him to Paris. From that city
he wrote a Greek letter to Zwingli, Nov. 15, 1520, which is still extant and
shows his progress in learning.187
On Zwingli’s recommendation, he was elected his successor as pastor at
Glarus, and was installed by him, Oct. 12, 1522. Zwingli told the congregation
that he had formerly taught them many Roman traditions, but begged them now to
adhere exclusively to the Word of God.
Valentin
Tschudi adopted a middle way, and was supported by his deacon, Jacob Heer. He
pleased both parties by reading mass early in the morning for the old
believers, and afterwards preaching an evangelical sermon for the Protestants.
He is the first example of a latitudinarian or comprehensive broad-churchman.
In 1530 he married, and ceased to read mass, but continued to preach to both
parties, and retained the respect of Catholics by his culture and conciliatory
manner till his death, in 1555. He defended his moderation and reserve in a
long Latin letter to Zwingli, March 15, 1530.188 He says that the controversy arose from external ceremonies,
and did not touch the rock of faith, which Catholics and Protestants professed
alike, and that he deemed it his duty to enjoin on his flock the advice of Paul
to the Romans 14, to exercise mutual forbearance, since each stands or falls to
the same Lord. The unity of the Spirit is the best guide. He feared that by
extreme measures, more harm was done than good, and that the liberty gained may
degenerate into license, impiety, and contempt of authority. He begs Zwingli to
use his influence for the restoration of order and peace, and signs himself,
forever yours" (semper futurus tuus). The same spirit of moderation
characterizes his Chronicle of the Reformation period, and it is difficult to
find out from this colorless and unimportant narrative, to which of the two
parties he belonged.
It
is a remarkable fact that the influence of Tschudi’s example is felt to this
day in the peaceful joint occupation of the church at Glarus, where the
sacrifice of the mass is offered by a priest at the altar, and a sermon
preached from the pulpit by a Reformed pastor in the same morning.189
Another
distinguished man of Glarus and friend of Zwingli in the earlier part of his
career, is Heinrich Loriti, or Loreti, better known as Glareanus, after the
humanistic fashion of that age.190
He was born at Mollis, a small village of that canton, in 1488, studied
at Cologne and Basel, sided with Reuchlin in the quarrel with the Dominican obscurantists,191
travelled extensively, was crowned as poet-laureate by the Emperor Maximilian
(1512), taught school and lectured successively at Basel (1514), Paris (1517),
again at Basel (1522), and Freiburg (since 1529). He acquired great fame as a
philologist, poet, geographer, mathematician, musician, and successful teacher.
Erasmus called him, in a letter to Zwingli (1514),192 the prince and champion
of the Swiss humanists, and in other letters he praised him as a man pure and
chaste in morals, amiable in society, well versed in history, mathematics, and
music, less in Greek, averse to the subtleties of the schoolmen, bent upon
learning Christ from the fountain, and of extraordinary working power. He was
full of wit and quaint humor, but conceited, sanguine, irritable, suspicious,
and sarcastic. Glarean became acquainted with Zwingli in 1510, and continued to
correspond with him till 1523.193
He bought books for him at Basel (e.g. the Aldine editions of Lactantius
and Tertullian) and sought a place as canon in Zürich. In his last letter to
him he called him, the truly Christian theologian, the bishop of the Church of
Zürich, his very great friend."194 He read Luther’s book on the Babylonian Captivity three
times with enthusiasm. But when Erasmus broke both with Zwingli and Luther, he
withdrew from the Reformation, and even bitterly opposed Zwingli and
Oecolampadius.
He
left Basel, Feb. 20, 1529, for Catholic Freiburg, and was soon followed by
Erasmus and Amerbach. Here he labored as an esteemed professor of poetry and
fruitful author, until his death (1563). He was surrounded by Swiss and German
students. He corresponded, now, as confidentially with Aegidius Tschudi as he
had formerly corresponded with Zwingli, and co-operated with him in saving a
portion of his countrymen for the Catholic faith.195 He gave free vent to his disgust with Protestantism, and yet
lamented the evils of the Roman Church, the veniality and immorality of priests
who cared more for Venus than for Christ.196 A fearful charge. He received a Protestant Student from
Zürich with the rude words: "You are one of those who carry the gospel in
the mouth and the devil in the heart;" but when reminded that he did not
show the graces of the muses, he excused himself by his old age, and treated
the young man with the greatest civility. He became a pessimist, and expected
the speedy collapse of the world. His friendship with Erasmus was continued
with interruptions, and at last suffered shipwreck. He charged him once with
plagiarism, and Erasmus ignored him in his testament.197 It was a misfortune for both that they
could not understand the times, which had left them behind. The thirty works of
Glarean (twenty-two of them written in Freiburg) are chiefly philological and
musical, and have no bearing on theology.198 They were nevertheless put on the Index by Pope Paul IV., in
1559. He bitterly complained of this injustice, caused by ignorance or
intrigue, and did all he could, with the aid of Tschudi, to have his name
removed, which was done after the seven Catholic cantons had testified that
Glarean was a good Christian.199
The
Reformation progressed in Glarus at first without much opposition. Fridolin
Brunner, pastor at Mollis, wrote to Zwingli, Jan. 15, 1527, that the Gospel was
gaining ground in all the churches of the canton. Johann Schindler preached in
Schwanden with great effect. The congregations decided for the Reformed
preachers, except in Näfels. The reverses at Cappel in 1531 produced a
reaction, and caused some losses, but the Reformed Church retained the majority
of the population to this day, and with it the preponderance of intelligence,
enterprise, wealth, and prosperity, although the numerical relation has
recently changed in favor of the Catholics, in consequence of the emigration of
Protestants to America, and the immigration of Roman-Catholic laborers, who are
attracted by the busy industries (as is the case also in Zürich, Basel, and
Geneva).200
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="34" title="The Reformation in St. Gall, Toggenburg, and
Appenzell. Watt and Kessler">
§ 34.
The Reformation in St. Gall, Toggenburg, and Appenzell. Watt and Kessler.
The
sources and literature in the City Library of St. Gall which bears the name of
Vadian (Watt) and contains his MSS. and printed works.
I.
The historical works of Vadianus, especially his Chronicle of the Abbots of St.
Gall from 1200–1540, and his Diary from 1629–’33, edited by Dr. E. Goetzinger,
St. Gallen, 1875–’79, 3 vols.—Joachimi Vadiani Vita per Joannem Kesslerum
conscripta. Edited from the MS. by Dr. Goetzinger for the Historical Society of
St. Gall, 1865.—Johannes Kessler’s Sabbata. Chronik der Jahre 1523–1539.
Herausgegeben von Dr. Ernst Goetzinger. St. Gallen, 1866. In
"Mittheilungen zur vaterländischen Geschichte" of the Historical
Society of St. Gall, vols. V. and VI. The MS. of 532 pages, written in the
Swiss dialect by Kessler’s own hand, is preserved in the Vadian library.
II.
J. V. Arx (Rom. Cath., d. 1833): Geschichte des Kant. St. Gallen. St. Gallen,
1810–’13, 3 vols.—J. M. Fels: Denkmal Schweizerischer Reformatoren. St. Gallen,
1819.—Joh. Fr. Franz: Die schwarmerischen Gräülscenen der St. Galler
Wiedertäutfer zu Anfang der Reformation. Ebnat in Toggenberg, 1824.—Joh. Jakob
Bernet: Johann Kessler, genannt Ahenarius, Bürger und Reformator zu Sankt
Gallen. St. Gallen, 1826.—K. Wegelin: Geschichte der Grafschaft Toggenburg. St.
Gallen, 1830–’33, 2 Parts.—Fr. Weidmann: Geschichte der Stiftsbibliothek St.
Gallens. 1841.—A. Näf: Chronik oder Denkwürdigkeiten der Stadt und Landschaft
St. Gallen. Zürich, 1851.—J. K. Büchler: Die Reformation im Lande Appenzell.
Trogen, 1860. In the "Appenzellische Jahrbücher."—G. Jak.
Baumgartner: Geschichte des Schweizerischen Freistaates und Kantons St. Gallen.
Zürich, 1868, 2 vols.—H. G. Sulzberger: Geschichte der Reformation in
Toggenburg; in St. Gallen; im Rheinthal; in den eidgenössischen Herrschaften
Sargans und Gaster, sowie in Rapperschwil; in Hohensax-Forsteck; in Appenzell.
Several pamphlets reprinted from the "Appenzeller Sonntagablatt,"
1872 sqq.
III.
Theod. Pressel: Joachim Vadian. In the ninth volume of the "Leben und
ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten
Kirche." Elberfeld, 1861 (pp.
103).—Rud. Stähelin: Die reformatorische Wirksamkeit des St. Galler Humanisten
Vadian, in "Beiträge zur vaterländischen Geschichte," Basel, 1882,
pp. 193–262; and his art. "Watt" in Herzog2, XVI. (1885), pp.
663–668. Comp. also Meyer von Knonau, "St. Gallen," In Herzog2, IV.
725–735.
The
Reformation in the northeastern parts of Switzerland—St. Gall, Toggenburg,
Schaffhausen, Appenzell, Thurgau, Aargau—followed the course of Zürich, Berne,
and Basel. It is a variation of the same theme, on the one hand, in its
negative aspects: the destruction of the papal and episcopal authority, the
abolition of the mass and superstitious rites and ceremonies, the breaking of
images and relics as symbols of idolatry, the dissolution of convents and
confiscation of Church property, the marriage of priests, monks, and nuns; on
the other hand, in its positive aspects: the introduction of a simpler and more
spiritual worship with abundant preaching and instruction from the open Bible
in the vernacular, the restoration of the holy communion under both kinds, as
celebrated by the congregation, the direct approach to Christ without priestly
mediation, the raising of the laity to the privileges of the general priesthood
of believers, care for lower and higher education. These changes were made by
the civil magistracy, which assumed the episcopal authority and function, but
acted on the initiative of the clergy and with the consent of the majority of
the people, which in democratic Switzerland was after all the sovereign power.
An Antistes was placed at the head of the ministers as a sort of bishop or
general superintendent. Synods attended to legislation and administration. The
congregations called and supported their own pastors.
St.
Gall—so-called from St. Gallus (Gilian), an Irish missionary and pupil of
Columban, who with several hermits settled in the wild forest on the Steinach
about 613—was a centre of Christianization and civilization in Alemannia and
Eastern Switzerland. A monastery was founded about 720 by St. Othmar and became
a royal abbey exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and very rich in revenues
from landed possessions in Switzerland, Swabia, and Lombardy, as well as in
manuscripts of classical and ecclesiastical learning. Church poetry, music,
architecture, sculpture, and painting flourished there in the ninth and tenth
centuries. Notker Balbulus, a monk of St. Gall (d. c. 912), is the author of
the sequences or hymns in rhythmical prose (prosae), and credited with the
mournful meditation on death ("Media vita in morte sumus"), which is
still in use, but of later and uncertain origin. With the increasing wealth of
the abbey the discipline declined and worldliness set in. The missionary and
literary zeal died out. The bishop of Constance was jealous of the independence
and powers of the abbot. The city of St. Gall grew in prosperity and longed for
emancipation from monastic control. The clergy needed as much reformation as
the monks. Many of them lived in open concubinage, and few were able to make a
sermon. The high festivals were profaned by scurrilous popular amusements. The
sale of indulgences was carried on with impunity.
The
Reformation was introduced in the city and district of St. Gall by Joachim von
Watt, a layman (1484–1551), and John Kessler, a minister (1502–1574). The
co-operation of the laity and clergy is congenial to the spirit of
Protestantism which emancipated the Church from hierarchical control.
Joachim
von Watt, better known by his Latin name Vadianus, excelled in his day as a
humanist, poet, historian, physician, statesman, and reformer. He was descended
from an old noble family, the son of a wealthy merchant, and studied the
humanities in the University of Vienna (1502),201 which was then at the height
of its prosperity under the teaching of Celtes and Cuspinian, two famous
humanists and Latin poets. He acquired also a good knowledge of philosophy,
theology, law, and medicine. After travelling through Poland, Hungary, and
Italy, he returned to Vienna and taught classical literature and rhetoric. He
was crowned poet and orator by Maximilian (March 12, 1514), and elected rector
of the University in 1516. He published several classical authors and Latin
poems, orations, and essays. He stood in friendly correspondence with Reuchlin,
Hutten, Hesse, Erasmus, and other leaders of the new learning, and especially
also with Zwingli.202
In
1518 Watt returned to St. Gall and practised as physician till his death, but
took at the same time an active part in all public affairs of Church and State.
He was repeatedly elected burgomaster. He was a faithful co-worker of Zwingli
in the cause of reform. Zwingli called him "a physician of body and soul
of the city of St. Gall and the whole confederacy," and said, "I know
no Swiss that equals him."
Calvin and Beza recognized in him "a man of rare piety and equally
rare learning." He called evangelical
ministers and teachers to St. Gall. He took a leading part in the religious
disputations at Zürich (1523–1525), and presided over the disputation at Berne
(1528).
St.
Gall was the first city to follow the example of Zürich under his lead. The images
were removed from the churches and publicly burnt in 1526 and 1528; only the
organ and the bones of St. Othmar (the first abbot) and Notker were saved. An
evangelical church order was introduced in 1527. At the same time the
Anabaptists endangered the Reformation by strange excesses of fanaticism. Watt
had no serious objection to their doctrines, and was a friend and
brother-in-law of Grebel, their leader, but he opposed them in the interest of
peace and order.
The
death of the abbot, March 21, 1529, furnished the desired opportunity, at the
advice of Zürich and Zwingli, to abolish the abbey and to confiscate its rich
domain, with the consent of the majority of the citizens, but in utter
disregard of legal rights. This was a great mistake, and an act of injustice.
The
disaster of Cappel produced a reaction, and a portion of the canton returned to
the old church. A new abbot was elected, Diethelm Blaurer; he demanded the
property of the convent and sixty thousand guilders damages for what had been
destroyed and sold. The city had to yield. He held a solemn entry. He attended
the last session of the Council of Trent and took a leading part in the
counter-Reformation.
Watt
showed, during this critical period, courage and moderation. He retained the
confidence of his fellow-citizens, who elected him nine times to the highest
civil office. He did what he could, in co-operation with Kessler and Bullinger,
to save and consolidate the Reformed Church during the remaining years of his
life. He was a portly, handsome, and dignified man, and wrote a number of
geographical, historical, and theological works.203
John
Kessler (Chessellius or Ahenarius), the son of a day-laborer of St. Gall,
studied theology at Basel, and Wittenberg. He was one of the two students who
had an interesting interview with Dr. Luther in the hotel of the Black Bear at
Jena in March, 1522, on his return as Knight George from the Wartburg.204 It was the only friendly meeting of
Luther with the Swiss. Had he shown the same kindly feeling to Zwingli at
Marburg, the cause of the Reformation would have been the gainer.
Kessler
supported himself by the trade of a saddler, and preached in the city and
surrounding villages. He was also chief teacher of the Latin school. In 1571, a
year before his death, he was elected Antistes or head of the clergy of St.
Gall. He had a wife and eleven children, nine of whom survived him. He was a pure,
amiable, unselfish, and useful man and promoter of evangelical religion. His
portrait in oil adorns the City Library of St. Gall.
The
county of Toggenburg, the home of Zwingli, was subject to the abbot of St. Gall
since 1468, but gladly received the Reformed preachers under the influence of
Zwingli, his relatives and friends. In 1524 the council of the community
enjoined upon the ministers to teach nothing but what they could prove from the
sacred Scriptures. The people resisted the interference of the abbot, the
bishop of Constance, and the canton Schwyz. In 1528 the Reformation was
generally introduced in the towns of the district. With the help of Zürich and
Glarus, the Toggenburgers bought their freedom from the abbot of St. Gall for
fifteen hundred guilders, in 1530; but were again subjected to his authority in
1536. The county was incorporated in the canton St. Gall in 1803. The majority
of the people are Protestants.
The
canton Appenzell received its first Protestant preachers—John Schurtanner of Teufen,
John Dorig of Herisau, and Walter Klarer of Hundwil—from the neighboring St.
Gall, through the influence of Watt. The Reformation was legally ratified by a
majority vote of the people, Aug. 26, 1523. The congregations emancipated
themselves from the jurisdiction of the abbot of St. Gall, and elected their
own pastors. The Anabaptist disturbances promoted the Roman-Catholic reaction.
The population is nearly equally divided,—Innerrhoden, with the town of
Appenzell, remained Catholic; Ausserrhoden, with Herisau, Trogen, and Gais, is
Reformed, and more industrious and prosperous.
The
Reformation in Thurgau and Aargau presents no features of special interest.205
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="35" title="Reformation in Schaffhausen. Hofmeister">
§ 35.
Reformation in Schaffhausen. Hofmeister.
Melchior
Kirchofer: Schaffhauserische Jahrbücher von 1519–1539, oder Geschichte der
Reformation der Stadt und Landschaft Schaffhausen. Schaffhausen, 1819; 2d ed.
Frauenfeld, 1838 (pp. 152). By, the same: Sebastian Wagner, genannt Hofmeister.
Zürich, 1808.—Edw. Im-Thurm und Hans W. Harder: Chronik der Stadt Schaffhausen
(till 1790). Schaffhausen, 1844.—H. G. Sulzberger: Geschichte der Reformation
des Kant. Schaffhausen. Schaffhausen, 1876 (pp. 47).
Schaffhausen
on the Rhine and the borders of Württemberg and Baden followed the example of
the neighboring canton Zürich, under the lead of Sebastian Hofmeister
(1476–1533), a Franciscan monk and doctor and professor of theology at
Constance, where the bishop resided. He addressed Zwingli, in 1520, as
"the firm preacher of the truth," and wished to become his helper in
healing the diseases of the Church of Switzerland.206 He preached in his native city of
Schaffhausen against the errors and abuses of Rome, and attended as delegate
the religious disputations at Zürich (January and October, 1523), which
resulted in favor of the Reformation.
He
was aided by Sebastian Meyer, a Franciscan brother who came from Berne, and by
Ritter, a priest who had formerly opposed him.
The
Anabaptists appeared from Zürich with their radical views. The community was
thrown into disorder. The magistracy held Hofmeister and Myer responsible, and
banished them from the canton. A reaction followed, but the Reformation
triumphed in 1529. The villages followed the city. Some noble families remained
true to the old faith, and emigrated.
Schaffhausen
was favored by a succession of able and devoted ministers, and gave birth to
some distinguished historians.207
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="36" title="The Grisons (Graubünden)">
§ 36.
The Grisons (Graubünden).
Colonel
Landammann Theofil Sprecher a Bernegg at Maienfeld, Graubünden, has a complete
library of the history of the Grisons, including some of the manuscripts of
Campell and De Porta. I was permitted to use it for this and the following two
sections under his hospitable roof in June, 1890. I have also examined the Kantons-Bibliothek
of Graubünden in the "Raetische Museum" at Coire, which is rich in
the (Romanic) literature of the Grisons.
I.
Ulrici Campelli Raetiae Alpestris Topographica Descriptio, edited by Chr. J.
Kind, Basel (Schneider), 1884, pp. 448, and Historia Raetica, edited by Plac.
Plattner, Basel, tom. I., 1877, pp. 724, and tom. II., 1890, pp. 781. These two
works form vols. VII., VIII., and IX. of Quellen zur Schweizer-Geschichte,
published by the General Historical Society of Switzerland. They are the foundation
for the topography and history of the Grisons in the sixteenth century. Campell
was Reformed pastor at Süs in the Lower Engadin, and is called "the father
of the historians of Rätia."
De Porta says that all historians of Rätia have ploughed with his team.
An abridged German translation from the Latin manuscripts was published by
Conradin von Mohr: Ulr. Campell’s Zwei Bücher rätischer Geschichte, Chur
(Hitz), 1849 and 1851, 2 vols., pp. 236 and 566.
R.
Ambrosius Eichhorn (Presbyter Congregationis S. Blasii, in the Black Forest):
Episcopatus Curiensis in Rhaetia sub metropoli Moguntina chronologice et
diplomatice illustratus. Typis San-Blasianis, 1797 (pp. 368, 40). To which is
added Codex Probationum ad Episcopatum Curiensem ex proecipuis documentis omnibus
ferme ineditis collectus, 204 pp. The Reformation period is described pp. 139
sqq. Eichhorn was a Roman Catholic priest, and gives the documents relating to
the episcopal see of Coire from a.d. 766–1787. On "Zwinglianisms in
Raetia," see pp. 142, 146, 248. (I examined a copy in the Episcopal
Library at Coire.)
II
General works on the history of the Grisons by Joh. Guler (d. 1637), Fortunatus
Sprecher a Bernegg (d. 1647), Fortunatus Juvalta (d. 1654). Th. Von Mohr and
Conradin Von Mohr (or Moor): Archiv für die Geschichte der Republik Graubünden.
Chur, 1848–’86. 9 vols. A collection of historical works on Graubünden,
including the Codex diplomaticus, Sammlung der Urkunden zur Geschichte
Chur-Rhätiens und der Republik Graübunden. The Codex was continued by Jecklin,
1883–’86. Conradin Von Moor: Bündnerische Geschichtschreiber und Chronisten.
Chur, 1862–277. 10 parts. By the same: Geschichte von Currätien und der Republ.
Graubünden. Chur, 1869.—Joh. Andr. von Sprecher: Geschichte der Republik der
drei Bünde im 18ten Jahrh. Chur, 1873–’75.2 vols.—A good popular summary: Graubündnerische Geschichten
erzählt für die reformirten Volksschulen (by P. Kaiser). Chur, 1852 (pp. 281).
Also J. K. von Tscharner: Der Kanton Graubünden, historisch, statistisch,
geographisch dargestellt. Chur, 1842.
The
Reformation literature see in § 37.
III.
On the history of Valtellina, Chiavenna, and Bormio, which until 1797 were
under the jurisdiction of the Grisons, the chief writers are: —
Fr.
Sav. Quadrio: Dissertazioni critico-storiche intorno alla Rezia di qua dalle
Alpi, oggi detta Valtellina. Milano, 1755. 2 vols., especially the second vol.,
which treats la storia ecclesiastica.—Ulysses Von Salis: StaatsGesch. des Thals
Veltlin und der Graftschaften Clefen und Worms. 1792. 4 vols.—Lavizari: Storia
della Valtellina. Capolago, 1838. 2 vols. Romegialli: Storia della Valtellina e
delle già contee di Bormio e Chiavenna. Sondrio, 1834–’39. 4 vols.—Wiezel:
Veltliner Krieg, edited by Hartmann. Strassburg, 1887.
The
canton of the Grisons or Graubünden208 was at the time of the
Reformation an independent democratic republic in friendly alliance with the
Swiss Confederacy, and continued independent till 1803, when it was
incorporated as a canton. Its history had little influence upon other
countries, but reflects the larger conflicts of Switzerland with some original
features. Among these are the Romanic and Italian conquests of Protestantism,
and the early recognition of the principle of religious liberty. Each
congregation was allowed to choose between the two contending churches
according to the will of the majority, and thus civil and religious war was
prevented, at least during the sixteenth century.209
Graubünden
is, in nature as well as in history, a Switzerland in miniature. It is situated
in the extreme south-east of the republic, between Austria and Italy, and
covers the principal part of the old Roman province of Rätia.210 It forms a wall between the north and
the south, and yet combines both with a network of mountains and valleys from
the regions of the eternal snow to the sunny plains of the vine, the fig, and
the lemon. In territorial extent it is the largest canton, and equal to any in
variety and beauty of scenery and healthy climate. It is the fatherland of the
Rhine and the Inn. The Engadin is the highest inhabited valley of Switzerland,
and unsurpassed for a combination of attractions for admirers of nature and
seekers of health. It boasts of the healthiest climate with nine months of dry,
bracing cold and three months of delightfully cool weather.
The
inhabitants are descended from three nationalities, speak three
languages,—German, Italian, and Romansh (Romanic),—and preserve many
peculiarities of earlier ages. The German language prevails in Coire, along the
Rhine, and in the Prättigau, and is purer than in the other cantons. The
Italian is spoken to the south of the Alps in the valleys of Poschiavo and
Bregaglia (as also in the neighboring canton Ticino). The Romansh language is a
remarkable relic of prehistoric times, an independent sister of the Italian,
and is spoken in the Upper and Lower Engadin, the Münster valley, and the
Oberland. It has a considerable literature, mostly religious, which attracts
the attention of comparative philologists.211
The
Grisonians (Graubündtner) are a sober, industrious, and heroic race, and have
maintained their independence against the armies of Spain, Austria, and France.
They have a natural need and inclination to emigrate to richer countries in
pursuit of fortune, and to return again to their mountain homes. They are found
in all the capitals of Europe and America as merchants, hotel keepers,
confectioners, teachers, and soldiers.
The
institutions of the canton are thoroughly democratic and exemplify the good and
evil effects of popular sovereignty.212 "Next to God and the sun," says an old Engadin
proverb, "the poorest inhabitant is the chief magistrate." There are indeed to this day in the
Grisons many noble families, descended in part from mediaeval robber-chiefs and
despots whose ruined castles still look down from rocks and cliffs, and in
greater part from distinguished officers and diplomatists in foreign service;
but they have no more influence than their personal merits and prestige
warrant. In official relations and transactions the titles of nobility are
forbidden.213
Let
us briefly survey the secular history before we proceed to the Reformation.
The
Grisons were formed of three loosely connected confederacies or leagues, that
is, voluntary associations of freemen, who, during the fifteenth century, after
the example of their Swiss neighbors, associated for mutual protection and
defence against domestic and foreign tyrants.214 These three leagues united in 1471 at Vatzerol in an eternal
covenant, which was renewed in 1524, promising to each other by an oath mutual
assistance in peace and war. The three confederacies sent delegates to the Diet
which met alternately at Coire, Ilanz, and Davos.
At
the close of the fifteenth century two leagues of the Grisons entered into a
defensive alliance with the seven old cantons of Switzerland. The third league
followed the example.215
In
the beginning of the sixteenth century the Grisonians acquired by conquest from
the duchy of Milan several beautiful and fertile districts south of the Alps
adjoining the Milanese and Venetian territories, namely, the Valtellina and the
counties of Bormio (Worms) and Chiavenna (Cleven), and annexed them as
dependencies ruled by bailiffs. It would have been wiser to have received them
as a fourth league with equal rights and privileges. These Italian possessions
involved the Grisons in the conflict between Austria and Spain on the one hand,
which desired to keep them an open pass, and between France and Venice on the
other, which wanted them closed against their political rivals. Hence the
Valtellina has been called the Helena of a new Trojan War. Graubünden was
invaded during the Thirty Years’ War by Austro-Spanish and French armies. After
varied fortunes, the Italian provinces were lost to Graubünden through
Napoleon, who, by a stroke of the pen, Oct. 10, 1797, annexed the Valtellina,
Bormio, and Chiavenna to the new Cisalpine Republic. The Congress of Vienna
transferred them to Austria in 1814, and since 1859 they belong to the united
Kingdom of Italy.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="37" title="The Reformation in the Grisons. Comander.
Gallicius. Campell">
§ 37.
The Reformation in the Grisons. Comander. Gallicius. Campell.
The work
of CAMPELL quoted in § 36.
Bartholomäus
Anhorn: Heilige Wiedergeburt der evang. Kirche in den gemeinen drei Bündten der
freien hohen Rhätien, oder Beschreibung ihrer Reformation und
Religionsverbesserung, etc. Brugg, 1680 (pp. 246). A new ed. St. Gallen, 1860
(pp. 144, 8°). By the same: Püntner Aufruhr im Jahr 1607, ed. from MSS. by
Conradin von Mohr, Chur, 1862; and his Graw-Püntner [Graubündner]-Krieg,
1603–1629, ed. by Conr. von Mohr, Chur, 1873.
*Petrus
Dominicus Rosius De Porta (Reformed minister at Scamff, or Scanfs, in the Upper
Engadin): Historia Reformationis Ecclesiarum Raeticarum, ex genuinis fontibus
et adhuc maximam partem numquam impressis sine partium studio deducta, etc.
Curiae Raetorum. Tom. I., 1771 (pp. 658, 4°); Tom. II., 1777 (pp. 668); Tom.
III., Como, 1786. Comes down to 1642. Next to Campell, the standard authority
and chief source of later works.
Leonhard
Truog (Reformed pastor at Thuais): Reformations-Geschichte von Graubünden aus
zuverlässigen Quellen sorgfältig geschöpft. Denkmal der dritten
Sekular-Jubelfeier der Bündnerischen Reformation. Chur (Otto), 1819 (pp.
132).—Reformationsbüchlein. Ein Denkmal des im Jahr 1819 in der Stadt Chur
gefeierten Jubelfestes. Chur (Otto), 1819. (pp. 304).
*Christian
Immanuel Kind (Pfarrer und Cancellarius der evang. rhätischen Synode, afterward
Staats-Archivarius of the Grisons, d. May 23, 1884): Die Reformation in den
Bisthümern Chur und Como. Dargestellt nach den besten älteren und neueren
Hülfsmitteln. Chur, 1858 (Grubenmann), pp. 310, 8°. A popular account based on
a careful study of the sources. By the same: Die Stadt Chur in ihrer ältesten
Geschichte, Chur, 1859; Philipp Gallicius, 1868; Georg Jenatsch, in "Allg.
Deutsche Biogr.," Bd. XIII. Georg Leonhardi (pastor in Brusio, Poschiavo):
Philipp Gallicius, Reformator Graubündens. Bern, 1865 (pp. 103). The same also
in Romansch.—H. G. Sulzberger (in Sevelen, St. Gallen, d. 1888): Geschichte der
Reformation im Kanton Graubünden. Chur, 1880. pp. 90 (revised by Kind).—Florian
Peer: L’église de Rhétie au XVIme XVIIme siècles. Genève, 1888.—Herold: J.
Komander, in Meili’s Zeitschrift, Zurich, 1891.
The
Christianization of the Grisons is traced back by tradition to St. Lucius, a
royal prince of Britain, and Emerita, his sister, in the latter part of the
second century.216
A chapel on the mountain above Coire perpetuates his memory. A bishop of
Coire (Asimo) appears first in the year 452, as signing by proxy the creed of
Chalcedon.217 The bishops of
Coire acquired great possessions and became temporal princes.218 The whole country of the Grisons stood
under the jurisdiction of the bishops of Coire and Como.
The
state of religion and the need of a reformation were the same as in the other
cantons of Switzerland. The first impulse to the Reformation came from Zürich
with which Coire had close connections. Zwingli sent an address to the
"three confederacies in Rhätia," expressing a special interest in
them as a former subject of the bishop of Coire, exhorting them to reform the
Church in alliance with Zürich, and recommending to them his friend Comander
(Jan. 16, 1525).219
Several of his pupils preached in Fläsch, Malans, Maienfeld, Coire, and
other places as early as 1524. After his death Bullinger showed the same
interest in the Grisons. The Reformation passed through the usual difficulties
first with the Church of Rome, then with Anabaptists, Unitarians, and the
followers of the mystical Schwenkfeld, all of whom found their way into that
remote corner of the world. One of the leading Anabaptists of Zürich, Georg
Blaurock, was an ex-monk of Coire, and on account of his eloquence called
"the mighty Jörg," or "the second Paul." He was expelled from Zürich, and burnt
by the Catholics in the Tyrol (1529).
The
Reformers abolished the indulgences, the sacrifice of the mass, the worship of
images, sacerdotal celibacy and concubinage, and a number of unscriptural and
superstitious ceremonies, and introduced instead the Bible and Bible preaching
in church and school, the holy communion in both kinds, clerical family life,
and a simple evangelical piety, animated by an active faith in Christ as the
only Saviour and Mediator. Where that faith is wanting the service in the
barren churches is jejune and chilly.
The
chief Reformers of the Grisons were Comander, Gallicius, Campell, and Vergerius,
and next to them Alexander Salandronius (Salzmann), Blasius, and John Travers.
The last was a learned and influential layman of the Engadin. Comander labored
in the German, Gallicius and Campell in the Romansh, Vergerius in the Italian
sections of the Grisons. They were Zwinglians in theology,220 and introduced the
changes of Zürich and Basel. Though occupying only a second or third rank among
the Reformers, they were the right men in the right places, faithful,
self-denying workers in a poor country, among an honest, industrious,
liberty-loving but parsimonious people. With small means they accomplished
great and permanent results.
John
Comander (Dorfmann), formerly a Roman priest, of unknown antecedents, preached
the Reformed doctrines in the church of St. Martin at Coire from 1524. He
learned Hebrew in later years, to the injury of his eyes, that he might read
the Old Testament in the original. Zwingli sent him Bibles and commentaries.
The citizens protected him against violence and accompanied him to and from
church. The bishop of Coire arraigned him for heresy before the Diet of the
three confederacies in 1525.
The
Diet, in spite of the remonstrance of the bishop, ordered a public disputation
at Ilanz, the first town on the Rhine. The disputation was begun on Sunday
after Epiphany, Jan. 7, 1526, under the presidency of the civil authorities,
and lasted several days. It resembled the disputations of Zürich, and ended in
a substantial victory of the Reformation. The conservative party was
represented by the Episcopal Vicar, the abbot of St. Lucius, the deans, and a
few priests and monks; the progressive party, by several young preachers, Comander,
Gallicius, Blasius, Pontisella, Fabricius, and Hartmann. Sebastian Hofmeister
of Schaffhausen was present as a listener, and wrote an account of the
speeches.221
Comander
composed for the occasion eighteen theses,—an abridgment of the sixty-seven
conclusions of Zwingli. The first thesis was: "The Christian Church is
born of the Word of God and should abide in it, and not listen to the voice of
a stranger" (John 10:4, 5). He defended this proposition with a wealth of
biblical arguments which the champions of Rome were not able to refute. There
was also some debate about the rock-passage in Matt. 16:18, the mass,
purgatory, and sacerdotal celibacy. The Catholics brought the disputation to an
abrupt close.
In
the summer of the same year (June 26, 1526), the Diet of Ilanz proclaimed
religious freedom, or the right of all persons in the Grisons, of both sexes,
and of whatever condition or rank, to choose between the Catholic and the
Reformed religion. Heretics, who after due admonition adhered to their error,
were excluded and subjected to banishment (but not to death). This remarkable
statute was in advance of the intolerance of the times, and forms the charter
of religious freedom in the Grisons.222
The
Diet of Ilanz ordered the ministers to preach nothing but what they could prove
from the Scriptures, and to give themselves diligently to the study of the
same. The political authority of the bishop of Coire was curtailed, appeals to
him from the civil jurisdiction were forbidden, and the parishes were empowered
to elect and to dismiss their own priests or pastors.223
Thus
the episcopal monarchy was abolished and congregational independency
introduced, but without the distinction made by the English and American
Congregationalists between the church proper, or the body of converted
believers, and the congregation of hearers or mere nominal Christians.
This
legislation was brought about by the aid of liberal Catholic laymen, such as
John Travers and John Guler, who at that time had not yet joined the Reformed
party. The strict Catholics were dissatisfied, but had to submit. In 1553 the
Pope sent a delegate to Coire and demanded the introduction of the Inquisition;
but Comander, Bullinger, and the French ambassador defeated the attempt.
Comander,
aided by his younger colleague, Blasius, and afterwards by Gallicius, continued
to maintain the Reformed faith against Papists, Anabaptists, and also against
foreign pensioners who had their headquarters at Coire, and who punished him
for his opposition by a reduction of his scanty salary of one hundred and
twenty guilders. He was at times tempted to resign, but Bullinger urged him to
hold on.224 He stood at the
head of the Reformed synod till his death in 1557.
He
was succeeded by Fabricius, who died of the pestilence in 1566.
Philip
Gallicius (Saluz) developed a more extensive activity. He is the Reformer of
the Engadin, but labored also as pastor and evangelist in Domleschg, Langwies,
and Coire. He was born on the eastern frontier of Graubünden in 1504, and began
to preach already in 1520. He had an irresistible eloquence and power of
persuasion. When he spoke in Romansh, the people flocked from every direction
to hear him. He was the chief speaker at two disputations in Süs, a town of the
Lower Engadin, against the Papists (1537), and against the Anabaptists (1544).225 He also introduced the Reformation in
Zuz in the Lower Engadin, 1554, with the aid of John Travers, a distinguished
patriot, statesman, soldier, and lay-preacher, who was called "the
steelclad Knight in the service of the Lord."
Gallicius
suffered much persecution and poverty, but remained gentle, patient, and
faithful to the end. When preaching in the Domleschg he had not even bread to
feed his large family, and lived for weeks on vegetables and salt. And yet he
educated a son for the ministry at Basel, and dissuaded him from accepting a
lucrative offer in another calling. He also did as much as he could for the Italian
refugees. He died of the pestilence with his wife and three sons at Coire,
1566.
He
translated the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Ten Commandments,
and several chapters of the Bible, into the Romansh language, and thus laid the
foundation of the Romansh literature. He also wrote a catechism and a Latin
grammar, which were printed at Coire. He prepared the Confession of Raetia, in
1552, which was afterwards superseded by the Confession of Bullinger in 1566.
Ulrich
Campell (b. c. 1510, d. 1582) was pastor at Coire and at Süs, and, next to
Gallicius, the chief reformer of the Engadin. He is also the first historian of
Raetia and one of the founders of the religious literature in Romanic Raetia.
His history is written in good Latin, and based upon personal observation, the
accounts of the ancient Romans, the researches of Tschudi, and communications
of Bullinger and Vadian. It begins a.d. 100 and ends about 1582.
The
Romansh literature was first cultivated during the Reformation.226 Gallicius, Campell, and Biveroni
(Bifrun) are the founders of it. Campell prepared a metrical translation of the
Psalter, with original hymns and a catechism (1562). Jacob Biveroni, a lawyer
of Samaden, published a translation of Comander’s Catechism, which was printed
at Poschiavo, 1552, and (with the aid of Gallicius and Campell) the entire New
Testament, which appeared first in 1560 at Basel, and became the chief agency
in promoting the evangelical faith in those regions. The people, who knew only
the Romansh language, says a contemporary, "were amazed like the
lsraelites of old at the sight of the manna."
The
result of the labors of the Reformers and their successors in Graubünden was
the firm establishment of an evangelical church which numbered nearly
two-thirds of the population; while one-third remained Roman Catholic. This
numerical relation has substantially remained to this day with some change in
favor of Rome, though not by conversion, but by emigration and immigration. The
two churches live peacefully together. The question of religion was decided in
each community by a majority vote, like any political or local question. The
principle of economy often gave the decision either for the retention of the
Roman priest, or the choice of a Reformed preacher.227 Some stingy congregations remained
vacant to get rid of all obligations, or hired now a priest, now a preacher for
a short season. Gallicius complained to Bullinger about this independence which
favored license under the name of liberty. Not unfrequently congregations are
deceived by foreign adventurers who impose themselves upon them as pastors.
The
democratic autonomy explains the curious phenomenon of the mixture of religion
in the Grisons. The traveller may pass in a few hours through a succession of
villages and churches of different creeds. At Coire the city itself is
Reformed, and the Catholics with their bishop form a separate town on a hill,
called the Court (of the bishop).
There
is in Graubünden neither a State church nor a free church, but a people’s
church.228 Every citizen is
baptized, confirmed, and a church member. Every congregation is sovereign, and
elects and supports its own pastor. In 1537 a synod was constituted, which
meets annually in the month of June. It consists of all the ministers and three
representatives of the government, and attends to the examination and
ordination of candidates, and the usual business of administration. The civil
government watches over the preservation of the church property, and prevents a
collision of ecclesiastical and civil legislation, but the administration of
church property is in the hands of the local congregations or parishes. The
Second Helvetic Confession of Bullinger was formally accepted as the creed of
the Church in 1566, but has latterly gone out of use. Ministers are only
required to teach the doctrines of the Bible in general conformity to the
teaching of the Reformed Church. Pastors are at liberty to use any catechism
they please. The cultus is very simple, and the churches are devoid of all
ornament. Many pious customs prevail among the people. A Protestant college was
opened at Coire in the year 1542 with Pontisella, a native of Bregaglia, as
first rector, who had been gratuitously educated at Zürich by the aid of
Bullinger. With the college was connected a theological seminary for the
training of ministers. This was abolished in 1843,229 and its funds were
converted into scholarships for candidates, who now pursue their studies at
Basel and Zürich or in German universities. In 1850 the Reformed college at
Coire and the Catholic college of St. Lucius have been consolidated into one
institution (Cantonsschule) located on a hill above Coire, near the episcopal
palace.
During
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Reformed clergy were orthodox in
the sense of moderate Calvinism; in the eighteenth century Pietism and the
Moravian community exerted a wholesome influence on the revival of spiritual
life.230 In the present century about one-half
of the clergy have been brought up under the influence of German Rationalism,
and preach Christian morality without supernatural dogmas and miracles.
The
Protestant movement in the Italian valleys of the Grisons began in the middle
of the sixteenth century, but may as well be anticipated here.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="38" title="The Reformation in the Italian Valleys of the
Grisons. Vergerio">
§ 38.
The Reformation in the Italian Valleys of the Grisons. Vergerio.
I. P.
Dom. Rosius De Porta: Dissertatio historico-ecclesiastica qua ecclesiarum
colloquio Vallis Praegalliae et Comitatiis Clavennae olim comprehensarum
Reformatio et status ... exponitur. Curiae, 1787 (pp. 56, 4°). His Historia
Reformations Eccles. Rhaeticarum, bk. II. ch. v. pp. 139–179 (on
Vergerio).—Dan. Gerdes (a learned Reformed historian, 1698–1765): Specimen
Italiae Reformatae. L. Batav. 1765.—*Thomas McCrie (1772–1835, author of the
Life of John Knox, etc.): History of the Progress and Suppression of the Reformation
in Italy. Edinburgh, 1827. 2d ed. 1833. Republished by the Presbyterian Board
of Publication, Philadelphia, 1842. Ch. VI., pp. 291 sqq., treats of the
foreign Italian churches and the Reformation in the Grisons.—F. Trechsel: Die
protest. Antitrinitarier, Heidelberg, 1844, vol. II. 64 sqq.)—G. Leonhardi:
Ritter Johannes Guler von Weineck, Lebensbild eines Rhätiers aus dem 17ten
Jahrh. Bern, 1863. By the same: Puschlaver Mord. Veltiner Mord. Die Ausrottung
des Protestantismus im Misoxerthal. In the Zeitschrift "der Wahre
Protestant," Basel, 1852–’54.—B. Reber: Georg Jenatsch, Graubündens
Pfarrer und Held während des dreissigjährigen Kriegs. In the "Beitäge zur
vaterländischen Geschichte," Basel, 1860.—E. Lechner: Das Thal Bergell
(Bregaglia) in Graubünden, Natur, Sagen, Geschichte, Volk, Sprache, etc.
Leipzig, 1865 (pp. 140).—Y. F. Fetz (Rom. Cath.): Geschichte der
kirchenpolitischen Wirren im Freistaat der drei Bünde vom Anfang des 17ten
Jahrh. bis auf die Gegenwart. Chur, 1875 (pp. 367).—*Karl Benrath: Bernardino
Ochino von Siena. Leipzig, 1875 (English translation with preface by William
Arthur, London, 1876). Comp. his Ueber die Quellen der italienischen
Reformationsgeschichte. Bonn, 1876.—*Joh. Kaspar Mörikofer: Geschichte der
evangelischen Flüchtlinge in der Schweiz. Zürich, 1876.—John Stoughton:
Footprints of Italian Reformers. London, 1881 (pp. 235, 267 sqq.).—Em. Comba
(professor of church history in the Waldensian Theological College at
Florence): Storia della Riforma in Italia. Firenze, 1881 (only l vol. so far).
Biblioteca della Riforma Italiana Sec. XVI. Firenze, 1883–’86. 6 vols. Visita
ai Grigioni Riformati Italiani. Firenze, 1885. Vera Narrazione del Massacro di
Valtellina. Zürich, 1621. Republished in Florence, 1886. Comp. literature on p.
131.
II.
The Vergerius literature. The works of Vergerius, Latin and Italian, are very
rare. Niceron gives a list of fifty-five, Sixt (pp. 595–601) of eighty-nine. He
began a collection of his Opera adversus Papatum, of which only the first
volume has appeared, at Tübingen, 1563. Recently Emil Comba has edited his
Trattacelli e sua storia di Francesco Spiera in the first two volumes of his
"Biblioteca della Riforma Italiana," Firenze, 1883, and the Parafrasi
sopra l’ Epistola ai Romani, 1886. Sixt has published, from the Archives of
Königsberg, forty-four letters of Vergerius to Albert, Duke of Prussia (pp. 533
sqq.), and Kausler and Schott (librarian at Stuttgart), his correspondence with
Christopher, Duke of Würtemberg (Briefwechsel zwischen Christoph Herzog von
Würt. und P. P. Vergerius, Tübingen, 1875).—Walter Friedensburg: Die
Nunciaturen des Vergerio, 1533–’36. Gotha, 1892 (615 pp.). From the papal
archives.
Chr.
H. Sixt: Petrus Paulus Vergerius, päpstlicher Nuntius, katholischer Bischof und
Vorkämpfer des Evangeliums. Braunschweig, 1855 (pp. 601). With a picture of
Vergerius. 2d (title) ed. 1871. The labors in the Grisons are described in ch.
III. 181 sqq.—Scattered notices of Vergerius are found in Sleidan, Seckendorf,
De Porta, Sarpi, Pallavicini, Raynaldus, Maimburg, Bayle, Niceron, Schelhorn,
Salig, and Meyer (in his monograph on Locarno. I. 36, 51; II. 236–255). A good
article by Schott in Herzog2, XVI. 351–357. (Less eulogistic than Sixt.)
The
evangelical Reformation spread in the Italian portions of the Grisons; namely,
the valleys of Pregell or Bregaglia,231 and Poschiavo (Puschlav),
which still belong to the Canton, and in the dependencies of the Valtellina
(Veltlin), Bormio (Worms), and Chiavenna (Cleven), which were ruled by
governors (like the Territories of the United States), but were lost to the
Grisons in 1797. The Valtellina is famous for its luxuriant vegetation, fiery
wine, and culture of silk. A Protestant congregation was also organized at
Locarno in the Canton Ticino (Tessin), which then was a dependency of the Swiss
Confederacy. This Italian chapter of the history of Swiss Protestantism is
closely connected with the rise and suppression of the Reformation in Italy and
the emigration of many Protestant confessors, who, like the French Huguenots of
a later period, were driven from their native land, to enrich with their
industry and virtue foreign countries where they found a hospitable home.
The
first impulse to the Reformation in the Italian Grisons came from Gallicius and
Campell, who labored in the neighboring Engadin, and knew Italian as well as
Romansh. The chief agents were Protestant refugees who fled from the
Inquisition to Northern Italy and found protection under the government of the
Grisons. Many of them settled there permanently; others went to Zürich, Basel,
and Geneva. In the year 1550 the number of Italian refugees was about two
hundred. Before 1559 the number had increased to eight hundred. One fourth or
fifth of them were educated men. Some inclined to Unitarian and Anabaptist
opinions, and prepared the way for Socinianism. Among the latter may be
mentioned Francesco Calabrese (in the Engadin); Tiriano (at Coire); Camillo
Renato, a forerunner of Socinianism (at Tirano in the Valtellina); Ochino, the
famous Capuchin pulpit orator (who afterwards went to Geneva, England, and
Zürich); Lelio Sozini (who died at Zürich, 1562); and his more famous nephew,
Fausto Sozini (1539–1604), the proper founder of Socinianism, who ended his
life in Poland.
The
most distinguished of the Italian evangelists in the Grisons, is Petrus Paulus
Vergerius (1498–1565).232
He labored there four years (1549–1553), and left some permanent traces
of his influence. He ranks among the secondary Reformers, and is an interesting
but somewhat ambiguous and unsatisfactory character, with a changeful career.
He held one of the highest positions at the papal court, and became one of its
most decided opponents.
Vergerio
was at first a prominent lawyer at Venice. After the death of his wife (Diana
Contarini), he entered the service of the Church, and soon rose by his talents
and attainments to influential positions. He was sent by Clement VII., together
with Campeggi and Pimpinelli, to the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, where he
associated with Faber, Eck, and Cochlaeus, and displayed great zeal and skill
in attempting to suppress the Protestant heresy. He was made papal secretary
and domestic chaplain, 1532. He was again sent by Paul III. to Germany, in
1535, to negotiate with the German princes about the proposed General Council
at Mantua. He had a personal interview with Luther in Wittenberg (Nov. 7), and
took offence at his bad Latin, blunt speech, and plebeian manner. He could not
decide, he said in his official report to the papal secretary (Nov. 12),
whether this German "beast" was possessed by an evil demon or not,
but he certainly was the embodiment of arrogance, malice, and unwisdom.233 He afterwards spoke of Luther as
"a man of sacred memory," and "a great instrument of God,"
and lauded him in verses which he composed on a visit to Eisleben in 1559. On
his return to Italy, he received as reward for his mission the archbishopric of
Capo d’ Istria, his native place (not far from Trieste). He aspired even to the
cardinal’s hat. He attended—we do not know precisely in what capacity, whether
in the name of the Pope, or of Francis I. of France—the Colloquies at Worms and
Regensburg, in 1540 and 1541, where he met Melanchthon and Calvin. Melanchthon
presented him on that occasion with a copy of the Augsburg Confession and the
Apology.234 At that time he
was, according to his confession, still as blind and impious as Saul. In the
address De Unitate et Pace Ecclesicae, which he delivered at Worms, Jan. 1,
1541, and which is diplomatic rather than theological,235 he urged a General Council as a means
to restore the unity and peace of the Church on the traditional basis.
His
conversion was gradually brought about by a combination of several causes,—the
reading of Protestant books which he undertook with the purpose to refute them,
his personal intercourse with Lutheran divines and princes in Germany, the
intolerance of his Roman opponents, and the fearful death of Spiera. He
acquired an experimental knowledge of the evangelical doctrine of justification
by faith, which at that time commended itself even to some Roman divines of
high standing, as Cardinal Contarini and Reginald Pole, and which was advocated
by Paleario of Siena, and by a pupil of Valdés in an anonymous Italian tract on
"The Benefit of Christ’s Death."236 He began to preach evangelical doctrines and to reform
abuses. His brother, bishop of Pola, fully sympathized with him. He roused the
suspicion of the Curia and the Inquisition. He went to Trent in February, 1546,
to justify himself before the Council, but was refused admittance, and
forbidden to return to his diocese. He retired to Riva on the Lago di Garda,
not far from Trent.
In
1548 he paid a visit to Padua to take some of his nephews to college. He found
the city excited by the fearful tragedy of Francesco Spiera, a lawyer and
convert from Romanism, who had abjured the evangelical faith from fear of the
Inquisition, and fell into a hell of tortures of conscience under the
conviction that he had committed the unpardonable sin by rejecting the truth. He
was for several weeks a daily witness, with many others, of the agonies of this
most unfortunate of apostates, and tried in vain to comfort him. He thought
that we must not despair of any sinner, though he had committed the crimes of
Cain and Judas. He prepared himself for his visits by prayer and the study of
the comforting promises of the Scriptures. But Spiera had lost all faith, all
hope, all comfort; he insisted that he had committed the sin against the Holy
Spirit which cannot be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come; he was
tormented by the remembrance of the sins of his youth, the guilt of apostasy,
the prospect of eternal punishment which he felt already, and died in utter
despair with a heart full of hatred and blasphemy. His death was regarded as a
signal judgment of God, a warning example, and an argument for the truth of the
evangelical doctrines.237
Vergerio
was overwhelmed by this experience, and brought to a final decision. He wrote
an apology in which he gives an account of the sad story, and renounces his
connection with Rome at the risk of persecution, torture, and death. He sent it
to the suffragan bishop of Padua, Dec. 13, 1548.
He
was deposed and excommunicated by the pope, July 3, 1549, and fled over Bergamo
to the Grisons. He remained there till 1553, with occasional journeys to the
Valtellina, Chiavenna, Zürich, Bern, and Basel. He was hospitably received, and
developed great activity in preaching and writing. People of all classes
gathered around him, and were impressed by his commanding presence and
eloquence. He founded a printing-press in Poschiavo in 1549, and issued from it
his thunderbolts against popery. He preached at Pontresina and Samaden in the
Upper Engadin, and effected the abolition of the mass and the images. He
labored as pastor three years (1550–53) at Vicosoprano in Bregaglia. He
travelled through the greater part of Switzerland, and made the acquaintance of
Bullinger, Calvin, and Beza.
But
the humble condition of the Grisons did not satisfy his ambition. He felt
isolated, and complained of the inhospitable valleys. He disliked the
democratic institutions. He quarrelled with the older Reformers, Comander and
Gallicius. He tried to get the whole Synod of the Grisons under his control,
and, failing in this, to organize a separate synod of the Italian
congregations. Then he aspired to a more prominent position at Zürich or Geneva
or Bern, but Bullinger and Calvin did not trust him.
In
November, 1553, he gladly accepted a call to Würtemberg as counsellor of Duke
Christopher, one of the best princes of the sixteenth century, and spent his
remaining twelve years in the Duke’s service. He resided in Tübingen, but had
no official connection with the University. He continued to write with his
rapid pen inflammatory tracts against popery, promoted the translation and
distribution of the Bible in the South Slavonic dialect, maintained an
extensive correspondence, and was used in various diplomatic and evangelical
missions to the Emperor Maximilian at Vienna, to the kings of Bohemia, and
Poland. On his first journey to Poland he made the personal acquaintance of
Albert, Duke of Prussia, who esteemed him highly and supplied him with funds.
He entered into correspondence with Queen Elizabeth, in the vain hope of an
invitation to England. He desired to be sent as delegate to the religious
conference at Poissy in France, 1561, but was again disappointed. He paid four
visits to the Grisons (November, 1561; March, 1562; May, 1563; and April,
1564), to counteract the intrigues of the Spanish and papal party, and to
promote the harmony of the Swiss Church with that of Würtemberg. On his second
visit he went as far as the Valtellina. He received an informal invitation to
attend the Council of Trent in 1561 from Delfino, the papal nuncio, in the hope
that he might be induced to recant; he was willing to go at the risk of meeting
the fate of Hus at Constance, but on condition of a safe conduct, which was
declined.238 At last he wished
to unite with the Bohemian Brethren, whom he admired for their strict
discipline combined with pure doctrine; he translated and published their
Confession of Faith. He was in constant need of money, and his many begging
letters to the Dukes of Würtemberg and of Prussia make a painful impression;
but we must take into account the printing expenses of his many books, his
frequent journeys, and the support of three nephews and a niece. In his
fifty-ninth year he conceived the plan of contracting a marriage, and asked the
Duke to double his allowance of two hundred guilders, but the request was declined
and the marriage given up.239
He
died Oct. 4, 1565, at Tübingen, and was buried there. Dr. Andreae, the chief
author of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, preached the funeral sermon, which
the learned Crusius took down in Greek. Duke Christopher erected a monument to
his memory with a eulogistic inscription.240
The
very numerous Latin and Italian books and fugitive tracts of Vergerio are
chiefly polemical against the Roman hierarchy of which he had so long been a
conspicuous member.241
He exposed, with the intemperate zeal of a proselyte, the chronique
scandaleuse of the papacy, including the mythical woman-pope, Johanna (John
VIII.), who was then generally believed to have really existed.242 He agreed with Luther that the papacy
was an invention of the Devil; that the pope was the very Antichrist seated in
the temple of God as predicted by Daniel (11:36) and Paul (2 Thess. 2:3 sq.),
and the beast of the Apocalypse; and that he would soon be destroyed by a
divine judgment. He attacked all the contemporary popes, except Adrian VI., to
whom he gives credit for honesty and earnestness. He is especially severe on
"Saul IV." (Paul IV.),
who as Cardinal Caraffa had made some wise and bold utterances on the
corruption of the clergy, but since his elevation to the "apostate chair,
which corrupts every one who ascends it," had become the leader of the
Counter-Reformation with its measures of violence and blood. Such monsters, he
says, are the popes. One contradicts the other, and yet they are all
infallible, and demand absolute submission. Rather die a thousand times than
have any communion with popery and fall away from Christ, the Son of God, who
was crucified for us and rose from the dead. Popery and the gospel are as
incompatible as darkness and light, as Belial and Christ. No compromise is
possible between them. Vergerio was hardly less severe on the cardinals and
bishops, although he allowed some honorable exceptions. He attacked and
ridiculed the Council of Trent, then in session, and tried to show that it was
neither general, nor free, nor Christian. He used the same arguments against it
as the Old Catholics used against the Vatican Council of 1870. He repelled the
charge of heresy and turned it against his former co-religionists. The
Protestants who follow the Word of God are orthodox, the Romanists who follow
the traditions of men are the heretics.
His
anti-popery writings were read with great avidity by his contemporaries, but
are now forgotten. Bullinger was unfavorably impressed, and found in them no
solid substance, but only frivolous mockery and abuse.
As
regards the differences among Protestants, Vergerio was inconsistent. He first
held the Calvinistic theory of the Lord’s Supper, and expressed it in his own
Catechism,243 in a letter to Bullinger of Jan. 16, 1554, and even later, in
June, 1556, at Wittenberg, where he met Melanchthon and Eber. But in Würtemberg
he had to subscribe the Augsburg Confession, and in a letter to the Duke of
Würtemberg, Oct. 23, 1557, he confessed the ubiquitarian theory of Luther. He
also translated the Catechism of Brenz and the Würtemberg Confession into
Italian, and thereby offended the Swiss Zwinglians, but told them that he was
merely the translator. He never attributed much importance to the difference,
and kept aloof from the eucharistic controversy.244 He was not a profound theologian, but an ecclesiastical
politician and diplomatist, after as well as before his conversion.
Vergerio
left the Roman Church rather too late, when the Counter-Reformation had already
begun to crush Protestantism in Italy. He was a man of imposing personality,
considerable learning and eloquence, wit and irony, polemic dexterity, and
diplomatic experience, but restless, vain, and ambitious. He had an extravagant
idea of his own importance. He could not forget his former episcopal authority
and pretensions, nor his commanding position as the representative of the pope.
He aspired to the dignity and influence of a sort of Protestant internuncio at
all the courts of Europe, and of a mediator between the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches. Pallavicino, the Jesuit historian of the Council of Trent,
characterizes him as a lively and bold man who could not live without business,
and imagined that business could not get along without him. Calvin found in him
much that is laudable, but feared that he was a restless busybody. Gallicius
wrote to Bullinger: "I wish that Vergerio would be more quiet, and persuade
himself that the heavens will not fall even if he, as another Atlas, should
withdraw his support."
Nevertheless, Vergerio filled an important place in the history of his
times. He retained the esteem of the Lutheran princes and theologians, and he
is gratefully remembered for his missionary services in the two Italian valleys
of the Grisons, which have remained faithful to the evangelical faith to this
day.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="39" title="Protestantism in Chiavenna and the Valtellina, and
its Suppression">
§ 39.
Protestantism in Chiavenna and the Valtellina, and its Suppression.
The Valtellina
Massacre. George Jenatsch.
See
literature in §§ 36 and 38, pp. 131 and 144 sq.
We
pass now to the Italian dependencies of the Grisons, where Protestantism has
had only a transient existence.
At
Chiavenna the Reformed worship was introduced in 1544 by Agostino Mainardi, a
former monk of Piedmont, under the protection of Hercules von Salis, governor
of the province. He was succeeded by Jerome Zanchi (1516–1590), an Augustinian
monk who had been converted by reading the works of the Reformers under the
direction of Vermigli at Lucca, and became one of the most learned and acute
champions of the Calvinistic system. He fled to the Grisons in 1551, and preached
at Chiavenna. Two years later he accepted a call to a Hebrew professorship at
Strassburg. There he got into a controversy with Marbach on the doctrine of
predestination, which he defended with logical rigor. In 1563 he returned to
Chiavenna as 245pastor. He had much trouble with restless Italian refugees and
with the incipient heresy of Socinianism. In 1568 he left for Heidelberg, as
professor of theology on the basis of the Palatinate Catechism, which in 1563
had been introduced under the pious Elector Frederick III. He prepared the way
for Calvinistic scholasticism. A complete edition of his works appeared at
Geneva, 1619, in three folio volumes.
Chiavenna
had several other able pastors,—Simone Florillo, Scipione Lentulo of Naples,
Ottaviano Meio of Lucca,
Small
Protestant congregations were founded in the Valtellina, at Caspan (1546),
Sondrio (the seat of government), Teglio, Tirano, and other towns. Dr. McCrie
says: "Upon the whole, the number of Protestant churches to the south of
the Alps appears to have exceeded twenty, which were all served, and continued
till the end of the sixteenth century to be for the most part served, by exiles
from Italy."
But
Protestantism in Chiavenna, Bormio, and the Valtellina was at last swept out of
existence. We must here anticipate a bloody page of the history of the
seventeenth century.
Several
causes combined for the destruction of Protestantism in Upper Italy. The
Catholic natives were never friendly to the heretical refugees who settled
among them, and called them banditi, which has the double meaning of exile and
outlaw. They reproached the Grisons for receiving them after they had been
expelled from other Christian countries. They were kept in a state of political
vassalage, instead of being admitted to equal rights with the three leagues.
The provincial governors were often oppressive, sold the subordinate offices to
partisans, and enriched themselves at the expense of the inhabitants. The
Protestants were distracted by internal feuds. The Roman Counter-Reformation was
begun with great zeal and energy in Upper Italy and Switzerland by the saintly
Cardinal Charles Borromeo, archbishop of Milan. Jesuits and Capuchins stirred
up the hatred of the ignorant and superstitious people against the Protestant
heretics. In the Grisons themselves the Roman Catholic party under the lead of
the family of Planta, and the Protestants, headed by the family of Salis,
strove for the mastery. The former aimed at the suppression of the Reformation
in the leagues as well as the dependencies, and were suspected of treasonable
conspiracy with Spain and Austria. The Protestant party held a court
(Strafgericht, a sort of tribunal of inquisition) at Thusis in 1618, which
included nine preachers, and condemned the conspirators. The aged Zambra, who in
the torture confessed complicity with Spain, was beheaded; Nicolaus Rusca, an
esteemed priest, leader of the Spanish Catholic interests in the Valtellina,
called the hammer of the heretics, was cruelly tortured to death; Bishop John
Flugi was deposed and outlawed; the brothers Rudolf and Pompeius Planta, the
Knight Jacob Robustelli, and other influential Catholics were banished, and the
property of the Plantas was confiscated.
These
unrighteous measures created general indignation. The exiles fostered revenge,
and were assured of Spanish aid. Robustelli returned, after his banishment, to
the Valtellina, and organized a band of about three hundred desperate bandits
from the Venetian and Milanese territories for the overthrow of the government
of the Grisons and the extermination of Protestantism.
This
is the infamous "Valtellina Massacre (Veltliner Mord) of July, 1620. It
may be called an imitation of the Sicilian Vespers, and of the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew. It was the fiendish work of religious fanaticism combined with
political discontent. The tragedy began in the silence of the night, from July
18th to 19th, by the murder of sixty defenceless adult Protestants of Tirano;
the Podesta Enderlin was shot down in the street, mutilated, and thrown into
the Adda; Anton von Salis took refuge in the house of a Catholic friend, but
was sought out and killed; the head of the Protestant minister, Anton Bassa of
Poschiavo, was posted on the pulpit of the church. The murderers proceeded to
Teglio, and shot down about the same number of persons in the church, together
with the minister, who was wounded in the pulpit, and exhorted the hearers to
persevere; a number of women and children, who had taken refuge in the tower of
the church, were burnt. The priest of Teglio took part in the bloody business,
carrying the cross in the left, and the sword in the right hand. At Sondrio,
the massacre raged for three days. Seventy-one Protestants, by their determined
stand, were permitted to escape to the Engadin, but one hundred and forty fell
victims to the bandits; a butcher boasted of having murdered eighteen persons.
Not even the dead were spared; their bodies were exhumed, burnt, thrown into
the water, or exposed to wild beasts. Paula Baretta, a noble Venetian lady of
eighty years, who had left a nunnery for her religious conviction, was
shamefully maltreated and delivered to the Inquisition at Milan, where a year
afterward she suffered death at the stake. Anna of Libo fled with a child of
two years in her arms; she was overtaken and promised release on condition of
abjuring her faith. She refused, saying, "You may kill the body, but not
the soul;" she pressed her child to her bosom, and received the
death-blow. When the people saw the stream of blood on the market-place before
the chief church, they exclaimed: "This is the revenge for our murdered
arch-priest Rusca!" He was
henceforth revered as a holy martyr. At Morbegno the Catholics behaved well,
and aided the Protestants in making their escape. The fugitives were kindly
received in the Grisons and other parts of Switzerland. From the Valtellina
Robustelli proceeded to Poschiavo, burnt the town of Brusio, and continued
there the butchery of Protestants till he was checked.246
The
Valtellina declared itself independent and elected the Knight Robustelli
military chief. The canons of the Council of Trent were proclaimed, papal
indulgences introduced, the evangelical churches and cemeteries reconsecrated
for Catholic use, the corpses of Protestants dug up, burnt, and cast into the river.
Addresses were sent to the Pope and the kings of Spain and France, explaining
and excusing the foul deeds by which the rebels claimed to have saved the Roman
religion and achieved political freedom from intolerable tyranny.
Now
began the long and bloody conflicts for the recovery of the lost province, in
which several foreign powers took part. The question of the Valtellina (like
the Eastern question in modern times) became a European question, and was
involved in the Thirty Years’ War. Spain, in possession of Milan, wished to
join hands with Austria across the Alpine passes of the Grisons; while France
and Venice had a political motive to keep them closed. Austrian and Spanish
troops conquered and occupied the Valtellina and the three leagues, expelled
the Protestant preachers, and inflicted unspeakable misery upon the people.
France, no less Catholic under the lead of Cardinal Richelieu, but jealous of
the house of Habsburg, came to the support of the Protestants in the Grisons,
as well as the Swedes in the north, and sent an army under the command of the
noble Huguenot Duke Henri de Rohan, who defeated the Austrians and Spaniards,
and conquered the Valtellina (1635).
The
Grisons with French aid recovered the Valtellina by the stipulation of
Chiavenna, 1636, which guaranteed to the three leagues all the rights of
sovereignty, but on condition of tolerating no other religion in that province
but the Roman Catholic. Rohan, who had the best intentions for the Grisons,
desired to save Protestant interests, but Catholic France would not agree. He
died in 1638, and was buried at Geneva.
The
Valtellina continued to be governed by bailiffs till 1797. It is now a part of
the kingdom of Italy, and enjoys the religious freedom guaranteed by the
constitution of 1848.247
In
this wild episode of the Thirty Years’ War, a Protestant preacher, Colonel
Georg Jenatsch, plays a prominent figure as a romantic hero. He was born at
Samaden in the Upper Engadin, 1590, studied for the Protestant ministry at
Zürich, successively served the congregations at Scharans and at Berbenno in
the Valtellina, and narrowly escaped the massacre at Sondrio by making his
flight through dangerous mountain passes. He was an eloquent speaker, an ardent
patriot, a shrewd politician, and a brave soldier, but ambitious, violent,
unscrupulous, extravagant, and unprincipled. He took part in the cruel decision
of the court of Thusis (1618), and killed Pompeius Planta with an axe (1621).
He served as guide and counsellor of the Duke de Rohan, and by his knowledge,
pluck, and energy, materially aided him in the defeat of Austria. Being
disappointed in his ambition, he turned traitor to France, joined the Austrian
party and the Roman Church (1635), but educated his children in the Protestant
religion. He was murdered at a banquet in Coire (1639) by an unknown person in
revenge for the murder of Pompeius Planta. He is buried in the Catholic church,
near the bishop’s palace. A Capuchin monk delivered the funeral oration.248
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="40" title="The Congregation of Locarno">
§ 40.
The Congregation of Locarno.
Ferdinand
Meyer: Die evangelische Gemeinde von Locarno, ihre Auswanderung nach Zürich und
ihre weiteren Schicksale. Zürich, 1836. 2 vols. An exhaustive monograph carefully
drawn from MS. sources, and bearing more particularly on the Italian
congregation at Zürich, to which the leading Protestant families of Locarno
emigrated.
Locarno,
a beautiful town on the northern end of the Lago Maggiore, was subject to the
Swiss Confederacy and ruled by bailiffs.249 It had in the middle of the sixteenth century a Protestant
congregation of nearly two hundred members.250 Chief among them were Beccaria, Taddeo Duno, Lodovico Ronco,
and Martino Muralto. A religious disputation was held there in 1549, about the
authority of the pope, the merit of good works, justification, auricular
confession, and purgatory.251
It ended in a tumult. Wirz, the presiding bailiff, who knew neither
Latin nor Italian, gave a decision in favor of the Roman party. Beccaria
refused to submit, escaped, and went to Zürich, where he was kindly received by
Bullinger. He became afterwards a member of the Synod of Graubünden, and was
sent as an evangelist to Misocco, but returned to Zürich.
The
faithful Protestants of Locarno, who preferred emigration to submission,
wandered with wives and children on foot and on horseback over snow and ice to
Graubünden and Zürich, in 1556. Half of them remained in the Grisons, and
mingled with the evangelical congregations. The rest organized an Italian
congregation in Zürich under the fostering care of Bullinger. It was served for
a short time by Vergerio, who came from Tübingen for the purpose, and then by
Bernardino Ochino, who had fled from England to Basel after the accession of
Queen Mary. Ochino was a brilliant genius and an eloquent preacher, then
already sixty-eight years old, but gave offence by his Arian and other
heretical opinions, and was required to leave in 1563. He went to Basel, Strassburg,
Nürnberg, Krakau; was expelled from Poland, Aug. 6, 1564; and died in poverty
in Moravia, 1565, a victim of his subtle speculations and the intolerance of
his times. He wrote an Italian catechism for the Locarno congregation in the
form of a dialogue (1561).
The
most important accession to the exiles was Pietro Martire Vermigli, who had
likewise fled from England, first to Strassburg (1553), then to Zürich (1555).
He was received as a member into the council of the Locarno congregation,
presented with the citizenship of Zürich, and elected professor of Hebrew in
place of Conrad Pellican (who died in 1556). He labored there till his death,
in 1562, in intimate friendship and harmony with Bullinger, generally esteemed
and beloved. He was one of the most distinguished and useful Italian converts,
and, like Zanchi, an orthodox Calvinist.
The
Italian congregation was enlarged by new fugitives from Locarno and continued
to the end of the sixteenth century. The principal families of Duno, Muralto,
Orelli, Pestalozzi, and others were received into citizenship, took a prominent
position in the history of Zürich, and promoted its industry and prosperity,
like the exiled Huguenots in Brandenburg, Holland, England, and North America.252
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="41" title="Zwinglianism in Germany">
§ 41.
Zwinglianism in Germany
.
The
principles of the Helvetic Reformation spread also to some extent in Germany,
but in a modified form, and prepared the way for the mediating (Melanchthonian)
character of the German Reformed Church. Although Luther overshadowed every
other personality in Germany, Zwingli had also his friends and admirers,
especially the Landgrave, Philip of Hesse, who labored very zealously, though
unsuccessfully, for a union of the Lutherans and the Reformed. Bucer and Capito
at Strassburg, Cellarius at Augsburg, Blaurer at Constance, Hermann at
Reutlingen, and Somius at Ulm, strongly sympathized with the genius and tendency
of the Zürich Reformer.253
His influence was especially felt in those free cities of Southern
Germany where the democratic element prevailed.
Four
of these cities, Strassburg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, handed to the
Diet of Augsburg, 11th July, 1530, a special confession (Confessio
Tetrapolitana) drawn up by Bucer, with the assistance of Hedio, and answered by
the Roman divines, Faber, Eck, and Cochlaeus. It is the first symbolical book
of the German Reformed Church (Zwingli’s writings having never acquired
symbolical authority), but was superseded by the Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566). It strikes a middle course between
the Augsburg Confession of Melanchthon and the private Confession sent in by
Zwingli during the same Diet, and anticipates Calvin’s view on the Lord’s
Supper by teaching a real fruition of the true body and blood of Christ, not
through the mouth, but through faith, for the nourishment of the soul into
eternal life.254
The
Zwinglian Reformation was checked and almost destroyed in Germany by the
combined opposition of Romanism and Lutheranism. The four cities could not
maintain their isolated position, and signed the Augsburg Confession for
political reasons, to join the Smalcaldian League. The Reformed Church took a
new start in the Palatinate under the combined influence of Zwingli,
Melanchthon, and Calvin (1563), gained strength by the accession of the
reigning dynasty of Prussia (since 1614), and was ultimately admitted to equal
rights with the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches in the German Empire by
the Treaty of Westphalia.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="V" title="The Civil War Between The Roman
Catholic and Reformed Cantons">
CHAPTER
V.
THE
CIVIL WAR BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
AND
REFORMED CANTONS.
See
the works of Escher, Oechsli, and Fenner, quoted on p. 19; Mörikofer, Zwingli,
II. 346–452; and Bluntschli, Geschichte des schweizerischen Bundesrechtes von
den ewigen Bünden bis auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart. 2d ed. 1875, 2 vols.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="42" title="The First War of Cappel. 1529">
§ 42.
The First War of Cappel. 1529.
The
year 1530 marks the height of the Zwinglian Reformation. It was firmly
established in the leading cities and cantons of Zürich, Bern, and Basel. It
had gained a strong majority of the people in Northern and Eastern Switzerland,
and in the Grisons. It had fair prospects of ultimate success in the whole
confederacy, when its further progress was suddenly arrested by the catastrophe
of Cappel and the death of Zwingli.
The
two parties had no conception of toleration (except in Glarus and the Grisons),
but aimed at supremacy and excluded each other wherever they had the power.
They came into open conflict in the common territories or free bailiwicks, by
the forcible attempts made there to introduce the new religion, or to prevent
its introduction. The Protestants, under the lead of Zwingli, were the
aggressors, especially in the confiscation of the rich abbey of St. Gall. They
had in their favor the right of progress and the majority of the population.
But the Roman Catholics had on their side the tradition of the past, the letter
of the law, and a majority of Cantons and of votes in the Diet, in which the
people were not directly represented. They strictly prohibited Protestant
preaching within their own jurisdiction, and even began bloody persecution.
Jacob Kaiser (or Schlosser), a Zürich minister, was seized on a preaching
expedition, and publicly burnt at the stake in the town of Schwyz (May, 1529).255 His martyrdom was the signal of war.
The Protestants feared, not without good reason, that this case was the
beginning of a general persecution.
With
the religious question was closely connected the political and social question
of the foreign military service,256 which Zwingli consistently opposed in the
interest of patriotism, and which the Roman Catholics defended in the interest
of wealth and fame. This was a very serious matter, as may be estimated from
the fact that, according to a statement of the French ambassador, his king had
sent, from 1512 to 1531, no less than 1,133,547 gold crowns to Switzerland, a
sum equal to four times the amount at present valuation. The pensions were the
Judas price paid by foreign sovereigns to influential Swiss for treason to
their country. In his opposition to this abuse, Zwingli was undoubtedly right,
and his view ultimately succeeded, though long after his death.257
Both
parties organized for war, which broke out in 1529, and ended in a disastrous
defeat of the Protestants in 1531. Sixteen years later, the Lutheran princes
suffered a similar defeat in the Smalcaldian War against the Emperor (1547).
The five Forest Cantons—Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Luzern, and Zug—formed a
defensive and offensive league (November, 1528; the preparations began in
1527), and even entered, first secretly, then openly, into an alliance with
Ferdinand Duke of Austria and King of Bohemia and Hungary (April, 1529). This
alliance with the old hereditary enemy of Switzerland, whom their ancestors had
defeated in glorious battles, was treasonable and a step towards the split of
the confederacy in two hostile camps (which was repeated in 1846). King
Ferdinand had a political and religious interest in the division of Switzerland
and fostered it. Freiburg, Wallis, and Solothurn sided with the Catholic
Cantons, and promised aid in case of war. The Protestant Cantons, led by Zürich
(which made the first step in this direction) formed a Protestant league under
the name of the Christian co-burghery (Burgrecht) with the cities of Constance
(Dec. 25, 1527), Biel and Mühlhausen (1529), and Strassburg (Jan. 9, 1530).258
Zwingli,
provoked by the burning of Kaiser, and seeing the war clouds gathering all
around, favored prompt action, which usually secures a great advantage in
critical moments. He believed in the necessity of war; while Luther put his
sole trust in the Word of God, although he stirred up the passions of war by
his writings, and had himself the martyr’s courage to go to the stake. Zwingli
was a free republican; while Luther was a loyal monarchist. He belonged to the
Cromwellian type of men who "trust in God and keep their powder
dry." In him the reformer,
the statesman, and the patriot were one. He appealed to the examples of Joshua
and Gideon, forgetting the difference between the Old and the New dispensation.
"Let us be firm," he wrote to his peace-loving friends in Bern (May
30, 1529), "and fear not to take up arms. This peace, which some desire so
much, is not peace, but war; while the war that we call for, is not war, but
peace. We thirst for no man’s blood, but we will cut the nerves of the
oligarchy. If we shun it, the truth of the gospel and the ministers’ lives will
never be secure among us."259
Zürich
was first ready for the conflict and sent four thousand well-equipped soldiers
to Cappel, a village with a Cistercian convent, in the territory of Zürich on
the frontier of the Canton Zug.260
Smaller detachments were located at Bremgarten, and on the frontier of
Schwyz, Basel, St. Gall. Mühlhausen furnished auxiliary troops. Bern sent five
thousand men, but with orders to act only in self-defence.
Zwingli
accompanied the main force to Cappel. "When my brethren expose their
lives," he said to the burgomaster, who wished to keep him back, "I
will not remain quiet at home. The army requires a watchful eye." He put the halberd which he had worn as
chaplain at Marignano, over his shoulder, and mounted his horse, ready to
conquer or to die for God and the fatherland.261
He
prepared excellent instructions for the soldiers, and a plan of a campaign that
should be short, sharp, decisive, and, if possible, unbloody.
Zürich
declared war June 9, 1529. But before the forces crossed the frontier of the
Forest Cantons, Landammann Aebli of Glarus, where the Catholics and Protestants
worship in one church, appeared from a visit to the hostile army as peacemaker,
and prevented a bloody collision. He was a friend of Zwingli, an enemy of the
mercenary service, and generally esteemed as a true patriot. With tears in his
eyes, says Bullinger, he entreated the Zürichers to put off the attack even for
a few hours, in the hope of bringing about an honorable peace. "Dear lords
of Zuerich, for God’s sake, prevent the division and destruction of the
confederacy." Zwingli opposed
him, and said: "My dear friend,262 you will answer to God for
this counsel. As long as the enemies are in our power, they use good words; but
as soon as they are well prepared, they will not spare us." He foresaw what actually happened after
his death. Aebli replied: "I trust in God that all will go well. Let each
of us do his best." And he
departed.
Zwingli
himself was not unwilling to make peace, but only on four conditions which he
sent a day after Aebli’s appeal, in a memorandum to the Council of Zürich (June
11): 1) That the Word of God be preached freely in the entire confederacy, but
that no one be forced to abolish the mass, the images, and other ceremonies
which will fall of themselves under the influence of scriptural preaching; 2)
that all foreign military pensions be abolished; 3) that the originators and
the dispensers of foreign pensions be punished while the armies are still in
the field; 4) that the Forest Cantons pay the cost of war preparations, and
that Schwyz pay one thousand guilders for the support of the orphans of Kaiser
(Schlosser) who had recently been burnt there as a heretic.
An
admirable discipline prevailed in the camp of Zürich, that reminds one of the
Puritan army of Cromwell. Zwingli or one of his colleagues preached daily;
prayers were offered before each meal; psalms, hymns, and national songs
resounded in the tents; no oath was heard; gambling and swearing were
prohibited, and disreputable women excluded; the only exercises were wrestling,
casting stones, and military drill. There can be little doubt that if the
Zürichers had made a timely attack upon the Catholics and carried out the plan
of Zwingli, they would have gained a complete victory and dictated the terms of
peace. How long the peace would have lasted is a different question; for behind
the Forest Cantons stood Austria, which might at any time have changed the
situation.
But
counsels of peace prevailed. Bern was opposed to the offensive, and declared
that if the Zürichers began the attack, they should be left to finish it alone.
The Zürichers themselves were divided, and their military leaders (Berger and
Escher) inclined to peace.
The
Catholics, being assured that they need not fear an attack from Bern, mustered
courage and were enforced by troops from Wallis and the Italian bailiwicks.
They now numbered nearly twelve thousand armed men.
The
hostile armies faced each other from Cappel and Baar, but hesitated to advance.
Catholic guards would cross over the border to be taken prisoners by the
Zürichers, who had an abundance of provision, and sent them back well fed and
clothed. Or they would place a large bucket of milk on the border line and
asked the Zürichers for bread, who supplied them richly; whereupon both parties
peacefully enjoyed a common meal, and when one took a morsel on the enemy’s
side, he was reminded not to cross the frontier. The soldiers remembered that
they were Swiss confederates, and that many of them had fought side by side on
foreign battlefields.263
"We shall not fight," they said;, and pray God that the storm
may pass away without doing us any harm." Jacob Sturm, the burgomaster of Strassburg, who was present
as a mediator, was struck with the manifestation of personal harmony and
friendship in the midst of organized hostility. "You are a singular
people," he said; "though disunited, you are united."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="43" title="The First Peace of Cappel. June, 1529">
§ 43.
The First Peace of Cappel. June, 1529.
After
several negotiations, a treaty of Peace was concluded June 25, 1529, between
Zürich, Bern, Basel, St. Gall, and the cities of Mühlhausen and Biel on the one
hand, and the five Catholic Cantons on the other. The deputies of Glarus,
Solothurn, Schaffhausen, Appenzell, Graubünden, Sargans, Strassburg, and
Constanz acted as mediators.
The
treaty was not all that Zwingli desired, especially as regards the abolition of
the pensions and the punishment of the dispensers of pensions (wherein he was
not supported by Bern), but upon the whole it was favorable to the cause of the
Reformation.
The
first and most important of the Eighteen Articles of the treaty recognizes, for
the first time in Europe, the principle of parity or legal equality of the
Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches,—a principle which twenty-six years
afterwards was recognized also in Germany (by the Augsburger Religionsfriede of
1555), but which was not finally settled there till after the bloody baptism of
the Thirty Years’ War, in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), against which the
Pope of Rome still protests in vain. That article guarantees to the Reformed
and Roman Catholic Cantons religious freedom in the form of mutual toleration,
and to the common bailiwicks the right to decide by majority the question
whether they would remain Catholics or become Protestants.264 The treaty also provided for the
payment of the expenses of the war by the five cantons, and for an indemnity to
the family of the martyred Kaiser. The abolition of the foreign pensions was
not demanded, but recommended to the Roman Catholic Cantons. The alliance with
Austria was broken. The document which contained the treasonable treaty was cut
to pieces by Aebli in the presence of Zwingli and the army of Zürich.265
The
Catholics returned to their homes discontented. The Zürichers had reason to be
thankful; still more the Berners, who had triumphed with their policy of
moderation.
Zwingli
wavered between hopes and fears for the future, but his trust was in God. He
wrote (June 30) to Conrad Som, minister at Ulm: "We have brought peace
with us, which for us, I hope, is quite honorable; for we did not go forth to
shed blood.266 We have sent back
our foes with a wet blanket. Their compact with Austria was cut to pieces
before mine eyes in the camp by the Landammann of Glarus, June 26, at 11 A. M.
... God has shown again to the mighty ones that they cannot prevail against
him, and that we may gain victory without a stroke if we hold to him."267
He
gave vent to his conflicting feelings in a poem which he composed in the camp
(during the peace negotiations), together with the music, and which became
almost as popular in Switzerland as Luther’s contemporaneous, but more powerful
and more famous "Ein feste Burg," is to this day in Germany. It
breathes the same spirit of trust in God.268
"Do
thou direct thy chariot,Lord,
And
guide it at thy will;
Without
thy aid our strength is vain,
And
useless all our skill.
Look
down upon thy saints brought low,
And
grant them victory o’er the foe.
"Beloved
Pastor, who hast saved
Our
souls from death and sin,
Uplift
thy voice, awake thy sheep
That
slumbering lie within
Thy
fold, and curb with thy right hand
The
rage of Satan’s furious band.
"Send
down thy peace, and banish strife,
Let
bitterness depart;
Revive
the spirit of the past
In
every Switzer’s heart:
Then
shalt thy church forever sing
The
praises of her heavenly King."269
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="44" title="Between the Wars. Political Plains of
Zwingli">
§ 44.
Between the Wars. Political Plains of Zwingli.
The
effect of the first Peace of Cappel was favorable to the cause of the Reformation.
It had now full legal recognition, and made progress in the Cantons and in the
common territories. But the peace did not last long. The progress emboldened
the Protestants, and embittered the Catholics.
The
last two years of Zwingli were full of anxiety, but also full of important
labors. He contemplated a political reconstruction of Switzerland, and a vast
European league for the protection and promotion of Protestant interests.
He
attended the theological Colloquy at Marburg (Sept. 29 to Oct. 3, 1529) in the
hope of bringing about a union with the German Lutherans against the common foe
at Rome. But Luther refused his hand of fellowship, and would not tolerate a
theory of the Lord’s Supper which he regarded as a dangerous heresy.270
While
at Marburg, Zwingli made the personal acquaintance of the Landgraf, Philip of
Hesse, and the fugitive Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, who admired him, and
sympathized with his theology as far as they understood it, but cared still
more for their personal and political interests. He conceived with them the
bold idea of a politico-ecclesiastical alliance of Protestant states and cities
for the protection of religious liberty against the combined forces of the
papacy and the empire which threatened that liberty. Charles V. had made peace
with Clement VII., June 29, 1529, and crossed the Alps in May, 1530, on his way
to the Diet of Augsburg, offering to the Protestants bread with one hand, but
concealing a stone in the other. Zwingli carried on a secret correspondence
with Philip of Hesse from April 22, 1529, till Sept. 10, 1531.271 He saw in the Roman empire the natural
ally of the Roman papacy, and would not have lamented its overthrow.272 Being a republican Swiss, he did not
share in the loyal reverence of the monarchical Germans for their emperor. But
all he could reasonably aim at was to curb the dangerous power of the emperor
by strengthening the Protestant alliance. Further he did not go.273
He
tried to draw into this alliance the republic of Venice and the kingdom of
France, but failed. These powers were jealous of the grasping ambition of the
house of Habsburg, but had no sympathy with evangelical reform. Francis I. was
persecuting the Protestants at that very time in his own country.
It
is dangerous to involve religion in entangling political alliances. Christ and
the Apostles kept aloof from secular complications, and confined themselves to
preaching the ethics of politics. Zwingli, with the best intentions,
overstepped the line of his proper calling, and was doomed to bitter
disappointment. Even Philip of Hesse, who pushed him into this net, grew cool,
and joined the Lutheran League of Smalcald (1530), which would have nothing to
do with the Protestants of Switzerland.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="45" title="Zwingli’s Last Theological
Labors. His Confessions of Faith">
§ 45.
Zwingli’s Last Theological Labors. His Confessions of Faith.
During
these fruitless political negotiations Zwingli never lost sight of his
spiritual vocation. He preached and wrote incessantly; he helped the reform
movement in every direction; he attended synods at Frauenfeld (May, 1530), at
St. Gall (December, 1530), and Toggenburg (April, 1531); he promoted the
organization and discipline of the Reformed churches, and developed great
activity as an author. Some of his most important theological works—a commentary
on the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, his treatise on Divine Providence,
and two Confessions of Faith—belong to the last two years of his life.
He
embraced the opportunity offered by the Diet of Augsburg to send a printed
Confession of Faith to Charles V., July 8, 1530.274 But it was treated with contempt, and not even laid before
the Diet. Dr. Eck wrote a hasty reply, and denounced Zwingli as a man who did
his best to destroy religion in Switzerland, and to incite the people to
rebellion.275 The Lutherans
were anxious to conciliate the emperor, and repudiated all contact with
Zwinglians and Anabaptists.276
A
few months before his death (July, 1531) he wrote, at the request of his friend
Maigret, the French ambassador at Zürich, a similar Confession addressed to
King Francis I., to whom he had previously dedicated his "Commentary on
the True and False Religion" (1524).277 In this Confession he discusses some of the chief points of
controversy,—God and his Worship, the Person of Christ, Purgatory, the Real
Presence, the Virtue of the Sacraments, the Civil Power, Remission of Sin,
Faith and Good Works, Eternal Life,—and added an Appendix on the Eucharist and
the Mass. He explains apologetically and polemically his doctrinal position in
distinction from the Romanists, Lutherans, and Anabaptists. He begins with God
as the ultimate ground of faith and only object of worship, and closes with an
exhortation to the king to give the gospel free course in his kingdom. In the
section on Eternal Life he expresses more strongly than ever his confident hope
of meeting in heaven not only the saints of the Old and the New Dispensation
from Adam down to the Apostles, but also the good and true and noble men of all
nations and generations.278
This
liberal extension of Christ’s kingdom and Christ’s salvation beyond the limits
of the visible Church, although directly opposed to the traditional belief of
the necessity of water baptism for salvation, was not altogether new. Justin
Martyr, Origen, and other Greek fathers saw in the scattered truths of the
heathen poets and philosophers the traces of the pre-Christian revelation of
the Logos, and in the philosophy of the Greeks a schoolmaster to lead them to
Christ. The humanists of the school of Erasmus recognized a secondary
inspiration in the classical writings, and felt tempted to pray: "Sancte
Socrates, ora pro nobis."
Zwingli was a humanist, but he had no sympathy with Pelagianism. On the
contrary, as we have shown previously, he traced salvation to God’s sovereign
grace, which is independent of ordinary means, and he first made a clear
distinction between the visible and the invisible Church. He did not intend, as
he has been often misunderstood, to assert the possibility of salvation without
Christ. "Let no one think," he wrote to Urbanus Rhegius (a preacher
at Augsburg), "that I lower Christ; for whoever comes to God comes to him
through Christ .... The word, ’He who believeth not will be condemned,’ applies
only to those who can hear the gospel, but not to children and heathen .... I
openly confess that all infants are saved by Christ, since grace extends as far
as sin. Whoever is born is saved by Christ from the curse of original sin. If
he comes to the knowledge of the law and does the works of the law (<scripRef passage
= "Rom. 2:14, 26">Rom. 2:14, 26</scripRef>), he gives evidence of his
election. As Christians we have great advantages by the knowledge of the
gospel." He refers to the
case of Cornelius, who was pious before his baptism; and to the teaching of Paul,
who made the circumcision of the heart, and not the circumcision of the flesh,
the criterion of the true Israelite (<scripRef passage = "Rom. 2:28,
29">Rom.
2:28, 29</scripRef>).279
The
Confession to Francis I. was the last work of Zwingli. It was written three
months before his death, and published five years later (1536) by Bullinger,
who calls it his "swan song."
The manuscript is preserved in the National Library of Paris, but it is
doubtful whether the king of France ever saw it. Calvin dedicated to him his
Institutes, with a most eloquent preface, but with no better success. Charles
V. and Francis I. were as deaf to such appeals as the emperors of heathen Rome
were to the Apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Had Francis listened to
the Swiss Reformers, the history of France might have taken a different course.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="46" title="The Second War of Cappel. 1531">
§ 46.
The Second War of Cappel. 1531.
Egli:
Die Schlacht von Cappel, 1531. Zürich, 1873. Comp. the Lit. quoted § 42.
The
political situation of Switzerland grew more and more critical. The treaty of
peace was differently understood. The Forest Cantons did not mean to tolerate
Protestantism in their own territory, and insulted the Reformed preachers; nor
would they concede to the local communities in the bailiwicks (St. Gall,
Toggenburg, Thurgau, the Rheinthal) the right to introduce the Reformation by a
majority vote; while the Zürichers insisted upon both, and yet they probibited
the celebration of the mass in their own city and district. The Roman Catholic
Cantons made new disloyal approaches to Austria, and sent a deputation to
Charles V. at Augsburg which was very honorably received. The fugitive abbot of
St. Gall also appeared with an appeal for aid to his restoration. The Zürichers
were no less to blame for seeking the foreign aid of Hesse, Venice, and France.
Bitter charges and counter-charges were made at the meetings of the Swiss Diet.280
The
crisis was aggravated by an international difficulty. Graubünden sent deputies
to the Diet with an appeal for aid against the Chatelan of Musso and the
invasion of the Valtellina by Spanish troops. The Reformed Cantons favored
co-operation, the Roman Catholic Cantons refused it. The expedition succeeded,
the castle of Musso was demolished, and the Grisons took possession of the
Valtellina (1530–32).
Zwingli
saw no solution of the problem except in an honest, open war, or a division of
the bailiwicks among the Cantons according to population, claiming two-thirds
for Zürich and Bern. These bailiwicks were, as already remarked, the chief bone
of contention. But Bern advocated, instead of war, a blockade of the Forest
Cantons. This was apparently a milder though actually a more cruel course. The
Waldstätters in their mountain homes were to be cut off from all supplies of
grain, wine, salt, iron, and steel, for which they depended on their richer
Protestant neighbors.281
Zwingli protested. "If you have a right," he said in the
pulpit, "to starve the Five Cantons to death, you have a right to attack
them in open war. They will now attack you with the courage of
desperation." He foresaw the
disastrous result. But his protest was in vain. Zürich yielded to the counsel
of Bern, which was adopted by the Protestant deputies, May 15, 1531.
The
decision of the blockade was communicated to the Forest Cantons, and vigorously
executed, Zürich taking the lead. All supplies of provision from Zürich and
Bern and even from the bailiwicks of St. Gall, Toggenburg, Sargans, and the
Rheinthal were withheld. The previous year had been a year of famine and of a
wasting epidemic (the sweating sickness). This year was to become one of actual
starvation. Old men, innocent women and children were to suffer with the
guilty. The cattle was deprived of salt. The Waldstätters were driven to
desperation. Their own confederates refused them the daily bread, forgetful of
the Christian precept, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst,
give him to drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.
Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good" (<scripRef passage
= "Rom. 12:20, 21">Rom. 12:20, 21</scripRef>).
Zwingli
spent the last months before his death in anxiety and fear. His counsel had
been rejected, and yet he was blamed for all these troubles. He had not a few
enemies in Zürich, who undermined his influence, and inclined more and more to
the passive policy of Bern. Under these circumstances, he resolved to withdraw
from the public service. On the 26th of July he appeared before the Great
Council, and declared, "Eleven years have I preached to you the gospel,
and faithfully warned you against the dangers which threaten the confederacy if
the Five Cantons—that is, those who hate the gospel and live on foreign
pensions—are allowed to gain the mastery. But you do not heed my voice, and
continue to elect members who sympathize with the enemies of the gospel. And
yet ye make me responsible for all this misfortune. Well, I herewith resign,
and shall elsewhere seek my support."
He left
the hall with tears. His resignation was rejected and withdrawn. After three
days he appeared again before the Great Council, and declared that in view of
their promise of improvement he would stand by them till death, and do his
best, with God’s help. He tried to persuade the Bernese delegates at a meeting
in Bremgarten in the house of his friend, Henry Bullinger, to energetic action,
but in vain. "May God protect you, dear Henry; remain faithful to the Lord
Jesus Christ and his Church."
These
were the last words he spoke to his worthy successor. As he left, a mysterious
personage, clothed in a snow-white robe, suddenly appeared, and after
frightening the guards at the gate plunged into the water, and vanished. He had
a strong foreboding of an approaching calamity, and did not expect to survive
it. Halley’s comet, which returns every seventy-six years, appeared in the
skies from the middle of August to the 3d of September, burning like the fire
of a furnace, and pointing southward with its immense tail of pale yellow
color. Zwingli saw in it the sign of war and of his own death. He said to a
friend in the graveyard of the minster (Aug. 10), as he gazed at the ominous
star, "It will cost the life of many an honorable man and my own. The
truth and the Church will suffer, but Christ will never forsake us."282 Vadian of St. Gall likewise regarded
the comet as a messenger of God’s wrath; and the famous Theophrastus, who was
at that time in St. Gall, declared that it foreboded great bloodshed and the
death of illustrious men. It was then the universal opinion, shared also by
Luther and Melanchthon, that comets, meteors, and eclipses were fireballs of an
angry God. A frantic woman near Zürich saw blood springing from the earth all
around her, and rushed into the street with the cry, "Murder,
murder!" The atmosphere was
filled with apprehensions of war and bloodshed. The blockade was continued, and
all attempts at a compromise failed.
The
Forest Cantons had only one course to pursue. The law of self-preservation
drove them to open war. It was forced upon them as a duty. Fired by indignation
against the starvation policy of their enemies, and inspired by love for their
own families, the Waldstätters promptly organized an army of eight thousand
men, and marched to the frontier of Zürich between Zug and Cappel, Oct. 9,
1531.
The
news brought consternation and terror to the Zürichers. The best opportunity
had passed. Discontent and dissension paralyzed vigorous action. Frightful
omens demoralized the people. Zürich, which two years before might easily have
equipped an army of five thousand, could now hardly collect fifteen hundred men
against the triple force of the enemy, who had the additional advantage of
fighting for life and home.
Zwingli
would not forsake his flock in this extreme danger. He mounted his horse to
accompany the little army to the battlefield with the presentiment that he
would never return. The horse started back, like the horse of Napoleon when he
was about to cross the Niemen. Many regarded this as a bad omen; but Zwingli
mastered the animal, applied the spur, and rode to Cappel, determined to live
or to die with the cause of the Reformation.
The
battle raged several hours in the afternoon of the eleventh of October, and was
conducted by weapons and stones, after the manner of the Swiss, and with much
bravery on both sides. After a stubborn resistance, the Zürichers were routed,
and lost the flower of their citizens, over five hundred men, including seven
members of the Small Council, nineteen members of the Great Council of the Two
Hundred, and several pastors who had marched at the head of their flocks.283
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="47" title="The Death of Zwingli">
§ 47.
The Death of Zwingli.
Mörikofer,
II. 414–420.—Egli, quoted on p. 179.—A. Erichson: Zwingli’s Tod und dessen
Beurtheilung durch Zeitgenosen. Strassburg, 1883.
Zwingli
himself died on the battlefield, in the prime of manhood, aged forty-seven
years, nine months, and eleven days, and with him his brother-in-law, his
stepson, his son-in-law, and his best friends. He made no use of his weapons,
but contented himself with cheering the soldiers.284 "Brave men," he said (according to Bullinger),
"fear not! Though we must
suffer, our cause is good. Commend your souls to God: he can take care of us
and ours. His will be done."
Soon
after the battle had begun, he stooped down to console a dying soldier, when a
stone was hurled against his head by one of the Waldstätters and prostrated him
to the ground. Rising again, he received several other blows, and a thrust from
a lance. Once more he uplifted his head, and, looking at the blood trickling
from his wounds, he exclaimed:
What matters this misfortune?
They may kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul." These were his last words.285
He
lay for some time on his back under a pear-tree (called the Zwingli-Baum) in a
meadow, his hands folded as in prayer, and his eyes steadfastly turned to
heaven.286
The
stragglers of the victorious army pounced like hungry vultures upon the wounded
and dying. Two of them asked Zwingli to confess to a priest, or to call upon
the dear saints for their intercession. He shook his head twice, and kept his
eyes still fixed on the heavens above. Then Captain Vokinger of Unterwalden,
one of the foreign mercenaries, against whom the Reformer had so often lifted
his voice, recognized him by the torch-light, and killed him with the, sword,
exclaiming, "Die, obstinate heretic."287
There
he lay during the night. On the next morning the people gathered around the
dead, and began to realize the extent of the victory. Everybody wanted to see
Zwingli. Chaplain Stocker of Zug, who knew him well, made the remark that his
face had the same fresh and vigorous expression as when he kindled his hearers
with the fire of eloquence from the pulpit. Hans Schönbrunner, an ex-canon of
Fraumünster in Zürich, as he passed the corpse of the Reformer, with Chaplain
Stocker, burst into tears, and said, "Whatever may have been thy faith,
thou hast been an honest patriot. May God forgive thy sins."288 He voiced the sentiment of the better
class of Catholics.
But
the fanatics and foreign mercenaries would not even spare the dead. They
decreed that his body should be quartered for treason and then burnt for
heresy, according to the Roman and imperial law. The sheriff of Luzern executed
the barbarous sentence. Zwingli’s ashes were mingled with the ashes of swine,
and scattered to the four winds of heaven.289
The
news of the disaster at Cappel spread terror among the citizens of Zürich.
"Then," says Bullinger, "arose a loud and horrible cry of
lamentation and tears, bewailing and groaning."
On
no one fell the sudden stroke with heavier weight than on the innocent widow of
Zwingli: she had lost, on the same day, her husband, a son, a brother, a
son-in-law, a brother-in-law, and her most intimate friends. She remained alone
with her weeping little children, and submitted in pious resignation to the
mysterious will of God. History is silent about her grief; but it has been
vividly and touchingly described in the Zürich dialect by Martin Usteri in a
poem for the tercentenary Reformation festival in Zürich (1819).290
Bullinger,
Zwingli’s successor, took the afflicted widow into his house, and treated her
as a member of his family. She survived her husband seven years, and died in
peace.
A
few steps from the pear-tree where Zwingli breathed his last, on a slight
elevation, in view of the old church and abbey of Cappel, of the Rigi, Pilatus,
and the more distant snow-capped Alps, there arises a plain granite monument,
erected in 1838, mainly by the exertions of Pastor Esslinger, with suitable
Latin and German inscriptions.291
A
few weeks after Zwingli, his friend Oecolampadius died peacefully in his home
at Basel (Nov. 24, 1531). The enemies spread the rumor that he had committed
suicide. They deemed it impossible that an arch-heretic could die a natural
death.292
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="48" title="Reflections on the Disaster at Cappel">
§ 48.
Reflections on the Disaster at Cappel.
We
need not wonder that the religious and political enemies of Zwingli interpreted
the catastrophe at Cappel as a signal judgment of God and a punishment for
heresy. It is the tendency of superstition in all ages to connect misfortune
with a particular sin. Such an uncharitable interpretation of Providence is
condemned by the example of Job, the fate of prophets, apostles, and martyrs,
and the express rebuke of the disciples by our Saviour in the case of the man
born blind (<scripRef passage = "John 9:31">John 9:31</scripRef>). But it is found only too
often among Christians. It is painful to record that Luther, the great champion
of the liberty of conscience, under the influence of his mediaeval training,
and unmindful of the adage, De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, surpassed even the
most virulent Catholics in the abuse of Zwingli after his death. It is a sad
commentary on the narrowness and intolerance of the Reformer.293
The
faithful friends of evangelical freedom and progress in Switzerland revered Zwingli
as a martyr, and regarded the defeat at Cappel as a wholesome discipline or a
blessing in disguise. Bullinger voiced their sentiments. "The victory of
truth," he wrote after the death of his teacher and friend, "stands
alone in God’s power and will, and is not bound to person or time. Christ was
crucified, and his enemies imagined they had conquered; but forty years
afterwards Christ’s victory became manifest in the destruction of Jerusalem.
The truth conquers through tribulation and trial. The strength of the
Christians is shown in weakness. Therefore, beloved brethren in Germany, take
no offence at our defeat, but persevere in the Word of God, which has always
won the victory, though in its defence the holy prophets, apostles, and martyrs
suffered persecution and death. Blessed are those who die in the Lord. Victory
will follow in time. A thousand years before the eyes of the Lord are but as
one day. He, too, is victorious who suffers and dies for the sake of truth.294
It
is vain to speculate on mere possibilities. But it is more than probable that a
victory of the Protestants, at that time would have been in the end more
injurious to their cause than defeat. The Zürichers would have forced the
Reformation upon the Forest Cantons and all the bailiwicks, and would thereby
have provoked a reaction which, with the aid of Austria and Spain and the
counter-Reformation of the papacy, might have ended in the destruction of
Protestantism, as it actually did in the Italian dependencies of Switzerland
and the Grisons, in Italy, Spain, and Bohemia.
It
was evidently the will of Providence that in Switzerland, as well as in
Germany, both Churches, the Roman Catholic and the Evangelical, should
co-exist, and live in mutual toleration and useful rivalry for a long time to
come.
We
must judge past events in the light of subsequent events and final results.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
The
death of Zwingli is a heroic tragedy. He died for God and his country. He was a
martyr of religious liberty and of the independence of Switzerland. He was
right in his aim to secure the freedom of preaching in all the Cantons and
bailiwicks, and to abolish the military pensions which made the Swiss tributary
to foreign masters. But he had no right to coërce the Catholics and to appeal
to the sword. He was mistaken in the means, and he anticipated the proper time.
It took nearly three centuries before these reforms could be executed.
In
1847 the civil war in Switzerland was renewed in a different shape and under
different conditions. The same Forest Cantons which had combined against the
Reformation and for the foreign pensions, and had appealed to the aid of
Austria, formed a confederacy within the confederacy (Sonderbund) against
modern political liberalism, and again entered into an alliance with Austria;
but at this time they were defeated by the federal troops under the wise
leadership of General Dufour of Geneva, with very little bloodshed.295 In the year 1848 while the revolution
raged in other countries, the Swiss Diet quickly remodelled the constitution,
and transformed the loose confederacy of independent Cantons into a federal
union, after the model of the United States, with a representation of the
people (in the Nationalrath) and a central government, acting directly upon the
people. The federal constitution of 1848 guaranteed "the free exercise of
public worship to the recognized Confessions" (i.e. the Roman Catholic and
Reformed); the Revised Constitution of 1874 extended this freedom, within the
limits of morality and public safety, to all other denominations; only the
order of the Jesuits was excluded, for political reasons.
This
liberty goes much further than Zwingli’s plan, who would have excluded
heretical sects. There are now, on the one hand, Protestant churches at Luzern,
Baar, Brunnen, in the very heart of the Five Cantons (besides the numerous
Anglican Episcopal, Scotch Presbyterian, and other services in all the Swiss
summer resorts); and on the other hand, Roman Catholic churches in Zürich,
Bern, Basel, Geneva, where the mass was formerly rigidly prohibited.
As
regards the foreign military service which had a tendency to denationalize the
Swiss, Zwingli’s theory has completely triumphed. The only relic of that
service is the hundred Swiss guards, who, with their picturesque mediaeval
uniform, guard the pope and the Vatican. They are mostly natives of the Five
Forest Cantons.
Thus
history explains and rectifies itself, and fulfils its promises.
NOTES.
There
is a striking correspondence between the constitution of the old Swiss Diet and
the constitution of the old American Confederacy, as also between the modern
Swiss constitution and that of the United States. The Swiss Diet seems to have
furnished an example to the American Confederacy, and the Congress of the
United States was a model to the Swiss Diet in 1848. The legislative power of
Switzerland is vested in the Assembly of the Confederacy (Bundesversammlung) or
Congress, which consists of the National Council (Nationalrath) or House of
Representatives, elected by the people, one out of twenty thousand,—and the
Council of Cantons (Ständerath) or Senate, composed of forty-four delegates of
the twenty-two Cantons (two from each) and corresponding to the old Diet. The
executive power is exercised by the Council of the Confederacy (Bundesrath),
which consists of seven members, and is elected every three years by the two
branches of the legislature, one of them acting as President (Bundespräsident)
for the term of one year (while the President of the United States is chosen by
the people for four years, and selects his own cabinet. Hence the head of the
Swiss Confederacy has very little power for good or evil, and is scarcely
known). To the Supreme Court of the United States corresponds the
Bundesgericht, which consists of eleven judges elected by the legislature for
three years, and decides controversies between the Cantons. Comp. Bluntschli’s
Geschichte des Schweizerischen Bundesrechts, 1875; Rüttimann, Das
nordamerikanisehe Bundes-staatsrecht verglichen mit den politischen Einrichtungen
der Schweiz, Zürich, 1867–72, 2 vols.; and Sir Francis O. Adams and C. D.
Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, French translation with notes and
additions by Henry G. Loumyer, and preface by L. Ruchonnet, Geneva, 1890.
The
provisions of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland, May 29, 1874, in regard
to religion, are as follows: —
Abschnitt
I. Art. 49. "Die Glaubens und Gewissensfreiheit ist unverletzlich.
Niemand
darf zur Theilnahme an einer Religionsgenossenschaft, oder an einem religiösen
Unterricht, oder zur Vornahme einer religiösen Handlung gezwungen, oder wegen
Glaubensansichten mit Strafen irgend welcher Art belegt werden....
Art.
50. Die freie Ausübung gottesdienstlicher Handlungen ist innerhalb der
Schranken der Sittlichkeit und der öffentlichen Ordnung gewährleistet ....
Art.
51. Der Orden der Jesuiten und die ihm affiliirten Gesellschaften dürfen in
keinem Theile der Schweiz Aufnahme finden, und es ist ihren Gliedern jede
Wirksamkeit in Kirche und Schule untersagt."
The
same Constitution forbids the civil and military officers of the Confederation
to receive pensions or titles or decorations from any foreign government.
I.
Art. 12. "Die Mitglieder der Bundesbehörden, die eidgenössischen Civilund
Militärbeamten und die eidgenössischen Repräsentanten oder Kommissariendürfen
von auswärtigen Regierungen weder Pensionen oder Gehalte, noch Titel, Geschenke
oder Orden annehmen."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="49" title="The Second Peace of Cappel. November,
1531">
§ 49.
The Second Peace of Cappel. November, 1531.
Besides
the works already quoted, see Werner Biel’s account of the immediate
consequences of the war of Cappel in the "Archiv für Schweizerische
Reformationsgeschichte" (Rom. Cath.), vol. III. 641–680. He was at that
time the secretary of the city of Zürich. The articles of the Peace in
Hottinger, Schweizergeschichte, VII. 497 sqq., and in Bluntschli, l.c. II.
269–276 (comp. I. 332 sqq.).
Few
great battles have had so much effect upon the course of history as the little
battle of Cappel. It arrested forever the progress of the Reformation in German
Switzerland, and helped to check the progress of Protestantism in Germany. It
encouraged the Roman Catholic reaction, which soon afterwards assumed the
character of a formidable Counter-Reformation. But, while the march of
Protestantism was arrested in its original homes, it made new progress in
French Switzerland, in France, Holland, and the British Isles.
King
Ferdinand of Austria gave the messenger of the Five Cantons who brought him the
news of their victory at Cappel, fifty guilders, and forthwith informed his
brother Charles V. at Brussels of the fall of "the great heretic
Zwingli," which he thought was the first favorable event for the faith of
the Catholic Church. The Emperor lost no time to congratulate the Forest
Cantons on their victory, and to promise them his own aid and the aid of the
pope, of his brother, and the Catholic princes, in case the Protestants should
persevere in their opposition. The pope had already sent men and means for the
support of his party.
The
disaster of Cappel was a prelude to the disaster of Mühlberg on the Elbe, where
Charles V. defeated the Smalcaldian League of the Lutheran princes, April 24,
1547. Luther was spared the humiliation. The victorious emperor stood on his
grave at Wittenberg, but declined to make war upon the dead by digging up and
burning his bones, as he was advised to do by his Spanish generals.
The
war of Cappel was continued for a few weeks. Zürich rallied her forces as best
she could. Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen sent troops, but rather reluctantly,
and under the demoralizing effect of defeat. There was a want of harmony and
able leadership in the Protestant camp. The Forest Cantons achieved another
victory on the Gubel (Oct. 24), and plundered and wasted the territory of
Zürich; but as the winter approached, and as they did not receive the promised
aid from Austria, they were inclined to peace. Bern acted as mediator.
The
second religious Peace (the so-called Zweite Landsfriede) was signed Nov. 20,
1531,296
between the Five Forest Cantons and the Zürichers, on the meadows of Teynikon,
near Baar, in the territory of Zug, and confirmed Nov. 24 at Aarau by the
consent of Bern, Glarus, Freiburg, and Appenzell. It secured mutual toleration,
but with a decided advantage to the Roman Catholics.
The
chief provisions of the eight articles as regards religion were these: —
1.
The Five Cantons and their associates are to be left undisturbed in their
"true, undoubted, Christian faith"; the Zürichers and their
associates may likewise retain their "faith," but with the exception
of Bremgarten, Mellingen, Rapperschwil, Toggenburg, Gaster, and Wesen. Legal
toleration or parity was thus recognized, but in a manner which implies a
slight reproach of the Reformed creed as a departure from the truth. Mutual
recrimination was again prohibited, as in 1529.297
2.
Both parties retain their rights and liberties in the common bailiwicks: those
who had accepted the new faith might retain it; but those who preferred the old
faith should be free to return to it, and to restore the mass, and the images.
In mixed congregations the church property is to be divided according to population.
Zürich
was required to give up her league with foreign cities, as the Five Cantons had
been compelled in 1529 to break their alliance with Austria. Thus all leagues
with foreign powers, whether papal or Protestant, were forbidden in Switzerland
as unpatriotic. Zürich had to refund the damages of two hundred and fifty
crowns for war expenses, and one hundred crowns for the family of Kaiser, which
had been imposed upon the Forest Cantons in 1529. Bern agreed in addition to
pay three thousand crowns for injury to property in the territory of Zug.
The
two treaties of peace agree in the principle of toleration (as far as it was
understood in those days, and forced upon the two parties by circumstances),
but with the opposite application to the neutral territory of the bailiwicks,
where the Catholic minority was protected against further aggression. The
treaty of 1529 meant a toleration chiefly in the interest and to the advantage
of Protestantism; the treaty of 1531, a toleration in the interest of Romanism.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="50" title="The Roman Catholic Reaction">
§ 50.
The Roman Catholic Reaction.
The
Romanists reaped now the full benefit of their victory. They were no longer
disturbed by the aggressive movements of Protestant preachers, and they
regained much of the lost ground in the bailiwicks.
Romanism
was restored in Rapperschwil and Gaster. The abbot of St. Gall regained his
convent and heavy damages from the city; Toggenburg had to acknowledge his
authority, but a portion of the people remained Reformed. Thurgau and the
Rheinthal had to restore the convents. Bremgarten 22 and Mellingen had to
pledge themselves to re-introduce the mass and the images. In Glarus, the Roman
Catholic minority acquired several churches and preponderating influence in the
public affairs of the Canton. In Solothurn, the Reformation was suppressed, in
spite of the majority of the population, and about seventy families were
compelled to emigrate. In the Diet, the Roman Cantons retained a plurality of
votes.
The
inhabitants of the Forest Cantons, full of gratitude, made a devout pilgrimage
to St. Mary of Einsiedeln, where Zwingli had copied the Epistles of St. Paul
from the first printed edition of the Greek Testament in 1516, and where he,
Leo Judae, and Myconius had labored in succession for a reformation of abuses,
with the consent of Diepold von Geroldseck. That convent has remained ever
since a stronghold of Roman Catholic piety and superstition in Switzerland, and
attracts as many devout pilgrims as ever to the shrine of the "Black
Madonna." It has one of the
largest printing establishments, which sends prayer-books, missals, breviaries,
diurnals, rituals, pictures, crosses, and crucifixes all over the German-speaking
Catholic world.298
Bullinger,
who succeeded Zwingli, closes his "History of the Reformation"
mournfully, yet not without resignation and hope. "All manner of tyranny
and overbearance," he says, "is restored and strengthened, and an
insolent régime is working the ruin of the confederacy. Wonderful are the
counsels of the Lord. But he doeth all things well. To him be glory and
praise! Amen."
NOTE
ON THE CONVENT OF EINSIEDELN.
(Comp.
§ 8, pp. 29 sqq.)
On
a visit to Einsiedeln, June 12, 1890, I saw in the church a number of pilgrims
kneeling before the wonder-working statue of the Black Madonna. The statue is
kept in a special chapel, is coal-black, clothed in a silver garment, crowned
with a golden crown, surrounded by gilt ornaments, and holding the Christ-Child
in her arms. The black color is derived by some from the smoke of fire which
repeatedly consumed the church, while the statue is believed to have
miraculously escaped; but the librarian (Mr. Meier) told me that it was from
the smoke of candles, and that the face of the Virgin is now painted with oil.
The
library of the abbey numbers 40,000 volumes (including 900 incunabula), among
them several copies of the first print of Zwingli’s Commentary on the true and
false Religion, and other books of his. In the picture-gallery are life-size
portraits of King Frederick William IV. of Prussia, his brother, the Prince of
Prussia (afterwards Emperor William I. of Germany), of Napoleon III. and
Eugenie, of the Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria and his wife, and their
unfortunate son who committed suicide in 1889, and of Pope Pius IX. These
portraits were presented to the convent on its tenth centenary in 1861. The
convent was founded by St. Meinhard, a hermit, in the ninth century, or rather
by St. Benno, who died there in 940. The abbey has now nearly 100 Benedictine
monks, a gymnasium with 260 pupils of twelve to twenty years, a theological
seminary, and two filial institutions in Indiana and Arkansas. The church is an
imposing structure, after the model of St. Peter’s in Rome, surrounded by
colonnades. The costly chandelier is a present of Napoleon III. (1865).
The
modern revival of Romanism, and the railroad from Wädensweil, opened 1877, have
greatly increased the number of pilgrims. Goethe says of Einsiedeln: "Es
muss ernste Betrachtungen erregen, dass ein einzelner Funke von Sittlichkeit
und Gottesfurcht hier ein immerbrennendes und leuchtendes Flämmchen angezündet,
zu welchem glaübige Seelen mit grosser Beschwerlichkeit heranpilgern, um an
dieser heiligen Flamme auch ihr Kerzlein anzuzünden. Wie dem auch sei, so
deutet es auf ein grenzenloses Bedürfniss der Menschheit nach gleichem Lichte,
gleicher Wärme, wie es jener Erste im tiefsten Gefühle und sicherster
Ueberzengung gehegt und genossen."
For
a history of Einsiedeln, see Beschreibung des Klosters und der Wallfahrt Maria-Einsiedeln.
Einsiedeln. Benziger & Co. 122 pp.
The
wood-cut on p. 197 represents the abbey as it was before and at the time of
Zwingli, and is a fair specimen of a rich mediaeval abbey, with church,
dwellings for the brethren, library, school, and gardens. Einsiedeln lies in a
dreary and sterile district, and derives its sole interest from this remarkable
abbey.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="51" title="The Relative Strength of the Confessions in
Switzerland">
§ 51.
The Relative Strength of the Confessions in Switzerland.
We may
briefly sum up the result of the Reformation in Switzerland as follows: —
Seven
Cantons—Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, Freiburg, and Soluthurn
(Soleur)—remained firm to the faith of their ancestors. Four Cantons, including
the two strongest—Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen—adopted the Reformed
faith. Five Cantons—Glarus, St. Gall, Appenzell, Thurgau, and Aargau—are nearly
equally divided between the two Confessions. Of the twenty-three subject towns
and districts, only Morat and Granson became wholly Protestant, sixteen
retained their former religion, and five were divided. In the Grisons nearly
two-thirds of the population adopted the Zwinglian Reformation; but the
Protestant gains in the Valtellina and Chiavenna were lost in the seventeenth
century. Ticino and Wallis are Roman Catholic. In the French Cantons—Geneva,
Canton de Vaud, and Neuchatel—the Reformation achieved a complete victory,
chiefly through the labors of Calvin.
Since
the middle of the sixteenth century the numerical relation of the two Churches
has undergone no material change. Protestantism has still a majority of about
half a million in a population of less than three millions. The Roman Catholic
Church has considerably increased by immigration from Savoy and France, but has
suffered some loss by the Old Catholic secession in 1870 under the lead of
Bishop Herzog. The Methodists and Baptists are making progress chiefly in those
parts where infidelity and indifferentism reign.
Each
Canton still retains its connection with one or the other of the two Churches,
and has its own church establishment; but the bond of union has been gradually
relaxed, and religious liberty extended to dissenting communions, as
Methodists, Baptists, Irvingites, and Old Catholics. The former exclusiveness
is abolished, and the principle of parity or equality before the law is
acknowledged in all the Cantons.
An
impartial comparison between the Roman Catholic and the Reformed Cantons
reveals the same difference as exists between Southern and Northern Ireland,
Eastern and Western Canada, and other parts of the world where the two Churches
meet in close proximity. The Roman Catholic Cantons have preserved more
historical faith and superstition, churchly habits and customs; the Protestant
Cantons surpass them in general education and intelligence, wealth and temporal
prosperity; while in point of morality both are nearly equal.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="52" title="Zwingli. Redivivus">
§ 52.
Zwingli. Redivivus.
The
last words of the dying Zwingli, "They may kill the body, but cannot kill
the soul," have been verified in his case. His body was buried with his
errors and defects, but his spirit still lives; and his liberal views on infant
salvation, and the extent of God’s saving grace beyond the limits of the
visible Church, which gave so much offence in his age, even to the Reformers,
have become almost articles of faith in evangelical Christendom.
Ulrich
Zwingli is, next to Martin Luther and John Knox, the most popular among the
Reformers.299 He moved in sympathy with the common people; he spoke and
wrote their language; he took part in their public affairs; he was a faithful
pastor of the old and young, and imbedded himself in their affections; while
Erasmus, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Beza, and Cranmer stood aloof from
the masses. He was a man of the people and for the people, a typical Swiss; as
Luther was a typical German. Both fairly represented the virtues and faults of
their nation. Both were the best hated as well as the best loved men of their
age, according to the faith which divided, and still divides, their countrymen.
Martin
Luther and Ulrich Zwingli have been honored by a fourth centennial
commemoration of their birth,—the one in 1883, the other in 1884. Such honor is
almost without a precedent, at least in the history of theology.300
The
Zwingli festival was not merely an echo of the Luther festival, but was
observed throughout the Reformed churches of Europe and America with genuine
enthusiasm, and gave rise to an extensive Zwingli literature. It is in keeping
with the generous Christian spirit which the Swiss Reformer showed towards the
German Reformer at Marburg, that many Reformed churches in Switzerland, as well
as elsewhere, heartily united in the preceding jubilee of Luther, forgetting
the bitter controversies of the sixteenth century, and remembering gratefully
his great services to the cause of truth and liberty.301
In
the following year (Aug. 25, 1885), a bronze statue was erected to Zwingli at
Zürich in front of the Wasserkirche and City Library, beneath the minster where
be preached. It represents the Reformer as a manly figure, looking trustfully
up to heaven, with the Bible in one hand and the sword in the other,—a
combination true to history. Dr. Alexander Schweizer, one of the ablest Swiss
divines (d. July 3, 1888), whose last public service was the Zwingli oration in
the University, Jan. 7, 1884, protested against the sword, and left the
committee on the monument. Dr. Konrad Ferdinand Meyer, the poet of the occasion,
changed the sword of Zwingli, with poetic ingenuity, into the sword of
Vokinger, by which he was slain.302
Antistes Finsler, in his oration, gave the sword a double meaning, as in
the case of Paul, who is likewise represented with the sword, namely, the sword
by which he was slain, and the sword of the spirit with which he still is
fighting; while at the same time it distinguishes Zwingli from Luther, and
shows him as the patriot and statesman.
The
whole celebration—the orderly enthusiasm of the people, the festive addresses
of representative men of Church and State, the illumination of the city and the
villages around the beautiful lake—bore eloquent witness to the fact that
Zwingli has impressed his image indelibly upon the memory of German
Switzerland. Although his descendants are at present about equally divided
between orthodox conservatives and rationalistic "reformers" (as they
call themselves), they forgot their quarrels on that day, and cordially united
in tributes to the abiding merits of him who, whatever were his faults, has
emancipated the greater part of Switzerland from the tyranny of popery, and led
them to the fresh fountain of the teaching and example of Christ.303
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="VI" title="The Period Of
Consolidation">
CHAPTER
VI.
THE
PERIOD OF CONSOLIDATION.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="53" title="Literature">
§ 53.
Literature.
Supplementary
to the literature in § 4, pp. 12 sqq.
I.
Manuscript sources preserved in the City Library of Zürich, which was founded
1629, and contains c. 132,000 printed vols. and 3,500 MSS. See Salomon Vögelin:
Geschichte der Wasserkirche und der Stadtbibliothek in Zürich. Zürich, 1848
(pp. 110 and 123). The Wasserkirche (capella aquatica) is traced back to
Charles the Great. It contains also the remains of the lake dwellings. The
bronze statue of Zwingli stands in front of it. The Thesaurus Hottingerianus, a
collection of correspondence made by the theologian, J. H. Hottinger, 55 vols.,
embraces the whole Bullinger correspondence, which has been much used, but
never published in full.—The Simler Collection of 196 vols. fol., with double
index of 62 vols. fol., contains correspondence, proclamations, pamphlets,
official mandates, and other documents, chronologically arranged, very legible,
on good paper. Johann Jacob Simler (1716–1788), professor and inspector of the
theological college, spent the leisure hours of his whole life in the
collection of papers and documents relating to the history of Switzerland,
especially of the Reformation. This unique collection was acquired by the
government, and presented to the City Library in 1792. It has often been used,
and, though partly depreciated by more recent discoveries, is still a
treasure-house of information. The Bullinger correspondence is found in the
volumes from a.d. 1531–1575.—Acta Ecclesiastica intermixtis politicis et
politico-ecclesiasticis Manuscripta ex ipsis fontibus hausta in variis fol.
Tomis chronologice pro administratione Antistitii Turicensis in ordinem
redacta. 33 vols. fol. Beautifully written. Comes down to the administration of
Antistes Joh. Jak. Hess (1795–1798). Tom I. extends from 1519–1531; tom. II.
contains a biography of Bullinger, with his likeness, and the acts during his
administration.—The State Archives of the City and Canton Zürich.
II.
Printed works. Joh. Conr. Füsslin: Beyträge zur Erläuterung der
KirchenReformationsgeschichten des Schweitzerlandes. Zürich, 1741–1753. 5 Parts. Contains important documents
relating to the Reformation in Zürich and the Anabaptists, the disputation at Ilanz,
etc.—Simler’s Sammlung alter und neuer Urkunden. Zürich, 1760. 2 vols.—Joh.
Jak. Hottinger (Prof. of Theol. and Canon of the Great Minster): Helvetische
Kirchengeschichten vorstellend der Helvetiern ehemaliges Heidenthum, und durch
die Gnade Gottes gefolgtes Christenthum, etc. Zürich, 1698–1729. 4 Theile 4°.
2d ed. 1737. A work of immense industry, in opposition to a Roman Catholic work
of Caspar Lang (Einsiedeln, 1692). The third volume goes from 1616 to 1700, the
fourth to 1728. Superseded by Wirz.—Ludwig Wirz: Helvetische Kirchengeschichte.
Aus Joh. Jak. Hottingers älterem Werke und anderen Quellen neu bearbeitet. Zürich, 1808–1819. 6 vols. The fifth
volume is by Melchior Kirchhofer, who gives the later history of Zwingli from
1625, and the Reformation in the other Cantons.—Joh. Jak. Hottinger: Geschichte
der Eidgenossen während der Zeiten der Kirchentrennung. Zürich, 1825 and 1829.
2 vols. This work forms vols. VI. and VII. of Joh. von Müller’s and Robert
Glutz Blotzheim’s Geschichten Schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft. The second
volume (p. 446 sqq.) treats of the period of Bullinger, and is drawn in part
from the Simler Collection and the Archives of Zürich. French translation by L.
Vulliemin: Histoire des Suisses à l’époque de la Réformation. Paris et Zurich,
1833. 2 vols. G. R. Zimmermann (Pastor of the Fraumünster and Decan): Die
Zürcher Kirche von der Reformation bis zum dritten Reformationsjubilüum
(1519–1819) nach der Reihenfolge der Zürcherischen Antistes. Zürich, 1878 (pp.
414). On Bullinger, see pp. 36–73. Based upon the Acta Ecclesiastica quoted
above.—Joh. Strickler’s Actensammlung, previously noticed (p. 13), extends only
to 1532.
On
the Roman Catholic side comp. Archiv für die Schweiz. Reformationsgesch.,
noticed above, p. 13. The first volume (1868) contains Salat’s Chronik down to
1534; the second (1872), 135 papal addresses to the Swiss Diet, mostly of the
sixteenth century (from Martin V. to Clement VIII.), documents referring to
1531, Roman and Venetian sources on the Swiss Reformation, etc.; vol. III.
(1876), a catalogue of books on Swiss history (7–98), and a number of documents
from the Archives of Luzern and other cities, including three letters of King
Francis I. to the Catholic Cantons, and an account of the immediate
consequences of the War of Cappel by Werner Beyel, at that time secretary of
the city of Zürich (pp. 641–680).
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="54" title="Heinrich Bullinger. 1504–1575">
§ 54.
Heinrich Bullinger. 1504–1575.
I.
Sources. Bullinger’s printed works (stated to be 150 by Scheuchzer in
"Bibliotheca Helvetica," Zürich, 1733). His manuscript letters
(mostly Latin) in the "Thesaurus Hottingerianus" and the "Simler
Collection" of the City Library at Zürich.—The second volume of the Acta
Ecclesiastica, quoted in § 53.—The Zürich Letters or the Correspondence of
several English Bishops and others with some of the Helvetian Reformers,
chiefly from the Archives Of Zurich, translated and edited for the "Parker
Society" by Dr. Robinson, Cambridge (University Press), 2d ed. 1846 (pp.
576).
II.
Salomon Hess: Leben Bullinger’s. Zürich, 1828–’29, 2 vols. Not very
accurate.—*Carl Pestalozzi: Heinrich Bullinger. Leben und ausgewählte
Schriften. Nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen. Elberfeld, 1858.
Extracts from his writings, pp. 505–622. Pestalozzi has faithfully used the
written and printed sources in the Stadtbibliothek and Archives of Zürich.—R.
Christoffel: H. Bullinger und seine Gattin. 1875.—Justus Heer: Bullinger, in
Herzog2, II. 779–794. A good summary.
Older
biographical sketches by Ludwig Lavater (1576), Josias Simler (1575), W. Stucki
(1575), etc. Incidental information about Bullinger in Hagenbach and other
works on the Swiss Reformation, and in Meyer’s Die Gemeinde von Locarno, 1836,
especially I. 198–216.
After
the productive period of the Zwinglian Reformation, which embraced fifteen
years, from 1516 to 1531, followed the period of preservation and consolidation
under difficult circumstances. It required a man of firm faith, courage,
moderation, patience, and endurance. Such a man was providentially equipped in
the person of Heinrich Bullinger, the pupil, friend, and successor of Zwingli,
and second Antistes of Zürich. He proved that the Reformation was a work of
God, and, therefore, survived the apparent defeat at Cappel.
He
was born July 18, 1504, at Bremgarten in Aargau, the youngest of five sons of
Dean Bullinger, who lived, like many priests of those days, in illegitimate,
yet tolerated, wedlock.304
The father resisted the sale of indulgences by Samson in 1518, and
confessed, in his advanced age, from the pulpit, the doctrines of the
Reformation (1529). In consequence of this act he lost his place. Young Henry
was educated in the school of the Brethren of the Common Life at Emmerich, and
in the University of Cologne. He studied scholastic and patristic theology.
Luther’s writings and Melanchthon’s Loci led him to the study of the Bible and
prepared him for a change.
He
returned to Switzerland as Master of Arts, taught a school in the Cistercian
Convent at Cappel from 1523 to 1529, and reformed the convent in agreement with
the abbot, Wolfgang Joner. During that time he became acquainted with Zwingli,
attended the Conference with the Anabaptists at Zürich, 1525, and the
disputation at Bern, 1528. He married Anna Adlischweiler, a former nun, in
1529, who proved to be an excellent wife and helpmate. He accepted a call to
Bremgarten as successor of his father.
After
the disaster at Cappel, he removed to Zürich, and was unanimously elected by
the Council and the citizens preacher of the Great Minster, Dec. 9, 1531. It
was rumored that Zwingli himself, in the presentiment of his death, had
designated him as his successor. No better man could have been selected. It was
of vital importance for the Swiss churches that the place of the Reformer
should be filled by a man of the same spirit, but of greater moderation and
self-restraint.305
Bullinger
now assumed the task of saving, purifying, and consolidating the life-work of
Zwingli; and faithfully and successfully did he carry out this task. When he
ascended the pulpit of the Great Minster in Dec. 23, 1531, many hearers thought
that Zwingli had risen from the grave.306 He took a firm stand for the Reformation, which was in
danger of being abandoned by timid men in the Council. He kept free from
interference with politics, which had proved ruinous to Zwingli. He established
a more independent, though friendly relation between Church and State. He
confined himself to his proper vocation as preacher and teacher.
In
the first years he preached six or seven times a week; after 1542 only twice,
on Sundays and Fridays. He followed the plan of Zwingli in explaining whole
books of the Scriptures from the pulpit. His sermons were simple, clear, and
practical, and served as models for young preachers.
He
was a most devoted pastor, dispensing counsel and comfort in every direction,
and exposing even his life during the pestilence which several times visited
Zürich. His house was open from morning till night to all who desired his help.
He freely dispensed food, clothing, and money from his scanty income and
contributions of friends, to widows and orphans, to strangers and exiles, not
excluding persons of other creeds. He secured a decent pension for the widow of
Zwingli, and educated two of his children with his own. He entertained
persecuted brethren for weeks and months in his own house, or procured them
places and means of travel.307
He
paid great attention to education, as superintendent of the schools in Zürich.
He filled the professorships in the Carolinum with able theologians, as
Pellican, Bibliander, Peter Martyr. He secured a well-educated ministry. He
prepared, in connection with Leo Judae, a book of church order, which was
adopted by the Synod, Oct. 22, 1532, issued by authority of the burgomaster,
the Small and the Great Council, and continued in force for nearly three
hundred years. It provides the necessary rules for the examination, election,
and duties of ministers (Predicanten) and deans (Decani), for semi-annual
meetings of synods with clerical and lay representatives, and the power of
discipline. The charges were divided into eight districts or chapters.308
Bullinger’s
activity extended far beyond the limits of Zürich. He had a truly Catholic
spirit, and stood in correspondence with all the Reformed Churches. Beza calls
him "the common shepherd of all Christian Churches;" Pellican,
"a man of God, endowed with the richest gifts of heaven for God’s honor
and the salvation of souls."
He received fugitive Protestants from Italy, France, England, and
Germany with open arms, and made Zürich an asylum of religious liberty. He thus
protected Celio Secondo Curione, Bernardino Occhino, and Peter Martyr, and the
immigrants from Locarno, and aided in the organization of an Italian
congregation in Zürich.309
Following the example of Zwingli and Calvin, he appealed twice to the
king of France for toleration in behalf of the Huguenots. He dedicated to Henry
II. his book on Christian Perfection (1551), and to Francis II. his Instruction
in the Christian Religion (1559). He sent deputations to the French court for
the protection of the Waldenses, and the Reformed congregation in Paris.
The
extent of Bullinger’s correspondence is astonishing. It embraces letters to and
from all the distinguished Protestant divines of his age, as Calvin,
Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Laski, Cranmer, Hooper, Jewel, and crowned heads who
consulted him, as Henry VIII., Edward VI., of England, Queen Elizabeth, Henry
II. of France, King Christian of Denmark, Philip of Hesse, and the Elector
Frederick of the Palatinate.
Bullinger
came into contact with the English Reformation from the time of Henry VIII. to
the reign of Elizabeth, especially during the bloody reign of Mary, when many
prominent exiles fled to Zürich, and found a fraternal reception under his
hospitable roof. The correspondence of Hooper, Jewel, Sandys, Grindal,
Parkhurst, Foxe, Cox, and other church dignitaries with Bullinger, Gwalter,
Gessner, Simler, and Peter Martyr, is a noble monument of the spiritual harmony
between the Reformed Churches of Switzerland and England in the Edwardian and
Elizabethan era. Archbishop Cranmer invited Bullinger, together with
Melanchthon, Calvin, and Bucer, to a conference in London, for the purpose of
framing an evangelical union creed; and Calvin answered that for such a cause
he would be willing to cross ten seas. Lady Jane Grey, who was beheaded in
1554, read Bullinger’s works, translated his book on marriage into Greek,
consulted him about Hebrew, and addressed him with filial affection and
gratitude. Her three letters to him are still preserved in Zürich. Bishop
Hooper of Gloucester, who had enjoyed his hospitality in 1547, addressed him
shortly before his martyrdom in 1554, as his "revered father and
guide," and the best friend he ever had, and recommended his wife and two
children to his care. Bishop Jewel, in a letter of May 22, 1559, calls him his
"father and much esteemed master in Christ," thanks him for his
"courtesy and kindness," which he and his friends experienced during
the whole period of their exile, and informs him that the restoration of the
Reformed religion under Elizabeth was largely due to his own "letters and
recommendations;" adding that the queen refused to be addressed as the
head of the Church of England, feeling that such honor belongs to Christ alone,
and not to any human being. Bullinger’s death was lamented in England as a
public calamity.310
Bullinger
faithfully maintained the doctrine and discipline of the Reformed Church
against the Roman Catholics and Lutherans with moderation and dignity. He never
returned the abuse of fanatics, and when, in 1548, the Interim drove the
Lutheran preachers from the Swabian cities, he received them hospitably, even
those who had denounced the Reformed doctrines from the pulpit. He represents
the German-Swiss type of the Reformed faith in substantial agreement with a
moderate Calvinism. He gave a full exposition of his theological views in the
Second Helvetic Confession.
His
theory of the sacrament was higher than that of Zwingli. He laid more stress on
the objective value of the institution. We recognize, he wrote to Faber, a
mystery in the Lord’s Supper; the bread is not common bread, but venerable,
sacred, sacramental bread, the pledge of the spiritual real presence of Christ
to those who believe. As the sun is in heaven, and yet virtually present on
earth with his light and heat, so Christ sits in heaven, and yet efficaciously
works in the hearts of all believers. When Luther, after Zwingli’s death,
warned Duke Albert of Prussia and the people of Frankfort not to tolerate the
Zwinglians, Bullinger replied by sending to the duke a translation of
Ratramnus’ tract, De corpore et sanguine Domini, with a preface. He rejected
the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536, because it concealed the Lutheran doctrine.
He answered Luther’s atrocious attack on the Zwinglians (1545) by a clear,
strong, and temperate statement; but Luther died soon afterwards (1546) without
retracting his charges. When Westphal renewed the unfortunate controversy
(1552), Bullinger supported Calvin in defending the Reformed doctrine, but
counselled moderation.311
He and Calvin brought about a complete agreement on the sacramental
question in the Consensus Tigurinus, which was adopted in 1549 at Zürich, in
the presence of some members of the Council, and afterwards received the
approval of the other Swiss Reformed churches.312
On
the doctrine of Predestination, Bullinger did not go quite as far as Zwingli
and Calvin, and kept within the infralapsarian scheme. He avoided to speak of the
predestination of Adam’s fall, because it seemed irreconcilable with the
justice of the punishment of sin.313 The Consensus Genevensis (1552), which contains Calvin’s rigorous
view, was not signed by the pastors of Zürich. Theodor Bibliander, the father
of biblical exegesis in Switzerland, and a forerunner of Arminianism, opposed
it. He adhered to the semi-Pelagian theory of Erasmus, and was involved in a
controversy with Peter Martyr, who was a strict Calvinist, and taught in Zürich
since 1556. Bibliander was finally removed from his theological professorship
(Feb. 8, 1560), but his salary was continued till his death (Nov. 26, 1564).314
On
the subject of toleration and the punishment of heretics, Bullinger agreed with
the prevailing theory, but favorably differed from the prevailing practice. He
opposed the Anabaptists in his writings, as much as Zwingli, and, like
Melanchthon, he approved of the unfortunate execution of Servetus, but he
himself did not persecute. He tolerated Laelio Sozini, who quietly died at
Zürich (1562), and Bernardino Occhino, who preached for some time to the
Italian congregation in that city, but was deposed, without further punishment,
for teaching Unitarian opinions and defending polygamy. In a book against the
Roman Catholic Faber, Bullinger expresses the Christian and humane sentiment
that no violence should be done to dissenters, and that faith is a free gift of
God, which cannot be commanded or forbidden. He agreed with Zwingli’s extension
of salvation to all infants dying in infancy and to elect heathen; at all
events, he nowhere dissents from these advanced views, and published with
approbation Zwingli’s last work, where they are most strongly expressed.315
Bullinger’s
house was a happy Christian home. He liked to play with his numerous children
and grandchildren, and to write little verses for them at Christmas, like
Luther.316
When
his son Henry, in 1553, went to Strassburg, Wittenberg, and Vienna to prosecute
his theological studies, be wrote down for him wise rules of conduct, of which
the following are the most important: 1) Fear God at all times, and remember
that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. 2) Humble yourself before God,
and pray to him alone through Christ, our only Mediator and Advocate. 3)
Believe firmly that God has done all for our salvation through his Son. 4) Pray
above all things for strong faith active in love. 5) Pray that God may protect
your good name and keep thee from sin, sickness, and bad company. 6) Pray for
the fatherland, for your dear parents, benefactors, friends, and all men, for
the spread of the Word of God; conclude always with the Lord’s Prayer, and use
also the beautiful hymn, Te Deum laudamus [which he ascribes to Ambrose and
Augustin]. 7) Be reticent, be always more willing to hear than to speak, and do
not meddle with things which you do not understand. 8) Study diligently Hebrew
and Greek as well as Latin, history, philosophy, and the sciences, but especially
the New Testament, and read daily three chapters in the Bible, beginning with
Genesis. 9) Keep your body clean and unspotted, be neat in your dress, and
avoid above all things intemperance in eating and drinking. 10) Let your
conversation be decent, cheerful, moderate, and free from all uncharitableness.317 He recommended him to Melanchthon, and
followed his studies with letters full of fatherly care and affection.318 He kept his parents with him till their
death, the widow of Zwingli (d. 1538), and two of her children, whom he
educated with his own. Notwithstanding his scanty income, he declined all
presents, or sent them to the hospitals. The whole people revered the venerable
minister of noble features and white patriarchal beard.
His
last days were clouded, like those of many faithful servants of God. The excess
of work and care undermined his health. In 1562 he wrote to Fabricius at Coire:
"I almost sink under the load of business and care, and feel so tired that
I would ask the Lord to give me rest if it were not against his will." The pestilence of 1564 and 1565 brought
him to the brink of the grave, and deprived him of his wife, three daughters,
and his brother-in-law. He bore these heavy strokes with Christian resignation.
In the same two fatal years he lost his dearest friends, Calvin, Blaurer,
Gessner, Froschauer, Bibliander, Fabricius, Farel. He recovered, and was
allowed to spend several more years in the service of Christ. His youngest
daughter, Dorothea, took faithful and tender care of his health. He felt lonely
and homesick, but continued to preach and to write with the aid of pastor
Lavater, his colleague and son-in-law. He preached his last sermon on
Pentecost, 1575. He assembled, Aug. 26, all the pastors of the city and
professors of theology around his sick-bed, assured them of his perseverance in
the true apostolic and orthodox doctrine, recited the Apostles’ Creed, and
exhorted them to purity of life, harmony among themselves, and obedience to the
magistrates. He warned them against intemperance, envy, and hatred, thanked
them for their kindness, assured them of his love, and closed with a prayer of
thanksgiving and some verses of the hymns of Prudentius. Then he took each by
the hand and took leave of them with tears, as Paul did from the elders at
Ephesus. A few weeks afterwards he died, after reciting several Psalms (51, 16,
and 42), the Lord’s Prayer, and other prayers, peacefully, in the presence of
his family, Sept. 17, 1575. He was buried in the Great Minster, at the side of
his beloved wife and his dear friend, Peter Martyr. According to his wish,
Rudolph Gwalter, Zwingli’s son-in-law and his adopted son, was unanimously
elected his successor. Four of his successors were trained under his care and
labored in his spirit.
The
writings of Bullinger are very numerous, mostly doctrinal and practical,
adapted to the times, but of little permanent value. Scheuchzer numbers one
hundred and fifty printed books of his. The Zürich City Library contains about
one hundred, exclusive of translations and new editions. Many are extant only
in manuscript. He wrote Latin commentaries on the New Testament (except the
Apocalypse), numerous sermons on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the Apocalypse. His
Decades (five series of ten sermons each on the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed,
and the Sacraments) were much esteemed and used in Holland and England. His
work on the justifying grace of God was highly prized by Melanchthon. His
History of the Swiss Reformation, written by his own hand, in two folio
volumes, has been published in 1838–’40, in three volumes. His most important
doctrinal work is the Second Helvetic Confession, which acquired symbolical
authority.319
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="55" title="Antistes Breitinger (1575–1645)">
§ 55.
Antistes Breitinger (1575–1645).
In the
same year in which Bullinger died (1575), Johann Jakob Breitinger was born, who
became his worthy successor as Antistes of Zürich (1613–1645).320 He called him a saint, and followed his
example. He was one of the most eminent Reformed divines of his age. Thoroughly
trained in the universities of Herborn, Marburg, Franeker, Heidelberg, and
Basel, he gained the esteem and affection of his fellow-citizens as teacher,
preacher, and devoted pastor. During the fearful pestilence of 1611 he visited
the sick from morning till night at the risk of his life.
He
attended as one of the Swiss delegates the Synod of Dort (1618 and 1619). He
was deeply impressed with the learning, wisdom, and piety of that body, and
fully agreed with its unjust and intolerant treatment of the Arminians.321 On his return (May 21, 1619) he was
welcomed by sixty-four Zürichers, who rode to the borders of the Rhine to meet
him. Yet, with all his firmness of conviction, he was opposed to confessional
polemics in an intensely polemic age, and admired the good traits in other
churches and sects, even the Jesuits. He combined with strict orthodoxy a
cheerful temper, a generous heart, and active piety. He had an open ear for
appeals from the poor and the numerous sufferers in the murder of the
Valtellina (1620) and during the Thirty Years’ War. At his request, hospitals
and orphan houses were founded and collections raised, which in the Minster
alone, during eight years (1618–1628), exceeded fifty thousand pounds. He was
in every way a model pastor, model churchman, and model statesman. Although be
towered high above his colleagues, he disarmed envy and jealousy by his
kindliness and Christian humility. Altogether he shines next to Zwingli and
Bullinger as the most influential and useful Antistes of the Reformed Church of
Zürich.322
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="56" title="Oswald Myconius, Antistes of Basel">
§ 56.
Oswald Myconius, Antistes of Basel.
I.
Correspondence between Myconius and Zwingli in Zwingli’s Opera, vols. VII. and
VIII. (28 letters of the former and 20 of the latter).—Correspondence with
Bullinger in the Simler Collection.—Antiqu. Gernl., I. The Chronicle of
Fridolin Ryff, ed. by W. Vischer (son), in the Basler Chroniken (vol. 1,
Leipzig, 1872), extends from 1514 to 1541.
II.
Melchior Kirchofer (of Schaffhausen): Oswald Myconius, Antistes der
Baslerischen Kirche. Zürich, 1813 (pp. 387). Still very serviceable.—R.
Hagenbach: Joh. Oecolampad und Oswald Myronius, die Reformatoren Basels.
Elberfeld, 1859 (pp. 309–462). Also his Geschichte der ersten Basler
Confession. Basel, 1828.—B. Riggenbach, in Herzog2, X. 403–405.
Oswald
Myconius (1488–1552),323 a native of Luzern, an intimate friend of
Zwingli, and successor of Oecolampadius, was to the Church of Basel what
Bullinger was to the Church of Zürich,—a faithful preserver of the Reformed
religion, but in a less difficult position and more limited sphere of usefulness.
He spent his earlier life as classical teacher in Basel, Zürich, Luzern,
Einsiedeln, and again in Zürich. His pupil, Thomas Plater, speaks highly of his
teaching ability and success. Erasmus honored him with his friendship before he
fell out with the Reformation.324
After
the death of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he moved to Basel as pastor of St.
Alban (Dec. 22, 1531), and was elected Antistes or chief pastor of the Church
of that city, and professor of New Testament exegesis in the university
(August, 1532). He was not ordained, and had no academic degree, and refused to
take one because Christ had forbidden his disciples to be called Rabbi (Matt.
23:8).325 He carried out
the views of Oecolampadius on discipline, and maintained the independence of
the Church in its relation to the State and the university. He had to suffer
much opposition from Carlstadt, who, by his recommendation, became professor of
theology in Basel (1534), and ended there his restless life (1541). He took
special interest in the higher and lower schools. He showed hospitality to the
numerous Protestants from France who, like Farel and Calvin, sought a temporary
refuge in Basel. The English martyrologist, John Foxe, fled from the Marian
persecution to Basel, finished and published there the first edition of his
Book of Martyrs (1554).
On
the doctrine of the Eucharist, Myconius, like Calvin after him, occupied a
middle ground between Zwingli and Luther. He aided Bucer in his union movement
which resulted in the adoption of the Wittenberg Concordia and a temporary
conciliation of Luther with the Swiss (1536). He was suspected by the Zürichers
of leaning too much to the Lutheran side, but he never admitted the corporal
presence and oral manducation; he simply emphasized more than Zwingli the spiritual
real presence and fruition of the body and blood of Christ. He thought that
Luther and Zwingli had misunderstood each other.326
Myconius
matured, on the basis of a draft of Oecolampadius, the First Basel Confession
of Faith, which was adopted by the magistracy, Jan. 21, 1534, and also by the
neighboring city of Mühlhausen.327
It is very simple, and consists of twelve Articles, on God (the
trinity), man, providence, Christ, the Church and sacraments, the Lord’s
Supper, the ban, the civil government, faith and good works, the last judgment,
feasts, fasts, and celibacy, and the Anabaptists (condemning their views on
infant baptism, the oath, and civil government). It is written in Swiss-German,
with marginal Scripture references and notes. It claims no infallibility or
binding authority, and concludes with the words: "We submit this our
confession to the judgment of the divine Scriptures, and are always ready, if
we can be better informed from them, very thankfully to obey God and his holy
Word."
This
Confession was superseded by maturer statements of the Reformed faith, but
retained a semi-symbolical authority in the Church of Basel, as a venerable
historical document.
Myconius
wrote the first biography of Zwingli in twelve, short chapters (1532).328 His other writings are not important.329
One
of his most influential successors was Lukas Gernler, who presided as Antistes
over the Church of Basel from 1656 to 1675. He formulated the scholastic system
of Calvinism, with many subtle definitions and distinctions, in a Syllabus of
588 Theses. In connection with John Henry Heidegger of Zürich and the elder
Turretin of Geneva, he prepared the Helvetic Consensus Formula, the last and
the most rigid of Calvinistic symbols (1675). He was the last representative of
strict Calvinistic orthodoxy in Basel. He combined with an intolerant creed a
benevolent heart, and induced the magistracy of Basel to found an orphan
asylum. The famous Hebrew and Talmudic scholars, John Buxtorf (1564–1629), his
son, John (1599–1664), and his grandson, John Jacob (1645–1704), who adorned
the university of Basel in the seventeenth century, fully agreed with the
doctrinal position of Gernler, and defended even the rabbinical tradition of
the literal inspiration of the Masoretic text against Louis Cappel, who
attacked it with great learning (1650).330
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="57" title="The Helvetic Confessions of Faith">
§ 57.
The Helvetic Confessions of Faith.
Niemeyer:
Collectio Confess. (Hall. 1840), pp. 105–122 (Conf. Helv. prior, German and
Latin), and 462–536 (Conf. Helv. posterior).—Schaff: Creeds of Christendom (New
York, 6th ed. 1890), vol. I. 388–420 (history); III. 211–307 (First and Second
Helv. Conf.), 831–909 (Second Helv. Conf. in English). Other literature quoted
by Schaff, I. 385 and 399.
Bullinger
and Myconius authoritatively formulated the doctrines of the Reformed Churches
in Switzerland, and impressed upon them a strongly evangelical character,
without the scholastic subtleties of a later period.
The
Sixty-seven Conclusions and the two private Confessions of Zwingli (to Charles
V., and Francis I.) were not intended to be used as public creeds, and never
received the sanction of the Church. The Ten Theses of Bern (1528), the First
Confession of Basel (1534), the Zürich Consensus (1549), and the Geneva
Consensus (1552) were official documents, but had only local authority in the
cities where they originated. But the First and Second Helvetic Confessions
were adopted by the Swiss and other Churches, and kept their place as
symbolical books for nearly three hundred years. They represent the Zwinglian
type of doctrine modified and matured. They approach the Calvinistic system,
without its logical rigor.
I.
The First Helvetic Confession, 1536. It is also called the Second Basel
Confession, to distinguish it from the First Basel Confession of 1534. It was
made in Basel, but not for Basel alone. It owes its origin partly to the
renewed efforts of the Strassburg Reformers, Bucer and Capito, to bring about a
union between the Lutherans and the Zwinglians, and partly to the papal promise
of convening a General Council. A number of Swiss divines were delegated by the
magistrates of Zürich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen, St. Gall, Mühlhausen, and
Biel, to a conference in the Augustinian convent at Basel, Jan. 30, 1536. Bucer
and Capito also appeared on behalf of Strassburg. Bullinger, Myconius,
Grynaeus, Leo Judae, and Megander were selected as a commission to draw up a
Confession of the faith of the Helvetic Churches, which might be used at the
proposed General Council. It was examined and signed by all the clerical and
lay delegates, February, 1536, and first published in Latin. Leo Judae prepared
the German translation, which is fuller than the Latin text, and of equal
authority.
Luther,
to whom a copy was sent through Bucer, unexpectedly expressed, in two
remarkable letters,331 his satisfaction with the earnest Christian
character of this document, and promised to do all he could to promote union
and harmony with the Swiss. He was then under the hopeful impressions of the
"Wittenberg Concordia," which Bucer had brought about by his elastic
diplomacy, May, 1536, but which proved, after all, a hollow peace, and could
not be honestly signed by the Swiss. Luther himself made a new and most
intemperate attack on the Zwinglians (1545), a year before his death.
The
First Helvetic Confession is the earliest Reformed Creed that has acquired a
national authority. It consists of 27 articles, is fuller than the First
Confession of Basel, but not so full as the Second Helvetic Confession, by
which it was afterwards superseded. The doctrine of the sacraments and of the
Lord’s Supper is essentially Zwinglian, yet emphasizes the significance of the
sacramental signs and the real spiritual presence of Christ, who gives his body
and blood—that is, himself—to believers, so that he more and more lives in
them, and they in him.
Bullinger
and Leo Judae wished to add a caution against the binding authority of this or
any other confession that might interfere with the supreme authority of the
Word of God and with Christian liberty. They had a correct feeling of a
difference between a confession of doctrine which may be improved from time to
time with the progress of religious knowledge, and a rule of faith which
remains unchanged. A confession of the Church has relative authority as norma
normata, and depends upon its agreement with the Holy Scriptures, which have
absolute authority as norma normans.
II.
The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566. This is far more important than the
first, and obtained authority beyond the limits of Switzerland. In the
intervening thirty years Calvin had developed his theological system, and the
Council of Trent had formulated the modern Roman creed. Bullinger prepared this
Confession in 1562 for his private use, as a testimony of the faith in which he
had lived and wished to die. Two years afterwards, during the raging of the
pestilence, he elaborated it more fully, in the daily expectation of death, and
added it to his last will and testament, which was to be delivered to the
magistracy of Zürich after his decease.
But
events in Germany gave to this private creed a public character. The pious
elector of the Palatinate, Frederick III., being threatened by the Lutherans
with exclusion from the treaty of peace on account of his secession to the
Reformed Church and the publication of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563),
requested Bullinger in 1565 to prepare a full and clear exposition of the
Reformed faith, that he might answer the charges of heresy and dissension so
constantly brought against the same. Bullinger sent him a manuscript copy of
his confession. The Elector was so much pleased with it that he desired to have
it translated and published in Latin and German before the Imperial Diet, which
was to assemble at Augsburg in 1566 and to act on his alleged apostasy,
In
the meantime the Swiss felt the need of such a Confession as a closer bond of
union. The First Helvetic Confession was deemed too short, and the Zürich
Consensus of 1549 and the Geneva Consensus of 1552 treated only two articles,
namely, the Lord’s Supper and predestination. Conferences were held, and Beza
came in person to Zürich to take part in the work. Bullinger freely consented
to a few changes, and prepared also the German version. Geneva, Bern,
Schaffhausen, Biel, the Grisons, St. Gall, and Mühlhausen expressed their
agreement. Basel alone, which had its own confession, declined for a long time,
but ultimately acceded.
The
new Confession was published at Zürich, March 12, 1566, in both languages, at
public expense, and was forwarded to the Elector of the Palatinate and to
Philip of Hesse. A French translation appeared soon afterwards in Geneva under
the care of Beza.
In
the same year the Elector Frederick made such a manly and noble defence of his
faith before the Diet at Augsburg, that even his Lutheran opponents were filled
with admiration for his piety, and thought no longer of impeaching him for
heresy.
The
Helvetic Confession is the most widely adopted, and hence the most
authoritative of all the Continental Reformed symbols, with the exception of
the Heidelberg Catechism. It was sanctioned in Zürich and the Palatinate
(1566), Neuchâtel (1568), by the Reformed Churches of France (at the Synod of
La Rochelle, 1571), Hungary (at the Synod of Debreczin, 1567), and Poland (1571
and 1578). It was well received also in Holland, England, and Scotland as a
sound statement of the Reformed faith. It was translated not only into German,
French, and English, but also into Dutch, Magyar, Polish, Italian, Arabic, and
Turkish. In Austria and Bohemia the Reformed or Calvinists are officially
called "the Church of the Helvetic Confession," "the Lutherans,
the Church of the Augsburg Confession."
THIRD
BOOK.
THE
REFORMATION IN FRENCH SWITZERLAND
or
THE
CALVINISTIC MOVEMENT.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="VII" title="The Preparatory Work. From
1526 To 1536">
CHAPTER
VII.
THE
PREPARATORY WORK. FROM 1526 TO 1536.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="58" title="Literature on Calvin and the Reformation in French
Switzerland">
§ 58.
Literature on Calvin and the Reformation in French Switzerland.
Important
documents relating to the Reformation in French Switzerland are contained in
the Archives of Geneva and Bern. Many documents have been recently published by
learned Genevese archaeologists, as Galiffe, father and son, Grénus, Revilliod,
E. Mallet, Chaponnière, Fick, and the Society of History and Archaeology of
Geneva.
The
best Calvin libraries are in the University of Geneva, where his MSS. are
preserved in excellent order, and in the St. Thomasstift at Strassburg. The
latter was collected by Profs. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, the editors of Calvin’s
Works, during half a century, and embraces 274 publications of the Reformer
(among them 36 Latin and 18 French editions of the Institutio), many rare
contemporary works, and 700 modern books bearing upon Calvin and his
Reformation. The Society of the History of French Protestantism in Paris (64
rue des saints pères) has a large collection of printed works.
I.
Correspondence of the Swiss Reformers and their Friends.
Letters
took to a large extent the place of modern newspapers and pamphlets; hence
their large number and importance.
*A.
S. Herminjard: Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue
française, etc. Genève et Paris (Fischbacher, 33 rue de Seine), 1866–’86, 7
vols. To be continued. The most complete collection of letters of the Reformers
of French Switzerland and their friends, with historical and biographical
notes. The editor shows an extraordinary familiarity with the history of the
French and Swiss Reformation. The first three volumes embrace the period from
1512 to 1536; vols. IV.–VII. extend from 1536 to 1642, or from the publication
of Calvin’s Institutes to the acceptance of the ecclesiastical ordinances at
Geneva. For the following years to the death of Calvin (1564) we have the
correspondence in the Strassburg-Brunswick edition of Calvin’s works, vols. X.–XX.
See below.
II.
The History of Geneva before, during, and after the Reformation:
Jac.
Spon: Histoire de la ville et de l’état de Genève. Lyon, 1680, 2 vols.: revised
and enlarged by J. A. Gautier, Genève, 1730, 2 vols.
J. P.
Bérenger: Histoire de Genève jusqu’en 1761. Genève. 1772, 6 vols
(Grénus)
Fragments biographiques et historiques extraits des registres de Genève.
Genève, 1815.
Mémoires
et Documents publiés par la Société d’histoire et d’archéologie de Genève. 1840
sqq., vol. I.–XIV.
Francois
Bonivard: Les chroniques de Genève. Publiés par G. Revilliod. Genève, 1867, 2
vols.
*Amédée
Roget (Professor at the University of Geneva, d. Sept. 29, 1883): Histoire du peuple de Genève depuis la
réforme jusqu’à l’escalade. Genève, 1870–’83. 7 vols. From 1536 to 1567. The
work was to extend to 1602, but was interrupted by the death of the author.
Impartial. The best history of Geneva during the Reformation period. The author
was neither a eulogist nor a detractor of Calvin.—By the same: L’église et
l’état à Genève du vivant de Calvin. Genève, 1867 (pp. 91).
Jacq.
Aug. Galiffe: Matériaux pour l’histoire de Genève. Genève, 1829 and ’30, 2
vols. 8°; Notices généalogiques sur les familles genevoises, Genève, 1829, 4
vols.—J. B. G. Galiffe (son of the former, and Professor of the Academy of
Geneva): Besançon Hugues, libérateur de Genève. Historique de la fondation de
l’independance Genevoise, Genève, 1859 (pp. 330); Genève historique et
archéol., Genève, 1869; Quelques pages d’histoire exacte, soit les procès
criminels intentés à Genève en 1547, pour haute trahison contre noble Ami
Perrin, ancien syndic, conseiller et capitaine-général de la republique, et
contre son accusateur noble Laurent Meigret dit le Magnifique, Genève, 1862
(135 pp. 4°); Nouvelles pages d’histoire exacte soit le procès de Pierre
Ameaux, Genève, 1863 (116 pp. 4°). The Galiffes, father and son, descended from
an old Genevese family, are Protestants, but very hostile to Calvin and his
institutions, chiefly from the political point of view. They maintain, on the
ground of family papers and the acts of criminal processes, that Geneva was
independent and free before Calvin, and that he introduced a system of
despotism. "La plupart des faits racontés par le medecin Lyonnais"
(Bolsec), says the elder Galiffe (Notices généalogiques, III. 547), "sont
parfaitement vrais." He
judges Calvin by the modem theory of toleration which Calvin and Beza with
their whole age detested. "Les véritable protestants genevois," he
says, "é taient ceux qui voulaient que chacun - libre d penser ce que so
raison lui inspirait, et de ne faire que ce qu’elle approuvait; mais que
personne ne se permit d’attaquer la religion de son prochain, de se moquer de
sa croyance, u de le scandaliser par des _onstrations malicieuses et par des fanfaronnades
de su_ioriÉqui ne prouvent que la fatuiÉridicule de ceux qui se nomment
les_us." The Galiffes
sympathize with Ami Perrin, François Favre, Jean Philippe, Jean Lullin, Pierre
Vandel, Michael Servet, and all others who were opposed to Calvin. For a fair
criticism of the works of the Galiffes, seeLaFrance Protestante, II. 767 sqq.,
2d ed.
III.
The Reformers Before Calvin:
*Le
Chroniqueur. Recueil historique, et journal de l’Helvetie romande, en l’an 1535
et en l’an 1536. Edited by L. Vulliemin, 1835. Lausanne (Marc Duclos), 326 pp.
4°. Descriptions and reprints of documents relating to the religious condition
in those two years, in the form of a contemporary journal.
Melchior
Kirchhofer (of Schaffhausen, 1773–1853). Das Leben Wilhelm Farels aus den
Quellen bearbeitet. Zürich, 1831
and ’33, 2 vols. (pp. 251 and 190, no index). Very good for that time. He also
wrote biographies of Haller, Hofmeister, Myconius.
C.
Chenevière: Farel, Froment, Viret, réformateurs relig. Genève, 1835.
H.
Jaquemot: Viret, réformateur de Lausanne. Strassburg, 1856.
F.
Godet (Professor and Pastor in Neuchatel): Histoire de la réformation et du
refuge dans le pays de Neuchatel. Neuchatel, 1859 (209 pp.). Chiefly devoted to
the labors of Farel, but carries the history down to the immigration of French
refugees after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
C.
Schmidt (of Strassburg): Wilhelm Farel und Peter Viret. Nach handschriftlichen und
gleichzeitigen Quellen. Elberfeld, 1860. (In vol. IX. of the "Leben und
ausgewählte Schriften der Väter der reform. Kirche.")
T.
Cart: Pierre Viret, le réformateur vaudois. Lausanne, 1864.
C.
Junod: Farel, réformateur de la Swisse romande et réformateur de l’église de
Neuchatel. Neuchatel et Paris, 1865.
IV.
Works and Correspondence of John Calvin:
Joh.
Calvini: Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, theologi
Argentoratenses. Brunsvigae, 1863 sqq. (in the Corp. Reform.). So far (1892) 48
vols. 4°. The most complete and most critical edition. The three editors died
before the completion of their work, but left material for the remaining
volumes (vols. 45 sqq.) which are edited by Alf. Erichson.
Older
Latin edd., Geneva, 1617, 7 vols. folio, and Amstelod., 1667–’71, in 9 vols.
folio. Separate Latin editions of the Institutes, by Tholuck (Berlin, 1834 and
’46), and of the Commentaries on Genesis by Hengstenberg (Berlin, 1838), on the
Psalms (Berlin, 1830–’34), and the New Testament, except the Apocalypse
(1833–’38, in 7 vols.), by Tholuck. The same books have also been separately
republished in French.
An
English edition of Calvin’s Works, by the "Calvin Translation
Society," Edinburgh, 1843–’53, in 52 vols. The Institutes have been
translated by Allen (London, 1813, often reprinted by the Presbyterian Board of
Publication in Philadelphia), and by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh, 1846). German
translations of his Institutes by Fr. Ad. Krummacher (1834) and by B. Spiess
(the first edition of 1536, Wiesbaden, 1887), and of parts of his Comment., by
C. F. L. Matthieu (1859 sqq.).
The
extensive correspondence of Calvin was first edited in part by Beza and
Jonvilliers (Calvin’s secretary), Genevae, 1575, and other editions; then by
Bretschneider (the Gotha Letters), Lips. 1835; by A. Crottet, Genève, 1850;
much more completely By JULES BONNET, Lettres Françaises, Paris, 1854, 2 vols.;
an English translation (from the French and Latin) by D. Constable and M. R.
Gilchrist, Edinburgh and Philadelphia (Presbyterian Board of Publication), 1855
sqq., in 4 vols. (the fourth with an index), giving the letters in
chronological order (till 1558). The last and best edition is by the Strassburg
Professors in Calvini Opera, vol. X. Part II. to vol. XX., with ample
Prolegomena on the various editions of Calvin’s Letters and the manuscript
sources. His letters down to 1542 are also given by Herminjard, vols. VI. and
VII., quoted above.
V.
Biographies of Calvin:
*Theodor
Beza (d. 1605): Johannis Calvini Vita. First published with Calvin’s posthumous
Commentary on Joshua, in the year of his death. It is reprinted in all editions
of Calvin’s works, and in Tholuck’s edition of Calvin’s Commentary on the
Gospels. In the same year Beza published a French edition under the title,
L’Histoire de la vie et mort de Maistre Jean Calvin avec le testament et
derniere volonté dudit Calvin: et le catalogue des livres par luy composez.
Genève, 1564; second French edition, enlarged and improved by his friend and
colleague, Nic. Colladon, 1565; best edition, Geneva, 1657 (very rare, 204 pp.),
which has been carefully republished from a copy in the Mazarin library, with
an introduction and notes by Alfred Franklin, Paris, 1869 (pp. lxi and 294).
This edition should be consulted. The three biographies of Beza (two French and
one Latin) are reprinted in the Brunswick edition of Calvin’s Opera with a
notice littéraire, Tom. XXI. pp. 6–172, to which are added the Epitaphia in lo.
Calvinum scripta (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and French). There are also German,
English, and Italian translations of this biography. An English translation by
Francis Sibson of Trinity College, Dublin, reprinted in Philadelphia, 1836;
another by Beveridge, Edinburgh, 1843.
The
biography of Beza as enlarged by Colladon, though somewhat eulogistic, and
especially Calvin’s letters and works, and the letters of his friends who knew
him best, furnish the chief material for an authentic biography.
Hierosme
Hermes Bolsec: Histoire de la vie, moeurs, actes, doctrine, constance et mort
de Jean Calvin, jadis ministre de Genève, dédié au Reverendissime archeuesque,
conte de l’Église de Lyon, et Primat de France, Lyon, 1577 (26 chs. and 143
pp.); republished at Paris, 1582; and with an introduction and notes by L. Fr.
Chastel, Lyon, 1875 (pp. xxxi and 328). I have used Chastel’s edition. A Latin
translation, De J. Calvini magni quondam Genevensium ministri vita, moribus,
rebus gestis, studiis ac denique morte, appeared in Paris, 1577, also at
Cologne, 1580; a German translation at Cologne, 1581. Bolsec was a Carmelite
monk, then physician at Geneva, expelled on account of Pelagian views and
opposition to Calvin, 1551; returned to the Roman Church; d. at Annecy about
1584. His book is a mean and unscrupulous libel, inspired by feelings of hatred
and revenge; but some of his facts are true, and have been confirmed by the
documents published by Galiffe. Bolsec wrote a similar biography of Beza:
Histoire de la vie, moeurs, doctrine et déportments de Th. de Bèze dit le
Spectable, 1582. A French writer says, "Ces biographies sont un tissu de
calomnies qu’ aucun historien sérieux, pas même le P. Maimbourg, n’a osé
admettre et dont plus récemment M. Mignet a fait bonne justice." (A. Réville in Lichtenberger’s
"Encycl.," II. 343.)
Comp. the article "Bolsec" in La France Protestante, 2d ed.
(1879), II. 745–776.
Antibolseccus.
Cleve, 1622. Of this book I find only the title.
Jacques
Le Vasseur (canon and dean of the Church of Noyon): Annales de l’eglise
cathédrale de Noyon. Paris, 1633, 2 vols. 4°. Contains some notices on the
birth and relations of Calvin.
Jacques
Desmay (R. C.): Remarques sur la vie de J. Calvin hérésiarque tirées des
Registres de Noyon. Rouen, 1621 and 1657.
Charles
Drelincourt (pastor at Charenton): La défense de Calvin contre l’outrage fait à
sa mémoire. Genève, 1667; in German, Hanau, 1671. A refutation of the slanders
of Bolsec and a posthumous book of Cardinal Richelieu on the easiest and surest
method of conversion of those who separated themselves from the Roman Church.
Bayle gives an epitome in his Dictionnaire.
Melchior
Adam: Vita Calvini, in his Vitae Theologorum, etc. 3d ed. Francof., 1705 (Part
II., Decades duae, etc., pp. 32–55). Chiefly from Beza.
Elijah
Waterman (pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Bridgeport, Conn.) Memoirs of
the Life and Writings of John Calvin: together with a selection of Letters
written by him and other distinguished Reformers. Hartford, 1813.
Vincent
Audin (R. C., 1793–1851): Histoire de la vie, des ouvrages et des doctrines de
Calvin. Paris, 1841, 2 vols.; 5th ed. 1851; 6th ed. 1873. English translation
by John McGill; German translation, 1843. Written like a novel, with a
deceptive mixture of truth and falsehood. It is a Bolsec redivivus. Audin says
that he first cast away the book of Bolsec "as a shameful libel. All
testimony was against Bolsec: Catholics and Protestants equally accused him.
But, after a patient study of the reformer, we are now compelled to admit, in
part, the recital of the physician of Lyon. Time has declared for Bolsec; each
day gives the lie to the apologists of Calvin." He boasts of having consulted more than a thousand volumes
on Calvin, but betrays his polemical bias by confessing that he "desired
to prove that the refugee of Noyon was fatal to civilization, to the arts, and
to civil and religious liberty."
Audin wrote in the same spirit the history of Luther (1839, 3 vols.),
Henry VIII. (1847), and Leo X. (1851). His work is disowned and virtually
refuted by fair-minded Catholics like Kampschulte, Cornelius, and Funk.
*Paul
Henry, D. D. (pastor of a French Reformed Church in Berlin): Das Leben Johann
Calvins des grossen Reformators, etc. (dedicated to Neander). Hamburg, 1835–44,
3 vols. English translation (but without the notes and appendices, and
differing from the author on the case of Servetus) by Henry Stebbing, London
and New York, 1851, in 2 vols. This large work marks an epoch as an industrious
collection of valuable material, but is ill digested, and written with
unbounded admiration for Calvin. Henry wrote also, in opposition to Audin and
Galiffe, an abridged Leben Johann Calvin’s. Ein Zeugniss für die Wahrheit.
Hamburg and Gotha, 1846 (pp. 498).
Thomas
Smyth, D. D.: Calvin and his Enemies. 1843; new ed. Philadelphia (Presbyterian
Board of Publication), 1856, and again 1881. Apologetic.
Thomas
H. Dyer: The Life of John Calvin. London (John Murray), 1850, pp. 560
(republished, New York, 1851). Graphic and impartial, founded upon Calvin’s
correspondence, Henry, and Trechsel (Antitrinitarier).
Felix
Bungener: Calvin, sa vie, son oeuvre, et ses écrits. Paris, 2d ed. 1863 (pp.
468). English translation, Edinburgh, 1863.
*E.
Stähelin (Reformed minister at Basel): Johannes Calvin; Leben und ausgewählte
Schriften. Elberfeld, 1863, 2 vols. (in "Väter und Begründer der reform.
Kirche," vol. IV. in two parts). One of the best biographies, though not
as complete as Henry’s, and in need of modification and additions from more
recent researches.
Paul
Pressel (Luth.): Johann Calvin. Ein evangelisches Lebensbild. Elberfeld, 1864
(pp. 263). For the tercentenary of Calvin’s death (May 27, 1864). Based upon
Stähelin, Henry, Mignet, and Bonnet’s edition of Calvin’s letters.
Albert
Rilliet: Bibliographie de la vie de Calvin. "Correspond.
litteraire." Paris, 1864. La
premier séjour de Calvin à Genève. Gen. 1878.
*Guizot
(the great historian and statesman, a descendant of the Huguenots, d. at Val
Richer, Sept. 12, 1874): St. Louis and Calvin. London, 1868. Comp. also his
sketch in the Musée des protestants célèbres.
*F.
W. Kampschulte (a liberal Roman Catholic, Professor of History at Bonn, died an
Old Catholic, 1872): Joh. Calvin, seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf. Leipzig,
1869, vol. I. (vols. II. and III. have not appeared). A most able, critical,
and, for a Catholic, remarkably fair and liberal work, drawn in part from
unpublished sources.—In the same spirit of fairness, Prof. Funk of Tübingen
wrote an article on Calvin in the 2d ed. of Wetzer and Welte’s Catholic
Kirchenlexicon, II. 1727–1744.
Thomas
M’Crie, D. D.: The Early Years of John Calvin. A Fragment, 1509–1536. A
posthumous work, edited by William Ferguson. Edinburgh, 1880 (pp. 199).
Valuable as far as it goes.
Art.
"Calvin" in La France Protestante, Paris, 2d ed. vol. III. (1881),
508–639.
Abel
Lefranc: La jeunesse de Calvin. Paris, 1888 (pp. 229). The author brings to
light new facts on the extent of the Protestant movement at Noyon.—Comp. his
Histoire de la Ville de Noyon et de ses institutions. Paris, 1888.
Annales
Calviniani by the editors of the Brunswick edition of Calvin’s Opera. Tom. XXI.
183–818. From 1509 to 1572. Invaluable for reference.
VI.
Biographical Sketches and Essays on Special Points Connected with Calvin:
Fr.
Aug. Alex. Mignet (eminent French historian and academician, 1796–1884):
Mémoire sur l’établissement de la réforme et sur la constitution du Calvinisme
à Genève. Paris, 1834. The same in German, Leipzig, 1843.
G.
Weber: Geschichtliche Darstellung des Calvinismus im Verhältniss zum Staat in
Genf und Frankreich bis zur Aufhebung des Edikts von Nantes. Heidelberg, 1836
(pp. 372).
* J.
J. Herzog: Joh. Calvin, Basel, 1843; and in his Real-Encyklop.2 vol. III.
77–106.
*Jules
Bonnet: Lettres de Jean Calvin, 1854; Calvin au val d’Aoste, 1861 Idelette de
Bure, femme de Calvin (in "Bulletin de la société de l’histoire du
Protest. français," 1856, Nos. 11 and 12); Récits du seizième siècle,
Paris, 1864; Nouveaux récits, 1870; Derniers récits, 1876.
E.
Renan: Jean Calvin, in É tudes d’histoire religieuse, 5th ed. Paris, 1862;
English translation by O. B. Frothingham Studies of Religious History and
Criticism, New York, 1864, pp. 285–297).
J. H.
Albert Rilliet: Lettre à M. Merle D’Aubigné sur deux points obscurs de la vie
de Calvin, Genève, 1864. Le premier sejour de Calvin a Genève, in his and
Dufour’s edition of Calvin’s French Catechism, Genève, 1878.
Mönkeberg:
Joachim Westphal and Joh. Calvin. Hamburg, 1866.
J.
Köstlin: Calvin’s Institutio nach Form und Inhalt.
Edmond
Stern: La théorie du culte d’après Calvin. Strassburg, 1869.
James
Anthony Froude: Calvinism, an Address delivered to the Students of St. Andrews,
March 17, 1871 (in his Short Studies on Great Subjects, Second Series, New
York, 1873, pp. 9–53).
Principal
William Cunningham (Free Church of Scotland, d. 1861): The Reformers and the
Theology of the Reformers. Edinburgh, 1862.
Principal
John Tulloch (of the Established Church of Scotland, d. 1885): Leaders of the
Reformation. Edinburgh, 1859; 3d ed. 1883.
Philip
Schaff: John Calvin, in the "Bibliotheca Sacra," Andover, 1857, pp.
125–146, and in Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1877), I. 421–471.
A. A.
Hodge (d. at Princeton, 1885): Calvinism, in Johnson’s "Universal
Cyclopaedia" (New York, 1875 sqq.), vol. I. pp. 727–734; new ed. 1886,
vol. I. 676–683.
Lyman
H. Atwater: Calvinism in Doctrine and Life, in the, "Presbyterian
Quarterly and Princeton Review," New York, January, 1875, pp. 73–106.
Dardier
and Jundt: Calvin, in Lichtenberger’s "Encyclopédie des sciences
religieuses," Tom. II. 529–557. (Paris, 1877.)
P.
Lobstein: Die Ethik Calvins in ihren Grundzügen. Strassburg, 1877.
W.
Lindsay Alexander: Calvin, in "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed. vol. IV. 714
sqq.
Pierre
Vaucher: Calvin et les Genevois. Gen. 1880.
A.
Pierson: Studien over Joh. Kalvijn. Haarlem, 1881–’83.
J. M.
Usteri: Calvin’s Sacraments und Tauflehre. 1884.
B.
Fontana: Documenti dell’ archivio Vaticano e dell’ Estense, circa il soggiorno
di Calv. a Ferrara. Rom. 1885. E. Comba in "Revisita Christ.," 1885,
IV.–VII.
C. A.
Cornelius (liberal Catholic): Die Verbannung Calvins aus Genf. im J. 1536.
München, 1886. Die Rückkehr Calvins nach Genf. I. Die Guillermins (pp. 62); II.
Die Artichauds; III. Die Berufung (pp. 102). München, 1888 and 1889. Separate
print from the "Abhandlungen der K. bayer. Akademie der
Wissenschaften," XIX. Bd. II. Abth. Cornelius, a friend of Döllinger, agrees
in his high estimate of Calvin with Kampschulte, but dwells chiefly on the
political troubles of Geneva during Calvin’s absence (with large quotations
from Herminjard’s collection of letters), and stops with Calvin’s return,
September, 1540.
Charles
W. Shields: Calvin’s Doctrine on Infant Salvation, in the "Presb. and Ref.
Review," New York, 1890, pp. 634–651. Tries to show that Calvin taught
universal infant salvation(?).
Ed.
Stricker: Johann Calvin als erster Pfarrer der reformirten Gemeinde zu
Strassburg. Nach urkundlichen Quellen. Strassburg, 1890 (vi and 66 pp.).—In
connection with Calvin’s sojourn at Strassburg may also be consulted, R. Reuss:
Histoire de l’église de Strassbourg, 1880; and A. Erichson: L’église française
de Strassbourg au XVIme siècle, 1886.
E.
Doumergue (Professor of Church History at Montauban): Essai sur l’histoire du
culte réformé principalement au XVIe et au XlXe siècle. Paris, 1890. The first
part, pp. 1–116, treats of Calvin’s Liturgies and labors for church poetry and
music.
The
literature on Servetus will be given below, in the section on Calvin and
Servetus.
VII.
Histories of the Reformation in French Switzerland:
Abr.
Ruchat (Professor of Theology in the Academy of Lausanne, d. 1750): Histoire de
la réformation de la Suisse. Genève, 1727 sq., 6 vols.; new ed. with
appendices, by Prof. L. Vulliemin, Nyon, 1835–’38, 7 vols. Comes down to 1566.
Strongly anti-Romish and devoted to Bern, diffuse and inelegant in style, but
full of matter, "un recueil de savantes dissertations, un extrait de
documents" (Dardier, in Lichtenberger’s "Encyclop.," XI.
345).—An English abridgment in one volume by J. Collinson: History of the
Reformation in Switzerland by Ruchat. London, 1845. Goes to 1537.
Dan.
Gerdes (1698–1767): Introductio in Historiam Evangelii seculo XVI. passim per
Europam renovati doctrinaeque Reformatae; accedunt varia monumenta pietatis
atque rei literariae. Groningae, 1744–’52, 4 vols. Contains pictures of the
Reformers and interesting documents. Parts of vols. I., II., and IV. treat of
the Swiss Reformation.
C. B.
Hundeshagen (Professor in Bern, afterwards in Heidelberg and Bonn; d. 1872):
Die Conflicte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums und Calvinismus in der Bernischen
Landeskirche von 1532–1558. Nach meist ungedruckten Quellen. Bern, 1842.
*J.
Gaberel (ancien pasteur): Histoire de l’église de Genève depuis le commencement
de la réforme jusqu’en 1815. Genève, 1855–63, 3 vols.
P.
Charpenne: Histoire de la réformation et des réformateurs de Genève. Paris,
1861.
Fleury:
Histoire de l’église de Genève. Genève, 1880. 2 vols.
The
works of Amad. Roget, quoted sub II.
*Merle
D’Aubigné (Professor of Church History in the Free Church Theological Seminary
at Geneva): Histoire de la réformation en Europe au temps du Calvin. Paris,
1863–’78. English translation in several editions, the best by Longmans, Green
& Co., London, 1863–’78, 8 vols.; American edition by Carter, New York,
1870–’79, 8 vols. The second division of Merle’s work on the Reformation. The
last three volumes were edited after his death (Oct. 21, 1872) by Duchemin and
Binder, and translated by William L. R. Cates. The work gives the history of
the Reformation in Geneva down to 1542, and of the other Reformed Churches to
the middle of the sixteenth century. It is, therefore, incomplete, but, as far
as it goes, the most extensive, eloquent, and dramatic history of the
Reformation by an enthusiastic partisan of the Reformers, especially Calvin, in
full sympathy with their position and faith, except on the union of Church and
State and the persecution of heretics. The first division, which is devoted to
the Lutheran Reformation till 1530, had an extraordinary circulation in England
and America. Ranke, with his calm, judicial temperament, wondered that such a
book could be written in the nineteenth century. (See Preface to vol. VII. p.
vi, note.)
Étienne
Chastel (Professor of Church History in the University of Geneva, d. 1882):
Histoire du Christianisme. Paris, 1882, 5 vols. Tom. IV. 66 sqq. treats of the
Swiss Reformation.
G. P.
Fisher: The Reformation. New York, 1873, ch. VII. pp. 192–241.
Philippe
Godet (son of Frederic, the commentator): Histoire littéraire de la Suisse
française. Neuchâtel and Paris, 1890. Ch. II. 51–112 treats of the Reformers
(Farel, Viret, Froment, Calvin, and Beza).
Virgile
Rossel: Histoire littéraire de la Suisse romande. Genève (H. Georg), 1890, 2
vols. The first vol. Des origines jusqu’au XVIIIme siècle.
The
Histories of the Reformation in France usually give also an account of the
labors of Farel, Calvin, and Beza; e.g. the first volume of Gottlob von Polenz:
Geschichte des französischen Calvinismus (Gotha, 1857 sqq.).
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="59" title="The Condition of French Switzerland before the
Reformation">
§ 59.
The Condition of French Switzerland before the Reformation.
The
losses of the Reformation in German Switzerland were more than made up by the
gains in French Switzerland; that is, in the three Cantons, Vaud, Neuchàtel,
and Geneva.332 Protestantism
moved westward. Calvin continued, improved, and completed the work of Zwingli,
and gave it a wider significance. Geneva took the place of Zürich, and
surpassed in influence the city of Zwingli and the city of Luther. It became
"the Protestant Rome," from which proceeded the ideas and impulses
for the Reformed Churches of France, Holland, England, and Scotland. The city
of Calvin has long since departed from his rigorous creed and theocratic
discipline, and will never return to them; but the evangelical faith still
lives there in renewed vigor; and among cities of the same size there is none
that occupies a more important and influential position in theological and
religious activity as well as literary and social culture, and as a convenient
centre for the settlement of international questions, than Geneva.
The
Reformation of French Switzerland cannot be separated from that of France. The
inhabitants of the two countries are of the same Celtic or Gallic stock mixed
with Germanic (Frank and Burgundian) blood. The first evangelists of Western
Switzerland were Frenchmen who had to flee from their native soil. They became
in turn, through their pupils, the founders of the Reformed Church of France.
The Reformed Churches of the two countries are one in spirit. After the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, many Huguenots found an asylum in Geneva,
Vaud, and Neuchâtel. The French Swiss combine the best traits of the French
character with Swiss solidity and love of freedom. They are ever ready to lend
a helping hand to their brethren across the frontier, and they form at the same
time a connecting link between them and the Protestants of the German tongue.
Their excellent educational institutions attract students from abroad and train
teachers for other countries.
The
territory of the French Cantons, which embraces 1665 square miles, was in the
sixteenth century under the protection of the Swiss Confederacy.
Vaud
was conquered by Bern from the Duke of Savoy, and ruled by bailiffs till 1798.333
The
principality of Neuchâtel and Valangin concluded a co-burghery with Freiburg,
1290, with Bern, 1307, and with Solothurn, 1324. In 1707 the principality
passed to King Frederick I. of Prussia, who confirmed the rights and liberties
of the country and its old alliance with Switzerland. The connection with
Prussia continued till 1857, when it was dissolved by free consent.334
Geneva
was originally governed by a bishop and a count, who divided the spiritual and
secular government between them. Duke Charles III. of Savoy tried to subdue the
city with the aid of an unworthy and servile bishop, Pierre de la Baume, whom
he had appointed from his own family with the consent of Pope Leo X.335 But a patriotic party, under the lead
of Philibert Berthelier, Besançon Hugues, and François Bonivard (Byron’s
"Prisoner of Chillon") opposed the attempt and began a struggle for
independence, which lasted several years, and resembles on a small scale the
heroic struggle of Switzerland against foreign oppression. The patriots, on
account of their alliance with the Swiss, were called Eidgenossen,—a German
word for (Swiss) Confederates, which degenerated by mispronunciation into
Eignots and Huguenots, and passed afterwards from Geneva to France as a
nickname for Protestants.336
The party of the Duke of Savoy and the bishop were nicknamed Mamelukes
or slaves. The patriots gained the victory with the aid of the German Swiss. On
Feb. 20, 1526, Bern and Freiburg concluded an alliance with Geneva, and pledged
their armed aid for the protection of her independence. The citizens of Geneva
ratified the Swiss alliance by an overwhelming majority, who shouted, "The
Swiss and liberty!" The
bishop appealed in vain to the pope and the emperor, and left Geneva for St.
Claude. But he had to accept the situation, and continued to rule ten years
longer (till 1536).337
This
political movement, of which Berthelier is the chief hero, had no connection
with the Reformation, but prepared the way for it, and was followed by the
evangelical labors of Farel and Viret, and the organization of the Reformed
Church under Calvin. During the war of emancipation there grew up an opposition
to the Roman Church and the clergy of Geneva, which sided with Savoy and was
very corrupt, even according to the testimonies of Roman Catholic writers, such
as Bishop Antoine Champion, Bonivard, the Soeur de Jussie, and Francis of
Sales. Reports of the Lutheran and Zwinglian reformation nursed the opposition.
Freiburg (Fribourg) remained Roman Catholic338 and broke the alliance with
Geneva; but Bern strengthened the alliance and secured for Geneva political
freedom from Savoy and religious freedom from Rome.
NOTES.
For
the understanding of the geography and history of the Swiss Confederacy, the
following facts should be considered in connection with the map facing p. 1.
1.
The original Confederacy of the Three Forest Cantons (Urcantone, Waldstätte),
Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden, from Aug. 1, 1291 (the date of the renewal of an
older covenant of 1244) to 1332. Victory at Morgarten over Duke Leopold of
Austria, Nov. 15, 1315. (After 1352 the number of Forest Cantons was five,
including Luzern and Zug.)
2.
The Confederacy of the Eight Cantons (Orte) from 1353 to 1481.
Luzern
joined the Forest Cantons in 1332 (thenceforward the Confederacy was called the
Bund der Vier Waldstätte, to which in 1352 was added Zug as the Fifth Forest
Canton; hence the Fünf Orte or Five Cantons).
Zürich
joined 1351.
Glarus
joined 1352.
Zug
"
1352
Bern
" 1353.
Victories
over the Austrians at Sempach, July 9, 1386 (Arnold von Winkelried), and
Näfels, April 9, 1388. Battle against the Dauphin of France (Louis XI.) Aug.
26, 1444, at St. Jacob near Basel (the Thermopylae of the Swiss), and victories
over Charles the Bold of Burgundy, at Grandson, June 22, 1476, and Nancy, Jan.
5, 1477.
3.
The Confederacy of the Thirteen Cantons, 1513–1798.
Freiburg
joined
1481.
Schaffhausen
joined
1501
Solothurn
"
1481
Appenzell
"
1513
Basel
"
1501.
4.
The Confederation under the French Directory, 1798–1802. Vaud, with the help of
France, made herself independent of Bern, 1798. Valtellina Chiavenna, and
Bormio were lost to the Grisons and attached to the Cisalpine Republic by
Napoleon, 1797. Neuchâtel separated from Switzerland.
5.
The Confederation of Nineteen Cantons from 1803–1813, under the influence of
Napoleon as "Mediator."
6.
Modern Switzerland of Twenty-Two Cantons from the Congress of Vienna, 1815, to
date.
The
new Cantons are: Ticino, Valais, St. Gall, Aargau, Thurgau, Grisons, Geneva,
Vaud, Neuchâtel. They were formerly dependent on, and protected by, or freely
associated with, the Thirteen Can
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="60" title="William Farel (1489–1565)">
§ 60.
William Farel (1489–1565).
Letters
of Farel and to Farel in Herminjard, beginning with vol. I. 193, and in the
Strassburg edition of Calvin’s correspondence, Opera, X.–XX.
Biographies
by Beza (Icones, 1580, with a picture); Melchior Adam (Decades duae, 57–61);
*Kirchhofer (1833, 2 vols.); Verheiden (Imagines et Elogia, 1725, p. 86 sq.,
with picture); Chenevière (1835); Junod (1865). Merle D’Aubigné gives a very
minute but broken account of Farel’s earlier labors, especially in Geneva
(vols. III., IV., V., books 5, 6, and 9) . See also Ruchat, F. Godet, and other
works mentioned in § 58, and art. "Farel" in La France Protestante,
tome VI. 886–416 (1888).
Two
years after the political emancipation of Geneva from the yoke of Savoy, Bern
embraced the Protestant Reformation (1528), and at once exerted her political
and moral influence for the introduction of the new religion into the
neighboring French territory over which she had acquired control. She found
three evangelists ready for this work,—one a native of Vaud, and two fugitive
Frenchmen. The city of Freiburg, the Duke of Savoy, Charles V., and the pope
endeavored to prevent the progress of heresy, but in vain.
The
pioneer of Protestantism in Western Switzerland is William Farel. He was a
travelling evangelist, always in motion, incessant in labors, a man full of
faith and fire, as bold and fearless as Luther and far more radical, but
without his genius. He is called the Elijah of the French Reformation, and
"the scourge of the priests."
Once an ardent papist, he became as ardent a Protestant, and looked
hereafter only at the dark side, the prevailing corruptions and abuses of
Romanism. He hated the pope as the veritable Antichrist, the mass as idolatry,
pictures and relics as heathen idols which must be destroyed like the idols of
the Canaanites. Without a regular ordination, he felt himself divinely called,
like a prophet of old, to break down idolatry and to clear the way for the
spiritual worship of God according to his own revealed word. He was a born
fighter; he came, not to bring peace, but the sword. He had to deal with
priests who carried firearms and clubs under their frocks, and he fought them
with the sword of the word and the spirit. Once he was fired at, but the gun
burst, and, turning round, he said, "I am not afraid of your
shots." He never used
violence himself, except in language. He had an indomitable will and power of
endurance. Persecution and violence only stimulated him to greater exertions.
His outward appearance was not prepossessing: he was small and feeble, with a
pale but sunburnt face, narrow forehead, red and ill-combed beard, fiery eyes,
and an expressive mouth.
Farel
had some of the best qualities of an orator: a sonorous and stentorian voice,
appropriate gesture, fluency of speech, and intense earnestness, which always
commands attention and often produces conviction. His contemporaries speak of
the thunders of his eloquence and of his transporting prayers. "Tua illa
fulgura," writes Calvin. "Nemo tonuit fortius," says Beza. His
sermons were extemporized, and have not come down to us. Their power lay in the
oral delivery. We may compare him to Whitefield, who was likewise a travelling
evangelist, endowed with the magnetism of living oratory. In Beza’s opinion,
Calvin was the most learned, Farel the most forcible, Viret the most gentle
preacher of that age.339
The
chief defect of Farel was his want of moderation and discretion. He was an
iconoclast. His violence provoked unnecessary opposition, and often did more
harm than good. Oecolampadius praised his zeal, but besought him to be also
moderate and gentle. "Your mission," he wrote to him, "is to
evangelize, not to curse. Prove yourself to be an evangelist, not a tyrannical
legislator. Men want to be led, not driven." Zwingli, shortly before his death, exhorted him not to
expose himself rashly, but to reserve himself for the further service of the
Lord.
Farel’s
work was destructive rather than constructive. He could pull down, but not
build up. He was a conqueror, but not an organizer of his conquests; a man of
action, not a man of letters; an intrepid preacher, not a theologian. He felt
his defects, and handed his work over to the mighty genius of his younger
friend Calvin. In the spirit of genuine humility and self-denial, he was
willing to decrease that Calvin might increase. This is the finest trait in his
character.340
Guillaume
Farel, the oldest of seven children of a poor but noble family, was born in the
year 1489 (five years after Luther and Zwingli, twenty years before Calvin) at
Gap, a small town in the alps of Dauphiné in the south-east of France, where
the religious views of the Waldenses were once widely spread. He inherited the
blind faith of his parents, and doubted nothing. He made with them, as he
remembered in his old age, a pilgrimage to a wonder-working cross which was
believed to be taken from the cross of our Lord. He shared in the superstitious
veneration of pictures and relics, and bowed before the authority of monks and
priests. He was, as he said, more popish than popery.
At
the same time he had a great thirst for knowledge, and was sent to school at
Paris. Here he studied the ancient languages (even Hebrew), philosophy, and
theology. His principal teacher, Jacques Le Fèvre d’Étaples (Faber Stapulensis,
1455–1536), the pioneer of the Reformation in France and translator of the
Scriptures, introduced him into the knowledge of Paul’s Epistles and the
doctrine of justification by faith, and prophetically told him, already in
1512: "My son, God will renew the world, and you will witness it."341 Farel acquired the degree of Master of
Arts (January, 1517), and was appointed teacher at the college of Cardinal Le
Moine.
The
influence of Le Fèvre and the study of the Bible brought him gradually to the
conviction that salvation can be found only in Christ, that the word of God is
the only rule of faith, and that the Roman traditions and rites are inventions
of man. He was amazed that he could find in the New Testament no trace of the
pope, of the hierarchy, of indulgences, of purgatory, of the mass, of seven
sacraments, of sacerdotal celibacy, of the worship of Mary and the saints. Le
Fèvre, being charged with heresy by the Sorbonne, retired in 1521 to his friend
William Briçonnet, bishop of Meaux, who was convinced of the necessity of a
reformation within the Catholic Church, without separation from Rome.342 There he translated the New Testament
into French, which was published in 1523 without his name (almost
simultaneously with Luther’s German New Testament.) Several of his pupils,
Farel, Gérard, Roussel, Michel d’Arande, followed him to Meaux, and were
authorized by Briçonnet to preach in his diocese. Margaret of Valois, sister of
King Francis I. (then Duchess of Alençon, afterwards Queen of Navarre), patronized
the reformers and also the freethinkers. But Farel was too radical for the mild
bishop, and forbidden to preach, April 12, 1523. He went to Gap and made some
converts, including four of his brothers; but the people found his doctrine
"very strange," and drove him away. There was no safety for him
anywhere in France, which then began seriously to persecute the Protestants.
Farel
fled to Basel, and was hospitably received by Oecolampadius. At his suggestion
he held a public disputation in Latin on thirteen theses, in which he asserted
the perfection of the Scriptures, Christian liberty, the duty of pastors to
preach the Gospel, the doctrine of justification by faith, and denounced
images, fasting, celibacy, and Jewish ceremonies (Feb. 23, 1524).343 The disputation was successful, and led
to the conversion of the Franciscan monk Pellican, a distinguished Greek and
Hebrew scholar, who afterwards became professor at Zürich. He also delivered
public lectures and sermons. Oecolampadius wrote to Luther that Farel was a
match for the Sorbonne.344
Erasmus, whom Farel imprudently charged with cowardice and called a
Balaam, regarded him as a dangerous disturber of the peace,345 and the Council
(probably at the advice of Erasmus) expelled him from the city.
Farel
now spent about a year in Strassburg with Bucer and Capito. Before he went
there he made a brief visit to Zürich, Schaffhausen, and Constance, and became
acquainted with Zwingli, Myconius, and Grebel. He had a letter of commendation
to Luther from Oecolampadius, but it is not likely that he went to Wittenberg,
since there is no allusion to it either in his or in Luther’s letters. At the
request of Ulrich, Duke of Würtemberg, he preached in Mömpelgard (Montbéliard),
and roused a fierce opposition, which forced him soon to return to Strassburg.
Here he found Le Fèvre and other friends from Meaux, whom the persecution had
forced to flee.
In
1526 Farel was again in Switzerland, and settled for a while, at the advice of
Haller, as school teacher under the name of Guillaume Ursinus (with reference
to Bern, the city of bears), at Aigle (Ælen)346 in the Pays de Vaud on the
borders of Valais, subject to Bern.
He
attended the Synod in Bern, January, 1528, which decided the victory of the
Reformation, and received a commission from that city to preach in all the
districts under its control (March 8, 1528). He accordingly labored as a sort
of missionary bishop at Murat (Murten), Lausanne, Neuchâtel, Valangin, Yverdun,
Biel (Bienne), in the Münster valley, at Orbe, Avenche, St. Blaise, Grandson,
and other places. He turned every stump and stone into a pulpit, every house,
street, and market-place into a church; provoked the wrath of monks, priests,
and bigoted women; was abused, called, "heretic" and,
"devil," insulted, spit upon, and more than once threatened with
death. An attempt to poison him failed. Wherever he went he stirred up all the
forces of the people, and made them take sides for or against the new gospel.
His
arrival in Neuchâtel (December, 1529) marks an epoch in its history. In spite
of violent opposition, he succeeded in introducing the Reformation in the city
and neighboring villages. He afterwards returned to Neuchâtel, where he
finished his course.347
Robert Olivetan, Calvin’s cousin, published the first edition of his
French translation of the Bible at Neuchâtel in 1535. Farel had urged him to do
this work. It is the basis of the numerous French translations made since that
time.
In
1532 Farel with his friend Saunier visited the Waldenses in Piedmont at the
request of Georg Morel and Peter Masson, two Waldensian preachers, who were
returning from a visit to Strassburg and the Reformed Churches of Switzerland.
He attended the Synod which met at Chanforans in the valley of Angrogne, Sept.
12, 1532, and resolved to adopt the doctrines of the Reformation. He advised
them to establish schools. He afterwards collected money for them and sent them
four teachers, one of whom was Robert Olivetan, who was at that time private
tutor at Geneva. This is the beginning of the fraternal relations between the
Waldenses and the Reformed Churches which continue to this day.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="61" title="Farel at Geneva. First Act of the Reformation
(1535)">
§ 61.
Farel at Geneva. First Act of the Reformation (1535).
On
their return from Piedmont, Farel and Saunier stopped at Geneva, Oct. 2, 1532.
Zwingli had previously directed the attention of Farel to that city as an
important field for the Reformation. Olivetan was there to receive them.
The
day after their arrival the evangelists were visited by a number of
distinguished citizens of the Huguenot party, among whom was Ami Perrin, one of
the most ardent promoters of the Reformation, and afterwards one of the chief
opponents of Calvin. They explained to them from the open Bible the Protestant
doctrines, which would complete and consolidate the political freedom recently
achieved. They stirred up a great commotion. The Council was alarmed, and
ordered them to leave the city. Farel declared that he was no trumpet of
sedition, but a preacher of the truth, for which he was ready to die. He showed
credentials from Bern, which made an impression. He was also summoned to the
Episcopal Council in the house of the Abbé de Beaumont, the vicar-general of
the diocese. He was treated with insolence. "Come thou, filthy
devil," said one of the canons, "art thou baptized? Who invited you hither? Who gave you authority to
preach?" Farel replied with
dignity: "I have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, and am not a devil. I go about preaching Christ, who died for our
sins and rose for our justification. Whoever believes in him will be saved;
unbelievers will be lost. I am sent by God as a messenger of Christ, and am
bound to preach him to all who will hear me. I am ready to dispute with you,
and to give an account of my faith and ministry. Elijah said to King Ahab, ’It
is thou, and not I, who disturbest Israel.’ So I say, it is you and yours, who trouble the world by your
traditions, your human inventions, and your dissolute lives." The priests had no intention to enter
into a discussion; they knew and confessed, "If we argue, our trade is
gone." One of the canons
exclaimed: "He has blasphemed; we need no further evidence; he deserves to
die." Farel replied:
"Speak the words of God, and not of Caiaphas." Hereupon the whole assembly shouted:
"Away with him to the Rhone!
Kill the Lutheran dog!"
He was reviled, beaten, and shot at. One of the syndics interposed for
his protection. He was ordered by the Episcopal Council to leave Geneva within
three hours.
He
escaped with difficulty the fury of the priests, who pursued him with clubs. He
was covered with spittle and bruises. Some Huguenots came to his defence, and
accompanied him and Saunier in a boat across the lake to a place between Morges
and Lausanne. At Orbe, Farel found Antoine Froment, a native of Dauphiné, and
prevailed on him to go to Geneva as evangelist and a teacher of children
(November, 1532); but he was also obliged to flee.
In
this critical condition the Roman party, supported by Freiburg, called to their
aid Guy Furbity, a learned Dominican doctor of the Sorbonne. He preached during
advent, 1533, against the Protestant heresy with unmeasured violence. In Jan.
1, 1534, the bishop forbade all preaching without his permission.
Farel
returned under the protection of Bern, and held a public disputation with
Furbity, Jan. 29, 1534, in the presence of the Great and Small Councils and the
delegates of Bern. He could not answer all his objections, but he denied the
right of the Church to impose ordinances which were not authorized by the
Scriptures, and defended the position that Christ was the only head of the
Church. He used the occasion to explain the Protestant doctrines, and to attack
the Roman hierarchy. Christ and the Holy Spirit, he said, are not with the pope,
but with those whom he persecutes. The disputation lasted several days, and
ended in a partial victory for Farel. Unable to argue from the Scriptures,
Furbity confessed:, What I preached I cannot prove from the Bible; I have
learned it from the Summa of St. Thomas"; but he repeated in the pulpit of
St. Peter’s his charges against the heretics, Feb. 15, and was put in prison
for several years.
Farel
continued to preach in private houses. On March 1, when a monk, Francis
Coutelier, attacked the Reformation, he ascended the pulpit to refute him. This
was his first public sermon in Geneva. The Freiburgers protested against these
proceedings, and withdrew from the coburghery (April 12). The bishop pronounced
the ban over the city (April 30); the Duke of Savoy threatened war. But Bern
stood by Geneva, and under her powerful protection, Farel, Viret, and Froment
vigorously pushed the Reformation, though not without much violence.
The
priests, monks, and nuns gradually left the city, and the bishop transferred
his see to Annecy, an asylum prepared by the Duke of Savoy. Sister Jeanne de
Jussie, one of the nuns of St. Claire, has left us a lively and naive account
of their departure to Annecy. "It was a piteous thing," she says,
"to see this holy company in such a plight, so overcome with fatigue and
grief that several swooned by the way. It was rainy weather, and all were
obliged to walk through muddy roads, except four poor invalids who were in a
carriage. There were six poor old women who had taken their vows more than
sixteen years before. Two of these, who were past sixty-six, and had never seen
anything of the world, fainted away repeatedly. They could not bear the wind;
and when they saw the cattle in the fields, they took the cows for bears, and
the long-wooled sheep for ravaging wolves. They who met them were so overcome
with compassion that they could not speak a word. And though our mother, the
vicaress, had supplied them all with good shoes to save their feet, the greater
number could not walk in them, but hung them at their waists. And so they
walked from five o’clock in the morning, when they left Geneva, till near
midnight, when they got to St. Julien, which is only a little league
off." It took the nuns
fifteen hours to go a short league. The next day (Aug. 29) they reached Annecy
under the ringing of all the bells of the city, and found rest in the monastery
of the Holy Cross. The good sister Jussie saw in the Reformation a just
punishment of the unfaithful clergy. "Ah," she said, "the
prelates and churchmen did not observe their vows at this time, but squandered
dissolutely the ecclesiastical property, keeping women in adultery and
lubricity, and awakening the anger of God, which brought divine judgment on
them."348
In
Aug. 27, 1535, the Great Council of Two Hundred issued an edict of the
Reformation, which was followed by another, May 21, 1536. The mass was
abolished and forbidden, images and relics were removed from the churches. The
citizens pledged themselves by an oath to live according to the precepts of the
Gospel. A school was established for the elementary religious education of the
young at the Convent de Rive, under the direction of Saunier. Out of it grew,
afterwards, the college and academy of Calvin. A general hospital was founded
at St. Claire, and endowed with the revenues of old Catholic hospitals. The
bishop’s palace was converted into a prison. Four ministers and two deacons
were appointed with fixed salaries payable out of the ecclesiastical revenues.
Daily sermons were introduced at St. Pierre and St. Gervais; the communion
after the simple solemn fashion of Zürich was, to be celebrated four times a
year; baptism might be administered on any day, but only in the church, and by
a minister. All shops were to be closed on Sunday. A strict discipline, which
extended even to the headdress of brides, began to be introduced.
This
was the first act in the history of the Reformation of Geneva. It was the work
of Farel, but only preparatory to the more important work of Calvin. The people
were anxious to get rid of the rule of Savoy and the bishop, but had no
conception of evangelical religion, and would not submit to discipline. They
mistook freedom for license. They were in danger of falling into the opposite
extreme of disorder and confusion.
This
was the state of things when Calvin arrived at Geneva in the summer of 1536,
and was urged by Farel to assume the great task of building a new Church on the
ruins of the old. Although twenty years older, he assumed willingly a
subordinate position. He labored for a while as Calvin’s colleague, and was
banished with him from Geneva, because they demanded submission to a confession
of faith and a rigorous discipline. Calvin went to Strassburg. Farel accepted a
call as pastor to Neuchâtel (July, 1538), the city where he had labored before.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="62" title="The Last Labors of Farel">
§ 62.
The Last Labors of Farel.
For
the remaining twenty-seven years of his life, Farel remained chief pastor at
Neuchâtel, and built up the Protestant Church in connection with Fabri, his
colleague. He tried to introduce a severe discipline, by which he offended many
of the new converts, and even his friends in Bern; but Fabri favored a milder
course.
From
Neuchâtel Farel, following his missionary impulse, made preaching excursions to
Geneva, Strassburg, and Metz, in Lorraine. At Metz he preached in the cemetery
of the Dominicans, while the monks sounded all the bells to drown his voice. He
accompanied Calvin to Zürich to bring about the Consensus Tigurinus with the
Zwinglians (1549). He followed Servetus to the stake (Oct. 27, 1553), and
exhorted him in vain to renounce his errors. He collected money for the
refugees of Locarno, and sent letters of comfort to his persecuted brethren in
France. He made two visits to Germany (1557) to urge upon the German princes an
active intercession in behalf of the Waldenses and French Protestants, but
without effect. In December, 1558, when already sixty-nine years of age, he
married, against the advice of his friends, a poor maiden, who had fled with
her widowed mother from France to Neuchâtel.349 Calvin was much annoyed by this indiscretion, but besought
the preachers of that city to bear with patience the folly of the old bachelor.
The
marriage did not cool Farel’s zeal. In 1559 he visited the French refugees in
Alsace and Lorraine. In November, 1561, he accepted an invitation to Gap, his
birthplace, and ventured to preach in public, notwithstanding the royal
prohibition, to the large number of his fellow-citizens who had become
Protestants.
Shortly
before his death Calvin informed him of his illness, May 2, 1564, in the last
letter from his pen: "Farewell, my best and truest brother! And since it is God’s will that you
remain behind me in the world, live mindful of our friendship, which as it was
useful to the Church of God, so the fruit of it awaits us in heaven. Pray do
not fatigue yourself on my account. It is with difficulty that I draw my
breath, and I expect that every moment will be the last. It is enough that I
live and die for Christ, who is the reward of his followers both in life and in
death. Again, farewell with the brethren."350 Farel, notwithstanding the infirmity of old age, travelled
to Geneva, and paid his friend a touching farewell visit, but returned home
before his death. He wrote to Fabri: "Would I could die for him! What a beautiful course has he happily.
finished! God grant that we may
thus finish our course according to the grace that he has given us."
His
last journey was a farewell visit to the Protestants at Metz, who received him
with open arms, and were exceedingly comforted by his presence (May, 1565). He
preached with the fire of his youth. Soon after his return to Neuchâtel, he
died peacefully, Sept. 13, 1565, seventy-six years old. The friends who visited
him in his last days were deeply impressed with his heroic steadfastness and
hopefulness. He was poor and disinterested, like all the Reformers.351 A monument was erected to him at
Neuchâtel, May 4, 1876.
The
writings of Farel are polemical and practical tracts for the times, mostly in
French.352
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="63" title="Peter Viret and the Reformation in
Lausanne">
§ 63.
Peter Viret and the Reformation in Lausanne.
Biographies
of Viret in Beza’s Icones, in Verheiden’s Imagines et Elogia (with a list of
his works, pp. 88–90), by Chenevière (1835), Jaquemot (1856), C. Schmidt
(1860). References to him in Ruchat, Le Chroniqueur, Gaberel, Merle D’Aubigné,
etc.
Farel
was aided in his evangelistic efforts chiefly by Viret and Froment, who agreed
with his views, but differed from his violent method.
Peter
Viret, the Reformer of Lausanne, was the only native Swiss among the pioneers
of Protestantism in Western Switzerland; all others were fugitive Frenchmen. He
was born, 1511, at Orbe, in the Pays de Vaud, and educated for the priesthood
at Paris. He acquired a considerable amount of classical and theological
learning, as is evident from his writings. He passed, like Luther and Farel,
through a severe mental and moral struggle for truth and peace of conscience.
He renounced Romanism before he was ordained, and returned to Switzerland. He
was induced by Farel in 1531 to preach at Orbe. He met with considerable
success, but also with great difficulty and opposition from priests and people.
He converted his parents and about two hundred persons in Orbe, to whom he
administered the holy communion in 1532. He shared the labors and trials of
Farel and Froment in Geneva. An attempt was made to poison them; he alone ate
of the poisoned dish, but recovered, yet with a permanent injury to his health.
His
chief work was done at Lausanne, where he labored as pastor, teacher, and
author for twenty-two years. By order of the government of Bern a public
disputation was held Oct. 1 to 10, 1536.353 Viret, Farel, Calvin, Fabri, Marcourt, and Caroli were
called to defend the Reformed doctrines. Several priests and monks were present,
as Drogy, Mimard, Michod, Loys, Berilly, and a French physician, Claude
Blancherose. A deputy of Bern presided. The discussion was conducted in French.
Farel prepared ten Theses in which he asserts the supremacy of the Bible,
justification by faith alone, the high-priesthood and mediatorship of Christ,
spiritual worship without ceremonies and images, the sacredness of marriage,
Christian freedom in the observance or non-observance of things indifferent,
such as fasts and feasts. Farel and Viret were the chief speakers. The result
was the introduction of the Reformation, November 1 of the same year. Viret and
Pierre Caroli were appointed preachers. Viret taught at the same time in the
academy founded by Bern in 1540.
Caroli
stayed only a short time. He was a native of France and a doctor of the
Sorbonne, who had become nominally a Protestant, but envied Viret for his
popularity, took offence at his sermons, and wantonly charged him, Farel, and
Calvin, with Arianism. He was deposed as a slanderer, and at length returned to
the Roman Church.354
In
1549 Beza was appointed second professor of theology at the academy, and
greatly strengthened Viret’s hands. Five young Frenchmen who were trained by
them for the ministry, and had returned to their native land to preach the
gospel, were seized at Lyons and burned, May 16, 1553, notwithstanding the
intercession of the Reformed Cantons with King Henry II.
Viret
attempted to introduce a strict discipline with the ban, but found as much
opposition as Calvin at Geneva and Farel at Neuchâtel. Bern disapproved the ban
and also the preaching of the rigorous doctrine of predestination. Beza was
discouraged, and accepted a call to Geneva (September, 1558). Viret was deposed
(Jan. 20, 1559). The professors of the academy and a number of preachers
resigned. Viret went to Geneva and was appointed preacher of the city (March 2,
1559). His sermons were more popular and impressive than those of Calvin, and
better attended.
With
the permission of Geneva, he labored for a while as an evangelist, with great
success, at Nismes, Montpellier, and Lyons. He presided as Moderator over the
fourth national Synod of the Huguenots, August, 1563. He accepted a call from
Jeanne d’Albret to an academy at Orthez, in Bearn, which she founded in 1566.
There, in 1571, he died, the last of the triumvirate of the founders of the
Reformed Church in French Switzerland. He was twice married, first to a lady of
Orbe (1538); a second time, to a lady of Geneva (1546). He was small, sickly,
and emaciated, but fervent in spirit, and untiring in labor.
Viret
was an able and fruitful author, and shows an uncommon familiarity with
classical and theological literature. He wrote, mostly in the form of
dialogues, expositions of the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s
Prayer, a summary of Christian doctrine, polemical books against the Council of
Trent, against the mass and other doctrines of Romanism, and tracts on
Providence, the Sacraments, and practical religion. The most important is The
Christian Instruction in the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Law, and in the
true Philosophy and Theology both Natural and Supernatural (Geneva, 1564, 3
vols. fol.). His writings are exceedingly rare.355
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="64" title="Antoine Froment">
§ 64.
Antoine Froment.
A.
Froment: Les actes et gestes merveilleux de la cité de Genève, nouvellement
convertie à l’Evangile. Edited by G. Revilliod, Genève, 1854. A chronicle from
1532 to 1536, fresh and lively, but partial and often inac-curate. Much used by
Merle D’Aubigné. Letters in Herminjard, Tom. IV.
There
is no special monograph of Froment, and he is omitted in Beza’s Icones and also
in Verheiden’s Imagines et Elogia (Hagae, 1725), probably on account of his
spotted character. Sketches in La France Protest., VI. 723–733, and notices in
Roget, Merle D’Aubigné, Gaberel, Polenz. A good article by Th. Schott in
Herzog2, IV. 677–699, and by Roget in Lichtenberger’s "Encycl.," V.
342–344. On his literary merita see Phil. Godet, Histoire litteraire de la
Suisse Romande, 82 sqq.
Antoine
Froment was born in 1509 in Mens, in Dauphiné, and was one of the earliest
disciples of Farel, his countryman. He accompanied him in his evangelistic
tours through Switzerland, and shared in his troubles, persecutions, and
successes. In 1532 he went for the first time to Geneva, and opened an
elementary school in which he taught religion. He advertised it by placards in
these words: "A man has arrived, who in the space of one month will teach
anybody, great or small, male or female, to read and write French; who does not
learn it in that time need not pay anything. He will also heal many diseases
without charge." The people
flocked to him; he was an able teacher, and turned his lessons into addresses
and sermons.
On
new year’s day, in 1533, he preached his first sermon on the public place,
Molard, attacked the pope, priests, and monks as false prophets (Matt. 7:15
sq.), but was interrupted by armed priests, and forced by the police to flee to
a retreat. He left the city by night, in February, but returned again and
again, and aided Farel, Viret, and Calvin.
Unfortunately
he did not remain faithful to his calling, and fell into disgrace. He neglected
his pastoral duties, kept a shop, and at last gave up the ministry. His
colleagues, especially Calvin, complained bitterly of him.356 In December, 1549, he was engaged by
Bonivard, the official historian of the Republic, to assist him in his
Chronicle, which was completed in 1552. Then he became a public notary of
Geneva (1553). He got into domestic troubles. Soon after the death of his first
wife, formerly abbess of a convent, he married a second time (1561), but
committed adultery with a servant, was deposed, imprisoned, and banished, 1562.
His
misfortune seems to have wrought in him a beneficial change. In 1572 he was
permitted on application to return to Geneva in view of his past services, and
in 1574 he was reinstated as notary. He died in 1581(?). The Genevese honored
his memory as one, though the least important, and the least worthy, of the
four Reformers of their city. His chief work is the Chronicle mentioned above,
which supplements the Chronicles of Bonivard, and Sister Jeanne de Jussie.357
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="VIII" title="John Calvin And His
Work">
CHAPTER
VIII.
JOHN
CALVIN AND HIS WORK.
The literature in § 58, pp. 225–231.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="65" title="John Calvin compared with the Older
Reformers">
§ 65.
John Calvin compared with the Older Reformers.
We now
approach the life and work of John Calvin, who labored more than Farel, Viret,
and Froment. He was the chief founder and consolidator of the Reformed Church
of France and French Switzerland, and left the impress of his mind upon all
other Reformed Churches in Europe and America.
Revolution
is followed by reconstruction and consolidation. For this task Calvin was
providentially foreordained and equipped by genius, education, and
circumstances.
Calvin
could not have done the work of Farel; for he was not a missionary, or a
popular preacher. Still less could Farel have done the work of Calvin; for he
was neither a theologian, nor a statesman. Calvin, the Frenchman, would have
been as much out of place in Zürich or Wittenberg, as the Swiss Zwingli and the
German Luther would have been out of place and without a popular constituency
in French-speaking Geneva. Each stands first and unrivalled in his particular
mission and field of labor.
Luther’s
public career as a reformer embraced twenty-nine years, from 1517 to 1546; that
of Zwingli, only twelve years, from 1519 to 1531 (unless we date it from his
preaching at Einsiedeln in 1516); that of Calvin, twenty-eight years, from 1536
to 1564. The first reached an age of sixty-two: the second, of forty-seven; the
third, of fifty-four. Calvin was twenty-five years younger than Luther and
Zwingli, and had the great advantage of building on their foundation. He had
less genius, but more talent. He was inferior to them as a man of action, but
superior as a thinker and organizer. They cut the stones in the quarries, he
polished them in the workshop. They produced the new ideas, he constructed them
into a system. His was the work of Apollos rather than of Paul: to water rather
than to plant, God giving the increase.
Calvin’s
character is less attractive, and his life less dramatic than Luther’s or
Zwingli’s, but he left his Church in a much better condition. He lacked the
genial element of humor and pleasantry; he was a Christian stoic: stern,
severe, unbending, yet with fires of passion and affection glowing beneath the
marble surface. His name will never rouse popular enthusiasm, as Luther’s and
Zwingli’s did at the celebration of the fourth centennial of their birth; no
statues of marble or bronze have been erected to his memory; even the spot of
his grave in the cemetery at Geneva is unknown.358 But he surpassed them in consistency and self-discipline,
and by his exegetical, doctrinal, and polemical writings, he has exerted and
still exerts more influence than any other Reformer upon the Protestant
Churches of the Latin and Anglo-Saxon races. He made little Geneva for a
hundred years the Protestant Rome and the best-disciplined Church in
Christendom. History furnishes no more striking example of a man of so little
personal popularity, and yet such great influence upon the people; of such
natural timidity and bashfulness combined with such strength of intellect and
character, and such control over his and future generations. He was by nature
and taste a retiring scholar, but Providence made him an organizer and ruler of
churches.
The
three leading Reformers were of different nationality and education. Luther,
the son of a German peasant, was trained in the school of monasticism and
mysticism, under the influence of St. Augustin, Tauler, and Staupitz, and
retained strong churchly convictions and prejudices. Zwingli, the son of a
Swiss country magistrate, a republican patriot, an admiring student of the
ancient classics and of Erasmus, passed through the door of the Renaissance to
the Reformation, and broke more completely away from mediaevalism. Calvin, a
native Frenchman, a patrician by education and taste, studied law as well as
theology, and by his legal and judicial mind was admirably qualified to build
up a new Christian commonwealth.
Zwingli
and Luther met once face to face at Marburg, but did not understand each other.
The Swiss extended to the German the hand of fellowship, notwithstanding their
difference of opinion on the mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist; but
Luther refused it, under the restraint of a narrower dogmatic conscience.
Calvin saw neither, but was intimate with Melanchthon, whom he met at the
Colloquies of Worms and Regensburg, and with whom he kept up a correspondence
till his death. He rightly placed the German Reformer, as to genius and power,
above the Swiss, and generously declared that, even if Luther should call him a
devil, he would still esteem Luther as a most eminent servant of God. Luther
saw, probably, only two books of Calvin, his reply to Sadolet and his tract on
the Lord’s Supper; the former he read, as he says, with singular delight
("cum singulari voluptate "). How much more would he have been
delighted with his Institutes or Commentaries! He sent respectful greetings to Calvin through Melanchthon,
who informed him that he was in high favor with the Wittenberg doctor.
Calvin,
in his theology, mediated between Zwingli and Luther. Melanchthon mediated
between Luther and Calvin; he was a friend of both, though unlike either in
disposition and temper, standing as a man of peace between two men of war. The
correspondence between Calvin and Melanchthon, considering their disagreement
on the deep questions of predestination and free-will, is highly creditable to
their head and heart, and proves that theological differences of opinion need
not disturb religious harmony and personal friendship.
The
co-operative friendships between Luther and Melanchthon, between Zwingli and
Oecolampadius, between Farel and Calvin, between Calvin, Beza, and Bullinger,
are among the finest chapters in the history of the Reformation, and reveal the
hand of God in that movement.
Widely
as these Reformers differed in talent, temperament, and sundry points of
doctrine and discipline, they were great and good men, equally honest and
earnest, unselfish and unworldly, brave and fearless, ready at any moment to go
to the stake for their conviction. They labored for the same end: the
renovation of the Catholic Church by leading it back to the pure and perennial
fountain of the perfect teaching and example of Christ.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="66" title="Calvin’s Place in
History">
§ 66.
Calvin’s Place in History.
1.
Calvin was, first of all, a theologian. He easily takes the lead among the
systematic expounders of the Reformed system of Christian doctrine. He is
scarcely inferior to Augustin among the fathers, or Thomas Aquinas among the
schoolmen, and more methodical and symmetrical than either. Melanchthon,
himself the prince of Lutheran divines and "the Preceptor of
Germany," called him emphatically "the Theologian."359
Calvin’s
theology is based upon a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He was the
ablest exegete among the Reformers, and his commentaries rank among the very
best of ancient and modern times. His theology, therefore, is biblical rather
than scholastic, and has all the freshness of enthusiastic devotion to the
truths of God’s Word. At the same time he was a consummate logician and
dialectician. He had a rare power of clear, strong, convincing statement. He
built up a body of doctrines which is called after him, and which obtained
symbolical authority through some of the leading Reformed Confessions of Faith.
Calvinism
is one of the great dogmatic systems of the Church. It is more logical than
Lutheranism and Arminianism, and as logical as Romanism. And yet neither
Calvinism nor Romanism is absolutely logical. Both are happily illogical or
inconsistent, at least in one crucial point: the former by denying that God is
the author of sin—which limits Divine sovereignty; the latter by conceding that
baptismal (i.e. regenerating or saving) grace is found outside of the Roman
Church—which breaks the claim of exclusiveness.360
The
Calvinistic system is popularly (though not quite correctly) identified with
the Augustinian system, and shares its merit as a profound exposition of the
Pauline doctrines of sin and grace, but also its fundamental defect of
confining the saving grace of God and the atoning work of Christ to a small
circle of the elect, and ignoring the general love of God to all mankind (John
3:16). It is a theology of Divine sovereignty rather than of Divine love; and
yet the love of God in Christ is the true key to his character and works, and
offers the only satisfactory solution of the dark mystery of sin. Arminianism
is a reaction against scholastic Calvinism, as Rationalism is a more radical
reaction against scholastic Lutheranism.361
Calvin
did not grow before the public, like Luther and Melanchthon, who passed through
many doctrinal changes and contradictions. He adhered to the religious views of
his youth unto the end of his life.362 His Institutes came like Minerva in full panoply out of the
head of Jupiter. The book was greatly enlarged and improved in form, but
remained the same in substance through the several editions (the last revision
is that of 1559). It threw into the shade the earlier Protestant theologies,—as
Melanchthon’s Loci, and Zwingli’s Commentary on the True and False
Religion,—and it has hardly been surpassed since. As a classical production of
theological genius it stands on a level with Origen’s De Principiis, Augustin’s
De Civitate Dei, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, and Schleiermacher’s Der
Christliche Glaube.
2.
Calvin is, in the next place, a legislator and disciplinarian. He is the
founder of a new order of Church polity, which consolidated the dissipating
forces of Protestantism, and fortified it against the powerful organization of
Romanism on the one hand, and the destructive tendencies of sectarianism and
infidelity on the other.
In
this respect we may compare him to Pope Hildebrand, but with this great
difference, that Hildebrand, the man of iron, reformed the papacy of his day on
ascetic principles, and developed the mediaeval theocracy on the hierarchical
basis of an exclusive and unmarried priesthood; while Calvin reformed the
Church on social principles, and founded a theocracy on the democratic basis of
the general priesthood of believers. The former asserted the supremacy of the
Church over the State; the latter, the supremacy of Christ over both Church and
State. Calvin united the spiritual and secular powers as the two arms of God,
on the assumption of the obedience of the State to the law of Christ. The last
form of this kind of theocracy or Christocracy was established by the Puritans
in New England in 1620, and continued for several generations. In the
nineteenth century, when the State has assumed a mixed religious and
non-religious character, and is emancipating itself more and more from the rule
of any church organization or creed, Calvin would, like his modern adherents in
French Switzerland, Scotland, and America, undoubtedly be a champion of the
freedom and independence of the Church and its separation from the State.
Calvin
found the commonwealth of Geneva in a condition of license bordering on
anarchy: he left it a well-regulated community, which John Knox, the Reformer
of Scotland, from personal observation, declared to be "the most perfect
school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the
Apostles," and which Valentin Andreae, a shining light of the Lutheran
Church, likewise from personal observation, half a century after Calvin’s
death, held up to the churches of Germany as a model for imitation.363
The
moral discipline which Calvin introduced reflects the severity of his theology,
and savors more of the spirit of the Old Testament than the spirit of the New.
As a system, it has long since disappeared, but its best results remain in the
pure, vigorous, and high-toned morality which distinguishes Calvinistic and
Presbyterian communities.
It
is by the combination of a severe creed with severe self-discipline that Calvin
became the father of the heroic races of French Huguenots, Dutch Burghers,
English Puritans, Scotch Covenanters, and New England Pilgrims, who sacrificed
the world for the liberty of conscience. "A little bit of the worlds
history," says the German historian Häusser,364 "was enacted in Geneva,
which forms the proudest portion of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A
number of the most distinguished men in France, the Netherlands, and Great
Britain professed her creed; they were sturdy, gloomy souls, iron characters
cast in one mould, in which there was an interfusion of Romanic, Germanic,
mediaeval, and modern elements; and the national and political consequences of
the new faith were carried out by them with the utmost rigor and consistency." A distinguished Scotch divine
(Principal Tulloch) echoes this judgment when he says:365 "It was the
spirit bred by Calvin’s discipline which, spreading into France and Holland and
Scotland, maintained by its single strength the cause of a free Protestantism
in all these lands. It was the same spirit which inspired the early and lived
on in the later Puritans; which animated such men as Milton and Owen and
Baxter; which armed the Parliament of England with strength against Charles I.,
and stirred the great soul of Cromwell in its proudest triumphs; and which,
while it thus fed every source of political liberty in the Old World, burned
undimned in the gallant crew of the ’Mayflower,’ the Pilgrim Fathers,—who first
planted the seeds of civilization in the great continent of the West."366
Calvin
was intolerant of any dissent, either papal or heretical, and his early
followers in Europe and America abhorred religious toleration (in the sense of
indifference) as a pestiferous error; nevertheless, in their conflict with
reactionary Romanism and political despotism, they became the chief promoters
of civil and religious liberty based upon respect for God’s law and authority.
The solution of the apparent inconsistency lies in the fact that Calvinists
fear God and nothing else. In their eyes, God alone is great, man is but a
shadow. The fear of God makes them fearless of earthly despots. It humbles man
before God, it exalts him before his fellow-men. The fear of God is the basis
of moral self-government, and self-government is the basis of true freedom.367
3.
Calvin’s influence is not confined to the religious and moral sphere; it
extends to the intellectual and literary development of France. He occupies a
prominent position in the history of the French language, as Luther, to a still
higher degree, figures in the history of the German language. Luther gave to
the Germans, in their own vernacular, a version of the Bible, a catechism, and
a hymn-book. Calvin did not translate the Scriptures (although from his
commentaries a tolerably complete version might be constructed), and his
catechism and a few versified psalms never became popular; but he wrote
classical French as well as classical Latin, and excelled his contemporaries in
both. He was schooled in the Renaissance, but, instead of running into the
pedantic Ciceronianism of Bembo, he made the old Roman tongue subservient to
Christian thought, and raised the French language to the dignity of one of the
chief organs of modern civilization, distinguished for directness, clearness,
precision, vivacity, and elegance.
The
modern French language and literature date from Calvin and his contemporary,
François Rabelais (1483–1553). These two men, so totally different, reflect the
opposite extremes of French character. Calvin was the most religious, Rabelais
the most witty man, of his generation; the one the greatest divine, the other
the greatest humorist, of France; the one a Christian stoic, the other a
heathen Epicurean; the one represented discipline bordering on tyranny, the
other liberty running into license. Calvin created the theological and
polemical French style,—a style which suits serious discussion, and aims at
instruction and conviction. Rabelais created the secular style, which aims to
entertain and to please.368
Calvin
sharpened the weapons with which Bossuet and the great Roman Catholic divines
of the seventeenth century attacked Protestantism, with which Rousseau and the
philosophers of the eighteenth century attacked Christianity, and with which
Adolf Monod and Eugène Bersier of the nineteenth century preached the simple
gospel of the New Testament.369
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="67" title="Calvin’s Literary
Labors">
§ 67.
Calvin’s Literary Labors.
The
best edition of Calvin’s Opera by the Strassburg professors, Baum, Cunitz, and
Reuss (now all dead), embraces so far 48 quarto vols. (1863–1892); the
remaining volumes were prepared for publication by Dr. Reuss before his death
(1891). He wrote to me from Neuhof, near Strassburg, July 11, 1887: "Alles
ist zum Druck vorbereitet und ganz fertig mit Prolegomenis, etc. Es bleibt
nichts mehr zu thun übrig als die Correctur und die Fortsetzung des immer à
jour gehaltenen Index rerum et nominum, et locorum S. S., was ein anderer nach
meinem Tode besorgen kann. Denn ich werde die Vollendung nicht erleben. Für den
Schluss habe ich sogar noch ein Supplement ausgearbeitet, nämlich eine
französische Bibel, extrahirt aus den französischen Commentaren und Predigten,
nebst allen Varianten der zu Calvin’s Zeiten in Genf gedruckten
Bibeln." Vol. 45 sqq. are
edited by Erichson.
Older
editions appeared at Geneva, 1617, in 7 vols., in 15 fol., and at Amsterdam,
1667–1671, in 9 vols. fol. The English translation, Edinburgh, 1843–1854, has
62 vols. 8°. Several works have been separately published in Latin, French,
German, Dutch, English, and other languages. See a chronological list in Henry:
Das Leben Joh. Calvins, vol. III. Beilagen, 175–252, and in La France Prot.
III. 545–636 (2d ed.).
The
literary activity of Calvin, whether we look at the number or at the importance
of works, is not surpassed by any ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, and
excites double astonishment when we take into consideration the shortness of
his life, the frailty of his health, and the multiplicity of his other labors
as a teacher, preacher, church ruler, and correspondent. Augustin among the
Fathers, Thomas Aquinas among the Schoolmen, Luther and Melanchthon among the
Reformers, were equally fruitful; but they lived longer, with the exception of
Thomas Aquinas. Calvin, moreover, wrote in two languages with equal clearness,
force, and elegance; while Augustin and Thomas Aquinas wrote only in Latin;
Luther was a master of German; and Melanchthon, a master of Latin and Greek,
but his German is as indifferent as Luther’s Latin.
Calvin’s
works may be divided into ten classes.
1.
Exegetical Writings. Commentaries on the Pentateuch and Joshua, on the Psalms,
on the Larger and Minor Prophets; Homilies on First Samuel and Job;
Commentaries on all the books of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. They
form the great body of his writings.370
2.
Doctrinal. The Institutes (Latin and French), first published at Basel, 1536;
2d ed., Strassburg, 1539; 5th Latin ed., Geneva, 1559.371
Minor
doctrinal works: Three Catechisms, 1537, 1542, and 1545; On the Lord’s Supper
(Latin and French), 1541; the Consensus Tigurinus, 1549 and 1551 (in both
languages); the Consensus Genevensis (Latin and French), 1552; the Gallican
Confession (Latin and French), 1559 and 1562.372
3.
Polemical and Apologetic.373
(a)
Against the Roman Church: Response to Cardinal Sadoletus, 1539; Against
Pighius, on Free-will, 1543; On the Worship of Relics, 1543; Against the
Faculty of the Sorbonne, 1544; On the Necessity of a Reformation, 1544; Against
the Council of Trent, 1547.
(b)
Against the Anabaptists: On the Sleep of the Soul (Psychopannychia), 1534;
Brief Instruction against the Errors of the Sect of the Anabaptists, 1544.
(c)
Against the Libertines: Adversus fanaticam et furiosam sectam Libertinorum qui
se Spirituales vocant (also in French), 1545.
(d)
Against the Anti-Trinitarians: Defensio orthodoxae fidei S. Trinitatis adversus
prodigiosos errores Serveti, 1554; Responsum ad Quaestiones G. Blandatrae,
1558; Adversus Valentinum Gentilem, 1561; Responsum ad nobiles Fratres Polonos
(Socinians) de controversia Mediatoris, 1561; Brevis admonitio ad Fratres
Polonos ne triplicem in Deo essentiam pro tribus personis imaginando tres sibi
Deos fabricent, 1563.
(e)
Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination against Bolsec and Castellio, 1554
and 1557.
(f)
Defence of the Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper against the Calumnies of Joachim
Westphal, a Lutheran fanatic (two Defensiones and an Admonitio ultima), 1555,
1556, 1557, and a tract on the same subject against Hesshus (ad discutiendas
Heshusii nebulas), 1561.
4.
Ecclesiastical and Liturgical. Ordinances of the Church of Geneva, 1537;
Project of Ecclesiastical Ordinances, 1541; Formula of Oath prescribed to
Ministers, 1542; Order of Marriage, 1545; Visitation of the Churches in the
Country, 1546; Order of Baptism, 1551; Academic Laws, 1559; Ecclesiastical
Ordinances, and Academic Laws, 1561; Liturgical Prayers.374
5.
Sermons and Homilies. They are very, numerous, and were mostly taken down by
auditors.375
6.
Minor Treatises. His academic oration, for Cop in Paris, 1533; Against
Astrology, 1549; On Certain Scandals, 1550, etc.
7.
Consilia on various doctrinal and polemical subjects.
8.
Letters. Calvin’s correspondence was enormous, and fills ten volumes in the
last edition of his works.376
9.
Poetical. A hymn to Christ, free metrical versions of several psalms, and an
epic (Epinicion Christo cantatum, 1541).377
10.
Calvin edited Seneca, De Clementia, with notes, 1532; a French translation of
Melanchthon’s Loci, with preface, 1546; and wrote preface to Olivetan’s French
Bible, 1535, etc.
The
Adieus to the Little Council, and to the ministers of Geneva, delivered on his
death-bed in 1564, form a worthy conclusion of the literary labors of this
extraordinary teacher.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="68" title="Tributes to the Memory of Calvin">
§ 68.
Tributes to the Memory of Calvin.
Comp.
the large collection of Opinions and Testimonies respecting the Writings of
Calvin, in the last volume of the English edition of his works published by the
Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, 1854, pp. 376–464. I have borrowed from
it several older testimonies.
No
name in church history—not even Hildebrand’s or Luther’s or Loyola’s—has been
so much loved and hated, admired and abhorred, praised and blamed, blessed and
cursed, as that of John Calvin. Living in a fiercely polemic age, and standing
on the watch-tower of the reform movement in Western Europe, he was the
observed of all observers, and exposed to attacks from every quarter. Religious
and sectarian passions are the deepest and strongest. Melanchthon prayed for
deliverance from "the fury of theologians." Roman Catholics feared Calvin as their most dangerous enemy,
though not a few of them honorably admitted his virtues. Protestants were
divided according to creed and prejudice: some regarding him as the first among
the Reformers and the nearest to Paul; others detesting his favorite doctrine
of predestination. Even his share in the burning of Servetus was defended as
just during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but is now universally
deplored or condemned.378
Upon
the whole, the verdict of history is growingly in his favor. He improves upon
acquaintance. Those who know him best esteem him most. The fruits of his labors
are abundant, especially in the English-speaking world, and constitute his
noblest monument. The slanderous charges of Bolsec, though feebly re-echoed by
Audin, are no longer believed. All impartial writers admit the purity and
integrity, if not the sanctity, of his character, and his absolute freedom from
love of gain and notoriety. One of the most eminent skeptical historians of
France goes so far as to pronounce him "the most Christian man" of
his age. Few of the great luminaries of the Church of God have called forth
such tributes of admiration and praise from able and competent judges.
The
following selection of testimonies may be regarded as a fair index of the
influence which this extraordinary man has exerted from his humble study in
"the little corner" on the south-western border of Switzerland upon
men of different ages, nationalities, and creeds, down to the present time.
Tributes
of Contemporaries (Sixteenth Century).
Martin
Luther (1483–1546).
From
a letter to Bucer, Oct. 14, 1539.
"Present
my respectful greetings to Sturm and Calvin (then at Strassburg], whose books I
have perused with singular pleasure (quorum libellos singulari cum voluptate
legi)."
Martin
Bucer (1491–1551).
"Calvin
is a truly learned and singularly eloquent man (vere doctus mireque Facundus
vir), an illustrious restorer of a purer Christianity (purioris Christianismi
instaurator eximius)."
Theodore
Beza (1519–1605).
From
his Vita Calvini (Latin) at the Close (Opera, XXI. 172).
"I
have been a witness of Calvin’s life for sixteen years, and I think I am fully
entitled to say that in this man there was exhibited to all a most beautiful
example of the life and death of the Christian (longe pulcherrimum vere
christianae tum vita tum mortis exemplum), which it will be as easy to
calumniate as it will be difficult to emulate."
Compare
also the concluding remarks of his French biography, vol. XXI. 46 (Aug. 19,
1564).
John
Sturm of Strassburg (1507–1589).
"John
Calvin was endued with a most acute judgment, the highest learning, and a
prodigious memory, and was distinguished as a writer by variety, copiousness,
and purity, as may be seen for instance from his Institutes of the Christian
Religion … I know of no work which is better adapted to teach religion, to
correct morals, and to remove errors."
Jerome
Zanchi (1516–1590).
An
Italian convert to Protestantism. Professor at Strassburg and Heidelberg.
From
a letter to the Landgrave of Hesse.
"Calvin,
whose memory is honored, as all Europe knows, was held in the highest
estimation, not only for eminent piety and the highest learning (praestanti
pietate et maxima eruditione), but likewise for singular judgment on every
subject (singulari in rebus omnibus judicio clarissimus)."
Bishop
Jewel (1522–1571).
"Calvin,
a reverend father, and worthy ornament of the Church of God."
Joseph
Scaliger (1640–1609).
"Calvin
is an instructive and learned theologian, with a higher purity and elegance of
style than is expected from a theologian. The two most eminent theologians of
our times are John Calvin and Peter Martyr; the former of whom has treated
sound learning as it ought to be treated, with truth and purity and simplicity,
without any of the scholastic subtleties. Endued with a divine genius, he
penetrated into many things which lie beyond the reach of all who are not
deeply skilled in the Hebrew language, though he did not himself belong to that
class."
"O
how well Calvin apprehends the meaning of the Prophets! No one better … O what a good book is
the Institutes! ... Calvin stands
alone among theologians (Solus inter theologos Calvinus)."
This
judgment of the greatest scholar of his age, who knew thirteen languages, and
was master of philology, history, chronology, philosophy, and theology, is all
the more weighty as he was one of the severest of critics.
Florimond
De Ræmond (1540–1602).
Counseiller
du Roy au Parlement de Bordeaux. Roman Catholic.
From
his L’histoire de la naissanse, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie de ce
siècle, divisé en huit livres, dedié à nôtre saint Père le Pape Paul cinquième.
Paris, 1605. bk. VII. ch. 10.
"Calvin
had morals better regulated and settled than N., and shewed from early youth
that he did not allow himself to be carried away by the pleasures of sense
(plaisirs de la chair et du ventre) … With a dry and attenuated body, he always
possessed a fresh and vigorous intellect, ready in reply, bold in attack; even
in his youth a great faster, either on account of his health, and to allay the
headaches with which he was continually afflicted, or in order to have his mind
more disencumbered for the purposes of writing, studying, and improving his
memory. Calvin spoke little; what he said were serious and impressive words (et
n’estoit que propos serieux et qui portoyent coup); he never appeared in
company, and always led a retired life. He had scarcely his equal; for during
twenty-three years that he retained possession of the bishopric (l’evesché) of
Geneva, he preached every day, and often twice on Sundays. He lectured on
theology three times a week; and every Friday he entered into a conference
which he called the Congregation. His remaining hours were employed in
composition, and answering the letters which came to him as to a sovereign
pontiff from all parts of heretical Christendom (qui arrivoyent à luy de toute
la Chrétienté hérétique, comme au Souveraine Pontife)....
"Calvin
had a brilliancy of spirit, a subtlety of judgment, a grand memory, an eminent
erudition, and the power of graceful diction.... No man of all those who
preceded him has surpassed him in style, and few since have attained that beauty
and facility of language which he possessed."
Etienne
Pasquier (1528–1615).
Roman
Catholic. Consellier et Avocat Général du Roy an la Chambre des Comptes de
Paris.
From
Les Recherches de la France, p. 769 (Paris, 1633).
…
"He [Calvin) wrote equally well in Latin and French, the latter of which
languages is greatly indebted to him for having enriched it with an infinite
number of fine expressions (enrichie d’une infinité de beaux traits), though I
could have wished that they had been written on a better subject. In short, a
man wonderfully conversant with and attached to the books of the Holy
Scriptures, and such, that if he had turned his mind in the proper direction,
he might have been ranked with the most distinguished doctors of the
Church."
Jacques
Auguste de Thou (Thuanus, 1553–1617).
President
of the Parliament of Paris. A liberal Roman Catholic and one of the framers of
the Edict of Nantes.
From
the 36th book of his Historia sui Temporis (from 1543–1607).
"John
Calvin, of Noyon in Picardy, a person of lively spirit and great eloquence
(d’un esprit vif et d’une grande eloquence),379 and a theologian of high
reputation among the Protestants, died of asthma, May 20 [27], 1564, at Geneva,
where he had taught for twenty-three years, being nearly fifty-six years of
age. Though he had labored under various diseases for seven years, this did not
render him less diligent in his office, and never hindered him from
writing."
De
Thou has nothing unfavorable to say of Calvin.
Testimonies
of Later French Writers.
Charles
Drelincourt (1595–1669).
"In
that prodigious multitude of books which were composed by Calvin, you see no
words thrown away; and since the prophets and apostles, there never perhaps was
a man who conveyed so many distinct statements in so few words, and in such
appropriate and well-chosen terms (en des mots si propres et si bien
choisis).... Never did Calvin’s life appear to me more pure or more innocent
than after carefully examining the diabolical calumnies with which some have
endeavored to defame his character, and after considering all the praises which
his greatest enemies are constrained to bestow on his memory."
Moses
Amyraut (1596–1645).
"That
incomparable Calvin, to whom mainly, next to God, the Church owes its
Reformation, not only in France, but in many other parts of Europe."
Bishop
Jacques Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704).
From
his Histoire des Variations des Eglises Protestantes (1688), the greatest
polemical work in French against the Reformation.
"I
do not know if the genius of Calvin would be found as fitted to excite the
imagination and stir up the populace as was that of Luther, but after the
movement had commenced, he rose in many countries, more especially in France,
above Luther himself, and made himself head of a party which hardly yields to
that of the Lutherans. By his searching intellect and his bold decisions, he
improved upon all those who had sought in this century to establish a new
church, and gave a new turn to the pretended reformation.
"It
is a weak feeling which makes us desirous to find anything extraordinary in the
death-beds of these people. God does not always bestow these examples. Since he
permits heresy for the trial of his people, it is not to be wondered at that to
complete this trial he allows the spirit of seduction to prevail in them even
to the end, with all the fair appearances by which it is covered; and, without
learning more of the life and death of Calvin, it is enough to know that he has
kindled in his country a flame which not all the blood shed on its account has
been able to extinguish, and that he has gone to appear before the judgment of
God without feeling any remorse for a great crime ....
"Let
us grant him then, since he wishes it so much, the glory of having written as
well as any man of his age; let us even place him, if desired, above Luther;
for whilst the latter was in some respects more original and lively, Calvin,
his inferior in genius, appears to have surpassed him in learning. Luther
triumphed as a speaker, but the pen of Calvin was more correct, especially in
Latin, and his style, though severe, was much more consecutive and chaste. They
equally excelled in speaking the language of their country, and both possessed
an extraordinary vehemence. Each by his talents has gained many disciples and
admirers. Each, elated by success, has fancied to raise himself above the
Fathers; neither could bear contradiction, and their eloquence abounds in
nothing more largely than virulent invective."
Richard
Simon (1638–1712).
One
of the greatest critical and biblical scholars of the Roman Catholic Church.
From
his Critical History of the Old Testament (Latin and French).
"As
Calvin was endued with a lofty genius, we are constantly meeting with something
in his commentaries which delights the mind (quo animus rapitur); and in
consequence of his intimate and perfect acquaintance with human nature, his
ethics are truly charming, while he does his utmost to maintain their
accordance with the sacred text. Had he been less under the influence of
prejudice, and had he not been solicitous to become the leader and
standard-bearer of heresy, he might have produced a work of the greatest
usefulness to the Catholic Church."
The
same passage, with additions, occurs in French. Simon says that no author
"had a better knowledge of the utter inability of the human heart,"
but that "he gives too much prominence to this inability," and
"lets no opportunity pass of slandering the Roman Church," so that
part of his commentaries is "useless declamations" (déclamations
inutiles). "Calvin displays more genius and judgment in his works than
Luther; he is more cautious, and takes care not to make use of weak proofs, of
which his adversaries might take advantage. He is subtle to excess in his
reasoning, and his commentaries are filled with references skilfully drawn from
the text—which are capable of prepossessing the minds of those readers who are
not profoundly acquainted with religion."
Simon
greatly underrates Calvin’s knowledge of Hebrew when he says that he knew not
much more than the Hebrew letters. Dr. Diestel (Geschichte des Alten Test. in
der christl. Kirche, 1869, p. 267) justly pronounces this a slander which is
refuted by every page of Calvin’s commentaries. He ascribes to him a very good
knowledge of Hebrew: "ausgewählt mit einer sehr tüchtigen hebräischen
Sprachkenntniss."
Pierre
Bayle (1647–1706).
Son
of a Reformed minister, educated by the Jesuits of Toulouse, converted to
Romanism, returned to Protestantism, skeptical, the author of a Dictionnaire
historique et critique.
"That
a man who had acquired so great a reputation and so great an authority should
have had only a hundred crowns of salary, and have desired no more, and that
after having lived fifty-five years with every sort of frugality, he left to
his heirs only the value of three hundred crowns, including his library, is a
circumstance so heroical, that one must be devoid of feeling not to admire it,
and one of the most singular victories which virtue and greatness of soul have
been able to achieve over nature, even among ministers of the gospel. Calvin
has left imitators in so far as regards activity of life, zeal and affection
for the interest of his party; they employ their eloquence, their pens, their
endeavors, their solicitations in the advancement of the kingdom of God; but
they do not forget themselves, and they are, generally speaking, an
exemplification of the maxim that the Church is a good mother, in whose service
nothing is lost.
"The
Catholics have been at last obliged to dismiss to the region of fable the
atrocious calumnies (les calomnies atroces) which they had uttered against the
moral character of Calvin; their best authors now restrict themselves to
stating that if he was exempt from the vices of the body, he has not been so
from those of the mind, such as pride, passion, and slander. I know that the
Cardinal de Richelieu, or that dexterous writer who has published under his
name ’The Method of Conversation,’ had adopted the absurdities of Bolsec. But
in general, eminent authors speak no more of that. The mob of authors will
never renounce it. These calumnies are to be found in the ’Systema decretorum
dogmaticorum,’ published at Avignon in 1693, by Francis Porter. Thus the work
of Bolsec will always be cited as long as the Calvinists have adversaries, but
it will be sufficient to brand it eternally with calumny that there is among
Catholics a certain number of serious authors who will not adopt its
fables."
Jean
Alphonse Turretin (1617–1737).
Professor
of theology of Geneva and representative of a moderate Calvinism. The most
distinguished theologian of his name, also called Turretin the younger, to
distinguish him from his father François.
"John
Calvin was a man whose memory will be blessed to the latest age (vir benedictae
in omne oevum memoriae). … He has by his immense labors instructed and adorned
not only the Church of Geneva, but the whole Reformed world, so that not
unfrequently all the Reformed Churches are in the gross called after his
name."
Montesquieu
(1689–1755).
Author
of De l’esprit des lois (the oracle of the friends of moderate freedom).
"The
Genevese should bless the birthday of Calvin."
Voltaire
(1694–1778).
"Essai
sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations."
"The
famous Calvin, whom we regard as the Apostle of Geneva, raised himself up to
the rank of Pope of the Protestants (s’érigea en pape des Protestants). He was
acquainted with Latin and Greek, and the had philosophy of his time. He wrote
better than Luther, and spoke worse; both were laborious and austere, but hard
and violent (durs et emportés).... Calvinism conforms to the republican spirit,
and yet Calvin had a tyrannical spirit.... He demanded the toleration which he
needed for himself in France, and he armed himself with intolerance at
Geneva.... The severity of Calvin was united with the greatest
disinterestedness (au plus grand desintéressement)."
Jean
Jaques Rousseau (1712–1778).
A
native of Geneva. The apostle of the French Revolution, as Calvin was the
apostle of the French Reformation.
From
Lettres écrites de la montagne.
<foreign
lang="fr">"Quel
homme fut jamais plus tranchant, plus impérieux, plus décisif, plus divinement
infaillible à son gré que Calvin, pour qui la moindre opposition ... était
toujours une oeuvre de Satan, un crime digne Du feu!"
</foreign>
D’alembert
(1717–1783).
"Calvin
justly enjoyed a great reputation—a literary man of the first rank (homme de
lettre du premier ordre)—writing in Latin as well as one could do in a dead language,
and in French with singular purity for his time (avec une pureté singulière
pour son temps). This purity, which our able grammarians admire even at this
day, renders his writings far superior to almost all those of the same age, as
the works of the Port-Royalists are distinguished even at the present day, for
the same reason, from the barbarous rhapsodies of their opponents and
contemporaries.
Frederic
Ancillon (1767–1837).
Tableau
des Révolutions du Système Politique de l’Europe.
"Calvin
was not only a profound theologian, but likewise an able legislator; the share
which he had in the framing of the civil and religious laws which have produced
for several centuries the happiness of the Genevan republic, is perhaps a
fairer title to renown than his theological works; and this republic,
celebrated notwithstanding its small size, and which knew how to unite morals
with intellect, riches with simplicity, simplicity with taste, liberty with
order, and which has been a focus of talents and virtues, has proved that
Calvin knew men, and knew how to govern them."
Fr.
Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787–1874).
Celebrated
French historian and statesman, of Huguenot descent.
From
St. Louis et Calvin, pp. 361 sqq.
"Calvin
is great by reason of his marvellous powers, his lasting labors, and the moral
height and purity of his character.... Earnest in faith, pure in motive,
austere in his life, and mighty in his works, Calvin is one of those who
deserve their great fame. Three centuries separate us from him, but it is
impossible to examine his character and history without feeling, if not
affection and sympathy, at least profound respect and admiration for one of the
great Reformers of Europe and of the great Christians of France."
By
the same (1787–1874).
From
Musée des protestants célèbres.
<foreign lang="fr">"Luther vint pour
détruire, Calvin pour fonder, par des nécessités égales, mais differentes....
Calvin fut l’homme de cette seconde époque de toutes les grandes révolutions
sociales, où, après avoir conquis par la guerre le terrain qui doit leur
appartenir, elles travaillent à s’y établir par la paix, selon des principes et
sous les formes qui conviennent à leur nature.... L’idée générale selon
laquelle Calvin agit en brûlant Servet était de son siècle, et an a tort de la
lui imputer."
</foreign>
François
Aug. Marie Mignet (1796–1884).
Celebrated
French historian and academician.
From
his Mémoire sur l’établissement de la Réforme à Genève.
<foreign lang="fr">"Calvin fut, dans le
protestantisme, après Luther, ce qu’est la conséquance après le principe; dans
la Suisse, ce qu’est la règle après une révolution.... Calvin, s’il n’avait ni
le génie de l’invention ni celui de la conquète; s’il n’était ni un
révolutionnaire comme Luther ni un missionaire comme Farel, il avait une force
de logique qui devait pousser plus loin la réforme du premier, et une faculté
d’organisation qui devait achever l’oeuvre du second. C’est par là qu’il
renouvela la face du protestantisme at qu’il constitua Genève."
</foreign>
Jules
Michelet (1798–1874).
Histoire
de France, vol. XI. (Les Guerres De Religion), Paris, 1884, pp. 88, 89, 92.
<foreign lang="fr">"C’était un travailleur
terrible, avec un air souffrant, une constitution misérable et débile,
veillant, s’usant, se consumant, ne distinguant ni nuit ni jour....
"C’était
une langue inouïe [Calvin’s French style], la nouvelle langue française. Vingte
ans après Commines, trente ans avant Montaigne, dejà la langue de Rousseau....
Son plus redoutable attribut, c’est sa pénétrante clarté, son extrême lumière
d’argent, plutôt d’acier, d’une lame qui brille, mais qui tranche. On sent que
cette lumière vient du dedans, du fond de la conscience, d’un coeur âprement
convaincu, dont la logique est l’aliment....
"Le
fond de ce grand et puissant théologien était d’être un légiste. Il l’était de
culture, d’esprit, de caractère. Il en avait les deux tendances: l’appel au
juste, au vrai, un àpre besoin de justice; mais, d’autre part aussi, l’esprit
dur, absolu, des tribunaux d’alors, et it le porta dans la théologie.... La
prédestination de Calvin se trouva, en pratique, une machine a faire des
martyrs."
</foreign>
Bon
Louis Henri Martin (1810–1883).
Histoire
de France depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’en 1789, Tom. VIII. p. 325,
of the fourth edition, Paris, 1860. Crowned by the French Academy.
Martin,
in his standard work, thus describes the influence of Calvin upon the city of
Geneva: "Calvin ne la sauve pas seulement, mais conquiert â cette petite
ville une grandeur, une puissance morale immense. Il en fait la capitale de la
Réforme, autant que la Réforme peut avoir une capitale, pour la moitié du monde
protestant, avec une vaste influence, acceptée ou subie, sur l’autre moitié.
Genève n’est rien par la population, par les armes, par le territoire: elle est
tout par l’esprit. Un seul avantage matériel lui garantit tons ses avantages
moraux: son admirable position, qui fait d’elle une petite France républicaine
et protestante, indépendante de la monarchie catholique de France et â l’abri
de l’absorption monarchique et catholique; la Suisse protestante, alliée
nécessaire de la royauté française contre l’empereur, couvre Genève par la
politique vis-à-vis du roi et par l’épée contra les maisons d’Autriche et de
Savoie."
Ernest
Renan (1823–1892).
Renan,
a member of the French Academy, a brilliant genius, and one of the first
historians of France, was educated for the Roman Catholic priesthood, but
became a skeptic. This makes his striking tribute all the more significant.
From
his article on John Calvin in his Études d’histoire religieuse, 7th ed. Paris,
1880, pp. 337–367.
"Calvin
was one of those absolute men, cast complete in one mould, who is taken in
wholly at a single glance: one letter, one action suffices for a judgment of
him. There were no folds in that inflexible soul, which never knew doubt or
hesitation.... Careless of wealth, of titles, of honors, indifferent to pomp,
modest in his life, apparently humble, sacrificing everything to the desire of
making others like himself, I hardly know of a man, save Ignatius Loyola, who
could match him in those terrible transports.... It is surprising that a man
who appears to us in his life and writings so unsympathetic should have been
the centre of an immense movement in his generation, and that this harsh and
severe tone should have exerted so great an influence on the minds of his
contemporaries. How was it, for example, that one of the most distinguished
women of her time, Renée of France, in her court at Ferrara, surrounded by the
flower of European wits, was captivated by that stern master, and by him drawn
into a course that must have been so thickly, strewn with thorns? This kind of austere seduction is
exercised by those only who work with real conviction. Lacking that vivid,
deep, sympathetic ardor which was one of the secrets of Luther’s success,
lacking the charm, the perilous, languishing tenderness of Francis of Sales,
Calvin succeeded more than all, in an age and in a country which called for a
reaction towards Christianity, simply because he was the most Christian man of
his century (l’homme le plus chrétien de son siècle, p. 342)."
Felix
Bungener (1814–1874).
Pastor
of the national Church of Geneva, and author of several historical works.
From
Calvin, sa vie, son oeuvre et ses écrits, Paris, 1862; English translation
(Edinburgh, 1863), pp. 338, 349.
"Let
us not give him praise which he would not have accepted. God alone creates; a
man is great only because God thinks fit to accomplish great things by his instrumentality.
Never did any great man understand this better than Calvin. It cost him no
effort to refer all the glory to God; nothing indicates that he was ever
tempted to appropriate to himself the smallest portion of it. Luther, in many a
passage, complacently dwells on the thought that a petty monk, as he says, has
so well made the Pope to tremble, and so well stirred the whole world. Calvin
will never say any such thing; he never even seems to say it, even in the
deepest recesses of his heart; everywhere you perceive the man, who applies to
all things—to the smallest as to the greatest—the idea that it is God who does
all and is all. Read again, from this point of view, the very pages in which he
appeared to you the haughtiest and most despotic, and see if, even there, he is
anything other than the workman referring all, and in all sincerity, to his
master.... But the man, in spite of all his faults, has not the less remained
one of the fairest types of faith, of earnest piety, of devotedness, and of courage.
Amid modern laxity, there is no character of whom the contemplation is more
instructive; for there is no man of whom it has been said with greater justice,
in the words of an apostle, ’he endured as seeing him who is invisible.’ "
From
Dutch Scholars.
James
Arminius (1560–1609).
The
founder of Arminianism.
"Next
to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils
to peruse Calvin’s Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich
himself (a Dutch divine, 1551–1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond
comparison (incomparabilem esse) in the interpretation of Scripture, and that
his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to
us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed
above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent
spirit of prophecy (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought
to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation,
but with discrimination (cum delectu), like the writings of all men."
Dan.
Gerdes (1698–1767).
Historia
Evangelii Renovati, IV. 41 sq. (Groningae, 1752).
"Calvin’s
labors were so highly useful to the Church of Christ, that there is hardly any
department of the Christian world to be found that is not full of them,—hardly
any heresy that has arisen which he has not successfully encountered with that
two-edged sword, the Word of God, or a portion of Christian doctrine which he
has not illustrated in a remarkable manner. Certainly his commentaries on the
Old and New Testaments are all that could be desired; every one of his sermons
is full of unction; his Institutes bear the most complete and finished
execution; his doctrinal treatises are distinguished by solidity; his critical
works by warmth and fervor; his practical writings by virtue and piety; and his
letters by mildness, prudence, gravity, and wisdom."
Judgments
of German Scholars.
John
Lawrence Mosheim (1695–1755).
From
the English translation of his Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, by James
Murdock, D. D., New York, 1854, vol. III. 163, 167, 192.
"Calvin
was venerated, even by his enemies, for his genius, learning, eloquence, and
other endowments, and moreover was the friend of Melanchthon.
"Few
persons of his age will bear any comparison with Calvin for patient industry,
resolution, hatred of the Roman superstition, eloquence, and genius. Possessing
a most capacious mind, he endeavored not only to establish and bless his
beloved Geneva with the best regulations and institutions, but also to make it
the mother and the focus of light and influence to the whole Reformed Church,
just as Wittenberg was to the Lutheran community.
"The
first rank among the interpreters of the age is deservedly assigned to John
Calvin, who endeavored to expound nearly the whole of the sacred volume.
"His
Institutes are written in a perspicuous and elegant style, and have nothing
abstruse and difficult to be comprehended in the arguments or mode of
reasoning."
Johannes
von Müller (1752–1809).
The
great historian of Switzerland, called "the German Tacitus."
Allgemeine
Geschichte, Bk. III.
"John
Calvin had the spirit of an ancient lawgiver, a genius and characteristic which
gave him in part unmistakable advantages, and failings which were only the
excess of virtues, by the assistance of which he carried through his objects.
He had also, like other Reformers, an indefatigable industry, with a fixed
regard to a certain end, an invincible perseverance in principles and duty
during his life, and at his death the courage and dignity of an ancient Roman
censor. He contributed greatly to the development and advance of the human
intellect, and more, indeed, than he himself foresaw. For among the Genevese
and in France, the principle of free inquiry, on which he was obliged at first
to found his system, and to curb which he afterwards strove in vain, became
more fruitful in consequences than among nations which are less inquisitive
than the Genevese, and less daring than the French. From this source were
developed gradually philosophical ideas, which, though they are not yet
purified sufficiently from the passions and views of their founders, have yet
banished a great number of gloomy and pernicious prejudices, and have opened us
prospects of a pure practical wisdom and better success for the future."
Fr.
August Tholuck (1799–1877).
Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, 3d ed. 1831, p. 19.
"In
his [Calvin’s] Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans are united pure
Latinity, a solid method of unfolding and interpreting, founded on the
principles of grammatical science and historical knowledge, a deeply
penetrating faculty of mind, and vital piety."
Dr.
Twesten (1789–1876).
The
successor of Schleiermacher in the chair of systematic theology at Berlin, and
an orthodox Lutheran in the United Evangelical Church of Prussia.
From
his Dogmatik der evangelisch Lutherischen Kirche, I. 216 (4th ed. Hamburg,
1838).
After
speaking very highly and justly of Melanchthon and John Gerhard, Twesten thus
characterizes Calvin’s Institutes: —
<foreign lang="de">"Mehr aus einem Gusz,
als Melanchthon’s Loci, die reife Frucht eines tief religiösen und ächt
wissenschaftlichen Geistes, mit groszer Klarheit, Kraft und Schönheit der
Darstellung geschrieben, einfach in der Anlage, reich und gründlich in der
Ausführung, verdient es neben jenen auch in unserer Kirche als eins der
vorzüglichsten Werke auf dem Gebiete der dogmatischen Literatur überhaupt
studirt zu werden."
</foreign>
Paul
Henry.
Doctor
of theology and pastor of a French Reformed Church in Berlin, author of two
learned biographies of Calvin: a large one, in 3 vols. (1833–1844), which is
chiefly valuable as a collection of documents, and a popular one in 1 vol.
From
Das Leben Johann Calvins (Hamburg and Gotha, 1846), pp. 443 sqq.
"The
whole tendency of Calvin was practical; learning was subordinate; the salvation
of the world, the truth was to him the main thing. His spiritual tendency was
not philosophical, but his dialectical bent ran principles to their utmost
consequences. He had an eye to the minutest details. His former study of law
had trained him for business.... He was a watchman over the whole Church....
All his theological writings excel in acuteness, dialectics, and warmth of
conviction. He had great eloquence at command, but despised the art of
rhetoric.... Day and night he was occupied with the work of the Lord. He
disliked the daily entreaties of his colleagues to grant himself some rest. He
continued to labor through his last sicknesses, and only stopped dictating a
week before his death, when his voice gave out.... All sought his counsel; for
God endowed him with such a happy spirit of wisdom that no one regretted to
have followed his advice. How great was his erudition! How marvellous his judgment! How peculiar his kindness, which came
to the aid even of the smallest and lowliest, if necessary, and his meekness
and patient forbearance with the imperfections of others!"
Dr.
L. Stähelin.
Johannes
Calvin. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1863. Vol. II. pp. 365–393.
This
description of Calvin’s character as a man and as a Christian is faithful in
praise and censure, but too profuse to be inserted. Dr. Stähelin emphasizes the
logic of his intellect and conscience, his firm assurance of eternal election,
his constant sense of the nearness of God, "the majesty" of his
character, the predominance of the Old Testament feature, his resemblance to
Moses and the Hebrew Prophets, his irritability, anger, and contemptuousness,
relieved by genuine humility before God, his faithfulness to friends, his life
of unceasing prayer, his absolute disinterestedness and consecration to God. He
also quotes the remarkable testimony of Renan, that Calvin was "the most
Christian man in Christendom."
Dr.
Friedrich Trechsel (1805–1885).
Die
Protestantischen Antitrinitarier. Heidelberg, 1839–1844 (I. 177).
"People
have often supposed that they were insulting Calvin’s memory by calling him the
Pope of Protestantism! He was so,
but in the noblest sense of the expression, through the spiritual and moral
superiority with which the Lord of the Church had endowed him for its
deliverance; through his unwearied, universal zeal for God’s honor; through his
wise care for the edifying of the kingdom of Christ; in a word, through all
which can be comprehended in the idea of the papacy, of truth and honor."
Ludwig
Häusser (1818–1867).
Professor
of history at Heidelberg.
The
Period of the Reformation, edited by Oncken (1868, 2d ed. 1880), translated by
Mrs. Sturge, New York, 1874 (pp. 241 and 244).
"As
the German Reformation is connected with Martin Luther, and the Swiss with
Ulrich Zwingli, that of the Romanic and Western European nations is connected
with John Calvin, the most remarkable personage of the time. He was not equal
either to Luther or Zwingli in general talent, mental vigor, or tranquility of
soul; but in logical acuteness and talent for organization he was at least
equal, if not superior, to either. He settled the basis for the development of
many states and churches. He stamped the form of the Reformation in countries
to which he was a stranger. The French date the beginnings of their literary
development from him, and his influence was not restricted to the sphere of
religion, but embraced their intellectual life in general; no one else has so
permanently influenced the spirit and form of their written language as he.
"At
a time when Europe had no solid results of reform to allow, this little State
of Geneva stood up as a great power; year by year it sent forth apostles into
the world, who preached its doctrines everywhere, and it became the most
dreaded counterpoise to Rome, when Rome no longer had any bulwark to defend
her. The missionaries from this little community displayed the lofty and
dauntless spirit which results from stoical education and training; they bore
the stamp of a self-renouncing heroism which was elsewhere swallowed up in
theological narrowness. They were a race with vigorous bones and sinews, for
whom nothing was too daring, and who gave a new direction to Protestantism by
causing it to separate itself from the old traditional monarchical authority,
and to adopt the gospel of democracy as part of its creed. It formed a weighty
counterpoise to the desperate efforts which the ancient Church and monarchical
power were making to crush the spirit of the Reformation.
"It
was impossible to oppose Caraffa, Philip II., and the Stuarts, with Luther’s
passive resistance; men were wanted who were ready to wage war to the knife,
and such was the Calvinistic school. It everywhere accepted the challenge;
throughout all the conflicts for political and religious liberty, up to the
time of the first emigration to America, in France, the Netherlands, England,
and Scotland, we recognize the Genevan school."
Dr.
Karl Rudolf Hagenbach (1801–1874).
Swiss
Reformed, of Basel.
Geschichte
des Reformation, 5th ed. edited by Nippold, Leipzig, 1887, p. 605.
<foreign lang="de">"Calvin hatte so zu
sagen kein irdisches Vaterland, dessen Freiheit er, wie Zwingli, zu wahren sich
bewogen fand. Das himmlische Vaterland, die Stadt Gottes war es, in welche er
alle zu sammeln sich berufen sah. Ihm galt nicht Grieehe, nicht Skythe, nicht
Franzose, nicht Deutscher, nicht Eidgenosz, sondern einzig und allein die neue
Kreatur in Christo. Es wäre thöricht, ihm solches zum Vorwurf zu machen. Es ist
vielmehr richtig bemerkt worden, wie Calvin, obgleich er nicht die Grösze Genfs
als solche gesucht, dennoch dieser Stadt zu einer weltgeschichtlichen Grösze
verholfen, die sie ohne ihn niemals erreicht haben würde. Aber so viel ist
richtig, dasz das Reinmenschliche, das im Familien- und Volksleben seine Wurzel
hat, und das durch das Christenthum nicht verdrängt, aber wohl veredelt werden
soll, bei Calvin weniger zur Entwickelung kam. Männer des strengen Gedankens
und einer rigiden Gesetzlichkeit werden geneigt sein, Calvin über Luther und
Zwingli zu erheben. Und er hat auch seine unbestreitbaren Vorzüge. Poetisch
angelegte Gemütsmenschen aber werden anfänglich Calvin und seiner vom
Naturboden losgelösten, abstrakten Frömmigkeit gegenüber sich eines gewissen
Fröstelns nicht erwehren können und einige Zeit brauchen, bis sie es überwunden
haben; während sie sich zu dem herzgewinnenden Luther sogleich und auch dann
noch hingezogen fühlen, wenn er schäumt und vor Zorn uebersprudelt."
</foreign>
Dr.
Is. Dorner (1809–1884).
Geschichte
der Protestantischen Theologie. München, 1867, pp. 374, 376.
"Calvin
was equally great in intellect and character, lovely in social life, full of
tender sympathy and faithfulness to friends, yielding and forgiving towards
personal offences, but inexorably severe when he saw the honor of God
obstinately and malignantly attacked. He combined French fire and practical
good sense with German depth and soberness. He moved as freely in the world of
ideas as in the business of Church government. He was an architectonic genius
in science and practical life, always with an eye to the holiness and majesty
of God." (Condensed
translation.)
Dr.
Kahnis (Lutheran, 1814–1888).
Die
Lutherische Dogmatik. Leipzig, 1861, vol. II. p. 490 sq.
"The
fear of God was the soul of his piety, the rock-like certainty of his election
before the foundation of the world was his power, and the doing of the will of
God his single aim, which he pursued with trembling and fear.... No other
Reformer has so well demonstrated the truth of Christ’s word that, in the
kingdom of God, dominion is service. No other had such an energy of
self-sacrifice, such an irrefragable conscientiousness in the greatest as well
as the smallest things, such a disciplined power. This man, whose dying body
was only held together by the will flaming from his eyes, had a majesty of
character which commanded the veneration of his contemporaries."
F.
W. Kampschulte (1831–1872).
Catholic
Professor of History In the University of Bonn from 1860 to 1872, and author of
an able and Impartial work on Calvin, which was Interrupted by his death. Vols.
II. and III. were never published. He protested against the Vatican decrees of
1870.
Johann
Calvin. Seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf. Erster Band, Leipzig,
1869, p.
274 sq.
<foreign lang="de">"Calvin’s Lehrbuch der
christlichen Religion ist ohne Frage das hervorragendste und bedeutendste
Erzeugniss, welches die reformatorische Literatur des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts
auf dem Gebiete der Dogmatik aufzuweisen hat. Schon ein oberflächlicher
Vergleich lässt uns den gewaltigen Fortschritt erkennen, den es gegenüber den
bisherigen Leistungen auf diesem Gebiete bezeichnet. Statt der unvollkommenen,
nach der einen oder andern Seite unzulänglichen Versuche Melanchthon’s,
Zwingli’s, Farel’s erhalten wir aus Calvin’s Hand das Kunstwerk eines, wenn
auch nicht harmonisch in sich abgeschlossenen, so doch wohlgegliederten,
durchgebildeten Systems, das in allen seinen Theilen die leitenden
Grundgedanken widerspiegelt und von vollständiger Beherrschung des Stoffes
zeugt. Es hatte eine unverkennbare Berechtigung, wenn man den Verfasser der
Institution als den Aristoteles der Reformation bezeichnete. Die
ausserordentliche Belesenheit in der biblischen und patristischen Literatur,
wie sie schon in den früheren Ausgaben des Werkes hervortritt, setzt in
Erstaunen. Die Methode ist lichtvoll und klar, der Gedankengang streng logisch,
überall durchsicktig, die Eintheilung und Ordnung des Stoffes dem leitenden
Grundgedanken entsprechend; die Darstellung schreitet ernst und gemessen vor
und nimmt, obschon in den späteren Ausgaben mehr gelehrt als anziehend, mehr auf
den Verstand als auf das Gemüth berechnet, doch zuweilen einen höheren Schwung
an. Calvin’s Institution enthält Abschnitte, die dem Schönsten, was von Pascal
und Bossuet geschrieben worden ist, an die Seite gestellt werden können:
Stellen, wie jene fiber die Erhabenheit der heiligen Schrift, aber das Elend
des gefallenen Menschen, über die Bedeutung des Gebetes, werden nie verfehlen,
ait den Leser einen tiefen Eindruck zu machen. Auch von den katholischen
Gegnern Calvin’s sind diese Vorzüge anerkannt und manche Abschnitte seines
Werkes sogar benutzt worden. Man begreift es vollkommen, wenn er selbst mit dem
Gefühl der Befriedigung und des Stolzes auf sein Werk blickt und in seinen
übrigen Schriften gern auf das ’Lehrbuch’ zurückverweist."
"Und
doch beschleicht uns, trotz aller Bewunderung, zu der uns der Verfasser
nöthigt, bei dem Durchlesen seines Werkes ein unheimliches Gefühl. Ein System,
das von dem furchtbaren Gedanken der doppelten Praedestination ausgeht, welches
die Menschen ohne jede Rücksicht auf das eigene Verhalten in Erwählte und
Verworfene scheidet und die Einen wie die Anderen zu blossen Werkzeugen zur
Verherrlichung der göttlichen Majestät macht ... ein solches System kann
unmöglich dem deukenden, Belehrung und Trost suchenden Menschengeist innere
Ruhe und Befriedigung gewähren."
</foreign>
Baum,
Cunitz, and Reuss.
Joh.
Calvini Opera, vol. I. p. ix.
The
Strassburg editors of Calvin’s Works belong to the modern liberal school of
theology.
<foreign lang="la">"Si Lutherum virum
maximum, si Zwinglium civem Christianum nulli secundum, si Melanthonem
praeceptorem doctissimum merito appellaris, Calvinum jure vocaris theologorum
principem et antesignanum. In hoc enim quis linguarum et literarum praesidia,
quis disciplinarum fere omnium non miretur orbem? De cujus copia doctrinae, rerumque dispositions aptissime
concinnata, et argumentorum vi ac validitate in dogmaticis; de ingenii acumine
et subtilitate, atque nunc festiva nunc mordaci salsedine in polemicis, de
felicissima perspicuitate, sobrietate ac sagacitate in exegeticis, de nervosa
eloquentia et libertate in paraeneticis; de prudentia sapientiaque legislatoria
in ecclesiis constituendis, ordinandis ac regendis incomparabile, inter omnes
viros doctos et de rebus evangelicis libere sentientes jam abunde constat. Imo
inter ipsos adversarios romanos nullus hodie est, vel mediocri harum rerum
cognitione imbutus vel tantilla judicii praeditus aequitate, qui argumentorum
et sententiarum ubertatem, proprietatem verborum sermonemque castigatum, stili
denique, tam latini quam gallici, gravitatem et luciditatem non admiretur. Quae
cuncta quum in singulis fere scriptis, tum praecipue relucent in immortali illa
Institutione religionis Christianae, quae omnes ejusdem generis expositiones
inde ab apostolorum temporibus conscriptas, adeoque ipsos Melanthonis Locos
theologicos, absque omni controversia longe antecellit atque eruditum et
ingenuum lectorem, etiamsi alicubi secus senserit, hodieque quasi vinctum
trahit et vel invitum rapit in admirationem."
</foreign>
Tributes
from English Writers (Mostly Episcopal).
Richard
Hooker (1553–1600).
From
his Preface to the Ecclesiastical Polity (Keble’s ed. vol. I. p. 158).
"Whom
[Calvin], for my own part, I think incomparably the wisest man that ever the
French Church did enjoy since the hour it enjoyed him. His bringing up was in
the study of the civil law. Divine knowledge he gathered not by hearing or
reading so much as by teaching others. For, though thousands were debtors to
him, as touching knowledge of this kind, yet he to none, but only to God, the
Author of that most blessed fountain, the Book of Life, and of the admirable
dexterity of wit, together with the helps of other learning, which were his
guides.—We should be injurious unto virtue itself, if we did derogate from them
whom their industry hath made great. Two things of principal moment there are,
which have deservedly procured him honor throughout the world: the one, his
exceeding pains in composing the Institutions of the Christian Religion; the
other, his no less industrious travails for exposition of Holy Scripture,
according unto the same Institutions....
"Of
what account the Master of Sentences [Peter Lombard] was in the Church of Rome;
the same and more, among the preachers of Reformed Churches, Calvin had
purchased; so that the perfectest divines were judged they which were
skilfullest in Calvin’s writings; his books almost the very canon to judge both
doctrine and discipline by."
Bishop
Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626).
"Calvin
was an illustrious person, and never to be mentioned without a preface of the
highest honor."
Dr.
John Donne (1573–1631).
Royal
Chaplain and Dean of St. Paul’s, London; distinguished as a poet and divine.
"St.
Augustin, for sharp insight and conclusive judgment in exposition of places of
Scripture, which he always makes so liquid and pervious, hath scarce been
equalled therein by any of all the writers in the Church of God, except Calvin
may have that honor, for whom (when it concerns not points of controversy) I
see the Jesuits themselves, though they dare not name him, have a high degree
of reverence."
Bishop
Hall (1574–1656).
Works,
III. 516.
"Reverend
Calvin, whose judgment I so much honor, that I reckon him among the best
interpreters of Scripture since the Apostles left the earth."
Bishop
Sanderson (1587–1663).
"When
I began to set myself to the study of Divinity as my proper business, Calvin’s
Institutions were recommended to me, as they generally were to all young
scholars in those times, as the best and most perfect system of Divinity, and
the fittest to be laid as a groundwork in the study of the profession. And,
indeed, my expectation was not at all ill-deemed in the study of those
Institutions."
Richard
Baxter (1615–1691).
"I
know no man, since the Apostles’ days, whom I value and honor more than Calvin,
and whose judgment in all things, one with another, I more esteem and come
nearer to."
Bishop
Wilson of Calcutta.
From
Sermon preached on the death of the Rev. Basil Wood.
“Calvin’s
Commentaries remain, after three centuries, unparalleled for force of mind,
justness of exposition, and practical views of Christianity."
Archbishop
Lawrence.
From
his Bampton Lectures.
"Calvin
was both a wise and a good man, inferior to none of his contemporaries in
general ability, and superior to almost all in the art, as well as elegance, of
composition, in the perspicuity and arrangement of his ideas, the structure of
his periods, and the Latinity of his diction."
Archdeacon
Julius Charles Hare (1795–1855).
He
had, of all Englishmen, the best knowledge and highest appreciation of Luther.
From
his Mission of the Comforter, II. 449.
"Calvin’s
Commentaries, although they too are almost entirely doctrinal and practical,
taking little note of critical and philosophical questions, keep much closer to
the text [than Luther’s], and make it their one business to bring out the
meaning of the words of Scripture with fulness and precision. This they do with
the excellence of a master richly endowed with the word of wisdom and with the
word of knowledge, and from the exemplary union of a severe masculine
understanding with a profound insight into the spiritual depths of the
Scriptures, they are especially calculated to be useful in counteracting the
erroneous tendencies of an age, when we seem about to be inundated with all
that was fantastical and irrational in the exegetical mysticism of the Fathers,
and are bid to see divine power in all allegorical cobwebs, and heavenly life
in artificial flowers. I do not mean to imply an adoption or approval of all
Calvin’s views, whether on doctrinal or other questions. But we may happily owe
much gratitude and love, and the deepest intellectual obligations, to those
whom at the same time we may, deem to be mistaken on certain points."
Thomas
H. Dyer.
The
Life of John Calvin. London, 1850, p. 533 sq.
"That
Calvin was in some respects a really great man, and that the eloquent panegyric
of his friend and disciple Beza contains much that is true, will hardly be
denied. In any circumstances his wonderful abilities and extensive learning
would have made him a shining light among the doctors of the Reformation; an
accidental, or, as his friends and followers would say, a providential and
predestinated visit to Geneva, made him the head of a numerous and powerful
sect. Naturally deficient in that courage which forms so prominent a trait in
Luther’s character, and which prompted him to beard kings and emperors face to
face, Calvin arrived at Geneva at a time when the rough and initiatory work of
Reform had already been accomplished by his bolder and more active friend
Farel. Some peculiar circumstances in the political condition of that place
favored the views which he seems to have formed very shortly after his
arrival....
"The
preceding narrative has already shown how, from that time to the hour of his
death, his care and labor were constantly directed to the consolidation of his
power, and to the development of his scheme of ecclesiastical polity. In these
objects he was so successful that it may be safely affirmed that none of the
Reformers, not even Luther himself, attained to so absolute and extensive an
influence."
Archdeacon
Frederic W. Farrar, D. D., F. R. S.
History
of Interpretation. London, 1886, pp. 342–344.
"The
greatest exegete and theologian of the Reformation was undoubtedly Calvin. He
is not an attractive figure in the history of that great movement. The mass of
mankind revolt against the ruthless logical rigidity of his ’horrible
decree.’ They fling it from their
belief with the eternal ’God forbid!’ of an inspired natural horror. They
dislike the tyranny of theocratic sacerdotalism [?] which be established at
Geneva. Nevertheless his Commentaries, almost alone among those of his epoch,
are still a living force. They are far more profound than those of Zwingli,
more thorough and scientific, if less original and less spiritual, than those
of Luther. In spite of his many defects—the inequality of his works, his
masterful arrogance of tone, his inconsequent and in part retrogressive view of
inspiration, the manner in which he explains away every passage which runs
counter to his dogmatic prepossessions—in spite, too, of his ’hard expressions
and injurious declamations’—he is one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture
who ever lived. He owes that position to a combination of merits. He had a
vigorous intellect, a dauntless spirit, a logical mind, a quick insight, a
thorough knowledge of the human heart, quickened by rich and strange
experience; above all, a manly and glowing sense of the grandeur of the Divine.
The neatness, precision, and lucidity of his style, his classic training and
wide knowledge, his methodical accuracy of procedure, his manly independence,
his avoidance of needless and commonplace homiletics, his deep religious
feeling, his careful attention to the entire scope and context of every
passage, and the fact that he has commented on almost the whole of the Bible,
make him tower above the great majority of those who have written on Holy
Scripture. Nothing can furnish a greater contrast to many helpless
commentaries, with their congeries of vacillating variorum annotations heaped
together in aimless multiplicity, than the terse and decisive notes of the
great Genevan theologian.... A characteristic feature of Calvin’s exegesis is
its abhorrence of hollow orthodoxy. He regarded it as a disgraceful offering to
a God of truth. He did not hold the theory of verbal dictation. He will never
defend or harmonize what he regards as an oversight or mistake in the Sacred
writers. He scorns to support a good cause by bad reasoning.... But the most
characteristic and original feature of his Commentaries is his anticipation of
modern criticism in his views about the Messianic prophecies. He saw that the words of psalmists and
prophets, while they not only admit of but demand ’germinant and springing
developments,’ were yet primarily applicable to the events and circumstances of
their own days."
Scotch
Tributes.
ln
Scotland, the land of John Knox, who studied at the feet of Calvin, his
principles were most highly appreciated and most fully carried out.
Sir
William Hamilton (1788–1856).
"Looking
merely to his learning and ability, Calvin was superior to all modern, perhaps
to all ancient, divines. Succeeding ages have certainly not exhibited his
equal. To find his peer we must ascend at least to Aquinas or Augustin."
Dr.
William Cunningham (1805–1861).
Principal
of the New College and Professor of Church History in Edinburgh. Presbyterian
of the Free Church.
Reformers,
and the Theology of the Reformation. Edinburgh, 1866,
pp.
292, 294, 299.
"John
Calvin was by far the greatest of the Reformers with respect to the talents he
possessed, the influence he exerted, and the service he rendered to the
establishment and diffusion of important truth....
"The
systematizing of divine truth, and the full organization of the Christian
Church according to the word of God, are the great peculiar achievements of
Calvin. For this work God eminently qualified him, by bestowing upon him the
highest gifts both of nature and of grace; and this work he was enabled to
accomplish in such a way as to confer the greatest and most lasting benefits
upon the Church of Christ, and to entitle him to the commendation and the
gratitude of all succeeding ages....
"Calvin
certainly was not free from the infirmities which are always found in some form
or degree even in the best men; and in particular, he occasionally exhibited an
angry impatience of contradiction and opposition, and sometimes assailed and
treated the opponents of the truth and cause of God with a violence and
invective which cannot be defended, and should certainly not be imitated. He
was not free from error, and is not to be implicitly followed in his
interpretation of Scripture, or in his exposition of doctrine. But whether we
look to the powers and capacities with which God endowed him, the manner in
which he employed them, and the results by which his labors have been
followed,—or to the Christian wisdom, magnanimity, and devotedness which marked
his character and generally regulated his conduct, there is probably not one
among the sons of men, beyond the range of those whom God miraculously inspired
by his Spirit, who has stronger claims upon our veneration and gratitude."
In
another place which I cannot refer to, Cunningham, the successor of Chalmers,
says: "Calvin is the man who, next to St. Paul, has done most good to
mankind."
Dr.
John Tulloch (1823–1886).
Principal
of St. Mary’s College in the University of St. Andrews, of the Established
Church of Scotland.
Luther
and other Leaders of the Reformation. Edinburgh and London, 3d ed. 1883, pp.
234–237, 243, 245.
"Thus
lived and died Calvin, a great, intense, and energetic character, who, more
than any other of that great age, has left his impress upon the history of Protestantism.
Nothing, perhaps, more strikes us than the contrast between the single naked
energy which his character presents and of which his name has become
symbolical, and the grand issues which have gone forth from it. Scarcely
anywhere else can we trace such an impervious potency of intellectual and moral
influence emanating from so narrow a centre.
"There
is in almost every respect a singular dissimilarity between the Genevan and the
Wittenberg reformer. In personal, moral, and intellectual features, they stand
contrasted—Luther with his massive frame and full big face and deep melancholy
eyes; Calvin, of moderate stature, pale and dark complexion, and sparkling
eyes, that burned nearly to the moment of his death (Beza: Vita Calv.). Luther,
fond and jovial, relishing his beer and hearty family repasts with his wife and
children; Calvin, spare and frugal, for many years taking only one meal a day,
and scarcely needing sleep. In the one, we see a rich and complex and buoyant
and affectionate nature touching humanity at every point, in the other, a stern
and grave unity of moral character. Both were naturally of a somewhat proud and
imperious temper, but the violence of Luther is warm and boisterous, that of
Calvin is keen and zealous. It might have been a very uncomfortable thing, as
Melanchthon felt, to be exposed to Luther’s occasional storms; but after the
storm was over, it was pleasant to be folded once more to the great heart that
was sorry for its excesses. To be the object of Calvin’s dislike and anger was
something to fill one with dread, not only for the moment, but long afterwards,
and at a distance, as poor Castellio felt when he gathered the pieces of
driftwood on the banks of the Rhine at Basel.
"In
intellect, as in personal features, the one was grand, massive, and powerful,
through depth and comprehension of feeling, a profound but exaggerated insight,
and a soaring eloquence; the other was no less grand and powerful, through
clearness and correctness of judgment, vigor and consistency of reasoning, and
weightiness of expression. Both are alike memorable in the service which they
rendered to their native tongue—in the increased compass, flexibility, and
felicitous mastery which they imparted to it. The Latin works of Calvin are
greatly superior in elegance of style, symmetry of method, and proportionate
vigor of argument. He maintains an academic elevation of tone, even when keenly
agitated in temper; while Luther, as Mr. Hallam has it, sometimes descends to
mere ’bellowing in bad Latin.’ Yet
there is a coldness in the elevation of Calvin, and in his correct and
well-balanced sentences, for which we should like ill to exchange the kindling
though rugged paradoxes of Luther. The German had the more rich and teeming—the
Genevan the harder, more serviceable, and enduring mind. When interrupted in
dictating for several hours, Beza tells us that he could return and commence
where he had left off; and that amidst all the multiplicity of his engagements,
he never forgot what he required to know for the performance of any duty.
"As
preachers, Calvin seems to have commanded a scarcely less powerful success than
Luther, although of a different character—the one stimulating and rousing,
’boiling over in every direction’—the other instructive, argumentative, and
calm in the midst of his vehemence (Beza: Vita Calv.). Luther flashed forth his
feelings at the moment, never being able to compose what might be called a
regular sermon, but seizing the principal subject, and turning all his
attention to that alone. Calvin was elaborate and careful in his sermons as in
everything else. The one thundered and lightened, filling the souls of his
hearers now with shadowy awe, and now with an intense glow of spiritual
excitement; the other, like the broad daylight, filled them with a more
diffusive though less exhilarating clearness....
"An
impression of majesty and yet of sadness must ever linger around the name of
Calvin. He was great and we admire him. The world needed him and we honor him;
but we cannot love him. He repels our affections while he extorts our
admiration; and while we recognize the worth, and the divine necessity, of his
life and work, we are thankful to survey them at a distance, and to believe
that there are also other modes of divinely governing the world, and advancing
the kingdom of righteousness and truth.
"Limited,
as compared with Luther, in his personal influence, apparently less the man of
the hour in a great crisis of human progress, Calvin towers far above Luther in
the general influence over the world of thought and the course of history,
which a mighty intellect, inflexible in its convictions and constructive in its
genius, never fails to exercise."
William
Lindsay Alexander, D. D., F. R. S. E. (1808–1884).
Professor
of Theology and one of the Bible Revisers. Congregationalist.
From
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed. vol. IV. (1878) p. 721.
"Calvin
was of middle stature; his complexion was somewhat pallid and dark; his eyes,
to the latest clear and lustrous, bespoke the acumen of his genius. He was
sparing in his food and simple in his dress; he took but little sleep, and was
capable of extraordinary efforts of intellectual toil. His memory was
prodigious, but he used it only as the servant of his higher faculties. As a
reasoner he has seldom been equalled, and the soundness and penetration of his
judgment were such as to give to his conclusions in practical questions almost
the appearance of predictions, and inspire in all his friends the utmost
confidence in the wisdom of his counsels. As a theologian he stands on an
eminence which only Augustin has surpassed; whilst in his skill as an expounder
of Scripture, and his terse and elegant style, he possessed advantages to which
Augustin was a stranger. His private character was in harmony with his public
reputation and position. If somewhat severe and irritable, he was at the same
time scrupulously just, truthful, and steadfast; he never deserted a friend or
took an unfair advantage of an antagonist; and on befitting occasions he could
be cheerful and even facetious among his intimates."
Testimonies
of American Divines.
Dr.
Henry B. Smith (1815–1877).
Professor
of Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Presbyterian.
From
his Address before the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, St. Louis,
1855, delivered by request of the Presbyterian Historical Society. See Faith
and Philosophy, pp. 98 and 99.
"Though
the Reformation, under God, began with Luther in the power of faith, it was
carried on by Calvin with greater energy, and with a more constructive genius,
both in theology and in church polity, as he also had a more open field. The
Lutheran movement affected chiefly the centre and the north of Europe; the
Reformed Churches were planted in the west of Europe, all around the ocean, in
the British Isles, and by their very geographical site were prepared to act the
most efficient part, and to leap the walls of the old world, and colonize our
shores.
"Nothing
is more striking in a general view of the history of the Reformed Churches than
the variety of countries into which we find their characteristic spirit, both
in doctrine and polity, penetrating. Throughout Switzerland it was a grand
popular movement. There is first of all, Zwingli, the hero of Zurich, already
in 1516 preaching against the idolatrous veneration of Mary, a man of generous
culture and intrepid spirit, who at last laid down his life upon the field of
battle. In Basle we find Oecolampadius, and also Bullinger [in Zurich], the
chronicler of the Swiss reform. Farel aroused Geneva to iconoclasm by his
inspiring eloquence.
"Thither
comes in 1536, from the France which disowned him, Calvin, the mighty
law-giver, great as a preacher, an expositor, a teacher and a ruler; cold in
exterior, but burning with internal fire; who produced at twenty-six years of
age his unmatched Institutes, and at thirty-five had made Geneva, under an
almost theocratic government, the model city of Europe, with its inspiring
motto, ’post tenebras lux.’
He was feared and opposed by the libertines of his day, as he is in our
own. His errors were those of his own times: his greatness is of all times.
Hooker calls him ’incomparably the wisest man of the French Church;’ he
compares him to the ’Master of Sentences,’ and says, ’that though thousands were
debtors to him as touching divine knowledge, yet he was to none, only to
God.’ Montesquieu declares that
’the Genevese should ever bless the day of his birth.’ Jewel terms him ’a reverend Father, and
worthy ornament of the Church of God.’
’He that will not honor the memory of Calvin,’ says Mr. Bancroft, ’knows
but little of the origin of American liberty.’ Under his influence Geneva became the ’fertile seed-plot’ of
reform for all Europe; with Zurich and Strassburg, it was the refuge of the
oppressed from the British Isles, and thus indoctrinated England and ourselves
with its own spirit."
From
Dr. Smith’s article "Calvin" in Appleton’s American Cyclopaedia.
"Calvin’s
system of doctrine and polity has shaped more minds and entered into more
nations than that of any other Reformer. In every land it made men strong
against the attempted interference of the secular power with the rights of
Christians. It gave courage to the Huguenots; it shaped the theology of the
Palatinate; it prepared the Dutch for the heroic defence of their national
rights; it has controlled Scotland to the present hour; it formed the
Puritanism of England; it has been the basis of the New England character; and
everywhere it has led the way in practical reforms. His theology assumed different
types in the various countries into which it penetrated, while retaining its
fundamental traits."
Dr.
George P. Fisher (b. 1827).
Professor
of Church History in Yale Divinity School, New Haven. Congregationalist.
From
his History of the Reformation. New York, 1873, pp. 206 and 238.
When
we look at his extraordinary intellect, at his culture—which opponents, like
Bossuet, have been forced to commend—at the invincible energy which made him
endure with more than stoical fortitude infirmities of body under which most
men would have sunk, and to perform, in the midst of them, an incredible amount
of mental labor; when we see him, a scholar naturally fond of seclusion,
physically timid, and recoiling from notoriety and strife, abjuring the career
that was most to his taste, and plunging, with a single-hearted, disinterested
zeal and an indomitable will, into a hard, protracted contest; and when we
follow his steps, and see what things he effected, we cannot deny him the
attributes of greatness....
"His
last days were of a piece with his life. His whole course has been compared by
Vinet to the growth of one rind of a tree from another, or to a chain of
logical sequences. He was endued with a marvellous power of understanding,
although the imagination and sentiments were less roundly developed. His
systematic spirit fitted him to be the founder of an enduring school of
thought. In this characteristic he may be compared with Aquinas. He has been
appropriately styled the Aristotle of the Reformation. He was a perfectly
honest man. He subjected his will to the eternal rule of right, as far as he
could discover it. His motives were pure. He felt that God was near him, and
sacrificed everything to obey the direction of Providence. The fear of God
ruled in his soul; not a slavish fear, but a principle such as animated the
prophets of the Old Covenant. The combination of his qualities was such that he
could not fail to attract profound admiration and reverence from one class of
minds, and excite intense antipathy in another. There is no one of the
Reformers who is spoken of, at this late day, with so much personal feeling,
either of regard or aversion. But whoever studies his life and writings,
especially the few passages in which he lets us into his confidence and appears
to invite our sympathy, will acquire a growing sense of his intellectual and
moral greatness, and a tender consideration for his errors.’
G.
G. Herrick, D. D.
Congregational
Minister of Mount Vernon Church, Boston.
From
Some Heretics of Yesterday. Boston, 1890, pp. 210 sqq.
"Calvin
gathered up the spiritual and intellectual forces that had been started by the
Reformation movement, and marshalled and systematized them, and bound them into
unity by the mastery of his logical thought, as the river gathers cloud and
rill, and snow-drift and dew-fall, and constrains them through its own channel
into the unity and directness of a powerful current. The action of Luther was
impulsive, magnetic, popular, appealing to sentiment and feeling, that of
Calvin was logical and constructive, appealing to understanding and reason. He
was the systematizer of the Reformation....
"Calvin’s
work was national, and more; he gave to the Reformation a universality like
that of the gigantic system with which they [the Reformers] all were at war.
Calvin, more than any other man that has ever lived, deserves to be called the
Pope of Protestantism. While he was still living his opinions were deferred to
by kings and prelates, and even after he was dead his power was confessed by his
enemies. The papists called his Institutes The Heretics’ Koran.... He set up
authority against authority, and maintained and perpetuated what he set up by
the inherent clearness and energy and vigor of his own mental conceptions. The
authority of the Romish Pope was based upon the venerable tradition of the past
that had grown up by the accretion of ages; the authority of the Protestant
Pope rested upon a logical structure which he himself built up, out of blocks
hewn from alleged Scripture assertion and legitimate inferences therefrom....
"The
man himself is one of the wonders of all time, and his work was admirable,
beyond any words of appreciation that it is possible for me to utter. For while
he himself tolerated no differences of theological opinion, and would have
bound all thought by his own logical chain, this nineteenth century is as much
indebted to his work as it is to that of Luther. That work constituted the
world’s largest step towards democratic freedom. It set the individual man in
the presence of the living God, and made the solitary soul, whether of prince
or pauper, to feel its responsibility to, and dependence upon, Him alone who
from eternity has decreed the sparrow’s flight or fall. Out of this logical
conception of the equality of all men in the presence of Jehovah, he deduced
the true republican character of the Church; a theory to which all Americans,
and especially we of New England, owe our rich inheritance. He gave to the
world, what it had not before, a majestic and consistent conception of a
kingdom of God ruling in the affairs of men; of the beauty and the blessedness
of a true Christian state; of the possibility of the city of God being one day
realized in the universal subordination of human souls to divine authority...."
For
testimonies bearing upon Calvin’s system of discipline, see below, § 110.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="IX" title="From France To
Switzerland">
CHAPTER
IX.
FROM
FRANCE TO SWITZERLAND.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="69" title="Calvin’s Youth and Training">
§ 69.
Calvin’s Youth and Training.
Calvini
Opera, vol. XXI. (1879).—On Noyon and the family of Calvin, Jacques Le Vasseur
(Dr. of theology, canon and dean of the cathedral of Noyon): Annales de
l’église cathédrale de Noyon. Paris, 1633, 2 vols. 4°.—Jacques Desmay(Dr. of
the Sorbonne and vicar-general of the diocese of Rouen): Remarques sur la vie
de Jean Calvin tirées des Registres de Noyon, lieu de sa naissance. Rouen,
1621.
Thomas
M’Crie (d. 1835): The Early Years of Calvin. A Fragment. 1509–1536. Ed. by
William Ferguson. Edinburgh, 1880 (199 pp.). A posthumous work of the learned
biographer of Knox and Melville.
Abel
Lefranc: La Jeunesse de Calvin. Paris (33 rue de Seine), 228 pp.
Comp.
the biographies of Calvin by Henry, large work, vol. I. chs. I.–VIII. (small
ed. 1846, pp. 12–29); Dyer (1850), pp. 4–10; Stähelin (1862) I. 3–12;
*Kampschulte (1869), I. 221–225.
"As
David was taken from the sheepfold and elevated to the rank of supreme
authority; so God having taken me from my originally obscure and humble
condition, has reckoned me worthy of being invested with the honorable office
of a preacher and minister of the gospel. When I was yet a very little boy, my
father had destined me for the study of theology. But afterwards, when he
considered that the legal profession commonly raised those who follow it, to
wealth, this prospect induced him suddenly to change his purpose. Thus it came
to pass, that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy and was put to the
study of law. To this pursuit I endeavored faithfully to apply myself, in
obedience to the will of my father; but God, by the secret guidance of his
providence, at length gave a different direction to my course. And first, since
I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of popery to be easily
extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion
subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more burdened in
such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life.
Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was
immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that
though I did not altogether leave off other studies, I yet pursued them with
less ardor."380
This
is the meagre account which Calvin himself incidentally gives of his youth and
conversion, in the Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms, when speaking of
the life of David, in which he read his own spiritual experience. Only once
more he alludes, very briefly, to his change of religion. In his Answer to
Cardinal Sadoletus, he assures him that he did not consult his temporal
interest when he left the papal party. "I might," he said, "have
reached without difficulty the summit of my wishes, namely, the enjoyment of
literary ease, with something of a free and honorable station."381
Luther
indulged much more freely in reminiscences of his hard youth, his early
monastic life, and his discovery of the doctrine of justification by faith
alone, which gave peace and rest to his troubled conscience.
John
Calvin382 was born July 10, 1509,—twenty-five years after Luther and
Zwingli,—at Noyon, an ancient cathedral city, called Noyon-la-Sainte, on
account of its many churches, convents, priests, and monks, in the northern
province of Picardy, which has given birth to the crusading monk, Peter of
Amiens, to the leaders of the French Reformation and Counter-Reformation (the
Ligue), and to many revolutionary as well as reactionary characters.383
His
father, Gérard Cauvin, a man of hard and severe character, occupied a prominent
position as apostolic secretary to the bishop of Noyon, proctor in the Chapter
of the diocese, and fiscal procurator of the county, and lived on intimate
terms with the best families of the neighborhood.384 His mother, Jeanne Lefranc, of Cambrai, was noted for her
beauty and piety, but died in his early youth, and is not mentioned in his
letters. The father married a second time. He became involved in financial
embarrassment, and was excommunicated, perhaps on suspicion of heresy. He died
May 26 (or 25), 1531, after a long sickness, and would have been buried in
unconsecrated soil but for the intercession of his son, Charles, who gave
security for the discharge of his father’s obligations.385
Calvin
had four brothers and two sisters.386 Two of his brothers died young, the other two received a
clerical education, and were early provided with benefices through the
influence of the father.
Charles,
his elder brother, was made chaplain of the cathedral in 1518, and curé of
Roupy, but became a heretic or infidel, was excommunicated in 1531, and died
Oct. 1, 1537, having refused the sacrament on his death-bed. He was buried by
night between the four pillars of a gibbet.387
His
younger brother, Antoine, was chaplain at Tournerolle, near Traversy, but
embraced the evangelical faith, and, with his sister, Marie, followed the
Reformer to Geneva in 1536. Antoine kept there a bookstore, received the
citizenship gratuitously, on account of the merits of his brother (1546), was
elected a member of the Council of Two Hundred (1558), and of the Council of
the Sixty (1570), also one of the directors of the hospital, and died in 1573.
He was married three times, and divorced from his second wife, the daughter of
a refugee, on account of her proved adultery (1557). Calvin had innocently to
suffer for this scandal, but made him and his five children chief heirs of his
little property.388
The
other sister of Calvin was married at Noyon, and seems to have remained in the
Roman Catholic Church.
A
relative and townsman of Calvin, Pierre Robert, called Olivetan, embraced
Protestantism some years before him, and studied Greek and Hebrew with Bucer at
Strassburg in 1528.389
He joined Farel in Neuchatel, and published there his French translation
of the Bible in 1535.
More
than a hundred years after Calvin’s death, another member of the family, Eloi
Cauvin, a Benedictine monk, removed from Noyon to Geneva, and embraced the
Reformed religion (June 13, 1667).390
These
and other facts show the extent of the anti-papal sentiment in the family of
Cauvin. In 1561 a large number of prominent persons of Noyon were suspected of
heresy, and in 1562 the Chapter of Noyon issued a profession of faith against
the doctrines of Calvin.391
After
the death of Calvin, Protestantism was completely crushed out in his native
town.
Calvin
received his first education with the children of the noble family de Mommor
(not Montmor), to which he remained gratefully attached. He made rapid progress
in learning, and acquired a refinement of manners and a certain aristocratic
air, which distinguished him from Luther and Zwingli. A son of de Mommor
accompanied him to Paris, and followed him afterwards to Geneva.
His
ambitious father destined him first for the clerical profession. He secured for
him even in his twelfth year (1521) a part of the revenue of a chaplaincy in
the cathedral of Noyon.392
In his eighteenth year Calvin received, in addition, the charge of S.
Martin de Marteville (Sept. 27, 1527), although he had not yet the canonical
age, and had only received the tonsure.
Such
shocking irregularities were not uncommon in those days. Pluralism and
absenteeism, though often prohibited by Councils, were among the crying abuses
of the Church. Charles de Hangest, bishop of Noyon, obtained at fifteen years
of age a dispensation from the pope "to hold all kinds of offices,
compatible and incompatible, secular and regular, etiam tria curata "; and
his nephew and successor, Jean de Hangest, was elected bishop at nineteen years
of age. Odet de Châtillon, brother of the famous Coligny, was created cardinal
in his sixteenth year. Pope Leo X. received the tonsure as a boy of seven, was
made archbishop in his eighth, and cardinal-deacon in his thirteenth year (with
the reservation that he should not put on the insignia of his dignity nor
discharge the duties of his office till he was sixteen), besides being canon in
three cathedrals, rector in six parishes, prior in three convents, abbot in
thirteen additional abbeys, and bishop of Amalfi, deriving revenues from them
all!
Calvin
resigned the chaplaincy in favor of his younger brother, April 30, 1529. He
exchanged the charge of S. Martin for that of the village Pont-l’Evèque (the
birthplace of his father), July 5, 1529, but he resigned it, May 4, 1534,
before he left France. In the latter parish he preached sometimes, but never
administered the sacraments, not being ordained to the priesthood.393
The
income from the chaplaincy enabled him to prosecute his studies at Paris,
together with his noble companions. He entered the College de la Marche in
August, 1523, in his fourteenth year.394 He studied grammar and rhetoric with an experienced and
famous teacher, Marthurin Cordier (Cordatus). He learned from him to think and
to write Latin, and dedicated to him in grateful memory his Commentary on the
First Epistle to the Thessalonians (1550). Cordier became afterwards a
Protestant and director of the College of Geneva, where he died at the age of
eighty-five in the same year with Calvin (1564).395
From
the College de la Marche Calvin was transferred to the strictly ecclesiastical
College de Montague, in which philosophy and theology were taught under the
direction of a learned Spaniard. In February, 1528, Ignatius Loyola, the
founder of the order of the Jesuits, entered the same college and studied under
the same teacher. The leaders of the two opposite currents in the religious
movement of the sixteenth century came very near living under the same roof and
sitting at the same table.
Calvin
showed during this early period already the prominent traits of his character:
he was conscientious, studious, silent, retired, animated by a strict sense of
duty, and exceedingly religious.396
An uncertain tradition says that his fellow-students called him
"the Accusative," on account of his censoriousness.397
NOTES.
SLANDEROUS REPORTS ON CALVIN’S YOUTH.
Thirteen
years after Calvin’s death, Bolsec, his bitter enemy, once a Romanist, then a
Protestant, then a Romanist again, wrote a calumnious history of his life
(Histoire de la vie, moeurs, actes, doctrine, constance, et mort de Jean
Calvin, Lyon, 1577, republished by Louis-François Chastel, Magistrat, Lyon,
1875, pp. 323, with an introduction of xxxi. pp.). He represents Calvin as
"a man, above all others who lived in the world, ambitious, impudent,
arrogant, cruel, malicious, vindictive, and ignorant"(!) (p. 12).
Among
other incredible stories he reports that Calvin in his youth was stigmatized
(fleur-de-lysé, branded with the national flower of France) at Noyon in
punishment of a heinous crime, and then fled from France in disgrace. <foreign
lang="fr">"Calvin,"
he says (p. 28 sq.), "pourveu d’une cure et d’une chapelle, fut surprins
ou (et) convaincu Du peché de Sodomie, pour lequel il fut en danger de mort par
feu, comment est la commune peine de tel peché: mais que l’Evesque de laditte
ville [Noyon] par compassion feit moderer laditte peine en une marque de fleur
de lys chaude sur l’espaule. Iceluy Calvin confuz de telle vergongne et
vitupère, se defit de ses deux bénéfices es mains du curé de Noyon, duquel
ayant receu quelque somme d’argent s’en alla vers Allemaigne et Itallie:
cherchant son adventure, et passa par la ville de Ferrare, ou il receut quelque
aumone de Madame la Duchesse."</foreign> Bolsec gives as his
authority a Mr. Bertelier, secretary of the Council of Geneva, who, he says,
was sent to Noyon to make inquiries about the early life of Calvin, and saw the
document of his disgrace. But nobody else has seen such a document, and if it
had existed at all, it would have been used against him by his enemies. The
story is contradicted by all that is authentically known of Calvin, and has
been abundantly refuted by Drelincourt, and recently again by Lefranc (p. 48
sqq., 176–182). Kampschulte (I. 224, note 2) declares it unworthy of serious
refutation. Nevertheless it has been often repeated by Roman controversialists
down to Audin.
The
story is either a malignant slander, or it arose from confounding the Reformer
with a younger person of the same name (Jean Cauvin), and chaplain of the same
church at Noyon, who it appears was punished for some immorality of a different
kind ("pour avoir retenue en so maison une femme du mauvais
gouvernement") in the year 1550, that is, about twenty years later, and
who was no heretic, but died a "bon Catholic" (as Le Vasseur reports
in Annales de Noyon, p. 1170, quoted by Lefranc, p. 182). b.c. Galiffe, who is
unfriendly to Calvin, adopts the latter suggestion (Quelques pages d’histoire
exacte, p. 118).
Several
other myths were circulated about the Reformer; e.g., that he was the son of a
concubine of a priest; that he was an intemperate eater; that he stole a silver
goblet at Orleans, etc. See Lefranc, pp. 52 sqq.
Similar
perversions and inventions attach to many a great name. The Sanhedrin who
crucified the Lord circulated the story that the disciples stole his body and
cheated the world. The heretical Ebionites derived the conversion of Paul from
disappointed ambition and revenge for an alleged offence of the high-priest,
who had refused to give him his daughter in marriage. The long-forgotten myth
of Luther’s suicide has been seriously revived in our own age (1890) by Roman
Catholic priests (Majunke and Honef) in the interest of revived Ultramontanism,
and is believed by thousands in spite of repeated refutation.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="70" title="Calvin as a Student in the French Universities.
a.d. 1528–1533">
§ 70.
Calvin as a Student in the French Universities. a.d. 1528–1533.
The
letters of Calvin from 1530 to 1532, chiefly addressed to his fellow-student,
François Daniel of Orleans, edited by Jules Bonnet, in the Edinburgh ed. of
Calvin’s Letters, I. 3 sqq.; Herminjard, II. 278 sqq.; Opera, X. Part II. 3
sqq. His first letter to Daniel is dated "Melliani, 8 Idus
Septembr.," and is put by Herminjard and Reuss in the year 1530 (not
1529). Mellianum is Meillant, south of Bourges (and not to be confounded with
Meaux, as is done in the Edinburgh edition).
Comp.
Beza-Colladon, in Op. XXI. 54 sqq., 121 sqq. L. Bonnet: É tudes sur Calvin, in
the "Revue Chrétienne "for 1855. —Kampschulte, I. 226–240;M’Crie,
12–28;Lefranc, 72–108.
Calvin
received the best education—in the humanities, law, philosophy, and
theology—which France at that time could give. He studied successively in the
three leading universities of Orleans, Bourges, and Paris, from 1528 to 1533,
first for the priesthood, then, at the wish of his father, for the legal
profession, which promised a more prosperous career. After his father’s death,
he turned again with double zeal to the study of the humanities, and at last to
theology.
He
made such progress in learning that he occasionally supplied the place of the
professors. He was considered a doctor rather than an auditor.398 Years afterwards, the memory of his
prolonged night studies survived in Orleans and Bourges. By his excessive
industry he stored his memory with valuable information, but undermined his
health, and became a victim to headache, dyspepsia, and insomnia, of which he
suffered more or less during his subsequent life.399 While he avoided the noisy excitements and dissipations of
student life, he devoted his leisure to the duties and enjoyments of friendship
with like-minded fellow-students. Among them were three young lawyers,
Duchemin, Connan, and François Daniel, who felt the need of a reformation and
favored progress, but remained in the old Church. His letters from that period
are brief and terse; they reveal a love of order and punctuality, and a
conscientious regard for little as well as great things, but not a trace of
opposition to the traditional faith.
His
principal teacher in Greek and Hebrew was Melchior Volmar (Wolmar), a German
humanist of Rottweil, a pupil of Lefèvre, and successively professor in the
universities of Orleans and Bourges, and, at last, at Tübingen, where he died
in 1561. He openly sympathized with the Lutheran Reformation, and may have
exerted some influence upon his pupil in this direction, but we have no authentic
information about it.400
Calvin was very intimate with him, and could hardly avoid discussing
with him the religious question which was then shaking all Europe. In grateful
remembrance of his services he dedicated to him his Commentary on the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians (Aug. 1, 1546).401
His
teachers in law were the two greatest jurists of the age, Pierre d’Estoile
(Petrus Stella) at Orleans, who was conservative, and became President of the
Parliament of Paris, and Andrea Alciati at Bourges, a native of Milan, who was
progressive and continued his academic career in Bologna and Padua. Calvin took
an interest in the controversy of these rivals, and wrote a little preface to
the Antapologia of his friend, Nicholas Duchemin, in favor of d’Estoile.402 He acquired the degree of Licentiate or
Bachelor of Laws at Orleans, Feb. 14, 1531 (1532).403 On leaving the university he was
offered the degree of Doctor of Laws without the usual fees, by the unanimous
consent of the professors.404
He was consulted about the divorce question of Henry VIII., when it was
proposed to the universities and scholars of the Continent; and he gave his
opinion against the lawfulness of marriage with a brother’s widow.405 The study of jurisprudence sharpened
his judgment, enlarged his knowledge of human nature, and was of great
practical benefit to him in the organization and administration of the Church
in Geneva, but may have also increased his legalism and overestimate of logical
demonstration.
In
the summer of 1531, after a visit to Noyon, where he attended his father in his
last sickness, Calvin removed a second time to Paris, accompanied by his
younger brother, Antoine. He found there several of his fellow-students of
Orleans and Bourges; one of them offered him the home of his parents, but he
declined, and took up his abode in the College Fortet, where we find him again
in 1533. A part of the year he spent in Orleans.
Left
master of his fortune, he now turned his attention again chiefly to classical
studies. He attended the lectures of Pierre Danès, a Hellenist and
encyclopaedic scholar of great reputation.406
He
showed as yet no trace of opposition to the Catholic Church. His correspondence
refers to matters of friendship and business, but avoids religious questions.
When Daniel asked him to introduce his sister to the superior of a nunnery in
Paris which she wished to enter, he complied with the request, and made no
effort to change her purpose. He only admonished her not to confide in her own
strength, but to put her whole trust in God. This shows, at least, that he had
lost faith in the meritoriousness of vows and good works, and was approaching
the heart of the evangelical system.407
He
associated much with a rich and worthy merchant, Estienne de la Forge, who
afterwards was burned for the sake of the Gospel (1535).
He
seems to have occasionally suffered in Paris of pecuniary embarrassment. The
income from his benefices was irregular, and he had to pay for the printing of
his first book. At the close of 1531 he borrowed two crowns from his friend,
Duchemin. He expressed a hope soon to discharge his debt, but would none the
less remain a debtor in gratitude for the services of friendship.
It
is worthy of remark that even those of his friends who refused to follow him in
his religious change, remained true to him. This is an effective refutation of
the charge of coldness so often made against him. François Daniel of Orleans
renewed the correspondence in 1559, and entrusted to him the education of his
son Pierre, who afterwards became an advocate and bailiff of Saint-Benoit near
Orleans.408
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="71" title="Calvin as a Humanist. Commentary on
Seneca">
§ 71.
Calvin as a Humanist. Commentary on Seneca.
"L.
Annei Se | necae, Romani Senato | ris, ac philosophi clarissi | mi, libri duo
de Clementia, ad Ne | ronem Caesarem: | Joannis Caluini Nouiodunaei
commentariis illustrati ... | Parisiis ... 1532." 4°). Reprinted 1576,
1597, 1612, and, from the ed. princeps, in Opera, vol. V. (1866) pp. 5–162. The
commentary is preceded by a dedicatory epistle, a sketch of the life of Seneca.
H.
Lecoultre: Calvin d’après son commentaire sur le "De Clementia" de
Sénèque (1532). Lausanne, 1891 (pp. 29).
In
April, 1532, Calvin, in his twenty-third year, ventured before the public with
his first work, which was printed at his own expense, and gave ample proof of
his literary taste and culture. It is a commentary on Seneca’s book On Mercy.
He announced its appearance to Daniel with the words, "Tandem jacta est
alea." He sent a copy to
Erasmus, who had published the works of Seneca in 1515 and 1529. He calls him
"the honor and delight of the world of letters."409 It is dedicated to Claude de Hangest,
his former schoolmate of the Mommor family, at that time abbot of St. Eloy
(Eligius) at Noyon.
This
book moves in the circle of classical philology and moral philosophy, and
reveals a characteristic love for the best type of Stoicism, great familiarity
with Greek and Roman literature.410 masterly Latinity, rare exegetical skill,
clear and sound judgment, and a keen insight into the evils of despotism and
the defects of the courts of justice, but makes no allusion to Christianity. It
is remarkable that his first book was a commentary on a moral philosopher who
came nearer to the apostle Paul than any heathen writer.
It
is purely the work of a humanist, not of an apologist or a reformer. There is
no evidence that it was intended to be an indirect plea for toleration and
clemency in behalf of the persecuted Protestants. It is not addressed to the
king of France, and the implied comparison of Francis with Nero in the
incidental reference to the Neronian persecution would have defeated such a
purpose.411
Calvin,
like Melanchthon and Zwingli, started as a humanist, and, like them, made the
linguistic and literary culture of the Renaissance tributary to the
Reformation. They all admired Erasmus until he opposed the Reformation, for
which he had done so much to prepare the way. They went boldly forward, when he
timidly retreated. They loved religion more than letters. They admired the
heathen classics, but they followed the apostles and evangelists as guides to
the higher wisdom of God.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="72" title="Calvin’s Conversion.
1532">
§ 72.
Calvin’s Conversion. 1532.
Preface
to his Commentary on the Psalms (Opera, XXXI. 21, 22, Latin and French in
parallel columns), and his Reply to Sadolet (Opera, V. 389). See above, p. 296.
Henry,
I. ch. II. Stähelin, I. l6–28. Kampschulte, I. 230. Lefranc, 96 sqq.
A
brilliant career—as a humanist, or a lawyer, or a churchman—opened before
Calvin, when he suddenly embraced the cause of the Reformation, and cast in his
lot with a poor persecuted sect.
Reformation
was in the air. The educated classes could not escape its influence. The seed
sown by Lefèvre had sprung up in France. The influence from Germany and
Switzerland made itself felt more and more. The clergy opposed the new
opinions, the men of letters favored them. Even the court was divided: King
Francis I. persecuted the Protestants; his sister, Marguerite d’Angoulème,
queen of Navarre, protected them. How could a young scholar of such precocious
mind and intense studiousness as Calvin be indifferent to the religious
question which agitated the universities of Orleans, Bourges, and Paris? He must have searched the Scriptures
long and carefully before he could acquire such familiarity as he shows already
in his first theological writings.
He
speaks of his conversion as a sudden one (subita conversio), but this does not
exclude previous preparation any more than in the case of Paul.412 A city may be taken by a single
assault, yet after a long siege. Calvin was not an unbeliever, nor an immoral
youth; on the contrary, he was a devout Catholic of unblemished character. His
conversion, therefore, was a change from Romanism to Protestantism, from papal
superstition to evangelical faith, from scholastic traditionalism to biblical
simplicity. He mentions no human agency, not even Volmar or Olivetan or Lefèvre.
"God himself," he says, "produced the change. He instantly
subdued my heart to obedience."
Absolute obedience of his intellect to the word of God, and obedience of
his will to the will of God: this was the soul of his religion. He strove in
vain to attain peace of conscience by the mechanical methods of Romanism, and
was driven to a deeper sense of sin and guilt. "Only one haven of
salvation," he says, "is left open for our souls, and that is the
mercy of God in Christ. We are saved by grace—not by our merits, not by our
works." Reverence for the
Church kept him back for some time till he learned to distinguish the true,
invisible, divine essence of the Church from its outward, human form and organization.
Then the knowledge of the truth, like a bright light from heaven, burst upon
his mind with such force, that there was nothing left for him but to obey the
voice from heaven. He consulted not with flesh and blood, and burned the bridge
behind him.
The
precise time and place and circumstances of this great change are not
accurately known. He was very reticent about himself. It probably occurred at
Orleans or Paris in the latter part of the year 1532.413 In a letter of October, 1533, to
Francis Daniel, he first speaks of the Reformation in Paris, the rage of the
Sorbonne, and the satirical comedy against the queen of Navarre.414 In November of the same year he
publicly attacked the Sorbonne. In a familiar letter to Bucer in Strassburg,
which is dated from Noyon, Sept. 4 (probably in 1534), he recommends a French
refugee, falsely accused of holding the opinions of the Anabaptists, and says,
"I entreat of you, master Bucer, if my prayers, if my tears are of any
avail, that you would compassionate and help him in his wretchedness. The poor
are left in a special manner to your care; you are the helper of the orphan....
Most learned Sir, farewell; thine from my heart."415
There
never was a change of conviction purer in motive, more radical in character,
more fruitful and permanent in result. It bears a striking resemblance to that
still greater event near Damascus, which transformed a fanatical Pharisee into
an apostle of Jesus Christ. And, indeed, Calvin was not unlike St. Paul in his
intellectual and moral constitution; and the apostle of sovereign grace and
evangelical freedom had not a more sympathetic expounder than Luther and
Calvin.416
Without
any intention or effort on his part, Calvin became the head of the evangelical
party in less than a year after his conversion. Seekers of the truth came to
him from all directions. He tried in vain to escape them. Every quiet retreat
was turned into a school. He comforted and strengthened the timid brethren in
their secret meetings of devotion. He avoided all show of learning, but, as the
old Chronicle of the French Reformed Church reports, he showed such depth of
knowledge and such earnestness of speech that no one could hear him without
being forcibly impressed. He usually began and closed his exhortations with the
word of Paul, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" This is the keynote of his theology and
piety.
He
remained for the present in the Catholic Church. His aim was to reform it from
within rather than from without, until circumstances compelled him to leave.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="73" title="Calvin’s Call">
§ 73.
Calvin’s Call.
As in
the case of Paul, Calvin’s call to his life-work coincided with his conversion,
and he proved it by his labors. "By their fruits ye shall know them."
We
must distinguish between an ordinary and an extraordinary call, or the call to
the ministry of the gospel, and the call to reform the Church. The ordinary
ministry is necessary for the being, the extraordinary for the well-being, of
the Church. The former corresponds to the priesthood in the Jewish
dispensation, and continues in unbroken succession; the latter resembles the
mission of the prophets, and appears sporadically in great emergencies. The
office of a reformer comes nearest the office of an apostle. There are founders
of the Church universal, as Peter and Paul; so there are founders of particular
churches, as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Zinzendorf, Wesley; but none of the
Reformers was infallible.
1.
All the Reformers were born, baptized, confirmed, and educated in the historic
Catholic Church, which cast them out; as the Apostles were circumcised and
trained in the Synagogue, which cast them out. They never doubted the validity
of the Catholic ordinances, and rejected the idea of re-baptism. Distinguishing
between the divine substance and the human addition, Calvin said of his
baptism, "I renounce the chrism, but retain the baptism."417
The
Reformers were also ordained priests in the Roman Church, except Melanchthon
and Calvin,—the greatest theologians among them. A remarkable exception.
Melanchthon remained a layman all his life; yet his authority to teach is
undoubted. Calvin became a regular minister; but how?
He
was, as we have seen, intended and educated for the Roman priesthood, and early
received the clerical tonsure.418
He also held two benefices, and preached sometimes in Pont l’Evèque, and
also in Lignières, a little town near Bourges, where he made the impression
that, he preached better than the monks."419
But
he never read mass, and never entered the higher orders, properly so called.
After
he left the Roman Church, there was no Evangelical bishop in France to ordain
him; the bishops, so far, all remained in the old Church, except two or three
in East Prussia and Sweden. If the validity of the Christian ministry depended
on an unbroken succession of diocesan bishops, which again depends on
historical proof, it would be difficult to defend the Reformation and to resist
the claims of Rome. But the Reformers planted themselves on the promise of
Christ, the ever-present head of the Church, who is equally near to his people
in any age. They rejected the Roman Catholic idea of ordination as a divinely
instituted sacrament, which can only be performed by bishops, and which confers
priestly powers of offering sacrifice and dispensing absolution. They taught
the general priesthood of believers, and fell back upon the internal call of
the Holy Spirit and the external call of the Christian people. Luther, in his
earlier writings, lodged the power of the keys in the congregation, and
identified ordination with vocation. "Whoever is called," he says,
"is ordained, and must preach: this is our Lord’s consecration and true
chrism." He even consecrated,
by a bold irregularity, his friend Amsdorf as superintendent of Naumburg, to
show that he could make a bishop as well as the pope, and could do it without
the use of consecrated oil.
Calvin
was regularly elected pastor and teacher of theology at Geneva in 1536 by the
presbyters and the council, with the consent of the whole people.420
This
popular election was a revival of the primitive custom. The greatest bishops of
the early Church—such as Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustin—were elected by the
voice of the people, which they obeyed as the voice of God.
We
are not informed whether Calvin was solemnly introduced into his office by
prayer and the laying on of the hands of presbyters (such as Farel and Viret),
after the apostolic custom (<scripRef passage = "1 Tim.
4:14">1
Tim. 4:14</scripRef>), which is observed in the
Reformed Churches. He did not regard ordination as absolutely indispensable,
but as a venerable rite sanctioned by the practice of the Apostles which has
the force of a precept.421
He even ascribed to it a semi-sacramental character. "The
imposition of hands," he says, "which is used at the introduction of
the true presbyters and ministers of the Church into their office, I have no
objection to consider as a sacrament; for, in the first place, that sacrament
is taken from the Scripture, and, in the next place, it is declared by Paul to
be not unnecessary or useless, but a faithful symbol of spiritual grace (<scripRef passage
= "1 Tim. 4:14">1 Tim. 4:14</scripRef>). I have not enumerated it
as a third among the sacraments, because it is not ordinary or common to all
the faithful, but a special rite for a particular office. The ascription of
this honor to the Christian ministry, however, furnishes no reason of pride in
Roman priests; for Christ has commanded the ordination of ministers to dispense
his Gospel and his mysteries, not the inauguration of priests to offer
sacrifices. He has commissioned them to preach the Gospel and to feed his
flock, and not to immolate victims."422
The
evangelical ministry in the non-episcopal Churches was of necessity
presbyterial, that is, descended from the, Presbyterate, which was originally
identical with the episcopate. Even the Church of England, during her formative
period under the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, recognized the validity of
presbyterial ordination, not only in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches of the
Continent, but within her own jurisdiction, as in the cases of Peter Martyr,
professor of theology at Oxford; Bucer, Fagius, and Cartwright, professors at
Cambridge; John à Lasco, pastor in London; Dean Whittingham of Durham, and many
others.423
2.
But whence did Calvin and the other Reformers derive their authority to reform
the old Catholic Church and to found new Churches? Here we must resort to a special divine call and outfit. The
Reformers belong not to the regular order of priests, but to the irregular
order of prophets whom God calls directly by his Spirit from the plough or the
shepherd’s staff or the workshop or the study. So he raises and endows men with
rare genius for poetry or art or science or invention or discovery. All good
gifts come from God; but the gift of genius is exceptional, and cannot be
derived or propagated by ordinary descent. There are divine irregularities as
well as divine regularities. God writes on a crooked as well as on a straight
line. Even Paul was called out of due time, and did not seek ordination from
Peter or any other apostle, but derived his authority directly from Christ, and
proved his ministry by the abundance of his labors.
In
the apostolic age there were apostles, prophets, and evangelists for the Church
at large, and presbyter-bishops and deacons for particular congregations. The
former are considered extraordinary officers. But their race is not yet
extinct, any more than the race of men of genius in any other sphere of life.
They arise whenever and wherever they are needed.
We
are bound to the ordinary means of grace, but God is free, and his Spirit works
when, where, and how he pleases. God calls ordinary men for ordinary work in
the ordinary way; and he calls extraordinary men for extraordinary work in an
extraordinary way. He has done so in times past, and will do so to the end of
time.424
Hooker,
the most "judicious" of Anglican divines, says: Though thousands were
debtors to Calvin, as touching divine knowledge, yet he was to none, only to
God."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="74" title="The Open Rupture. An Academic Oration.
1533">
§ 74.
The Open Rupture. An Academic Oration. 1533.
Calv.
Opera, X. P. I. 30; XXI. 123, 129, 192. A very graphic account by Merle
D’Aubigné, bk. II. ch. xxx. (vol. II. 264–284).
For a
little while matters seemed to take a favorable turn at the court for reform.
The reactionary conduct of the Sorbonne and the insult offered to Queen
Marguerite by the condemnation of her "Mirror of a Sinful Soul,"—a
tender and monotonous mystic reverie,425 — offended her brother and
the liberal members of the University. Several preachers who sympathized with a
moderate reformation, Gérard Roussel, and the Augustinians, Bertault and
Courault, were permitted to ascend the pulpit in Paris.426 The king himself, by his opposition to
the German emperor, and his friendship with Henry VIII., incurred the suspicion
of aiding the cause of heresy and schism. He tried, from political motives and
regard for his sister, to conciliate between the conservative and progressive
parties. He even authorized the invitation of Melanchthon to Paris as
counsellor, but Melanchthon wisely declined.
Nicolas
Cop, the son of a distinguished royal physician (William Cop of Basel), and a
friend of Calvin, was elected Rector of the University, Oct. 10, 1533, and
delivered the usual inaugural oration on All Saint’s Day, Nov. 1, before a
large assembly in the Church of the Mathurins.427
This
oration, at the request of the new Rector, had been prepared by Calvin. It was
a plea for a reformation on the basis of the New Testament, and a bold attack
on the scholastic theologians of the day, who were represented as a set of
sophists, ignorant of the Gospel. "They teach nothing," says Calvin,
"of faith, nothing of the love of God, nothing of the remission of sins,
nothing of grace, nothing of justification; or if they do so, they pervert and
undermine it all by their laws and sophistries. I beg you, who are here
present, not to tolerate any longer these heresies and abuses."428
The
Sorbonne and the Parliament regarded this academic oration as a manifesto of
war upon the Catholic Church, and condemned it to the flames. Cop was warned
and fled to his relatives in Basel.429 Calvin, the real author of the mischief, is said to have
descended from a window by means of sheets, and escaped from Paris in the garb
of a vine-dresser with a hoe upon his shoulder. His rooms were searched and his
books and papers were seized by the police.430
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="75" title="Persecution of the Protestants in Paris.
1534">
§ 75.
Persecution of the Protestants in Paris. 1534.
Beza
in Vita Calv., vol. XXI. 124.—Jean Crespin: Livre des Martyrs, Genève,
1570.—The report of the Bourgeois de Paris.—Gerdesius, IV. Mon. 11. Henry, I.
74; II. 333.—Dyer, I. 29.—Polenz, I. 282.—Kampschulte, I. 243.—"Bulletin
de la Soc. de l’hist. du Prot. franç.," X. 34; XI. 253.
This
storm might have blown over without doing much harm. But in the following year
the reaction was greatly strengthened by the famous placards, which gave it the
name of "the year of placards."
An over-zealous, fanatical Protestant by the name of Feret, a servant of
the king’s apothecary, placarded a tract "on the horrible, great,
intolerable abuses of the popish mass," throughout Paris and even at the
door of the royal chamber at Fontainebleau, where the king was then residing,
in the night of Oct. 18, 1534. In this placard the mass is described as a
blasphemous denial of the one and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ; while the
pope, with all his brood (toute sa vermine) of cardinals, bishops, priests, and
monks, are denounced as hypocrites and servants of Antichrist.431
All
moderate Protestants deplored this untimely outburst of radicalism. It retarded
and almost ruined the prospects of the Reformation in France. The best cause
may be undone by being overdone.
The
king was highly and justly incensed, and ordered the imprisonment of all
suspected persons. The prisons were soon filled. To purge the city from the
defilement caused by this insult to the holy mass and the hierarchy, a most
imposing procession was held from the Louvre to Notre Dame, on Jan. 29, 1535.
The image of St. Geneviève, the patroness of Paris, was carried through the
streets: the archbishop, with the host under a magnificent däis, and the king
with his three sons, bare-headed, on foot, a burning taper in their hands,
headed the procession, and were followed by the princes, cardinals, bishops,
priests, ambassadors, and the great officers of the State and of the
University, walking two and two abreast, in profound silence, with lighted
torches. Solemn mass was performed in the cathedral. Then the king dined with
the prelates and dignitaries, and declared that he would not hesitate to behead
any one of his own children if found guilty of these new, accursed heresies,
and to offer them as a sacrifice to divine justice.
The
gorgeous solemnities of the day wound up with a horrible autodafé of six
Protestants: they were suspended by a rope to a machine, let down into burning
flames, again drawn up, and at last precipitated into the fire. They died like
heroes. The more educated among them had their tongues slit. Twenty-four
innocent Protestants were burned alive in public places of the city from Nov.
10, 1534, till May 5, 1535. Among them was Etienne de la Forge (Stephanus
Forgeus), an intimate friend of Calvin. Many more were fined, imprisoned, and
tortured, and a considerable number, among them Calvin and Du Tillet, fled to
Strassburg.432
These
cruelties were justified or excused by charges of heresy, immorality, and
disloyalty, and by a reference to the excesses of a fanatical wing of the
Anabaptists in Münster, which took place in the same year.433 But the Huguenots were then, as their
descendants have always been, and are now, among the most intelligent, moral,
and orderly citizens of France.434
The
Sorbonne urged the king to put a stop to the printing-press (Jan. 13, 1535). He
agreed to a temporary suspension (Feb. 26). Afterwards censors were appointed,
first by Parliament, then by the clergy (1542). The press stimulated free
thought and was stimulated by it in turn. Before 1500, four millions of volumes
(mostly in folio) were printed; from 1500 to 1536, seventeen millions; after
that time the number is beyond calculation.435 The printing-press is as necessary for liberty as
respiration for health. Some air is good, some bad; but whether good or bad, it
is the condition of life.
This
persecution was the immediate occasion of Calvin’s Institutes, and the
forerunner of a series of persecutions which culminated under the reign of
Louis XIV., and have made the Reformed Church of France a Church of martyrs.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="76" title="Calvin as a Wandering Evangelist.
1533–1536">
§ 76.
Calvin as a Wandering Evangelist. 1533–1536.
For
nearly three years Calvin wandered as a fugitive evangelist under assumed names436
from place to place in Southern France, Switzerland, Italy, till he reached
Geneva as his final destination. It is impossible accurately to determine all
the facts and dates in this period.
He
resigned his ecclesiastical benefices at Noyon and Pont l’Evèque, May 4, 1534,
and thus closed all connection with the Roman Church.437 That year was remarkable for the
founding of the order of the Jesuits at Montmartre (Aug. 15), which took the
lead in the Counter-Reformation; by the election of Pope Paul III. (Alexander
Farnese, Oct. 13), who confirmed the order, excommunicated Henry VIII., and established
the Inquisition in Italy; and by the bloody persecution of the Protestants in
Paris, which has been described in the preceding section.438
The
Roman Counter-Reformation now began in earnest, and called for a consolidation
of the Protestant forces.
Calvin
spent the greater part of the year 1533 to 1534, under the protection of Queen
Marguerite of Navarre, in her native city of Angoulême. This highly gifted lady
(1492–1549), the sister of King Francis I., grandmother of Henry IV., and a
voluminous writer in verse and prose, was a strange mixture of piety and
liberalism, of idealism and sensualism. She patronized both the Reformation and
the Renaissance, Calvin and Rabelais; she wrote the Mirror of a Sinful Soul,
and also the Heptameron in professed imitation of Boccaccio’s Decamerone; yet
she was pure, and began and closed the day with religious meditation and
devotion. After the death of her royal brother (1547), she retired to a convent
as abbess, and declared on her death-bed that, after receiving extreme unction,
she had protected the Reformers out of pure compassion, and not from any wish
to depart from the faith of her ancestors.439
Calvin
lived at Angoulême with a wealthy friend, Louis du Tillet, who was canon of the
cathedral and curé of Claix, and had acquired on his journeys a rare library of
three or four thousand volumes.440
He taught him Greek, and prosecuted his theological studies. He
associated with honorable men of letters, and was highly esteemed by them.441 He began there the preparation of his
Institutes.442 He also aided
Olivetan in the revision and completion of the French translation of the Bible,
which appeared at Neuchâtel in June, 1535, with a preface of Calvin.443
From
Angoulême Calvin made excursions to Nérac, Poitiers, Orleans, and Paris. At
Nérac in Béarn, the little capital of Queen Marguerite, he became personally
acquainted with Le Fèvre d’Étaples (Faber Stapulensis), the octogenarian
patriarch of French Humanism and Protestantism. Le Fèvre, with prophetic
vision, recognized in the young scholar the future restorer of the Church of
France.444 Perhaps he also
suggested to him to take Melanchthon for his model.445 Roussel, the chaplain and confessor of
Marguerite, advised him to purify the house of God, but not to destroy it.
At
Poitiers, Calvin gained several eminent persons for the Reformation. According
to an uncertain tradition he celebrated with a few friends, for the first time,
the Lord’s Supper after the Reformed fashion, in a cave (grotte de Croutelles)
near the town, which long afterwards was called "Calvin’s Cave."446
Towards
the close of the year 1534, he ventured on a visit to Paris. There he met, for
the first time, the Spanish physician, Michael Servetus, who had recently
published his heretical book On the Errors of the Trinity, and challenged him
to a disputation. Calvin accepted the challenge at the risk of his safety, and
waited for him in a house in the Rue Saint Antoine; but Servetus did not
appear. Twenty years afterwards he reminded Servetus of this interview:
"You know that at that time I was ready to do everything for you, and did
not even count my life too dear that I might convert you from your
errors." Would that he had
succeeded at that time, or never seen the unfortunate heretic again.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="77" title="The Sleep of the Soul. 1534">
§ 77.
The Sleep of the Soul. 1534.
Psychopannychia.
Aureliae, 1534; 2d and revised ed. Basel, 1536; 3d ed. Strassburg, 1542; French
trans. Paris, 1558; republished in Opera, vol. V. 165–232.—Comp. the analysis
of Stähelin, I. 36–40, and La France Prot. III. 549. English translation in
Calvin’s Tracts, III. 413–490.
Before
Calvin left France, he wrote, at Orleans, 1534, his first theological book,
entitled Psychopannychia, or the Sleep of the Soul. He refutes in it the
hypothesis entertained by some Anabaptists, of the sleep of the soul between
death and resurrection, and proves the unbroken and conscious communion of
believers with Christ, their living Head. He appeals no more to philosophy and
the classics, as in his earlier book on Seneca, but solely to the Scriptures,
as the only rule of faith. Reason can give us no light on the future world, which
lies beyond our experience.
He
wished to protect, by this book, the evangelical Protestants against the charge
of heresy and vagary. They were often confounded with the Anabaptists who
roused in the same year the wrath of all the German princes by the excesses of
a radical and fanatical faction at Münster.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="78" title="Calvin at Basel. 1535 to 1536">
§ 78.
Calvin at Basel. 1535 to 1536.
The
outbreak of the bloody persecution, in October, 1534, induced Calvin to leave
his native land and to seek safety in free Switzerland. He was accompanied by
his friend and pupil, Louis du Tillet, who followed him as far as Geneva, and
remained with him till the end of August, 1537, when he returned to France and
to the Roman Church.447
The
travellers passed through Lorraine. On the frontier of Germany, near Metz, they
were robbed by an unfaithful servant. They arrived utterly destitute at
Strassburg, then a city of refuge for French Protestants. They were kindly
received and aided by Bucer.
After
a few days’ rest they proceeded to Basel, their proper destination. There Farel
had found a hospitable home in 1524, and Cop and Courault ten years later.
Calvin wished a quiet place for study where he could promote the cause of the
Gospel by his pen. He lodged with his friend in the house of Catharina Klein
(Petita), who thirty years afterwards was the hostess of another famous
refugee, the philosopher, Petrus Ramus, and spoke to him with enthusiasm of the
young Calvin, "the light of France."448
He
was kindly welcomed by Simon Grynaeus and Wolfgang Capito, the heads of the
university. He prosecuted with Grynaeus his study of the Hebrew. He dedicated
to him in gratitude his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1539). He
became acquainted also with Bullinger of Zürich, who attended the conference of
Reformed Swiss divines for the preparation of the first Helvetic Confession
(1536).449
According
to a Roman Catholic report, Calvin, in company with Bucer, had a personal
interview with Erasmus, to whom three years before he had sent a copy of his
commentary on Seneca with a high compliment to his scholarship. The veteran
scholar is reported to have said to Bucer on that occasion that "a great
pestilence was arising in the Church against the Church."450 But Erasmus was too polite, thus to
insult a stranger. Moreover, he was then living at Freiburg in Germany and had
broken off all intercourse with Protestants. When he returned to Basel in July,
1536, on his way to the Netherlands, he took sick and died; and at that time
Calvin was in Italy. The report therefore is an idle fiction.451
Calvin
avoided publicity and lived in scholarly seclusion. He spent in Basel a year
and a few months, from January, 1535, till about March, 1536.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="79" title="Calvin’s Institutes of the
Christian Religion">
§ 79.
Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.
1.
The full title of the first edition is "Christia | nae Religionis Insti |
tutio totam fere pietatis summam et quic | quid est in doctrina salutis cognitu
ne- | cessarium, complectens: omnibus pie | tatis studiosis lectu dignissi |
mum opus, ac re- | cens edi- | tum. | Praefatio| ad Chri | stianissimum Regem Francae, qua | hic ei liber pro
confessione fidei | offertur. | Joanne Calvino | Nouiodunensi authore. |
Basileae, | M. D. XXXVI." The
dedicatory Preface is dated ’X. Calendas Septembres’ (i.e. August 23), without
the year; but at the close of the book the month of March, 1536, is given as
the date of publication. The first two French editions (1541 and 1545)
supplement the date of the Preface correctly: "De Basle le
vingt-troysiesme d’Aoust mil cinq cent trente cinq." The manuscript, then, was completed in
August, 1535, but it took nearly a year to print it.
2.
The last improved edition from the pen of the author (the fifth Latin) is a
thorough reconstruction, and bears the title: "Institutio Chri | stianae
Religionis, in libros qua | tuor nunc primum digesta, certisque distincta capitibus,
ad aptissimam | methodum: aucta etiam tam magna accessione ut propemodum opus |
novum haberi possit. | Joanne Calvino authore. | Oliva Roberti Stephani. |
Genevae. | M. D. LIX." The
subsequent Latin editions are reprints of the ed. of 1559, with an index by
Nic. Colladon, another by Marlorat. The Elzevir ed. Leyden, 1654, fol., was
especially esteemed for its beauty and accuracy. A convenient modern ed. by
Tholuck (Berlin, 1834, 2d ed. 1846).
3.
The first French edition appeared without the name and place of the printer
(probably Michel du Bois at Geneva), under the title: "Institution de la
religion chrestienne en laquelle est comprinse une somme de piété.... composée
en latin par J. Calvin et translatée par luy mesme. Avec la préface addressée
au tres chrestien Roy de France, François premier de ce nom: par laquelle ce
présent livre luy esi offert pour confession de Foy. M. D. XLI." 822 pp. 8°, 2d ed. Genève, Jean Girard,
1545; 3d ed. 1551; 4th ed. 1553; 5th ed. 1554; 6th ed. 1557; 7th ed. 1560, in
fol.; 8th ed. 1561, in 8°; 9th ed. 1561, in 4°; 10th ed. 1562, etc.; 15th ed.
Geneva, 1564. Elzevir ed. Leyden, 1654.
4.
The Strassburg editors devote the first four volumes to the different editions
of the Institutes in both languages. Vol, I. contains the editio princeps
Latina of Basel, 1536 (pp. 10–247), and the variations of six editions
intervening between the first and the last, viz., the Strassburg editions of
1539, 1543, 1545, and the Geneva editions of 1550, 1553, 1554 (pp. 253–1152);
vol. II., the editio postrema of 1559 (pp. 1–1118); vols. III. and IV., the
last edition of the French translation, or free reproduction rather (1560),
with the variations of former editions.
5.
The question of the priority of the Latin or French text is now settled in
favor of the former. See Jules Bonnet, in the Bulletin de la Société de
l’histoire du protestantisme français for 1858, vol. VI. p. 137 sqq., Stähelin,
vol. I. p. 55, and the Strassburg editors of the Opera, in the ample
Prolegomena to vols. I. and III. Calvin himself says expressly (in the Preface
to his French ed. 1541), that he first wrote the Institutes in Latin
("premièrement l’ay mis en latin"), for readers of all nations, and
that he translated or reproduced them afterwards for the special benefit of
Frenchmen ("l’ay aussi translaté en notre langage"). In a letter to
his friend, François Daniel, dated Lausanne, Oct. 13, 1536, he writes that he
began the French translation soon after the publication of the Latin (Letters,
ed. Bonnet, vol. I. p. 21), but it did not appear till 1541, under the title
given above. The erroneous assertion of a French original, so often repeated
(by Bayle, Maimbourg, Basnage, and more recently by Henry, vol. I. p. 104; III.
p. 177; Dorner, Gesch. der protest. Theol. p. 375; also by Guizot, H. B. Smith,
and Dyer), arose from confounding the date of the Preface as given in the
French editions (23 Aug., 1535), with the later date of publication (March,
1536). It is quite possible, however, that the dedication to Francis I. was
first written in French, and this would most naturally account for the earlier
date in the French editions.
6. On
the differences of the several editions, comp. J. Thomas: Histoire de l’instit.
chrétienne de J. Calv. Strasbourg, 1859. Alex. Schweizer: Centraldogmen, I. 150
sqq. (Zürich, 1854). Köstlin: Calvin’s Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in the
"Studien und Kritiken" for 1868.
7. On
the numerous translations, see above, pp. 225, 265; Henry, Vol. III. Beilagen,
178–189; and La France Prot. III. 553.
In the
ancient and venerable city of Basel, on the borders of Switzerland, France, and
Germany—the residence of Erasmus and Oecolampadius, the place where a
reformatory council had met in 1430, and where the first Greek Testament was
printed in 1516 from manuscripts of the university library John Calvin, then a
mere youth of twenty-six years, and an exile from his native land, finished and
published, twenty years after the first print of the Greek Testament, his
Institutes of the Christian Religion, by which he astonished the world and took
at once the front rank among the literary champions of the evangelical faith.
This
book is the masterpiece of a precocious genius of commanding intellectual and
spiritual depth and power. It is one of the few truly classical productions in
the history of theology, and has given its author the double title of the
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas of the Reformed Church.452
The
Roman Catholics at once perceived the significance of the Institutio, and
called it the Koran and Talmud of heresy.453 It was burned by order of the Sorbonne at Paris and other
places, and more fiercely and persistently persecuted than any book of the
sixteenth century; but, we must add, it has found also great admirers among
Catholics who, while totally dissenting from its theological system and
antipopish temper, freely admit its great merits in the non-polemical parts.454
The
Evangelicals greeted the Institutio at once with enthusiastic praise as the
clearest, strongest, most logical, and most convincing defence of Christian
doctrines since the days of the apostles. A few weeks after its publication
Bucer wrote to the author: "It is evident that the Lord has elected you as
his organ for the bestowment of the richest fulness of blessing to his
Church."455
Nor
is this admiration confined to orthodox Protestants. Dr. Baur, the founder of
the Tübingen school of historical critics, declares this book of Calvin to be
"in every respect a truly classical work, distinguished in a high degree
by originality and acuteness of conception, systematic consistency, and clear,
luminous method."456
And Dr. Hase pointedly calls it "the grandest scientific
justification of Augustinianism, full of religious depth with inexorable
consistency of thought."457
The
Institutio is not a book for the people, and has not the rousing power which
Luther’s Appeal to the German Nobility, and his tract on Christian Freedom
exerted upon the Germans; but it is a book for scholars of all nations, and had
a deeper and more lasting effect upon them than any work of the Reformers.
Edition followed edition, and translations were made into nearly all the
languages of Europe.458
Calvin
gives a systematic exposition of the Christian religion in general, and a
vindication of the evangelical faith in particular, with the apologetic and
practical aim of defending the Protestant believers against calumny and
persecution to which they were then exposed, especially in France. He writes
under the inspiration of a heroic faith that is ready for the stake, and with a
glowing enthusiasm for the pure Gospel of Christ, which had been obscured and
deprived of its effect by human traditions, but had now risen from this rubbish
to new life and power. He combines dogmatics and ethics in organic unity.
He
plants himself firmly on the immovable rock of the Word of God, as the only
safe guide in matters of faith and duty. He exhibits on every page a thorough,
well-digested knowledge of Scripture which is truly astonishing. He does not
simply quote from it as a body of proof texts, in a mechanical way, like the
scholastic dogmaticians of the seventeenth century, but he views it as an
organic whole, and weaves it into his system. He bases the authority of
Scripture on its intrinsic excellency and the testimony of the Holy Spirit
speaking through it to the believer. He makes also judicious and discriminating
use of the fathers, especially St. Augustin, not as judges but as witnesses of
the truth, and abstains from those depreciatory remarks in which Luther
occasionally indulged when, instead of his favorite dogma of justification by
faith, he found in them much ascetic monkery and exaltation of human merit. "They
overwhelm us," says Calvin, in the dedicatory Preface, "with
senseless clamors, as despisers and enemies of the fathers. But if it were
consistent with my present design, I could easily support by their suffrages
most of the sentiments that we now maintain. Yet while we make use of their
writings, we always remember that ’all things are ours,’ to serve us, not to
have dominion over us, and that ’we are Christ’s alone’ (<scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 3:21–23">1 Cor. 3:21–23</scripRef>), and owe him universal
obedience. He who neglects this distinction will have nothing certain in
religion; since those holy men were ignorant of many things, frequently at
variance with each other, and sometimes even inconsistent with
themselves." He also fully
recognizes the indispensable use of reason in the apprehension and defence of
truth and the refutation of error, and excels in the power of severe logical
argumentation; while he is free from scholastic dryness and pedantry. But he
subordinates reason and tradition to the supreme authority of Scripture as he
understands it.
The
style is luminous and forcible. Calvin had full command of the majesty,
dignity, and elegance of the Latin Ianguage. The discussion flows on
continuously and melodiously like a river of fresh water through green meadows
and sublime mountain scenery. The whole work is well proportioned. It is
pervaded by intense earnestness and fearless consistency which commands respect
even where his arguments fail to carry conviction, or where we feel offended by
the contemptuous tone of his polemics, or feel a shudder at his decretum
horribile.
Calvin’s
system of doctrine agrees with the (ecumenical creeds in theology and
Christology; with Augustinianism in anthropology and soteriology, but dissents
from the mediaeval tradition in ecclesiology, sacramentology, and eschatology.
We shall discuss the prominent features of this system in the chapter on
Calvin’s Theology.
The
Institutio was dedicated to King Francis I. of France (1494–1547), who at that
time cruelly persecuted his Protestant subjects. As Justin Martyr and other
early Apologists addressed the Roman emperors in behalf of the despised and
persecuted sect of the Christians, vindicating them against the foul charges of
atheism, immorality, and hostility to Caesar, and pleading for toleration, so
Calvin appealed to the French monarch in defence of his Protestant countrymen,
then a small sect, as much despised, calumniated, and persecuted, and as moral
and innocent as the Christians in the old Roman empire, with a manly dignity,
frankness, and pathos never surpassed before or since. He followed the example
set by Zwingli who addressed his dying confession of faith to the same
sovereign (1531). These appeals, like the apologies of the ante-Nicene age,
failed to reach or to affect the throne, but they moulded public opinion which
is mightier than thrones, and they are a living force to-day.
The
preface to the Institutio is reckoned among the three immortal prefaces in
literature. The other two are President De Thou’s preface to his History of
France, and Casaubon’s preface to Polybius. Calvin’s preface is superior to
them in importance and interest. Take the beginning and the close as specimens.459
"When
I began this work, Sire, nothing was farther from my thoughts than writing a
book which would afterwards be presented to your Majesty. My intention was only
to lay down some elementary principles, by which inquirers on the subject of
religion might be instructed in the nature of true piety. And this labor I
undertook chiefly for my countrymen, the French, of whom I apprehend multitudes
to be hungering and thirsting after Christ, but saw very few possessing any
real knowledge of him. That this was my design the book itself proves by its
simple method and unadorned composition. But when I perceived that the fury of
certain wicked men in your kingdom had grown to such a height, as to have no
room in the land for sound doctrine, I thought I should be usefully employed,
if in the same work I delivered my instructions to them, and exhibited my
confession to you, that you may know the nature of that doctrine, which is the
object of such unbounded rage to those madmen who are now disturbing the
country with fire and sword. For I shall not be afraid to acknowledge, that
this treatise contains a summary of that very doctrine, which, according to
their clamors, deserves to be punished with imprisonment, banishment,
proscription, and flames, and to be exterminated from the face of the earth. I
well know with what atrocious insinuations your ears have been filled by them,
in order to render our cause most odious in your esteem; but your clemency
should lead you to consider that if accusation be accounted a sufficient
evidence of guilt, there will be an end of all innocence in words and
actions."
"But
I return to you, Sire. Let not your Majesty be at all moved by those groundless
accusations with which our adversaries endeavor to terrify you; as that the
sole tendency and design of this new gospel, for so they call it, is to furnish
a pretext for seditions, and to gain impunity for all crimes. ’For God is not
the author of confusion, but of peace;’ nor is ’the Son of God,’ who came to destroy
’the works of the devil, the minister of sin.’ And it is unjust to charge us with such motives and designs
of which we have never given cause for the least suspicion. Is it probable that
we are meditating the subversion of kingdoms? We, who were never heard to utter a factious word, whose
lives were ever known to be peaceable and honest while we lived under your
government, and who, even now in our exile, cease not to pray for all
prosperity to attend yourself and your kingdom! Is it probable that we are seeking an unlimited license to
commit crimes with impunity, in whose conduct, though many things may be
blamed, yet there is nothing worthy of such severe reproach? Nor have we, by divine grace, profited
so little in the gospel, but that our life may be to our detractors an example
of chastity, liberality, mercy, temperance, patience, modesty, and every other
virtue. It is an undeniable fact, that we sincerely fear and worship God, whose
name we desire to be sanctified both by our life and by our death; and envy
itself is constrained to bear testimony to the innocence and civil integrity of
some of us, who have suffered the punishment of death, for that very thing
which ought to be accounted their highest praise. But if the gospel be made a
pretext for tumults, which has not yet happened in your kingdom; if any persons
make the liberty of divine grace an excuse for the licentiousness of their
vices, of whom I have known many; there are laws and legal penalties, by which
they may be punished according to their deserts: only let not the gospel of God
be reproached for the crimes of wicked men. You have now, Sire, the virulent
iniquity of our calumniators laid before you in a sufficient number of
instances, that you may not receive their accusations with too credulous an
ear.
"I
fear I have gone too much into the detail, as this preface already approaches
the size of a full apology; whereas, I intended it not to contain our defence,
but only to prepare your mind to attend to the pleading of our cause; for
though you are now averse and alienated from us, and even inflamed against us, we
despair not of regaining your favor, if you will only once read with calmness
and composure this our confession, which we intend as our defence before your
Majesty. But, on the contrary, if your ears are so preoccupied with the
whispers of the malevolent, as to leave no opportunity for the accused to speak
for themselves, and if those outrageous furies, with your connivance, continue
to persecute with imprisonments, scourges, tortures, confiscations, and flames,
we shall indeed, like sheep destined to the slaughter, be reduced to the
greatest extremities. Yet shall we in patience possess our souls, and wait for
the mighty hand of the Lord, which undoubtedly will in time appear, and show
itself armed for the deliverance of the poor from their affliction, and for the
punishment of their despisers, who now exult in such perfect security.
"May
the Lord, the King of kings, establish your throne in righteousness, and your
kingdom with equity."
The
first edition of the Institutes was a brief manual containing, in six chapters,
an exposition 1) of the Decalogue; 2) of the Apostles’ Creed; 3) of the Lord’s
Prayer; 4) of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; 5) of the other so-called
Sacraments; 6) of Christian liberty, Church government, and discipline. The
second edition has seventeen, the third, twenty-one chapters. In the author’s
last edition of 1559, it grew to four or five times its original size, and was
divided into four books, each book into a number of chapters (from seventeen to
twenty-five), and each chapter into sections. It follows in the main, like
every good catechism, the order of the Apostles’ Creed, which is the order of
God’s revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The first book discusses the
knowledge of God the Creator (theology proper); the second, the knowledge of
God the Redeemer (Christology); the third, of the Holy Spirit and the
application of the saving work of Christ (soteriology); the fourth, the means
of grace, namely, the Church and the sacraments.460
Although
the work has been vastly improved under the revising hand of the author, in
size and fulness of statement, the first edition contains all the essential
features of his system. "Ex ungue leonem." His doctrine of predestination, however, is stated in a more
simple and less objectionable form. He dwells on the bright and comforting side
of that doctrine, namely, the eternal election by the free grace of God in
Christ, and leaves out the dark mystery of reprobation and preterition.461 He gives the light without the shade,
the truth without the error. He avoids the paradoxes of Luther and Zwingli, and
keeps within the limits of a wise moderation. The fuller logical development of
his views on predestination and on the Church, dates from his sojourn in
Strassburg, where he wrote the second edition of the Institutes, and his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
The
following sections on some of his leading doctrines from the last edition give
a fair idea of the spirit and method of the work:
The
Connection Between the Knowledge of God and the Knowledge of Ourselves.
(Book
I. ch. 1, §§ 1, 2.)
1.
"True and substantial wisdom principally consists of two parts, the
knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves. But while these two branches
of knowledge are so intimately connected, which of them precedes and produces
the other, is not easy to discover. For, in the first place, no man can take a
survey of himself but he must immediately turn to the contemplation of God, in
whom he ’lives and moves’ (Acts 17:28); since it is evident that the talents
which we possess are not from ourselves, and that our very existence is nothing
but a subsistence in God alone. These bounties, distilling to us by drops from
heaven, form, as it were, so many streams conducting us to the fountain-head.
Our poverty conduces to a clearer display of the infinite fulness of God.
Especially the miserable ruin, into which we have been plunged by the defection
of the first man, compels us to raise our eyes towards heaven not only as
hungry and famished, to seek thence a supply for our wants, but, aroused with
fear, to learn humility.
"For
since man is subject to a world of miseries, and has been spoiled of his divine
array, this melancholy exposure discovers an immense mass of deformity. Every
one, therefore, must be so impressed with a consciousness of his own
infelicity, as to arrive at some knowledge of God. Thus a sense of our
ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, depravity, and corruption, leads us to
perceive and acknowledge that in the Lord alone are to be found true wisdom,
solid strength, perfect goodness, and unspotted righteousness; and so, by our
imperfections, we are excited to a consideration of the perfections of God. Nor
can we really aspire toward him, till we have begun to be displeased with
ourselves. For who would not gladly rest satisfied with himself? Where is the man not actually absorbed
in self-complacency, while he remains unacquainted with his true situation, or
content with his own endowments, and ignorant or forgetful of his own
misery? The knowledge of
ourselves, therefore, is not only an incitement to seek after God, but likewise
a considerable assistance towards finding him.
2.
"On the other hand, it is plain that no man can arrive at the true
knowledge of himself, without having first contemplated the divine character,
and then descended to the consideration of his own. For such is the native
pride of us all, that we invariably esteem ourselves righteous, innocent, wise,
and holy, till we are convinced by clear proofs of our unrighteousness,
turpitude, folly, and impurity. But we are never thus convinced, while we
confine our attention to ourselves and regard not the Lord, who is the only
standard by which this judgment ought to be formed." ...
Rational
Proofs to Establish the Belief in the Scripture.
(Book
I. ch. 8, §§ 1, d 2.)
1.
"Without this certainty [that is, the testimony of the Holy Spirit],
better and stronger than any human judgment, in vain will the authority of the
Scripture be either defended by arguments, or established by the consent of the
Church, or confirmed by any other supports; since, unless the foundation be
laid, it remains in perpetual suspense. Whilst, on the contrary, when regarding
it in a different point of view from common things, we have once religiously
received it in a manner worthy of its excellence, we shall then derive great
assistance from things which before were not sufficient to establish the
certainty of it in our minds. For it is admirable to observe how much it
conduces to our confirmation, attentively to study the order and disposition of
the divine wisdom dispensed in it, the heavenly nature of its doctrine, which
never savors of anything terrestrial, the beautiful agreement of all the parts
with each other, and other similar characters adapted to conciliate respect to
any writings. But our hearts are more strongly confirmed, when we reflect that
we are constrained to admire it more by the dignity of the subjects than by the
beauties of the language. For even this did not happen without the particular
providence of God, that the sublime mysteries of the kingdom of heaven should
be communicated, for the most part, in an humble and contemptible style: lest
if they had been illustrated with more of the splendor of eloquence, the
impious might cavil that their triumph is only the triumph of eloquence. Now,
since that uncultivated and almost rude simplicity procures itself more
reverence than all the graces of rhetoric, what opinion can we form, but that
the force of truth in the sacred Scripture is too powerful to need the
assistance of verbal art? Justly,
therefore, does the apostle argue that the faith of the Corinthians was founded
’not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God,’ because his preaching
among them was ’not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration
of the Spirit of power’ (<scripRef passage = "1 Cor. 2:4">1 Cor. 2:4</scripRef>). For the truth is
vindicated from every doubt, when, unassisted by foreign aid, it is sufficient
for its own support. But that this is the peculiar property of the Scripture,
appears from the insufficiency of any human compositions, however artificially
polished, to make an equal impression on our minds. Read Demosthenes or Cicero;
read Plato, Aristotle, or any others of that class; I grant that you will be
attracted, delighted, moved, and enraptured by them in a surprising manner; but
if, after reading them, you turn to the perusal of the sacred volume, whether
you are willing or unwilling, it will affect you so powerfully, it will so
penetrate your heart, and impress itself so strongly on your mind, that,
compared with its energetic influence, the beauties of rhetoricians and
philosophers will almost entirely disappear; so that it is easy to perceive
something divine in the sacred Scriptures, which far surpass the highest
attainments and ornaments of human industry.
2.
"I grant, indeed, that the diction of some of the prophets is neat and
elegant, and even splendid; so that they are not inferior in eloquence to the
heathen writers. And by such examples the Holy Spirit hath been pleased to show
that he was not deficient in eloquence, though elsewhere he hath used a rude
and homely style. But whether we read David, Isaiah, and others that resemble
them, who have a sweet and pleasant flow of words, or Amos, the herdsman,
Jeremiah, and Zechariah, whose rougher language savors of rusticity; that
majesty of the Spirit which I have mentioned is everywhere conspicuous ....
With respect to the sacred Scripture, though presumptuous men try to cavil at
various passages, yet it is evidently replete with sentences which are beyond
the powers of human conception. Let all the prophets be examined, not one will
be found who has not far surpassed the ability of men; so that those to whom
their doctrine is insipid must be accounted utterly destitute of all true taste
....
11.
"If we proceed to the New Testament, by what solid foundations is its
truth supported ? Three
evangelists recite their history in a low and mean style. Many proud men are
disgusted with that simplicity because they attend not to the principal points
of doctrine; whence it were easy to infer, that they treat of heavenly
mysteries which are above human capacity. They who have a spark of ingenuous
modesty will certainly be ashamed, if they peruse the first chapter of Luke.
Now the discourses of Christ, a concise summary of which is comprised in these
three evangelists, easily exempt their writings from contempt. But John,
thundering from his sublimity, more powerfully than any thunderbolt, levels to
the dust the obstinacy of those whom he does not compel to the obedience of
faith. Let all those censorious critics, whose supreme pleasure consists in
banishing all reverence for the Scripture out of their own hearts and the
hearts of others, come forth to public view. Let them read the Gospel of John:
whether they wish it or not, they will there find numerous passages, which, at
least, arouse their indolence and which will even imprint a horrible brand on
their consciences to restrain their ridicule; similar is the method of Paul and
of Peter, in whose writings, though the greater part be obscure, yet their
heavenly majesty attracts universal attention. But this one circumstance raises
their doctrine sufficiently above the world, that Matthew, who had before been
confined to the profit of his table, and Peter and John, who had been employed
in fishing-boats, all plain, unlettered men, had learned nothing in any human
school which they could communicate to others. And Paul, from not only a
professed but a cruel and sanguinary enemy, being converted to a new man,
proves by his sudden and unhoped-for change, that he was constrained, by a
command from heaven, to vindicate that doctrine which he had before opposed.
Let these deny that the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles; or, at least,
let them dispute the credibility of the history: yet the fact itself loudly
proclaims that they were taught by the Spirit, who, though before despised as
some of the meanest of the people, suddenly began to discourse in such a
magnificent manner on the mysteries of heaven ....
13.
"Wherefore, the Scripture will then only be effectual to produce the
saving knowledge of God, when the certainty of it shall be founded on the
internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Thus those human testimonies, which
contribute to its confirmation, will not be useless, if they follow that first
and principal proof, as secondary aids to our imbecility. But those persons
betray great folly, who wish it to be demonstrated to infidels that the
Scripture is the Word of God, which cannot be known without faith. Augustin,
therefore, justly observes, that piety and peace of mind ought to precede in
order that a man may understand somewhat of such great subjects."
Meditation
on the Future Life.
(Book
III. ch. 9, §§ 1, 3, 6.)
1.
"With whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always
keep the end in view; to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present life,
that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to come. For the
Lord, well knowing our strong natural inclination to a brutish love of the
world, adopts a most excellent method to reclaim us and rouse us from one
insensibility that we may not be too tenaciously attached to that foolish
affection. There is not one of us who is not desirous of appearing through the
whole course of his life, to aspire and strive after celestial immortality. For
we are ashamed of excelling in no respect the brutal herds, whose condition
would not be at all inferior to ours, unless there remained to us a hope of
eternity after death. But if you examine the designs, pursuits, and actions of
every individual, you will find nothing in them but what is terrestrial. Hence
that stupidity, that the mental eyes, dazzled with the vain splendor of riches,
powers, and honors, cannot see to any considerable distance. The heart also,
occupied and oppressed with avarice, ambition, and other inordinate desires,
cannot rise to any eminence. In a word, the whole soul, fascinated by carnal
allurements, seeks its felicity on earth.
"To
oppose this evil, the Lord, by continual lessons of miseries, teaches his
children the vanity of the present life. That they may not promise themselves
profound and secure peace in it, therefore he permits them to be frequently
disquieted and infested with wars or tumults, with robberies or other injuries.
That they may not aspire with too much avidity after transient and uncertain
riches, or depend on those which they possess, sometimes by exile, sometimes by
the sterility of the land, sometimes by a conflagration, sometimes by other
means, he reduces them to indigence, or at least confines them within the
limits of mediocrity. That they may not be too complacently delighted with
conjugal blessings, he either causes them to be distressed with the wickedness
of their wives, or humbles them with a wicked offspring, or afflicts them with
want or loss of children. But if in all these things he is more indulgent to
them, yet that they may not be inflated with vainglory, or improper confidence,
he shows them by diseases and dangers the unstable and transitory nature of all
mortal blessings. We therefore truly derive advantages from the discipline of
the cross, only when we learn that this life, considered in itself, is unquiet,
turbulent, miserable in numberless instances, and in no respect altogether
happy; and that all its reputed blessings are uncertain, transient, vain, and
adulterated with a mixture of many evils; and in consequence of this at once
conclude that nothing can be sought or expected on earth but conflict, and that
when we think of a crown we must raise our eyes toward heaven. For it must be
admitted that the mind is never seriously excited to desire and meditate on the
future life, without having previously imbibed a contempt of the present ....
3.
"But the faithful should accustom themselves to such a contempt of the
present life, as may not generate either hatred of life or ingratitude towards
God himself. For this life, though it is replete with innumerable miseries, is
yet deservedly reckoned among the divine blessings which must not be despised.
Wherefore if we discover nothing of the divine beneficence in it, we are
already guilty of no small ingratitude towards God himself. But to the faithful
especially it should be a testimony of the divine benevolence, since the whole
of it is destined to the advancement of their salvation. For before he openly
discovers to us the inheritance of eternal glory, he intends to reveal himself
as our Father in inferior instances; and those are the benefits which he daily
confers on us. Since this life, then, is subservient to a knowledge of the
divine goodness, shall we fastidiously scorn it as though it contained no
particle of goodness in it? We
must, therefore, have this sense and affection, to class it among the bounties
of the divine benignity which are not to be rejected. For if Scripture
testimonies were wanting, which are very numerous and clear, even nature itself
exhorts us to give thanks to the Lord for having introduced us to the light of
life, for granting us the use of it, and giving us all the helps necessary to
its preservation. And it is a far superior reason for gratitude, if we consider
that here we are in some measure prepared for the glory of the heavenly
kingdom. For the Lord has ordained that they who are to be hereafter crowned in
heaven, must first engage in conflicts on earth, that they may not triumph
without having surmounted the difficulties of warfare and obtained the victory.
Another reason is, that here we begin in various blessings to taste the
sweetness of the divine benignity, that our hope and desire may be excited
after the full revelation of it. When we have come to this conclusion, that our
life in this world is a gift of the divine clemency, which as we owe it to him,
we ought to remember with gratitude, it will then be time for us to descend to
a consideration of its most miserable condition, that we may be delivered from
excessive cupidity, to which, as has been observed, we are naturally inclined
....
6."
It is certainly true that the whole family of the faithful, as long as they
dwell on earth, must be accounted as ’sheep for the slaughter’ (<scripRef passage
= "Rom. 8:36">Rom. 8:36</scripRef>), that they may be
conformed to Christ their Head. Their state, therefore, would be extremely
deplorable, if they did not elevate their thoughts towards heaven, to rise
above all sublunary things, and look beyond present appearances (<scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 15:19">1 Cor. 15:19</scripRef>). On the contrary, when
they have once raised their heads above this world, although they see the
impious flourishing in riches and honors, and enjoying the most profound
tranquillity; though they see them boasting of their splendor and luxury, and
behold them abounding in every delight; though they may also be harassed by
their wickedness, insulted by their pride, defrauded by their avarice, and may
receive from them any other lawless provocations; yet they will find no
difficulty in supporting themselves even under such calamities as these. For
they will keep in view that day when the Lord will receive his faithful
servants into his peaceful kingdom; will wipe every tear from their eyes (<scripRef passage
= "Isa. 25:8">Isa. 25:8</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Rev.
7:17">Rev.
7:17</scripRef>), invest them with robes of
joy, adorn them with crowns of glory, entertain them with his ineffable
delights, exalt them to fellowship with His Majesty, and, in a word, honor them
with a participation of his happiness. But the impious, who have been great in
this world, he will precipitate down to the lowest ignominy; he will change
their delights into torments, and their laughter and mirth into weeping and
gnashing of teeth; he will disturb their tranquillity with dreadful agonies of
conscience, and will punish their delicacy with inextinguishable fire, and even
put them in subjection to the pious, whose patience they have abused. For,
according to Paul, it is a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation
to those that trouble the saints, and rest to those who are troubled, when the
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven (<scripRef passage = "2 Thess.
1:6, 7">2
Thess. 1:6, 7</scripRef>). This is our only consolation, and deprived of this, we
must of necessity either sink into despondency of mind, or solace ourselves to
our own destruction with the vain pleasures of the world. For even the psalmist
confesses that he staggered, when he was too much engaged in contemplating the
present prosperity of the impious; and that he could no otherwise establish
himself, till he entered the sanctuary of God, and directed his views to the
last end of the godly and of the wicked (<scripRef passage = "Ps.
73:2">Ps.
73:2</scripRef>, etc.).
"To
conclude in one word, the cross of Christ triumphs in the hearts of believers
over the devil and the flesh, over sin and impious men, only when their eyes
are directed to the power of the resurrection."
Christian
Liberty.
(Book
3, ch. 19, § 9.)
1.
"It must be carefully observed, that Christian liberty is in all its
branches a spiritual thing; all the virtue of which consists in appeasing
terrified consciences before God, whether they are disquieted and solicitous
concerning the remission of their sins, or are anxious to know if their works,
which are imperfect and contaminated by the defilements of the flesh, be
acceptable to God, or are tormented concerning the use of things that are
indifferent. Wherefore those are guilty of perverting its meaning, who either
make it the pretext of their irregular appetites, that they may abuse the
divine blessings to the purposes of sensuality, or who suppose that there is no
liberty but what is used before men, and therefore in the exercise of it
totally disregard their weak brethren.
2.
"The former of these sins is the more common in the present age. There is
scarcely any one whom his wealth permits to be sumptuous, who is not delighted
with luxurious splendor in his entertainments, in his dress, and in his
buildings; who does not desire a pre-eminence in every species of luxury; who
does not strangely flatter himself on his elegance. And all these things are
defended under the pretext of Christian liberty. They allege that they are
things indifferent. This, I admit, provided they be indifferently used. But
where they are too ardently coveted, proudly boasted, or luxuriously lavished,
these things, of themselves otherwise indifferent, are completely polluted by
such vices. This passage of Paul makes an excellent distinction respecting
things which are indifferent: ’Unto the pure, all things are pure: but unto
them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure; but even their mind and
conscience is defiled’ (Titus 1:15). For why are curses denounced on rich men,
who ’receive their consolation,’ who are ’satiated,’ who ’now laugh,’ who ’lie
on beds of ivory,’ who ’join field to field,’ who ’have the harp and lyre, and
the tabret, and wine in their feasts?’ (<scripRef passage = "Luke 6:24,
25">Luke
6:24, 25</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Amos
6:1">Amos
6:1</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Isa.
5:8">Isa.
5:8</scripRef>). Ivory and gold and riches
of all kinds are certainly blessings of divine providence, not only permitted,
but expressly designed for the use of men; nor are we anywhere prohibited to
laugh, or to be satiated with food, or to annex new possessions to those
already enjoyed by ourselves or by our ancestors, or to be delighted with
musical harmony, or to drink wine. This, indeed, is true; but amidst an abundance
of all things, to be immersed in sensual delights, to inebriate the heart and
mind with present pleasures, and perpetually to grasp at new ones, these things
are very remote from a legitimate use of the divine blessings. Let them banish,
therefore, immoderate cupidity, excessive profusion, vanity, and arrogance;
that with a pure conscience they may make a proper use of the gifts of God.
When their hearts shall be formed to this sobriety, they will have a rule for
the legitimate enjoyment of them. On the contrary, without this moderation,
even the common pleasures of the vulgar are chargeable with excess. For it is
truly observed, that a proud heart frequently dwells under coarse and ragged
garments, and that simplicity and humility are sometimes concealed under purple
and fine linen.
3.
"Let all men in their respective stations, whether of poverty, of
competence, or of splendor, live in the remembrance of this truth, that God
confers his blessings on them for the support of life, not of luxury; and let
them consider this as the law of Christian liberty, that they learn the lesson
which Paul had learned, when he said: ’I have learned, in whatsoever state I
am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to
abound: everywhere and in all things I am intrusted, both to be full and to be
hungry, both to abound and to suffer need’ (Phil. 4:11, 12)."
The
Doctrine of Election.
(Book
3, ch. 21, § 1.)
1.
"Nothing else [than election by free grace] will be sufficient to produce
in us suitable humility, or to impress us with a due sense of our great
obligations to God. Nor is there any other basis for solid confidence, even
according to the authority of Christ, who, to deliver us from all fear and
render us invincible amidst so many dangers, snares, and deadly conflicts,
promises to preserve in safety all whom the Father has committed to his care
.... The discussion of predestination, a subject of itself rather intricate, is
made very perplexed and therefore dangerous by human curiosity, which no
barriers can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and soaring
beyond its sphere, as if determined to leave none of the divine secrets
unscrutinized or unexplored .... The secrets of God’s will which he determined
to reveal to us, he discovers in his Word; and these are all that he foresaw
would concern us, or conduce to our advantage ....
2." Let us bear in mind, that to desire any
other knowledge of predestination than what is unfolded in the Word of God,
indicates as great folly, as a wish to walk through impassable roads, or to see
in the dark. Nor let us be ashamed to be ignorant of some things relative to a
subject in which there is a kind of learned ignorance (aliqua docta ignorantia)
....
3.
"Others desirous of remedying this evil, will leave all mention of
predestination to be as it were buried .... Though their moderation is to be
commended in judging that mysteries ought to be handled with such great
sobriety, yet as they descend too low, they leave little influence on the mind
of man which refuses to submit to unreasonable restraints .... The Scripture is
the school of the Holy Spirit, in which as nothing necessary and useful to be
known is omitted, so nothing is taught which it is not beneficial to know ....
Let us permit the Christian man to open his heart and his ears to all the
discourses addressed to him by God, only with this moderation, that as soon as
the Lord closes his sacred mouth, he shall also desist from further inquiry
.... ’The secret things,’ says
Moses (Deut. 29:29), ’belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are
revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the
words of his law.’
5.
"Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and
adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety,
dares absolutely to deny .... Predestination we call the eternal decree of God,
by which he has determined in himself, what he would have to become of every
individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but
eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every
man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is
predestinated either to life or to death. This God has not only testified in
particular persons, but has given as specimen of it in the whole posterity of
Abraham, which should evidently show the future condition of every nation to
depend upon his decision (Deut. 32:8, 9)."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="80" title="From Basel to Ferrara. The Duchess Renée">
§ 80.
From Basel to Ferrara. The Duchess Renée.
Shortly
after, if not before, the publication of his great work, in March, 1536,
Calvin, in company with Louis du Tillet, crossed the Alps to Italy, the
classical soil of the literary and artistic Renaissance. He hoped to aid the
cause of the religious Renaissance. He went to Italy as an evangelist, not as a
monk, like Luther, who learned at Rome a practical lesson of the working of the
papacy.
He
spent a few months in Ferrara at the brilliant court of the Duchess Renée or
Renata (1511–1575), the second daughter of Louis XII., of France, and made a
deep and permanent impression on her. She had probably heard of him through
Queen Marguerite and invited him to a visit. She was a small and deformed, but
noble, pious, and highly accomplished lady, like her friends, Queen Marguerite
and Vittoria Colonna. She gathered around her the brightest wits of the
Renaissance, from Italy and France, but she sympathized still more with the
spirit of the Reformation, and was fairly captivated by Calvin. She chose him
as the guide of her conscience, and consulted him hereafter as a spiritual
father as long as he lived.462
He discharged this duty with the frankness and fidelity of a Christian
pastor. Nothing can be more manly and honorable than his letters to her. Guizot
affirms, from competent knowledge, that "the great Catholic bishops, who
in the seventeenth century directed the consciences of the mightiest men in
France, did not fulfil the difficult task with more Christian firmness,
intelligent justice and knowledge of the world than Calvin displayed in his
intercourse with the Duchess of Ferrara."463
Renan
wonders that such a stern moralist should have exercised a lasting influence
over such a lady, and attributes it to the force of conviction. But the bond of
union was deeper. She recognized in Calvin the man who could satisfy her
spiritual nature and give her strength and comfort to fight the battle of life,
to face the danger of the Inquisition, to suffer imprisonment, and after the
death of her husband and her return to France (1559) openly to confess and to
maintain the evangelical faith under most trying circumstances when her own
son-in-law, the Duke of Guise, carried on a war of extermination against the
Reformation. She continued to correspond with Calvin very freely, and his last
letter in French, twenty-three days before his death, was directed to her. She
was in Paris during the dreadful massacre of St. Bartholomew, and succeeded in
saving the lives of some prominent Huguenots.464
Threatened
by the Inquisition which then began its work of crushing out both the
Renaissance and the Reformation, as two kindred serpents, Calvin bent his way,
probably through Aosta (the birthplace of Anselm of Canterbury) and over the
Great St. Bernard, to Switzerland.
An
uncertain tradition connects with this journey a persecution and flight of
Calvin in the valley of Aosta, which was commemorated five years later (1541)
by a memorial cross with the inscription "Calvini Fuga."465
At
Basel he parted from Du Tillet and paid a last visit to his native town to make
a final settlement of family affairs.466
Then
he left France, with his younger brother Antoine and his sister Marie, forever,
hoping to settle down in Basel or Strassburg and to lead there the quiet life
of a scholar and author. Owing to the disturbances of war between Charles V.
and Francis I., which closed the direct route through Lorraine, he had to take
a circuitous journey through Geneva.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="X" title="Calvin’s
First Sojourn And Labors In Geneva. 1536–1538">
CHAPTER
X.
CALVIN’S
FIRST SOJOURN AND LABORS IN GENEVA. 1536–1538.
From
1536, and especially from 1541, we have, besides the works and letters of
Calvin and his correspondents and other contemporaries, important sources of
authentic information in the following documents: —
1.
Registres du Conseil de Genève, from 1536–1564. Tomes 29–58.
2.
Registres des actes de baptême et de marriage, preserved in the archives of the
city of Geneva.
3.
Registres des actes du Consistoie de Genève, of which Calvin was a permanent
member.
4.
Registres de la Vénérable Compagnie, or the Ministerium of Geneva.
5.
The Archives of Bern, Zürich, and Basel, of that period, especially those of
Bern, which stood in close connection with Geneva and exercised a sort of
protectorate over Church and State.
From
these sources the Strassburg editors of Calvin’s Works have carefully compiled
the Annales Calviniani, in vol. XXI. (or vol. XII. of Thesaurus Epistolicus
Calvinianus), 185–818 (published 1879). The same volume contains also the
biographies of Calvin by Beza (French and Latin) and Colladon (French), the
epitaphia, and a Notice Littéraire, 1–178.
J. H.
Albert RILLIET: Le prémier séjour de Calvin a Genève. In his and Dufour’s ed.
of Calvin’s French Catechism. Geneva, 1878.—Henry, vol. I. chs. VIII. and
IX.—Dyer, ch.III.—Stähelin, I. 122 sqq. Kampschulte, I. 278–320.—Merle
D’Aubigné, bk. XI. chs. I.–XIV.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="81" title="Calvin’s Arrival and
Settlement at Geneva">
§ 81.
Calvin’s Arrival and Settlement at Geneva.
Calvin
arrived at Geneva in the later part of July, 1536,467 two months after the
Reformation had been publicly introduced (May 21).
He
intended to stop only a night, as he says, but Providence had decreed
otherwise. It was the decisive hour of his life which turned the quiet scholar
into an active reformer.
His
presence was made known to Farel through the imprudent zeal of Du Tillet, who
had come from Basel via Neuchâtel, and remained in Geneva for more than a year.
Farel instinctively felt that the providential man had come who was to complete
and to save the Reformation of Geneva. He at once called on Calvin and held him
fast, as by divine command. Calvin protested, pleading his youth, his
inexperience, his need of further study, his natural timidity and bashfulness,
which unfitted him for public action. But all in vain. Farel, "who burned
of a marvellous zeal to advance the Gospel," threatened him with the curse
of Almighty God if he preferred his studies to the work of the Lord, and his
own interest to the cause of Christ. Calvin was terrified and shaken by these
words of the fearless evangelist, and felt "as if God from on high had
stretched out his hand." He
submitted, and accepted the call to the ministry, as teacher and pastor of the
evangelical Church of Geneva.468
It
was an act of obedience, a sacrifice of his desires to a sense of duty, of his
will to the will of God.
Farel
gave the Reformation to Geneva, and gave Calvin to Geneva—two gifts by which he
crowned his own work and immortalized his name, as one of the greatest
benefactors of that city and of Reformed Christendom.
Calvin
was foreordained for Geneva, and Geneva for Calvin. Both have made, their
calling and election sure."
He
found in the city on Lake Leman "a tottering republic, a wavering faith, a
nascent Church." He left it a
Gibraltar of Protestantism, a school of nations and churches.469
The
city had then only about twelve thousand inhabitants, but by her situation on
the borders of France and Switzerland, her recent deliverance from political
and ecclesiastical despotism, and her raw experiments in republican
self-government, she offered rare advantages for the solution of the great
social and religious problems which agitated Europe.
Calvin’s
first labors in that city were an apparent failure. The Genevese were not ready
yet and expelled him, but after a few years they recalled him. They might have
expelled him again and forever; for he was poor, feeble, and unprotected. But
they gradually yielded to the moulding force of his genius and character. Those
who call him "the pope of Geneva" involuntarily pay him the highest
compliment. His success was achieved by moral and spiritual means, and stands
almost alone in history.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="82" title="First Labors and Trials">
§ 82.
First Labors and Trials.
Calvin
began his labors, Sept. 5, 1536, by a course of expository lectures on the
Epistles of Paul and other books of the New Testament, which he delivered in
the Church of St. Peter in the afternoon. They were heard with increasing
attention. He had a rare gift of teaching, and the people were hungry for
religious instruction.
After
a short time he assumed also the office of pastor which he had at first
declined.
The
Council was asked by Farel to provide a suitable support for their new
minister, but they were slow to do it, not dreaming that he would become the
most distinguished citizen, and calling him simply "that Frenchman."470 He received little or no salary till
Feb. 13, 1537, when the Council voted him six gold crowns.471
Calvin
accompanied Farel in October to the disputation at Lausanne, which decided the
Reformation in the Canton de Vaud, but took little part in it, speaking only
twice. Farel was the senior pastor, twenty years older, and took the lead. But
with rare humility and simplicity he yielded very soon to the superior genius
of his young friend. He was contented to have conquered the territory for the
renewed Gospel, and left it to him to cultivate the same and to bring order out
of the political and ecclesiastical chaos. He was willing to decrease, that
Calvin might increase. Calvin, on his part, treated him always with
affectionate regard and gratitude. There was not a shadow of envy or jealousy
between them.
The
third Reformed preacher was Courault, formerly an Augustinian monk, who, like
Calvin, had fled from France to Basel, in 1534, and was called to Geneva to
replace Viret. Though very old and nearly blind, he showed as much zeal and
energy as his younger colleagues. Saunier, the rector of the school, was an
active sympathizer, and soon afterwards Cordier, Calvin’s beloved teacher,
assumed the government of the school and effectively aided the ministers in
their arduous work. Viret came occasionally from the neighboring Lausanne.
Calvin’s brother, and his relative Olivetan, who joined them at Geneva,
increased his influence.
The
infant Church of Geneva had the usual trouble with the Anabaptists. Two of
their preachers came from Holland and gained some influence. But after an
unfruitful disputation they were banished by the large Council from the
territory of the city as early as March, 1537.472
A
more serious trouble was created by Peter Caroli, a doctor of the Sorbonne, an
unprincipled, vain, and quarrelsome theological adventurer and turncoat, who
changed his religion several times, led a disorderly life, and was ultimately
reconciled to the pope and released from his concubine, as he called his wife.
He had fled from Paris to Geneva in 1535, became pastor at Neuchâtel, where he
married, and then at Lausanne. He raised the charge of Arianism against Farel
and Calvin at a synod in Lausanne, May, 1537,473 because they avoided in the
Confession the metaphysical terms Trinity and Person, (though Calvin did use
them in his Institutio and his Catechism,) and because they refused, at
Caroli’s dictation, to sign the Athanasian Creed with its damnatory clauses,
which are unjust and uncharitable. Calvin was incensed at his arrogant and
boisterous conduct and charged him with atheism. "Caroli," he said,
"quarrels with us about the nature of God and the distinction of the
persons; but I carry the matter further and ask him, whether he believes in the
Deity at all? For I protest before
God and man that he has no more faith in the Divine Word than a dog or a pig
that tramples under foot holy things" (Matt. 7:6). This is the first
manifestation of his angry temper and of that contemptuous tone which
characterizes his polemical writings. He handed in with his colleagues a
confession on the Trinity.474
The synod after due consideration was satisfied with their orthodoxy,
and declared Caroli convicted of calumny and unworthy of the ministry. He died
in a hospital at Rome.475
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="83" title="The Reformers introduce Order and
Discipline">
§ 83.
The Reformers introduce Order and Discipline.
Confession
de la Foy laquelle tous les bourgeois et habitans de Genève et subjectz du pays
doyvent jurer de garder et tenir; extraicte de l’instruction dont on use en
l’église de la dicte ville, 1537. Confessio Fidei in quam jurare cives omnes
Genevenses et qui sub civitatis ejus ditione agunt, jussi sunt. The French in
Opera, vol. IX. 693–700 (and by Rilliet-Dufour, see below); the Latin in vol.
V. 355–362. See also vol. XXII. 5 sqq. (publ. 1880).
Le
Catéchisme de l’Eglise de Genève, c’est à dire le Formulaire d’instruire les
enfans la Chretienté fait en manière de dialogue ou le ministre interrogue et
l’enfant respond. The first edition of 1537 is not divided into questions and
answers, and bears the title Instruction et Confession de Foy dont on use en
l’Eglise de Genève. A copy of it was discovered by H. Bordier in Paris and
published by Th. Dufour, together with the first ed. of the Confession de la
Foy, at Geneva, 1878 (see below). A copy of a Latin ed. of 1545 had been
previously found in the Ducal library at Gotha.
Catechismus
sive Christianae religionis institutio, communibus renatae nuper in evangelio
Genevensis ecclesiae suffragiis recepta et vulgari quidem prius idiomate, nunc
vero Latine etiam in lucem edita, Joanne Calvino auctore. The first draft, or
Catechismus prior, was printed at Basel, 1538 (with a Latin translation of the
Confession of 1537). Reprinted in Opera in both languages, vol. V. 313-364. The
second or larger Catechism appeared in French, 1541, in Latin, 1545, etc.; both
reprinted in parallel columns, Opera, vol. VI. 1–160.
(Niemeyer
in his Coll. Conf. gives the Latin text of the larger Cat. together with the
prayers and liturgical forms; comp. his Proleg. XXXVII.–XLI. Böckel in his
Bekenntniss-Shriften der evang. Reform. Kirche gives a German version of the
larger Cat., 127–172. An English translation was prepared by the Marian exiles,
Geneva, 1556, and reprinted in Dunlop’s Confessions, II. 139–272).
Calvin
had a hand in nearly all the French and Helvetic confessions of his age. See
Opera, IX. 693–772.
*Albert
Rilliet and Théophile Dufour: Le Catéchisme français de Calvin publié en 1537,
réimprimé pour la première fois d’après un exemplaire nouvellement retrouvé, et
suivi de la plus ancienne Confession de Foi de l’Église de Genève (avec un
notice sur le premier séjour de Calvin à Genève, par Albert Rilliet, et une
notice bibliographique sur le Catéchisme et la Confession de Foi de Calvin, par
Théophile Dufour), Genève (H. Georg.), and Paris (Fischbacher), 1878, 16°. pp. cclxxxviii.
and 146; reprinted in Opera, XXII.
Schaff:
Creeds of Christendom, I. 467 sqq. Stähelin, I. 124 sqq. Kampschulte, I. 284
sqq. Merle D’Aubigné, VI. 328–357.
Geneva
needed first of all a strong moral government on the doctrinal basis of the
evangelical Reformation. The Genevese were a light-hearted, joyous people, fond
of public amusements, dancing, singing, masquerades, and revelries. Reckless
gambling, drunkenness, adultery, blasphemy, and all sorts of vice abounded.
Prostitution was sanctioned by the authority of the State and superintended by
a woman called the Reine du bordel. The people were ignorant. The priests had
taken no pains to instruct them and had set them a bad example. To remedy these
evils, a Confession of Faith and Discipline, and a popular Catechism were
prepared, the first by Farel as the senior pastor, with the aid of Calvin;476
the second by Calvin. Both were accepted and approved by the Council in
November, 1536.477
The
Confession of Faith consists of twenty-one articles in which the chief
doctrines of the evangelical faith are briefly and clearly stated for the
comprehension of the people. It begins with the Word of God, as the rule of
faith and practice, and ends with the duty to the civil magistracy. The
doctrine of predestination and reprobation is omitted, but it is clearly taught
that man is saved by the free grace of God without any merit (Art. 10). The
necessity of discipline by admonition and excommunication for the conversion of
the sinner is asserted (Art. 19). This subject gave much trouble in Geneva and
other Swiss churches. The Confession prepared the way for fuller Reformed
Confessions, as the Gallican, the Belgic, and the Second Helvetic. It was printed
and distributed in April, 1537, and read every Sunday from the pulpits, to
prepare the citizens for its adoption.478
Calvin’s
Catechism, which preceded the Confession, is an extract from his Institutes,
but passed through several transformations. On his return from Strassburg he
re-wrote it on a larger scale, and arranged it in questions and answers, or in
the form of a dialogue between the teacher and the pupil. It was used for a
long time in Reformed Churches and schools, and served a good purpose in
promoting an intelligent piety and virtue by systematic biblical instruction.
It includes an exposition of the Creed, the Decalogue, and the Lord’s Prayer.
It is much fuller than Luther’s, but less adapted for children. Beza says that
it was translated into German, English, Scotch, Belgic, Spanish, into Hebrew by
E. Tremellius, and "most elegantly" into Greek by H. Stephanus. It furnished
the basis and material for a number of similar works, especially the Anglican
(Nowell’s), the Palatinate (Heidelberg), and the Westminster Catechisms, which
gradually superseded it.
Calvin
has been called "the father of popular education and the inventor of free
schools."479 But he must share
this honor with Luther and Zwingli.
Besides
the Confession and Catechism, the Reformed pastors (i.e. Farel, Calvin, and
Courault) presented to the Council a memorial concerning the future
organization and discipline of the Church of Geneva, recommending frequent and
solemn celebration of the Lord’s Supper, at least once a month, alternately in
the three principal churches, singing of Psalms, regular instruction of the
youth, abolition of the papal marriage laws, the maintenance of public order,
and the exclusion of unworthy communicants.480 They regarded the apostolic custom of excommunication as
necessary for the protection of the purity of the Church, but as it had been
fearfully abused by the papal bishops, they requested the Council to elect a
number of reliable, godly, and irreproachable citizens for the moral
supervision of the different districts, and the exercise of discipline, in
connection with the ministers, by private and public admonition, and, in case
of stubborn disobedience, by excommunication from the privileges of church
membership.
On
Jan. 16, 1537, the Great Council of Two Hundred issued a series of orders
forbidding immoral habits, foolish songs, gambling, the desecration of the
Lord’s Day, baptism by midwives, and directing that the remaining idolatrous
images should be burned; but nothing was said about excommunication.481 This subject became a bone of
contention between the pastors and citizens and the cause of the expulsion of
the Reformers. The election of syndics, Feb. 5, was favorable to them.
The
ministers were incessantly active in preaching, catechising, and visiting all
classes of the people. Five sermons were preached every Sunday, two every week
day, and were well attended. The schools were flourishing, and public morality
was steadily rising. Saunier, in a school oration, praised the goodly city of
Geneva which now added to her natural advantages of a magnificent site, a
fertile country, a lovely lake, fine streets and squares, the crowning glory of
the pure doctrine of the gospel. The magistrates showed a willingness to assist
in the maintenance of discipline. A gambler was placed in the pillory with a
chain around his neck. Three women were imprisoned for an improper head-dress.
Even François Bonivard, the famous patriot and prisoner of Chillon, was
frequently warned on account of his licentiousness. Every open manifestation of
sympathy with popery by carrying a rosary, or cherishing a sacred relic, or
observing a saint’s day, was liable to punishment. The fame of Geneva went
abroad and began to attract students and refugees. Before the close of 1537
English Protestants came to Geneva to, see Calvin and Farel."482
On
July 29, 1537, the Council of the Two Hundred ordered all the citizens, male
and female, to assent to the Confession of Faith in the Church of St. Peter.483 It was done by a large number. On Nov.
12, the Council even passed a measure to banish all who would not take the
oath.484
The
Confession was thus to be made the law of Church and State. This is the first
instance of a formal pledge to a symbolical book by a whole people.
It
was a glaring inconsistency that those who had just shaken off the yoke of
popery as an intolerable burden, should subject their conscience and intellect
to a human creed; in other words, substitute for the old Roman popery a modern
Protestant popery. Of course, they sincerely believed that they had the
infallible Word of God on their side; but they could not claim infallibility in
its interpretation. The same inconsistency and intolerance was repeated a
hundred years later on a much larger scale in the "Solemn League and
Covenant" of the Scotch Presbyterians and English Puritans against popery
and prelacy, and sanctioned in 1643 by the Westminster Assembly of Divines
which vainly attempted to prescribe a creed, a Church polity, and a directory
of worship for three nations. But in those days neither Protestants nor
Catholics had any proper conception of religious toleration, much less of
religious liberty, as an inalienable right of man. "The power of the
magistrates ends where that of conscience begins." God alone is the Lord of conscience.
The
Calvinistic churches of modem times still require subscription to the
Westminster standards, but only from the officers, and only in a qualified
sense, as to substance of doctrine; while the members are admitted simply on
profession of faith in Christ as their Lord and Saviour.485
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="84" title="Expulsion of the Reformers. 1538">
§ 84.
Expulsion of the Reformers. 1538.
Calvin’s
correspondence from 1537 to 1538, in Op. vol. X., Pt. II. 137 sqq. Herminjard,
vols. IV. and V.—Annal. Calv., Op. XXI., fol. 215–235.
Henry,
I. ch. IX.—Dyer, 78sqq.—Stähelin, I. 151 sqq.—Kampschulte, I. 296–319. Merle
D’Aubigné, bk. XI. chs. XI.–XIV. (vol. VI. 469 sqq.).
C. A.
Cornelius: Die Verbannung Calvins aus Genf. i. J. 1538. München, 1886.
The
submission of the people of Geneva to such a severe system of discipline was
only temporary. Many had never sworn to the Confession, notwithstanding the
threat of punishment, and among them were the most influential citizens of the
republic;486 others declared that they had been compelled to perjure
themselves. The impossibility of enforcing the law brought the Council into
contempt. Ami Porral, the leader of the clerical party in the Council, was
charged with arbitrary conduct and disregard of the rights of the people. The
Patriots and Libertines who had hailed the Reformation in the interest of
political independence from the yoke of Savoy and of the bishop, had no idea of
becoming slaves of Farel, and were jealous of the influence of foreigners. An
intrigue to annex Geneva to the kingdom of France increased the suspicion. The
Patriots organized themselves as a political party and labored to overthrow the
clerical régime. They were aided in part by Bern, which was opposed to the
tenet of excommunication and to the radicalism of the Reformers.
There
was another cause of dissatisfaction even among the more moderate, which
brought on the crisis. Farel in his iconoclastic zeal had, before the arrival
of Calvin, abolished all holidays except Sunday, the baptismal fonts, and the
unleavened bread in the communion, all of which were retained by the Reformed
Church in Bern.487
A synod of Lausanne, under the influence of Bern, recommended the
restoration of the old Bernese customs, as they were called. The Council
enforced this decision. Calvin himself regarded such matters as in themselves
indifferent, but would not forsake his colleagues.
Stormy
scenes took place in the general assembly of citizens, Nov. 15, 1537. In the
popular elections on Feb. 3, 1538, the anti-clerical party succeeded in the
election of four syndics and a majority of the Council.488
The
new rulers proceeded with caution. They appointed new preachers for the
country, which was much needed. They prohibited indecent songs and broils in
the streets, and going out at night after nine. They took Bern for their model.
They enforced the decision of the Council of Lausanne concerning the Church
festivals and baptismal fonts.
But
the preachers were determined to die rather than to yield an inch. They
continued to thunder against the popular vices, and censured the Council for
want of energy in suppressing them. The result was that they were warned not to
meddle in politics (March 12).489
Courauld, who surpassed even Farel in vehemence, was forbidden to
preach, but ascended the pulpit again, April 7, denounced Geneva and its
citizens in a rude and insulting manner,490 was imprisoned, and six days
afterwards banished in spite of the energetic protests of Calvin and Farel. The
old man retired to Thonon, on the lake of Geneva, was elected minister at Orbe,
and died there Oct. 4 in the same year.
Calvin
and Farel were emboldened by this harsh treatment of their colleague. They
attacked the Council from the pulpit. Even Calvin went so far as to denounce it
as the Devil’s Council. Libels were circulated against the preachers. They
often heard the cry late in the evening, "To the Rhone with the
traitors," and in the night they were disturbed by violent knocks at the
door of their dwelling.
They
were ordered to celebrate the approaching Easter communion after the Bernese
rite, but they refused to do so in the prevailing state of debauchery and
insubordination. The Council could find no supplies. On Easter Sunday, April
21, Calvin, after all, ascended the pulpit of St. Peter’s; Farel, the pulpit of
St. Gervais. They preached before large audiences, but declared that they could
not administer the communion to the rebellious city, lest the sacrament be
desecrated. And indeed, under existing circumstances, the celebration of the
love-feast of the Saviour would have been a solemn mockery. Many hearers were
armed, drew their swords, and drowned the voice of the preachers, who left the
church and went home under the protection of their friends. Calvin preached
also in the evening in the Church of St. Francis at Rive in the lower part of
the city, and was threatened with violence.
The
small Council met after the morning service in great commotion and summoned the
general Council. On the next two days, April 22 and 23, the great Council of
the Two Hundred assembled in the cloisters of St. Peter’s, deposed Farel and
Calvin, without a trial, and ordered them to leave the city within three days.491
They
received the news with great composure. "Very well," said Calvin,
"it is better to serve God than man. If we had sought to please men, we
should have been badly rewarded, but we serve a higher Master, who will not withhold
from us his reward."492
Calvin even rejoiced at the result more than seemed proper.
The
people celebrated the downfall of the clerical régime with public rejoicings.
The decrees of the synod of Lausanne were published by sound of trumpets. The
baptismal fonts were re-erected, and the communion administered on the
following Sunday with unleavened bread.
The
deposed ministers went to Bern, but found little sympathy. They proceeded to
Zürich, where a general synod was held, and were kindly received. They admitted
that they had been too rigid, and consented to the restoration of the baptismal
fonts, the unleavened bread (provided the bread was broken), and the four
Church festivals observed in Bern; but they insisted on the introduction of
discipline, the division of the Church into parishes, the more frequent
administration of the communion, the singing of Psalms in public worship, and
the exercise of discipline by joint committees of laymen and ministers.493
Bullinger
undertook to advocate this compromise before Bern and Geneva. But the Genevese
confirmed in general assembly the sentence of banishment, May 26.
With
gloomy prospects for the future, yet trusting in God, who orders all things
well, the exiled ministers travelled on horseback in stormy weather to Basel.
In crossing a torrent swollen by the rains they were nearly swept away. In
Basel they were warmly received by sympathizing friends, especially by
Grynaeus. Here they determined to wait for the call of Providence. Farel, after
a few weeks, in July, received and accepted a call to Neuchâtel, his former
seat of labor, on condition that he should have freedom to introduce his system
of discipline. Calvin was induced, two months later, to leave Basel for
Strassburg.
It
was during this crisis that Calvin’s friend and travelling companion, Louis du
Tillet, who seems to have been of a mild and peaceable disposition, lost faith
in the success of the Reformation. He left Geneva in August, 1537, for
Strassburg and Paris, and returned to the Roman Church. He had relations in
high standing who influenced him. His brother, Jean du Tillet, was the famous
registrar of the Parliament of Paris; another brother became bishop of
Sainte-Brieux, afterwards of Meaux.494 He explained to Calvin his conscientious scruples and
reasons for the change. Calvin regarded them as insufficient, and warned him
earnestly, but kindly and courteously. The separation was very painful to both,
but was relieved by mutual regard. Du Tillet even offered to aid Calvin in his
distressed condition after his expulsion, but Calvin gratefully declined,
writing from Strassburg, Oct. 20, 1538: "You have made me an offer for
which I cannot sufficiently thank you; neither am I so rude and unmannerly as
not to feel the unmerited kindness so deeply, that even in declining to accept
it, I can never adequately express the obligation that I owe to you." As to their difference of opinion, he
appeals to the judgment of God to decide who are the true schismatics, and
concludes the letter with the prayer: "May our Lord uphold and keep you in
his holy protection, so directing you that you decline not from his way."495
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="XI" title="Calvin In Germany. From
1538–1541">
CHAPTER
XI.
CALVIN
IN GERMANY. FROM 1538–1541.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="85" title="Calvin in Strassburg">
§ 85.
Calvin in Strassburg.
I.
Calvin’s correspondence from 1538–1541 in Opera, vols. X. and XI.; Herminjard,
Vols. V. and VI.; Bonnet-Constable, Vol. I. 63 sqq. Beza: Vita Calv., in Op.
XXI. 128 sq.—Ann. Calv., Op. XXI. 226–285. Contains extracts from the Archives
du chapitre de St. Thomas de Strasbourg.
II.
Alf. Erichson: L’Église française de Strasbourg au XVIe siècle, d’après des
documents inédits. Strasb. 1885. Comp. also his other works on the History of
the Reformation in the Alsace.—C. A. Cornelius: Die Rückkehr Calvin’s nach
Genf. München, 1889.—E. Doumergue (Prof. of the Prot. Faculty of Montauban):
Essai sur l’histoire du Culte Réformé principalement au XIXe Siècle. Paris,
1890. Ch. I., Calvin à Strasbourg, treats of the worship in the first French
Reformed Church, the model of the churches of France.—Eduard Stricker: Johannes
Calvin als erster Pfarrer der reformirten Gemeinde zu Strassburg. Nach
urkundlichen Quellen. Strassburg (Heitz & Mündel), 1890 (65 pp.). In
commemoration of the centenary of the church edifice of the French Reformed
congregation (built in 1790) by its present pastor.
III.
Henry, I. ch. X.—Stähelin, I. 168–283.—Kampschulte, I. 320–368.—Merle
D’Aubigné, bk. XI. chs. XV.–XVII. (vol. VI. 543–609).
Calvin
felt so discouraged by his recent experience that he was disinclined to assume
another public office, and Conrault approved of this purpose. He therefore
refused the first invitation of Bucer to come to Strassburg, the more so as his
friend Farel was not included. But he yielded at last to repeated
solicitations, mindful of the example of the prophet Jonah. Farel gave his
hearty assent.
Strassburg496
was since 1254 a free imperial city of Germany, famous for one of the finest
Gothic cathedrals, large commerce, and literary enterprise. Some of the first
editions of the Bible were printed there. By its geographical situation, a few
miles west of the Upper Rhine, it formed a connecting link between Germany,
France, and Switzerland, as also between Lutheranism and Zwinglianism. It
offered a hospitable home to a steady flow of persecuted Protestants from
France, who called Strassburg the New Jerusalem. The citizens had accepted the
Reformation in 1523 in the spirit of evangelical union between the two leading
types of Protestantism. Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Niger, Matthias Zell, Sturm, and
others, labored there harmoniously together. Strassburg was the Wittenberg of
South-western Germany, and in friendly alliance with Zürich and Geneva.
Martin
Bucer, the chief Reformer of the city, was the embodiment of a generous and
comprehensive catholicity, and gave it expression in the Tetrapolitan
Confession, which was presented at the diet of Augsburg in 1530.497 He afterwards brought about, in the
same irenic spirit, the Wittenberg Concordia (1536), which was to harmonize the
Lutheran and Zwinglian theories on the Lord’s Supper, but conceded too much to
Luther (even the participation of the body and blood of Christ by unworthy communicants),
and therefore was rejected by Bullinger and the Swiss Churches. He wrote to
Bern in June, 1540, that next to Wittenberg no city in Germany was so friendly
to the gospel and so large-hearted in spirit as Strassburg. He ended his labors
in the Anglican Church as professor of theology in the University of Cambridge
in 1551. Six years after his death his body was dug up, chained upright to a
stake and burned, under Queen Mary; but his tomb was rebuilt and his memory
honorably restored under Queen Elizabeth. His colleague Fagius shared the same
fate.
The
Zürichers, in a letter to Calvin, call Strassburg "the Antioch of the
Reformation;" Capito, "the refuge of exiled brethren;" the Roman
Catholic historian, Florimond de Raemond, "the retreat and rendezvous of
Lutherans and Zwinglians under the control of Bucer, and the receptacle of
those that were banished from France."498 Among the distinguished early refugees from France were
Francis Lambert, Farel, Le Févre, Roussel, and Michel d’Arande. Unfortunately,
Strassburg did not long occupy this noble position, but became a battlefield of
bitter sectarian strife and, for some time, the home of a narrow Lutheran orthodoxy.
The city was conquered by Louis XIV. and annexed to Roman Catholic France in
1681, to the detriment of her Protestant character, but was reconquered by
Emperor William I. and incorporated with united Germany as the capital of
Alsace and Lorraine in 1870. The university was newly organized and better
equipped than ever before.499
Calvin
arrived at Strassburg in the first days of September, 1538.500 He spent there three years in useful
labors. He was received with open arms by Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Sturm, and Niger,
the leading men in the Church, and appointed by the Council professor of
theology, with a moderate salary. He soon felt at home, and in the next summer
bought the citizenship, and joined the guild of the tailors.501
The
sojourn of Calvin in this city was a fruitful episode in his life, and an
education for more successful work in Geneva. His views were enlarged and
deepened. He gained valuable experience. He came in contact with the Lutheran Church
and its leaders. He learned to understand and appreciate them, but was
unfavorably impressed with the want of discipline and the slavish dependence of
the clergy upon the secular rulers. He labored indefatigably and successfully
as professor, pastor, and author. He informed Farel (April 20, 1539) that, when
the messenger called for copy of his book (the second edition of the
Institutes), he had to read fifty pages, then to teach and to preach, to write
four letters, to adjust some quarrels, and was interrupted by visitors more
than ten times.502
It
is in the fitness of things that three learned professors of the University of
Strassburg, who lived during the French and German régime, and were equally at
home in the language and theology of both nations, should give to the world the
last and best edition of Calvin’s works.
Calvin’s
economic condition during these three years was very humble. It is a shame for
the congregation and the city government that they allowed such a man to
struggle for his daily bread. For the first five months he received no pay at
all, only free board in the house of a liberal friend. His countrymen were
poor, but might have done something. He informed Farel, in April, 1539, that of
his many friends in France, not one had offered him a copper, except Louis Du
Tillet, who hoped to induce him to return. Hence he declined.503 The city paid him a very meagre salary
of fifty-two guilders (about two hundred marks) for his professorial duties
from May, 1539.504
His books were not profitable. When the Swiss heard of his
embarrassment, they wished to come to his aid, and Fabri sent ten ducats to
Farel for Calvin.505
But he preferred to sell his greatest treasure—the library—which he had
left in Geneva, and to take students as boarders (pensionnaires). He trusted to
God for the future.506
With
all his poverty he was happy in his independence, the society of congenial
friends, and his large field of usefulness.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="86" title="The Church of the Strangers in
Strassburg">
§ 86.
The Church of the Strangers in Strassburg.
Calvin
combined the offices of pastor and professor of theology in Strassburg, as he
had done in Geneva. The former activity kept him in contact with his French
countrymen; the latter extended his influence among the scholars in Germany.
He
organized the first Protestant congregation of French refugees, which served as
a model for the Reformed Churches of Geneva and France.
The
number of refugees amounted at that time to about four hundred.507 Most of them belonged to the
"little French Church."508 His first sermon was delivered in the Church of St.
Nicholas, and attracted a large crowd of Frenchmen and Germans.509 He preached four times a week (twice on
Sunday), and held Bible classes. He trained deacons to assist him, especially
in the care of the poor, whom he had much at heart. The names of the first two
were Nicholas Parent, who afterwards became pastor at Neuchâtel, and Claude de
Fer or Féray (Claudius Feraeus), a French Hellenist, who had fled to
Strassburg, taught Greek, and died of the pestilence in 1541, to the great grief
of Calvin.
He
introduced his favorite discipline, and as he was not interfered with by the
magistracy he had better success than at Geneva during his first sojourn.
"No house," he says, "no society, can exist without order and
discipline, much less the Church."
He laid as much stress upon it as Luther did upon doctrine, and he
regarded it as the best safeguard of sound doctrine and Christian life. He
excluded a student who had neglected public worship for a month and fallen into
gross immorality, from the communion table, and would not admit him till he
professed repentance.510
Not
a few of the younger members, however, objected to excommunication as a popish
institution. But he distinguished between the yoke of Christ and the tyranny of
the pope. He persevered and succeeded. "I have conflicts," he wrote
to Farel, "severe conflicts, but they are a good school for me."
He
converted many Anabaptists, who were wisely tolerated in the territory of
Strassburg, and brought to him from the city and country their children for
baptism. He was consulted by the magistrates on all important questions
touching religion. He conscientiously attended to pastoral care, and took a
kindly interest in every member of his flock. In this way he built up in a
short time a prosperous church, which commanded the respect and admiration of
the community of Strassburg.511
Unfortunately,
this Church of the Strangers lasted only about twenty-five years, and was
extinguished by the flames of sectarian bigotry, though not till after many
copies had been made from it as a model. An exclusive Lutheranism, under the
lead of Marbach, obtained the ascendency in Strassburg, and treated the
Calvinistic Christians as dangerous heretics. When Calvin passed through the
city on his way to Frankfort, in August, 1556, he was indeed honorably received
by John Sturm and the students, who respectfully rose to their feet in his
presence, but he was not allowed to preach to his own congregation, because he
did not believe in the dogma of consubstantiation. A few years later the
Reformed worship was altogether forbidden by order of the Council, Aug. 19,
1563.512
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="87" title="The Liturgy of Calvin">
§ 87.
The Liturgy of Calvin.
I. La
forme des prieres et chantzs ecclesiastiques, avec la maniere d’administrer les
sacremens et consacrer le marriage, selon la coutume de l’Eglise ancienne, a.d.
1542. In Opera, VI. 161–210 (from a copy at Stuttgart; the title is given in
the old spelling without accents). Later editions (1543, 1545, 1562, etc.) add:
"la visitation des malades," and "comme on l’observe à
Genève." An earlier edition
of eighteen Psalms appeared at Strassburg, 1539. (See Douen, Clément Marot, I.
300 sqq.) An edition of the liturgy
with the Psalms was printed at Strassburg, Feb. 15, 1542. (See Douen, l.c. 305,
and 342 sqq.) A copy of an
enlarged Strassburg ed. of 1545, entitled La forme des prieres et chantzs
ecclesiastiques, was preserved in the Public Library at Strassburg till Aug.
24, 1870, when it was burnt at the siege of the city in the Franco-German War
(Douen, I. 451 sq.).
II.
Ch. d’Héricault: Ouvres de Marot. Paris, 1867.—Felix Bovet: Histoire du
psautier des églises réformées. Neuchâtel, 1872.—O. Douen: Clément Marot et le
Psautier Huguenot. Étude historique, littéraire, musicale et bibliographique;
contenant les mélodies primitives des Psaumes, etc. Paris (à’imprimerie
national), 1878 sq. 2 vols. royal 8vo. A magnificent work published at the
expense of the French Republic on the recommendation of the Institute. The
second volume contains the harmonies of Goudimel.
Farel
published at Neuchâtel in 1533, and introduced at Geneva in 1537, the first
French Reformed liturgy, which includes, in the regular Sunday service, a
general prayer, the Lord’s Prayer (before sermon), the Decalogue, confession of
sins, repetition of the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, a final exhortation
and benediction.513 It resembled the German liturgy of Bern,
which was published in 1529, and which Calvin caused to be translated into
French by his friend Morelet.514 Of Farel’s liturgy only the form of marriage
survived. The rest was reconstructed and improved by Calvin in the liturgy
which he first introduced in Strassburg, and with some modifications in Geneva
after his return.
Calvin’s
liturgy was published twice in 1542. It was introduced at Lausanne in the same
year, and gradually passed into other Reformed Churches.
Calvin
built his form of worship on the foundation of Zwingli and Farel, and the
services already in use in the Swiss Reformed Churches. Like his predecessors,
he had no sympathy whatever with the Roman Catholic ceremonialism, which was
overloaded with unscriptural traditions and superstitions. We may add that he
had no taste for the artistic, symbolical, and ornamental features in worship.
He rejected the mass, all the sacraments, except two, the saints’ days, nearly
all church festivals, except Sunday, images, relics, processions, and the whole
pomp and circumstance of a gaudy worship which appeals to the senses and
imagination rather than the intellect and the conscience, and tends to distract
the mind with the outward show instead of concentrating it upon the contemplation
of the saving truth of the gospel.
He
substituted in its place that simple and spiritual mode of worship which is
well adapted for intelligent devotion, if it be animated by the quickening
presence and power of the Spirit of God, but becomes jejune, barren, cold, and
chilly if that power is waiting. He made the sermon the central part of
worship, and substituted instruction and edification in the vernacular for the
reading of the mass in Latin. He magnified the pulpit, as the throne of the preacher,
above the altar of the sacrificing priest. He opened the inexhaustible fountain
of free prayer in public worship, with its endless possibilities of application
to varying circumstances and wants; he restored to the Church, like Luther, the
inestimable blessing of congregational singing, which is the true popular
liturgy, and more effective than the reading of written forms of prayer.
The
order of public worship in Calvin’s congregation at Strassburg was as follows:
—
The
service began with an invocation,515 a confession of sin and a
brief absolution.516 hen followed reading of the Scriptures,
singing, and a free prayer. The whole congregation, male and female, joined in
chanting the Psalms, and thus took an active part in public worship, while
formerly they were but passive listeners or spectators. This was in accordance
with the Protestant doctrine of the general priesthood of believers.517 The sermon came next, and after it a
long general prayer and the Lord’s Prayer. The service closed with singing and
the benediction.518
The
same order is substantially observed in the French Reformed Churches. Calvin
prepared also liturgical forms for baptism and the holy communion. A form for
marriage and the visitation of the sick had been previously composed by Farel.
The combination of the liturgical and extemporaneous features continue in the
Reformed Churches of the Continent. In the Presbyterian churches of Scotland
and most of the Dissenting churches of England, and their descendants in
America, the liturgical element was gradually ruled out by free prayer; while
the Anglican Church pursued the opposite course.
Baptism
was always performed before the congregation at the close of the public
service, and in the simplest manner, according to the institution of Christ;
without the traditional ceremony of exorcism, and the use of salt, spittle, and
burning candles, because these are not commanded in the Scriptures, nourish
superstition, and divert the attention from the spiritual substance of the
ordinance to outward forms. Calvin regarded immersion as the primitive form of
baptism, but pouring and sprinkling as equally valid.519
The
communion was celebrated once a month in a simple but very solemn manner by the
whole congregation. Calvin required the communicants to give him previous
notice of their intention, that they might receive instruction, warning, or
comfort, according to their need. Unworthy applicants were excluded.
The
introduction of the Psalter in the vernacular was a most important feature, and
the beginning of a long and heroic chapter in the history of worship and
Christian life. The Psalter occupies the same important place in the Reformed
Church as the hymnal in the Lutheran. It was the source of comfort and strength
to the Huguenot Church of the Desert, and to the Presbyterian Covenanters of
Scotland, in the days of bitter trial and persecution. Calvin, himself prepared
metrical versions of Psalms 25, 36, 43, 46,520 91, 113, 120, 138, 142,
together with a metrical version of the Song of Simeon and the Ten
Commandments.521 He afterwards
used the superior version of Clément Marot, the greatest French poet of that
age, who was the poet of the court, and the psalmist of the Church (1497–1544).
Calvin met him first at the court of the Duchess of Ferrara (1536), whither he
had fled, and afterwards at Geneva (1542), where he encouraged him to continue
his metrical translation of the Psalms. Marot’s Psalter first appeared at
Paris, 1541, and contained thirty Psalms, together with metrical versions of
the Lord’s Prayer, the Angelic Salutation, the Creed, and the Decalogue.
Several editions, with fifty Psalms, were printed at Geneva in 1543, one at
Strassburg in 1545. Later editions were enlarged with the translations of Beza.
The popularity and usefulness of his and Beza’s Psalter were greatly enhanced
by the rich melodies of Claude Goudimel (1510–1572), who joined the Reformed
Church in 1562, and died a martyr at Lyons in the night of the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew. He devoted his musical genius to the Reformation. His tunes are
based in part on popular songs, and breathe the simple and earnest spirit of
the Reformed cultus. Some of them have found a place among the chorals of the
Lutheran Church.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="88" title="Calvin as Theological Teacher and Author">
§ 88.
Calvin as Theological Teacher and Author.
The
Reformers of Strassburg, aided by leading laymen, as Jacob Sturm and John
Sturm, provided for better elementary and higher education, and founded schools
which attracted pupils from France as early as 1525. Gérard Roussel, one of the
earliest of the refugees, speaks very highly of them in a letter to the bishop
of Meaux.522 A Protestant
college (gymnasium), with a theological department, was established March 22,
1538, and placed under the direction of John Sturm, one of the ablest
pedagogues of his times. It was the nucleus of a university which continued
German down to the French Revolution, was then half Frenchified, and is now
again German in language and methods of teaching. The first teachers in that
college were Bucer for the New Testament, Capito for the Old, Hedio for history
and theology, Herlin for mathematics, and Jacob Bedrot or Pedrotus for Greek.523 A converted Jew taught Hebrew.
Calvin
was appointed assistant professor of theology in January, 1539.524 He lectured on the Gospel of John, the
Epistle to the Romans, and other books of the Bible. Many students came from
Switzerland and France to hear him, who afterwards returned as evangelists. He
speaks of several students in his correspondence with satisfaction. In some cases
he was disappointed. He presided over public disputations. He refuted in 1539 a
certain Robertus Moshamus, Dean of Passau, in a disputation on the merits of
good works, and achieved a signal victory to the great delight of the scholars
of the city.525
But
he had also an unpleasant dispute with that worthless theological turncoat,
Peter Caroli, who appeared at Strassburg in October, 1539, as a troubler in
Israel, as he had done before at Lausanne, and sought to prejudice even Bucer
and Capito against Calvin on the subject of the Trinity.526
With
all his professional duties he found leisure for important literary work, which
had been interrupted at Geneva. He prepared a thorough revision of his
Institutes, which superseded the first, and a commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans, which opened the series of his invaluable exegetical works. Both were
published at Strassburg by the famous printer Wendelin Rihel in 1539. He had
been preceded, in the commentary on Romans, by Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger,
but he easily surpassed them all. He also wrote, in French, a popular treatise
on the Lord’s Supper, in which he pointed out a via media between the realism
of Luther and the spiritualism of Zwingli. Both parties, he says towards the
close, have failed and departed from the truth in their passionate zeal, but
this should not blind us to the great benefits which God through Luther and
Zwingli has bestowed upon mankind. If we are not ungrateful and forgetful of
what we owe to them, we shall be well able to pardon that and much more,
without blaming them. We must hope for a reconciliation of the two parties.
At
the Diet of Regensburg in 1541 he had, with the other Protestant delegates, to
subscribe the Augsburg Confession. He could do so honestly, understanding it,
as he said expressly, in the sense of the author who, in the year before, had
published a revised edition with an important change in the 10th Article (on
the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper).527
Of
his masterly answer to Sadolet we shall speak separately.
His
many letters from that period prove his constant and faithful attention to the
duties of friendship. In his letters to Farel he pours out his heart, and makes
him partaker of his troubles and joys, and familiar with public events and
private affairs even to little details. Farel could not stand a long separation
and paid him two brief visits in 1539 and 1540.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="89" title="Calvin at the Colloquies of Frankfurt, Worms, and
Regensburg">
§ 89.
Calvin at the Colloquies of Frankfurt, Worms, and Regensburg.
Calvin:
Letters from Worms, Regensburg, and Strassburg, in Opera, XI., and Herminjard,
vols. VI. and VII. His report on the Diet at Regensburg (Les Actes de la
journée impériale en la cité de Regenspourg), in Opera, V.
509–684.—Melanchthon: Report on the Colloquy at Worms, in Latin, and the Acts
of the Colloquy at Regensburg, in German, 1542.
See
his Epistolae, ed. Bretschneider, IV. 33–78, and pp. 728 sqq.—Sturm:
Antipappus.—Sleidan: De Statu Eccles. et Reipublicae Carolo V. Caesare, Lib.
XIII.
Henry,
Vol. I. ch. XVII.—Dyer, pp. 105 sqq.—Stähelin, I. 229–254. Kampschulte, I.
328–342.—Stricker, pp. 27 sqq.—Ludwig Pastor (Rom. Cath.): Die kirchlichen
Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V. Aus den Quellen
dargestellt. Freiburg-i.-B., 1879 (507 pp.). He notices Calvin’s influence, pp.
194, 196, 212, 230, 245, 258, 266, 484, but apparently without having read his
correspondence, which is one of the chief sources; he only refers to
Kampschulte.
Calvin
was employed, with Bucer, Capito, and Sturm, as one of the commissioners of the
city and Church of Strassburg, on several public colloquies, which were held
during his sojourn in Germany for the healing of the split caused by the
Reformation. The emperor Charles V. was anxious, from political motives, to
reconcile the Protestant princes to the Roman Church, and to secure their aid
against the Turks. The leading theological spirits in these conferences were
Melanchthon on the Lutheran, and Julius Pflug on the Roman Catholic side. They
aimed to secure the reunion of the Church by mutual concessions on minor differences
of doctrine and discipline. But the conferences shared the fate of all
compromises. Luther and Calvin would not yield an inch to the pope, while the
extreme men of the papal party, like Eck, were as unwilling to make any
concession to Protestantism. A fuller account belongs to the ecclesiastical
history of Germany.
Calvin,
being a foreigner and a Frenchman, ignorant of the German language, acted a
subordinate part, though he commanded the respect of both parties for his
ability and learning, in which he was not inferior to any. Having no faith in
compromises, or in the sincerity of the emperor, he helped to defeat rather
than to promote the pacific object of these conferences. He favored an alliance
between the Lutheran princes of the Smalkaldian League with Francis I., who, as
the rival of Charles V., was inclined to such an alliance. He was encouraged in
this line of policy by Queen Marguerite, who corresponded with him at that time
through his friend Sleidan, the statesman and historian.528 He did succeed in securing, after
repeated efforts, a petition of the Lutheran princes assembled at Regensburg to
the French king in behalf of the persecuted Protestants in France (May 23,
1541).529 But he had no
more confidence in Francis I. than in Charles V. "The king," he wrote
to Farel (September, 1540), "and the emperor, while contending in cruel
persecution of the godly, both endeavor to gain the favor of the Roman
idol."530 He placed his
trust in God, and in a close alliance of the Lutheran princes among themselves
and with the Protestants in France and Switzerland.
He
was a shrewd observer of the religious and political movements, and judged
correctly of the situation and the principal actors. Nothing escaped his
attention. He kept Farel at Neuchâtel informed even about minor incidents.
Calvin
attended the first colloquy at Frankfurt in February, 1539, in a private
capacity, for the purpose of making the personal acquaintance of Melanchthon
and pleading the cause of his persecuted brethren in France, whom he had more
at heart than German politics.
The
Colloquy was prorogued to Hagenau in June, 1540, but did not get over the
preliminaries.
A
more important Colloquy was held at Worms in November of the same year. In that
ancient city Luther had made his ever memorable declaration in favor of the
liberty of conscience, which in spite of the pope’s protest had become an
irrepressible power. Calvin appeared at this time in the capacity of a commissioner
both of Strassburg and the dukes of Lüneburg. He went reluctantly, being just
then in ill health and feeling unequal to the task. But he gathered strength on
the spot, and braced up the courage of Melanchthon who, as the spokesman of the
Lutheran theologians, showed less disposition to yield than on former
occasions. He took a prominent part in the discussion. He defeated Dean Robert
Mosham of Passau in a second disputation, and earned on that occasion from
Melanchthon, and the Lutheran theologians who were present, the distinctive
title "the Theologian" by eminence.531
He
also wrote at Worms, for his private solace, not for publication, an epic poem
in sixty-one distichs (one hundred and twenty-two lines), which celebrates the
triumph of Christ and the defeat of his enemies (Eck, Cochlaeus, Nausea,
Pelargus) after their apparent and temporary victory.532 He was not a poetic genius, but by
study he made up the defects of nature.533
The
Colloquy of Worms, after having hardly begun, was broken off in January, 1541,
to be resumed at the approaching Diet of Regensburg (Ratisbon) in presence of
the emperor on his return.
The
Diet at Regensburg was opened April 5, 1541. Calvin appeared again as a
delegate of Strassburg and at the special request of Melanchthon, but
reluctantly and with little hope of success. He felt that he was ill suited for
such work, and would only waste time.534 After long and vexatious delays in the arrival of the
deputies, the theological Colloquy was opened and conducted on the Roman
Catholic side by Dr. John Eck, professor at Ingolstadt (who had disputed with
Luther at Leipzig and promulgated the papal bull of excommunication), Julius
Pflug, canon of Mainz (afterwards bishop of Naumburg), and John Gropper, canon
and professor of canon law at Cologne; on the Protestant side by Melanchthon of
Wittenberg, Bucer of Strassburg, and Pistorius of Nidda in Hesse. Granvella
presided in the name of the emperor; Cardinal Contarini, an enlightened and
well-disposed prelate, who was inclined to evangelical views and favored a
moderate reformation, acted as legate of Pope Paul III., who sent, however, at
the same time the intolerant Bishop Morone as a special nuncio. Calvin could
see no difference between the two legates, except that Morone would like to
subdue the Protestants with bloodshed, Contarini without bloodshed. He was
urged to seek an interview with Contarini, but refused. He speaks favorably of
Pflug and Gropper, but contemptuously of Eck, the stentorian mouthpiece of the
papal party, whom he regarded as an impudent babbler and vain sophist.535 The French king was represented by Du
Veil, whom Calvin calls a "busy blockhead." There were present also a good many bishops, the princes of
the German States, and delegates of the imperial cities. The emperor, in an
earnest speech, exhorted the divines, through an interpreter, to lay aside
private feelings and to study only the truth, the glory of God, the good of the
Church, and the peace of the empire.
The
Colloquy passed slightly over the doctrines of original sin and the slavery of
the will, where the Protestants were protected by the authority of St.
Augustin. The Catholics agreed to the evangelical view of justification by
faith (without the Lutheran sola), and conceded the eucharistic cup to the
laity, but the parties split on the doctrine of the power of the Church and the
real presence. Calvin was especially consulted on the last point, and gave a
decided judgment in Latin against transubstantiation, which he rejected as a
scholastic fiction, and against the adoration of the wafer which he declared to
be idolatrous.536 He was displeased
with the submissiveness of Melanchthon and Bucer, although he did not doubt the
sincerity of their motives. He loved truth and consistency more than peace and
unity. "Philip," he wrote to Farel (May 12, 1541),537
"and Bucer have drawn up ambiguous and varnished formulas concerning
transubstantiation, to try whether they could satisfy the opposite party by
giving them nothing.538
I cannot agree to this device, although they have reasonable grounds for
doing so; for they hope that in a short time they would begin to see more
clearly if the matter of doctrine be left open; therefore they rather wish to
skip over it, and do not dread that equivocation (flexiloquation) than which
nothing can be more hurtful. I can assure you, however, that both are animated
with the best intentions, and have no other object in view than to promote the
kingdom of Christ; only in their method of proceeding they accommodate
themselves too much to the times .... These things I deplore in private to
yourself, my dear Farel; see, therefore, that they are not made public. One
thing I am thankful for, that there is no one who is fighting now more
earnestly against the wafer-god,539 as he calls it, than Brentz."540 All the negotiations failed at last by
the combined opposition of the extreme men of both parties.541
The
emperor closed the Diet on the 28th of July, and promised to use his influence
with the pope to convene a General Council for the settlement of the
theological questions.542
Calvin
had left Regensburg as soon as he found a chance, about the middle of June,
much to the regret of Bucer and Melanchthon, who wished to retain him.543
His
sojourn there was embittered by the ravages of the pestilence in Strassburg,
which carried away his beloved deacon, Claude Féray (Feraeus), his friends
Bedrotus and Capito, one of his boarders, Louis de Richebourg (Claude’s pupil),
and the sons of Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Hedio. He was thrown into a state
of extreme anxiety and depression, which he revealed to Farel in a melancholy
letter of March 29, 1541.544
"My dear friend Claude, whom I singularly esteemed," he
writes, "has been carried off by the plague. Louis (de Richebourg)
followed three days afterwards. My house was in a state of sad desolation. My
brother (Antoine) had gone with Charles (de Richebourg) to a neighboring
village; my wife had betaken herself to my brother’s; and the youngest of
Claude’s scholars [probably Malherbe of Normandy] is lying sick in bed. To the
bitterness of grief there was added a very anxious concern for those who
survived. Day and night my wife is constantly present to my thoughts, in need
of advice, seeing that she is deprived of her husband.545 ... These events
have produced in me so much sadness that it seems as if they would utterly
upset the mind and depress the spirit. You cannot believe the grief which
consumes me on account of the death of my dear friend Claude." Then he pays a touching tribute to
Féray, who had lived in his house and stuck closer to him than a brother. But
the most precious fruit of this sore affliction is his letter of comfort to the
distressed father of Louis de Richebourg, which we shall quote in another
connection.546
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="90" title="Calvin and Melanchthon">
§ 90.
Calvin and Melanchthon.
The
correspondence between Calvin (14 letters) and Melanchthon (8 letters), and
several letters of Calvin to Farel from Strassburg and Regensburg.
Henry,
Vol. I. chs. XII. and XVII,—Stähelin, I. 237–254.—Merle D’Aubigné, bk. XI. ch.
XIX. (vol. VII. 18–22, in Cates’ translation).
One of
the important advantages which his sojourn at Strassburg brought to Calvin and
to the evangelical Church was his friendship with Melanchthon. It has a typical
significance for the relationship of the Lutheran and Reformed Confessions, and
therefore deserves special consideration.
They
became first acquainted by correspondence through Bucer in October, 1538.
Melanchthon brought Calvin at once into a friendly contact with Luther, who
read with great pleasure Calvin’s answer to Sadolet (perhaps also his
Institutes), and sent his salutations to him at Strassburg.547
Luther
never saw Calvin, and probably knew little or nothing of the Reformation in
Geneva. His own work was then nearly finished, and he was longing for rest. It
is very fortunate, however, that while his mind was incurably poisoned against
Zwingli and Zürich, he never came into hostile conflict with Calvin and Geneva,
but sent him before his departure a fraternal greeting from a respectful
distance. His conduct foreshadows the attitude of the Lutheran Church and
theology towards Calvin, who had the highest regard for Luther, and enjoyed in
turn the esteem of Lutheran divines in proportion as he was known.
Melanchthon
was twelve years older than Calvin, as Luther was thirteen years older than
Melanchthon. Calvin, therefore, might have sustained to Melanchthon the
relation of a pupil to a teacher. He sought his friendship, and he always
treated him with reverential affection.548 In the dedication of his commentary on Daniel, he describes
Melanchthon as "a man who, on account of his incomparable skill in the
most excellent branches of knowledge, his piety, and other virtues, is worthy
of the admiration of all ages."
But while Melanchthon was under the overawing influence of the
personality of Luther, the Reformer of Geneva was quite independent of
Melanchthon, and so far could meet him on equal terms. Melanchthon, in sincere
humility and utter freedom from jealousy, even acknowledged the superiority of
his younger friend as a theologian and disciplinarian, and called him
emphatically "the theologian."
They
had many points of contact. Both were men of uncommon precocity; both excelled,
above their contemporaries, in humanistic culture and polished style; both
devoted all their learning to the renovation of the Church; they were equally
conscientious and unselfish; they agreed in the root of their piety, and in all
essential doctrines; they deplored the divisions in the Protestant ranks, and heartily
desired unity and harmony consistent with truth.
But
they were differently constituted. Melanchthon was modest, gentle, sensitive,
feminine, irenic, elastic, temporizing, always open to new light; Calvin,
though by nature as modest, bashful, and irritable, was in principle and
conviction firm, unyielding, fearless of consequences, and opposed to all
compromises. They differed also on minor points of doctrine and discipline.
Melanchthon, from a conscientious love of truth and peace, and from regard for
the demands of practical common sense, had independently changed his views on
two important doctrines. He abandoned the Lutheran dogma of a corporal and
ubiquitous presence in the eucharist, and approached the theory of Calvin; and
he substituted for his earlier fatalistic view of a divine foreordination of
evil as well as good the synergistic scheme which ascribes conversion to the
co-operation of three causes: the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the will
of man. He conceded to man the freedom of either accepting or rejecting the
Gospel salvation, yet without giving any merit to him for accepting the free
gift; and on this point he dissented from Calvin’s more rigorous and logical
system.549
The
sincere and lasting friendship of these two great and good men is therefore all
the more remarkable and valuable as a testimony that a deep spiritual union and
harmony may co-exist with theological differences.550
Calvin
and Melanchthon met at Frankfurt, Worms, and Regensburg under trying
circumstances. Melanchthon felt discouraged about the prospects of
Protestantism. He deplored the confusion which followed the abolition of the
episcopal supervision, the want of discipline, the rapacity of the princes, the
bigotry of the theologians. He had allowed himself, with Luther and Bucer, to
give his conditional assent to the scandalous bigamy of Philip of Hesse (May,
1540), which was the darkest blot in the history of the German Reformation, and
worse than the successive polygamy of Henry VIII. His conscience was so much
troubled about his own weakness that, at Weimar, on his way to the Colloquies
at Hagenau and Worms, he was brought to the brink of the grave, and would have
died if Luther had not prayed him out of the jaws of the king of terrors. What
a contrast between Melanchthon at Worms in 1540, and Luther at Worms in
1521! At the Diet of Regensburg,
in 1541, he felt no better. His son was sick, and he dreamed that he had died.
He read disaster and war in the stars. His letters to intimate friends are full
of grief and anxious forebodings. "I am devoured by a desire for a better
life," he wrote to one of them. He was oppressed by a sense of the
responsibility that rested upon him as the spokesman and leader of the
Reformation in the declining years of Luther, who had been formerly his
inspiration and strength. It is natural that in this condition of mind he
looked for a new support, and this he found in Calvin. We can thus easily
understand his wish to die in his arms. But Calvin himself, though more calm
and composed in regard to public affairs, was, as we have seen, deeply
distressed at Regensburg by news of the ravages of the pestilence among his
friends at Strassburg, besides being harassed by multiplying petitions to
return to Geneva. These troubles and afflictions brought their hearts nearer to
each other.
In
their first personal interview at Frankfurt on the Main, in February, 1539,
they at once became intimate, and freely discussed the burning questions of the
day, relating to doctrine, discipline, and worship.551
As
to doctrine, Calvin had previously sent to Melanchthon a summary, in twelve
articles, on the crucial topic of the real presence. To these Melanchthon
assented without dispute,552 but confessed that he had no hope of
satisfying those who obstinately insisted on a more gross and palpable
presence.553 Yet he was
anxious that the present agreement, such as it was, might be cherished until at
length the Lord shall lead both sides into the unity of his own truth. This is
no doubt the reason why he himself refrained from such a full and unequivocal
public expression of his own view as might lead to a rupture in the Lutheran
Church. He went as far as he deemed it prudent by modifying the tenth article
of the Augsburg Confession, and omitting the anti-Zwinglian clause (1540).
As
to ecclesiastical discipline, Melanchthon deplored the want of it in Germany,
but could see no prospect of improvement, till the people would learn to
distinguish the yoke of Christ from the papal tyranny.
As
to worship, Calvin frankly expressed his objection to many ceremonies, which
seemed to him to border too closely on Judaism.554 He was opposed to chanting in Latin, to pictures and candles
in churches, to exorcism in baptism, and the like. Melanchthon was reluctant to
discuss this point, but admitted that there was an excess of trifling or
unnecessary Roman Catholic rites retained in deference to the judgment of the
Canonists, and expressed the hope that some of them would be abandoned by
degrees.
After
the Colloquy at Regensburg the two Reformers saw each other no more, but
continued to correspond as far as their time and multiplicity of duties would
permit. The correspondence of friendship is apt to diminish with the increase
of age and cares. Several letters are preserved, and are most creditable to
both parties.555
The
first letter of Calvin after that Colloquy, is dated Feb. 16, 1543, and is a
lengthy answer to a message from Melanchthon.556
"You
see," he writes, "to what a lazy fellow you have intrusted your
letter. It was full four months before he delivered it to me, and then crushed
and rumpled with much rough usage. But although it has reached me somewhat
late, I set a great value upon the acquisition .... Would, indeed, as you
observe, that we could oftener converse together were it only by letters. To
you that would be no advantage; but to me, nothing in this world could be more
desirable than to take solace in the mild and gentle spirit of your correspondence.
You can scarce believe with what a load of business I am here burdened and
incessantly hurried along; but in the midst of these distractions there are two
things which most of all annoy me. My chief regret is, that there does not
appear to be the amount of fruit that one may reasonably expect from the labor
bestowed; the other is, because I am so far removed from yourself and a few
others, and therefore am deprived of that sort of comfort and consolation which
would prove a special help to me.
"But
since we cannot have even so much at our own choice, that each at his own
discretion might pick out the corner of the vineyard where he might serve
Christ, we must remain at that post which He Himself has allotted to each. This
comfort we have at least, of which no far distant separation can deprive us,—I
mean, that resting content with this fellowship which Christ has consecrated
with his own blood, and has also confirmed and sealed by his blessed Spirit in
our hearts,—while we live on the earth, we may cheer each other with that
blessed hope to which your letter calls us that in heaven above we shall dwell
forever where we shall rejoice in love and in continuance of our
friendship."557
There
can be no nobler expression of Christian friendship.
In
the same letter Calvin informs Melanchthon that he had dedicated to him his
"Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine on the Slavery and Deliverance of the
Human Will against the Calumnies of Albert Pighius," which he had urged
Calvin to write, and which appeared in February, 1543.558 After some modest account of his labors
in Geneva, and judicious reflections on the condition of the Church in Germany,
he thus concludes: —
"Adieu,
O man of most eminent accomplishments, and ever to be remembered by me and
honored in the Lord! May the Lord
long preserve you in safety to the glory of his name and the edification of the
Church. I wonder what can be the reason why you keep your Daniel a sealed book
at home.559 Neither can I
suffer myself quietly, without remonstrance, to be deprived of the benefit of
its perusal. I beg you to salute Dr. Martin reverently in my name. We have here
with us at present Bernardino of Siena, an eminent and excellent man, who has
occasioned no little stir in Italy by his secession. He has requested me that I
would greet you in his name. Once more adieu, along with your family, whom may
the Lord continually preserve."
On
the 11th of May following, Melanchthon thanked Calvin for the dedication,
saying: 560 I am much affected by your kindness, and I thank you that you
have been pleased to give evidence of your love for me to all the world, by
placing my name at the beginning of your remarkable book, where all the world
will see it." He gives due
praise to the force and eloquence with which he refuted Pighius, and,
confessing his own inferiority as a writer, encourages him to continue to
exercise his splendid talents for the edification and encouragement of the
Church. Yet, while inferior as a logician and polemic, he, after all, had a
deeper insight into the mystery of predestination and free will, although
unable to solve it. He gently hints to his friend that he looked too much to
one side of the problem of divine sovereignty and human liberty, and says in
substance: —
"As
regards the question treated in your book, the question of predestination, I
had in Tübingen a learned friend, Franciscus Stadianus, who used to say, I hold
both to be true that all things happen according to divine foreordination, and
yet according to their own laws, although he could not harmonize the two. I
maintain the proposition that God is not the author of sin, and therefore
cannot will it. David was by his own will carried into transgression.561 He might have retained the Holy Spirit.
In this conflict there is some margin for free will .... Let us accuse our own
will if we fall, and not find the cause in God. He will help and aid those who
fight in earnest. Movnon qevlhson, says Basilius, kai; qeo;" proapanta'.
God promises and gives help to those who are willing to receive it. So says the
Word of God, and in this let us abide. I am far from prescribing to you, the
most learned and experienced man in all things that belong to piety. I know
that in general you agree with my view. I only suggest that this mode of
expression is better adapted for practical use."562
In
a letter to Camerarius, 1552, Melanchthon expresses his dissatisfaction with
the manner in which Calvin emphasized the doctrine of predestination, and
attempted to force the Swiss churches to accept it in the Consensus Genevensis.563
Calvin
made another attempt in 1554 to gain him to his view, but in vain.564 On one point, however, he could agree
to a certain modification; for he laid stress on the spontaneity of the will,
and rejected Luther’s paradoxes, and his comparison of the natural man to a
dead statue.
It
is greatly to the credit of Calvin that, notwithstanding his sensitiveness and
intolerance against the opponents of his favorite dogma, he respected the
judgment of the most eminent Lutheran divine, and gave signal proof of it by
publishing a French translation of the improved edition of Melanchthon’s
Theological Commonplaces in 1546, with a commendatory preface of his own,565
in which he says that the book was a brief summary of all things necessary for
a Christian to know on the way of salvation, stated in the simplest manner by
the profoundly learned author. He does not conceal the difference of views on
the subject of free will, and says that Melanchthon seems to concede to man
some share in his salvation; yet in such a manner that God’s grace is not in
any way diminished, and no ground is left to us for boasting.
This
is the only example of a Reformer republishing and recommending the work of
another Reformer, which was the only formidable rival of his own chief work on
the same subject (the Institutes), and differed from it in several points.566
The
revival of the unfortunate eucharistic controversy by Luther in 1545, and the
equally unfortunate controversy caused by the imperial Interim in 1548, tried
the friendship of the Reformers to the uttermost. Calvin respectfully, yet
frankly, expressed his regret at the indecision and want of courage displayed
by Melanchthon from fear of Luther and love of peace.
When
Luther came out a year before his death with his most violent and abusive book
against the "Sacramentarians,"567 which deeply grieved
Melanchthon and roused the just indignation of the Zwinglians, Calvin wrote to
Melanchthon (June 28, 1545): 568—
"Would
that the fellow-feeling which enables me to condole with you, and to sympathize
in your heaviness, might also impart the power in some degree at least to
lighten your sorrow. If the matter stands as the Zürichers say it does, then
they have just occasion for their writing .... Your Pericles allows himself to
be carried beyond all bounds with his love of thunder, especially seeing that
his own cause is by no means the better of the two .... We all of us
acknowledge that we are much indebted to him. But in the Church we always must
be upon our guard, lest we pay too great a deference to men. It is all over
with her when a single individual has more authority than all the rest ....
Where there is so much division and separation as we now see, it is indeed no
easy matter to still the troubled waters, and bring about composure .... You
will say he [Luther] has a vehement disposition and ungovernable impetuosity;
as if that very vehemence did not break forth with all the greater violence
when all show themselves alike indulgent to him, and allow him to have his way
unquestioned. If this specimen of overbearing tyranny has sprung forth already
as the early blossom in the springtide of a reviving Church, what must we
expect in a short time, when affairs have fallen into a far worse
condition? Let us, therefore,
bewail the calamity of the Church and not devour our grief in silence, but
venture boldly to groan for freedom .... You have studiously endeavored, by
your kindly method of instruction, to recall the minds of men from strife and
contention. I applaud your prudence and moderation. But while you dread, as you
would some hidden rock, to meddle with this question from fear of giving
offence, you are leaving in perplexity and suspense very many persons who
require from you somewhat of a more certain sound, on which they can repose
.... Perhaps it is now the will of God to open the way for a full and
satisfactory declaration of your own mind, that those who look up to your
authority may not be brought to a stand, and kept in a state of perpetual doubt
and hesitation ....
"In
the mean time let us run the race set before us with deliberate courage. I
return you very many thanks for your reply, and for the extraordinary kindness
which Claude assures me had been shown to him by you.569 I can form a conjecture what you would
have been to myself, from your having given so kind and courteous a reception
to my friend. I do not cease to offer my chief thanks to God, who has
vouchsafed to us that agreement in opinion upon the whole of that question [on
the real presence]; for although there is a slight difference in certain
particulars, we are very well agreed upon the general question itself."
When
after the defeat of the Protestants in the Smalkaldian War, Melanchthon
accepted the Leipzig Interim with the humiliating condition of conformity to
the Roman ritual, which the German emperor imposed upon them, Calvin was still
more dissatisfied with his old friend. He sided, in this case, with the
Lutheran non-conformists who, under the lead of Matthias Flacius, resisted the
Interim, and were put under the ban of the empire. He wrote to Melanchthon,
June 18, 1550, the following letter of remonstrance:570—
"The
ancient satirist [Juvenal, I. 79] once said, —
<foreign
lang="la">’Si
natura negat, facit indignatio versum.’
</foreign>"It is at present far otherwise with me. So little
does my present grief aid me in speaking, that it rather renders me almost
entirely speechless .... I would have you suppose me to be groaning rather than
speaking. It is too well known, from their mocking and jests, how much the
enemies of Christ were rejoicing over your contests with the theologians of
Magdeburg.571 ... If no blame attaches to you in this matter, my dear
Philip, it would be but the dictate of prudence and justice to devise means of
curing, or at least mitigating, the evil. Yet, forgive me if I do not consider
you altogether free from blame .... In openly admonishing you, I am discharging
the duty of a true friend; and if I employ a little more severity than usual,
do not think that it is owing to any diminution of my old affection and esteem
for you .... I know that nothing gives you greater pleasure than open candor
.... This is the sum of your defence: that, provided purity of doctrine be
retained, externals should not be pertinaciously contended for .... But you
extend the distinction of non-essentials too far. You are aware that the
Papists have corrupted the worship of God in a thousand ways. Several of those
things which you consider indifferent are obviously repugnant to the Word of
God .... You ought not to have made such large concessions to the Papists ....
At the time when circumcision was yet lawful, do you not see that Paul, because
crafty and malicious fowlers were laying snares for the liberty of believers,
pertinaciously refused to concede to them a ceremony at the first instituted by
God? He boasts that he did not
yield to them,—no, not for an hour,—that the truth of God might remain intact
among the Gentiles (<scripRef passage = "Gal.
2:5">Gal.
2:5</scripRef>) .... I remind you of what
I once said to you, that we consider our ink too precious if we hesitate to
bear testimony in writing to those things which so many of the flock are daily
sealing with their blood .... The trepidation of a general is more dishonorable
than the flight of a whole herd of private soldiers .... You alone, by only
giving way a little, will cause more complaints and sighs than would a hundred
ordinary individuals by open desertion. And, although I am fully persuaded that
the fear of death never compelled you in the very least to swerve from the
right path, yet I am apprehensive that it is just possible that another species
of fear may have proved too much for your courage. For I know how much you are
horrified at the charge of rude severity. But we should remember that
reputation must not be accounted by the servants of Christ as of more value
than life. We are no better than Paul was, who remained fearlessly on his way
through ’evil and good report.’ ... You know why I am so vehement. I had rather
die with you a hundred times than see you survive the doctrines surrendered by
you ....
"Pardon
me for loading your breast with these miserable though ineffectual groans.
Adieu, most illustrious sir, and ever worthy of my hearty regard. May the Lord
continue to guide you by his Spirit, and sustain you by his might. May his
protection guard you. Amen."
We
have here a repetition of the scene between Paul and Peter at Antioch,
concerning the rite of circumcision; and while we admire the frankness and
boldness of Paul and Calvin in rebuking an elder brother, and standing up for
principle, we must also admire the meekness and humility of Peter and
Melanchthon in bearing the censure.
Melanchthon
himself, after a brief interruption, reopened the correspondence in the old
friendly spirit, during the disturbances of war between Elector Maurice and the
Emperor Charles, which made an end of the controversy about the Adiaphora.
"How
often," wrote Melanchthon, Oct. 1, 1552,572 "would I have written
to you, reverend sir and dearest brother, if I could find more trustworthy
letter-carriers. For I would like to converse with you about many most
important matters, because I esteem your judgment very highly and know the
candor and purity of your soul.573
I am now living as in a wasp’s nest;574 but perhaps I shall soon be called from this mortal life to
a brighter companionship in heaven. If I live longer, I have to expect new
exiles; if so, I am determined to turn to you. The studies are now broken up by
pestilence and war. How often do I mourn and sigh over the causes of this fury
among princes."
In
a lengthy and interesting answer Calvin says:575 "Nothing could have come to me more seasonably at this
time than your letter, which I received two months after its despatch."576 He assures him that it was no little
consolation to him in his sore trials at Geneva to be assured of the
continuance of his affection, which, he was told, had been interrupted by the
letter of remonstrance above referred to. "I have learned the more gladly
that our friendship remains safe, which assuredly, as it grew out of a
heartfelt love of piety, ought to remain forever sacred and inviolable."
In
the unfortunate affair of Servetus, Melanchthon fully approved Calvin’s conduct
(1554).577 But during the
eucharistic controversy excited by Westphal, he kept an ominous silence, which
produced a coolness between them. In a letter of Aug. 3, 1557, Calvin complains
that for three years he had not heard from him, but expresses satisfaction that
he still entertained the same affection, and closes with the wish that he maybe
permitted "to enjoy on earth a most delightful interview with you, and
feel some alleviation of my grief by deploring along with you the evils which
we cannot remedy."578
That
wish was not granted. In a letter of Nov. 19, 1558,579 he gives him, while
still suffering from a quartan ague, a minute account of his malady, of the
remedies of the doctors, of the formidable coalition of the kings of France and
Spain against Geneva, and concludes with these words:
"Let
us cultivate with sincerity a fraternal affection towards each other, the ties
of which no wiles of the devil shall ever burst asunder .... By no slight shall
my mind ever be alienated from that holy friendship and respect which I have
vowed to you .... Farewell, most illustrious light and distinguished doctor of
the Church. May the Lord always govern you by his Spirit, preserve you long in
safety, increase your store of blessings. In your tum, diligently commend us to
the protection of God, as you see us exposed to the jaws of the wolf. My
colleagues and an innumerable crowd of pious men salute you."
On the 19th of April, 1560, Melanchthon
was delivered from "the fury of the theologians" and all his
troubles. A year after his death Calvin, who had to fight the battle of faith
four years longer, during the renewed fury of the eucharistic controversy with
the fanatical Heshusius, addressed this touching appeal to his sainted friend
in heaven: —
"O
Philip Melanchthon! I appeal to
thee who now livest with Christ in the bosom of God, and there art waiting for
us till we shall be gathered with thee to that blessed rest. A hundred times,
when worn out with labors and oppressed with so many troubles, didst thou
repose thy head familiarly on my breast and say, ’Would that I could die in
this bosom!’ Since then I have a
thousand times wished that it had been granted to us to live together; for
certainly thou wouldst thus have had more courage for the inevitable contest,
and been stronger to despise envy, and to count as nothing all accusations. In
this manner, also, the malice of many would have been restrained who, from thy
gentleness which they call weakness, gathered audacity for their attacks."580
Who,
in view of this friendship which was stronger than death, can charge Calvin
with want of heart and tender affection?
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="91" title="Calvin and Sadolet. The Vindication of the
Reformation">
§ 91.
Calvin and Sadolet. The Vindication of the Reformation.
Sadoleti:
Epistola ad Genevenses (Cal. Apr., i.e. March 18, 1539).—Calvini: Responsio ad
Sadoletum (Sept. 1, 1539), Argentorati ap. Wendelinum Richelium excusa. In
Calv. Opera, vol. V. 385–416. Calvin translated it into French, 1540
(republished at Geneva, 1860). English translation of both by Henry Beveridge
in John Calvin’s Tracts relate to the Reformation, Edinburgh (Calvin
Translation Society), 1844, pp. 3–68.—Beza, Vita C., Opera, XXI. 129.
Henry,
Vol. I. ch. XI.—Dyer, 102 sq.—Stähelin, I. 291–304.—Kampschulte, I. 354 sq.
(only a brief but important notice).—Merle D’Aubigné, bk. XI. ch. XVI., and
vol. VI. 570–594.
"Another
evil, of a more dangerous kind, arose in the year 1539, and was at once
extinguished by the diligence of Calvin. The bishop of Carpentras, at that
time, was James Sadolet, a man of great eloquence, but he perverted it chiefly
in suppressing the light of truth. He had been appointed a cardinal for no
other reason than in order that his moral respectability might serve to put a
kind of gloss on false religion. Observing his opportunity in the circumstances
which had occurred, and thinking that he would easily ensnare the flock when
deprived of its distinguished pastors, he sent, under the pretext of
neighborhood (for the city of Carpentras is in Dauphiny, which again bounds on
Savoy), a letter to his so-styled ’most Beloved Senate, Council, and People of
Geneva,’ omitting nothing which might tend to bring them both into the lap of
the Romish Harlot,581
There was nobody at that time in Geneva capable of writing an answer,
and it is, therefore, not unlikely, that, had the letter not been written in a
foreign tongue (Latin), it would, in the existing state of affairs, have done
great mischief to the city. But Calvin, having read it at Strasbourg, forgot
all his injuries, and forthwith answered it with so much truth and eloquence, that
Sadolet immediately gave up the whole affair as desperate."
This
is Beza’s account of that important and interesting controversy which occurred
in the German period of Calvin’s life, and left a permanent impression on
history.
The
interregnum in Geneva furnished an excellent opportunity for Pierre de la
Baume, who had been made a cardinal, to recover his lost bishopric. In this
respect he only followed the example of dispossessed princes. He brought about,
with the help of the pope, a consultation of the bishops of the neighboring
dioceses of Lyons, Vienne, Lausanne, Besançon, Turin, Langres, and Carpentras.
The meeting was held at Lyons under the presidency of the cardinal of Tournon,
then archbishop of Lyons, and known as a bigoted persecutor of the Waldenses.
Jean Philippe, the chief author of the banishment of Calvin, aided in the
scheme. The bishop of Carpentras, a town on the borders of Savoy, was selected
for the execution. A better choice could not have been made.
Jacopo
Sadoleto (born at Modena, 1477, died at Rome, 1547) was one of the secretaries
of Pope Leo X., bishop of Carpentras in Dauphiny since 1517, secretary of
Clement VII. in 1523, a cardinal since 1536. He was frequently employed in
diplomatic peace negotiations between the pope, the king of France, and the
emperor of Germany. He had a high reputation as a scholar, a poet, and a
gentleman of irreproachable character and devout piety. He best represents the
Italian Renaissance in its leaning towards a moderate semi-evangelical reform
within the Catholic Church. He was an admirer of Erasmus and Melanchthon, and
one of the founders of the Oratory at Rome for purposes of mutual edification.
He acted, like Contarini, as a mediator between the Roman and Protestant
parties, but did not please either. In his commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans, he expressed opinions on divine grace and free-will which gave offence
in Rome and in Spain. His colleague, Cardinal Bembo, warned him against the
study of St. Paul, lest it might spoil his classical style. Sadolet prevented
the spread of Calvinism in his diocese, but was opposed to violent persecution.
He kindly received the fugitive Waldenses after the terrible massacre of
Mérindol and Cabrières, in 1545, and besought the clemency of Francis I. in their
behalf. He was grieved and disgusted with the nepotism of Pope Paul III., and
declined the appointment to preside over the Council of Trent as papal
delegate, on the score of extreme poverty.
This
highly respectable dignitary of the papal hierarchy made a very able and
earnest effort to win back the orphan Church of Geneva to the sheepfold of
Rome. He thereby came involuntarily into a literary conflict with Calvin, in
which he was utterly defeated. Fresh from a visit to the pope, he addressed a
letter of some twenty or more octavo pages "to his dearly beloved
Brethren, the Magistrates, Senate, and Citizens of Geneva." It is written in elegant Latin, and
with persuasive eloquence, of which he was a consummate master.
He
assumes the air of authority as a cardinal and papal legate, and begins with an
apostolic greeting: "Very dear Brethren in Christ,—Peace to you and with
us, that is, with the Catholic Church, the mother of all, both of us and you,
love and concord from God, the Father Almighty, and from his Son Jesus Christ,
our Lord, together with the Holy Spirit, perfect Unity in Trinity; to whom be
praise and dominion for ever and ever." He flatters the Genevese by praising their noble city, the
order and form of their republic, the worth of their citizens, and especially
their "hospitality to strangers and foreigners," but he casts
suspicion on the character and motives of the Reformers. This uncharitable and
ungentlemanly reflection mars the beauty and dignity of his address, and
weakened its effect upon the citizens of Geneva who, whatever were their
religious views, had no doubt about the honesty and earnestness of Farel,
Viret, and Calvin.
After
this introduction Sadolet gives a very plausible exposition of the principle of
the Catholic doctrines, but ignores the Bible. He admits that man is saved by
faith alone, but adds the necessity of good works. He then asks the Genevese to
decide, "Whether it be more expedient for their salvation to believe and
follow what the Catholic Church has approved with general consent for more than
fifteen hundred years, or innovations introduced within these twenty-five years
by crafty men." He then
adduces the stock arguments of antiquity, universality, unity, and inerrancy,
while the Protestants were already broken up into warring sects a manifest
indication of falsehood. For "truth," he says, "is always one,
while error is varied and multiform; that which is straight is simple, that
which is crooked has many turns. Can any one who confesses Christ, fail to
perceive that such teaching of the holy Church is the proper work of Satan, and
not of God? What does God demand
of us? What does Christ enjoin? That we be all one in him."
He
closes with an earnest exhortation, and assures the Genevese: "Whatever I
possibly can do, although it is very little, still if I have in me any talent,
skill, authority, industry, I offer them all to you and your interests, and
will regard it as a great favor to myself should you be able to reap any fruit
and advantage from my labor and assistance in things human and divine."
The
Council of Geneva politely acknowledged the receipt of the cardinal’s letter
with thanks for the compliments paid to the Genevese, and promised a full reply
in due time. This was March 27. On the next day a number of citizens, under the
lead of François Chamois, entered a protest against the ordinance by which the
Confession of Faith had been adopted, July 29, 1537, and asked to be released
from the oath. The Romanists took courage. No one could be found in Geneva who
was able to answer the cardinal’s letter, and silence might be construed into
consent.
Calvin
received a copy of the appeal through Sulzer, a minister of Bern, wrote an
answer of more than twice its length in six days, and despatched it to Geneva
in time to neutralize the mischief (Sept. 1). Though not mentioned by name, he
was indirectly assailed by the cardinal as the chief among those who had been
denounced as misleaders and disturbers of the peace of Geneva. He therefore
felt it his duty to take up the pen in defence of the Reformation.
He
begins by paying a just tribute to the cardinal for his excellent learning and
admirable eloquence, which raised him to a place among the first scholars of
the age. Nor did he impeach his motives. "I will give you credit," he
says, "for having written to the Genevese with the purest intention as
becomes one of your learning, prudence, and gravity, and for having in good
faith advised them to the course which you believed to be to their interest and
safety." He was, therefore,
reluctant to oppose him, and he did so only under an imperative sense of duty.
We let him speak for himself.582
"I
profess to be one of those whom, with so much enmity, you assail and
stigmatize. For though religion was already established, and the form of the
Church corrected, before I was invited to Geneva, yet having not only approved
by my suffrage, but studied as much as in me lay to preserve and confirm what
had been done by Viret and Farel, I cannot separate my case from theirs. Still,
if you had attacked me in my private character, I could easily have forgiven
the attack in consideration of your learning, and in honor of letters. But when
I see that my ministry, which I feel assured is supported and sanctioned by a
call from God, is wounded through my side, it would be perfidy, not patience,
were I here to be silent and connive.
"In
that Church I have held the office, first of Doctor, and then of Pastor. In my
own right I maintain that, in undertaking these offices, I had a legitimate
vocation. How faithfully and religiously I have performed them, there is no
occasion for now showing at length. Perspicuity, erudition, prudence, ability,
or even industry, I will not claim for myself, but that I certainly labored
with the sincerity which became me in the work of the Lord, I can in conscience
appeal to Christ, my Judge, and all his angels, while all good men bear clear
testimony in my favor. This ministry, therefore, when it shall appear to have
been of God (as it certainly shall appear after the cause has been heard), were
I in silence to allow you to tear and defame, who would not condemn such
silence as treachery ? Every
person, therefore, now sees that the strongest obligations of duty—obligations
which I cannot evade—constrain me to meet your accusations, if I would not with
manifest perfidy desert and betray a cause with which the Lord has intrusted
me. For though I am for the present relieved of the charge of the Church of
Geneva, that circumstance ought not to prevent me from embracing it with
paternal affection—God, when he gave it to me in charge, having bound me to be
faithful forever."
He
repels with modest dignity the frivolous charge of having embraced the cause of
the Reformation from disappointed ambition.
"I
am unwilling to speak of myself, but since you do not permit me to be
altogether silent, I will say what I can consistently with modesty. Had I
wished to consult my own interest, I would never have left your party. I will
not, indeed, boast that there the road to preferment had been easy to me. I
never desired it, and I could never bring my mind to catch at it; although I
certainly know not a few of my own age who have crept up to some eminence—among
them some whom I might have equalled, and others outstripped. This only I will
be contented to say, it would not have been difficult for me to reach the
summit of my wishes, viz., the enjoyment of literary ease with something of a
free and honorable station. Therefore, I have no fear that any one not
possessed of shameless effrontery will object to me, that out of the kingdom of
the pope I sought for any personal advantage which was not there ready to my
hand."
The
Reformer follows the cardinal’s letter step by step, and defeats him at every
point. He answers his assertions with facts and arguments. He destroys, like a
cobweb, his beautiful picture of an ideal Catholicism by a description of the
actual papacy of those days, with its abuses and corruptions, which were the
real cause of the Reformation. He gives a very dark account, indeed, but it is
fully confirmed by what is authentically known of the lives of such popes as
Alexander VI. and Leo X., by the invectives of Savonarola, by the observations
of Erasmus and Luther on their experience in Rome, by such impartial witnesses
as Machiavelli, who says that religion was almost destroyed in Italy owing to
the bad example set by the popes, and even by the testimony of an exceptionally
good and pious pope, Adrian VI., who, with all his abhorrence of the Lutheran
heresy, officially confessed the absolute necessity of a moral reform in the
head and members of the hierarchy.
"We
deny not," says Calvin, "that those over whom you preside are
churches of Christ, but we maintain that the Roman pontiff, with his whole herd
of pseudo-bishops, who have seized upon the pastor’s office, are ravening
wolves, whose only study has hitherto been to scatter and trample upon the
kingdom of Christ, filling it with ruin and devastation. Nor are we the first
to make the complaint. With what vehemence does Bernard thunder against
Eugenius and all the bishops of his own age? Yet how much more tolerable was its condition than now?
"For
iniquity has reached its height, and now those shadowy prelates, by whom you
think the Church stands or perishes, and by whom we say that she has been
cruelly torn and mutilated, and brought to the very brink of destruction, can
bear neither their vices nor the cure of them. Destroyed the Church would have
been, had not God, with singular goodness, prevented. For in all places where
the tyranny of the Roman pontiff prevails, you scarcely see as many stray and
tattered vestiges as will enable you to perceive that these Churches he half
buried. Nor should you think this absurd, since Paul tells you that Antichrist
would have his seat in no other place than in the midst of God’s sanctuary (<scripRef passage
= "2 Thess. 2:4">2 Thess. 2:4</scripRef>) ....
"But
whatever the character of the men, still, you say, it is written, ’What they
tell you, do.’ No doubt, if they
sit in the chair of Moses. But when, from the chair of verity, they intoxicate
the people with folly, it is written, ’Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees’ (<scripRef passage
= "Matt. 12:6">Matt. 12:6</scripRef>) ....
"Let
your pontiff boast as he may of the succession of Peter: even if he should make
good his title to it, he will establish nothing more than that obedience is due
to him from the Christian people so long as he himself maintains his fidelity
to Christ, and does not deviate from the purity of the gospel … . A prophet
should be judged by the congregation (<scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
14:29">1
Cor. 14:29</scripRef>). Whoever exempts himself from this must first expunge his
name from the list of the prophets ....
"As
to your assertion, that our only aim in shaking off this tyrannical yoke was to
set ourselves free for unbridled licentiousness after (so help us!) casting
away all thoughts of future life, let judgment be given after comparing our
conduct with yours. We abound, indeed, in numerous faults; too often do we sin
and fall. Still, though truth would, modesty will not, permit me to boast how
far we excel you in every respect, unless, perchance, you except Rome, that
famous abode of sanctity, which having burst asunder the cords of pure
discipline, and trodden all honor under foot, has so overflowed with all kinds
of iniquity, that scarcely anything so abominable has ever been before."
At
the close of his letter, Sadolet had cited the Reformers as criminals before
the judgment-seat of God, in an imaginary confession to the effect that they
had been actuated by base motives of pride and disappointed ambition in their
assaults upon the holy Church and the vicegerent of Christ, and become guilty
of "great seditions and schisms."
Calvin
takes up the challenge by a counter-confession, which introduces us into the
very heart of the great religious struggle of the sixteenth century, and is
perhaps the ablest vindication of the Reformation to be found in the
controversial literature of that time. He puts that movement on the ground of
the Word of God against the commandments of men, and justifies it by the
protests of the Hebrew prophets against the corruptions of the Levitical
priesthood, and Christ’s fearful denunciations of the Pharisees and Sadducees,
who nailed the Saviour to the cross. The same confession contains also an
incidental account of the spiritual experience and conversion of the author,
who speaks for himself as well as his colleagues. We give it in full.
"Consider
now what serious answer you are to make for yourself and your party. Our cause,
as it is supported by the truth of God, will be at no loss for a complete
defence. I am not speaking of our persons; their safety will be found not in
defence, but in humble confession and suppliant deprecation. But in so far as
our ministry is concerned, there is none of us who will not be able thus to
speak: —
"
’O Lord, I have, indeed, experienced how difficult and grievous it was to bear
the invidious accusations with which I was harassed on the earth; but with the
same confidence with which I then appealed to Thy tribunal, I now appear before
Thee, because I know that in Thy judgment truth always reigns—that truth by
whose assurance supported I first ventured to attempt—with whose assistance
provided I was able to accomplish whatever I have achieved in Thy Church.
"
’They charged me with two of the worst of crimes—heresy and schism. And the
heresy was, that I dared to protest against dogmas which they received. But
what could I have done? I heard
from Thy mouth that there was no other light of truth which could direct our
souls into the way of life, than that which was kindled by Thy Word. I heard
that whatever human minds of themselves conceive concerning Thy Majesty, the
worship of Thy Deity, and the mysteries of Thy religion, was vanity. I heard
that their introducing into the Church instead of Thy Word, doctrines sprung from
the human brain, was sacrilegious presumption.
"
’But when I turned my eyes towards men, I saw very different principles
prevailing. Those who were regarded as the leaders of faith, neither understood
Thy Word, nor greatly cared for it. They only drove unhappy people to and fro
with strange doctrines, and deluded them with I know not what follies. Among
the people themselves, the highest veneration paid to Thy Word was to revere it
at a distance, as a thing inaccessible, and abstain from all investigation of
it.
"
'Owing to this supine state of the pastors, and this stupidity of the people,
every place was filled with pernicious errors, falsehoods, and superstition.
They, indeed, called Thee the only God, but it was while transferring to others
the glory which thou hast claimed for Thy Majesty. They figured and had for
themselves as many gods as they had saints, whom they chose to worship. Thy
Christ was indeed worshipped as God, and retained the name of Saviour; but where
He ought to have been honored, He was left almost without honor. For, spoiled
of His own virtue, He passed unnoticed among the crowd of saints, like one of
the meanest of them. There was none who duly considered that one sacrifice
which He offered on the cross, and by which He reconciled us to Thyself—none
who ever dreamed of thinking of His eternal priesthood, and the intercession
depending upon it—none who trusted in His righteousness only. That confident
hope of salvation which is both enjoined by Thy Word, and founded upon it, had
almost vanished. Nay, it was received as a kind of oracle, that it was foolish
arrogance, and, as they termed it, presumption for any one trusting to Thy
goodness, and the righteousness of Thy Son, to entertain a sure and unfaltering
hope of salvation.
"
’Not a few profane opinions plucked up by the roots the first principles of
that doctrine which Thou hast delivered to us in Thy Word. The true meaning of
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, also, was corrupted by numerous falsehoods. And
then, when all, with no small insult to Thy mercy, put confidence in good
works, when by good works they strove to merit Thy favor, to procure
justification, to expiate their sins, and make satisfaction to Thee (each of
these things obliterating and making void the virtue of Christ’s cross), they
were yet altogether ignorant wherein good works consisted. For, just as if they
were not at all instructed in righteousness by Thy law, they had fabricated for
themselves many useless frivolities, as a means of procuring Thy favor, and on
these they so plumed themselves, that, in comparison of them, they almost
contemned the standard of true righteousness which Thy law recommended,—to such
a degree had human desires, after usurping the ascendancy, derogated, if not
from the belief, at least from the authority, of Thy precepts therein
contained.
"
’That I might perceive these things, Thou, O Lord, didst shine upon me with the
brightness of Thy Spirit; that I might comprehend how impious and noxious they
were, Thou didst bear before me the torch of Thy Word; that I might abominate
them as they deserved, Thou didst
stimulate my soul.
"
’But in rendering an account of my doctrine, Thou seest (what my own conscience
declares) that it was not my intention to stray beyond those limits which I saw
had been fixed by all Thy servants. Whatever I felt assured that I had learned
from Thy mouth, I desired to dispense faithfully to the Church. Assuredly, the
thing at which I chiefly aimed, and for which I most diligently labored, was,
that the glory of Thy goodness and justice, after dispersing the mists by which
it was formerly obscured, might shine forth conspicuous, that the virtue and
blessings of Thy Christ (all glosses being wiped away) might be fully
displayed. For I thought it impious to leave in obscurity things which we were
born to ponder and meditate. Nor did I think that truths, whose magnitude no
language can express, were to be maliciously or falsely declared.
"
’I hesitated not to dwell at greater length on topics on which the salvation of
my hearers depended. For the oracle could never deceive which declares (John
17:3): "This is eternal life to know Thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom Thou hast sent."
"
’As to the charge of forsaking the Church, which they were wont to bring
against me, there is nothing of which my conscience accuses me, unless, indeed,
he is to be considered a deserter, who, seeing the soldiers routed and
scattered, and abandoning the ranks, raises the leader’s standard, and recalls
them to their posts. For thus, O Lord, were all thy servants dispersed, so that
they could not, by any possibility, hear the command, but had almost forgotten
their leader, and their service, and their military oath. In order to bring
them together, when thus scattered, I raised not a foreign standard, but that
noble banner of Thine which we must follow, if we would be classed among Thy
people. Then I was assailed by those who, when they ought to have kept others
in their ranks, had led them astray, and when I determined not to desist,
opposed me with violence. On this grievous tumults arose, and the contest
blazed and issued in disruption.
"
’With whom the blame rests it is for Thee, O Lord, to decide. Always, both by
word and deed, have I protested how eager I was for unity. Mine, however, was a
unity of the Church, which should begin with Thee and end in Thee. For as oft
as Thou didst recommend to us peace and concord, Thou, at the same time, didst
show that Thou wert the only bond for preserving it.
"
’But if I desired to be at peace with those who boasted of being the heads of
the Church and pillars of faith, I believed to purchase it with the denial of
Thy truth. I thought that anything was to be endured sooner than stoop to such
nefarious compact. For Thy Anointed Himself hath declared, that though heaven
and earth should be confounded, yet Thy Word must endure forever (Matt. 24:35).
"
’Nor did I think that I dissented from Thy Church because I was at war with
those leaders; for Thou hast forewarned me, both by Thy Son, and by the
apostles, that that place would be occupied by persons to whom I ought by no
means to consent. Christ had predicted not of strangers, but of men who should
give themselves out for pastors, that they would be ravenous wolves and false
prophets, and had, at the same time, cautioned me to beware of them. Where
Christ ordered me to beware, was I to lend my aid? And the apostles declared that there would be no enemies of
Thy Church more pestilential than those from within who should conceal
themselves under the title of pastors (<scripRef passage = "Matt.
7:15">Matt.
7:15</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Acts
20:29">Acts
20:29</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "2 Pet.
2:1">2
Pet. 2:1</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 John
2:18">1
John 2:18</scripRef>).
"
’Why should I have hesitated to separate myself from persons whom they
forewarned me to hold as enemies?
I had before my eyes the examples of Thy prophets, who I saw had a
similar contest with the priests and false prophets of their day, though these
were undoubtedly the rulers of the Church among the Israelitish people. But Thy
prophets are not regarded as schismatics, because, when they wished to revive
religion, which had fallen into decay, they desisted not, although opposed with
the utmost violence. They still remained in the unity of the Church, though
they were doomed to perdition by wicked priests, and deemed unworthy of a place
among men, not to say saints.
"
’Confirmed by their example, I, too, persisted. Though denounced as a deserter
of the Church, and threatened, I was in no respect deterred or induced to
proceed less firmly and boldly in opposing those, who, in the character of
pastors, wasted Thy Church with a more than impious tyranny. My conscience told
me how strong the zeal was with which I burned for the unity of Thy Church,
provided Thy truth were made the bond of concord. As the commotions which
followed were not excited by me, so there is no ground for imputing them to me.
Thou, O Lord, knowest, and the fact itself has testified to men, that the only
thing I asked was, that all controversies should be decided by Thy Word, that
thus both parties might unite with one mind to establish Thy kingdom; and I
declined not to restore peace to the Church at the expense of my head, if I
were found to have been unnecessarily the cause of tumult.
"
’But what did our opponents? Did
they not instantly, and like madmen fly to fires, swords, and gibbets? Did they not decide that their only
security, was in arms and cruelty?
Did they not instigate all ranks to the same fury? Did they not spurn at all methods of
pacification? To this it is owing
that a matter, which might at one time have been settled amicably, has blazed
into such a contest. But although, amidst the great confusion, the judgments of
men were various, I am freed from all fear, now that we stand at Thy tribunal,
where equity, combined with truth, cannot but decide in favor of innocence.’
"Such,
Sadolet, is our pleading, not the fictitious one which you, in order to
aggravate our case, were pleased to devise, but that the perfect truth of which
is known to the good even now, and will be made manifest to all creatures on
that day. Nor will those who, instructed by our preaching, have adhered to our
cause, be at loss what to say for themselves, since each will be ready with
this defence: —
"
’I, O Lord, as I had been educated from a boy, always professed the Christian
faith. But at first I had no other reason for my faith than that which then
everywhere prevailed. Thy Word, which ought to have shone on all Thy people
like a lamp, was taken away, or at least suppressed as to us. And lest any one
should long for greater light, an idea had been instilled into the minds of
all, that the investigation of that hidden celestial philosophy was better
delegated to a few, whom the others might consult as oracles—that the highest
knowledge befitting plebeian minds was to subdue themselves into obedience to
the Church. Then, the rudiments in which I had been instructed were of a kind
which could neither properly train me to the legitimate worship of Thy Deity,
nor pave the way for me to a sure hope of salvation, nor train me aright for
the duties of the Christian life. I had learned, indeed, to worship Thee only
as my God, but as the true method of worshipping was altogether unknown to me,
I stumbled at the very threshold. I believed, as I had been taught, that I was
redeemed by the death of Thy Son from the liability to eternal death, but the
redemption I thought of was one whose virtue could never reach me. I
anticipated a future resurrection, but hated to think of it, as being an event
most dreadful. And this feeling not only had dominion over me in private, but
was derived from the doctrine which was then uniformly delivered to the people
by their Christian teachers.
"
’They, indeed, preached of Thy clemency towards men, but confined it to those
who should show themselves deserving of it. They, moreover, placed this desert
in the righteousness of works, so that he only was received into Thy favor who
reconciled himself to Thee by works. Nor, meanwhile, did they disguise the fact
that we are miserable sinners, that we often fall through infirmity of the
flesh, and that to all, therefore, Thy mercy behoved to be the common haven of
salvation; but the method of obtaining it, which they pointed out, was by
making satisfaction to Thee for offences. Then the satisfaction enjoined was,
first, after confessing all our sins to a priest, suppliantly to ask pardon and
absolution; and, secondly, by good to efface from Thy remembrance our bad
actions. Lastly, in order to supply what was still wanting, we were to add
sacrifices and solemn expiations. Then, because Thou wert a stern judge and
strict avenger of iniquity, they showed how dreadful Thy presence must be.
Hence they bade us flee first to the saints, that by their intercession Thou
mightest be rendered exorable and propitious to us.
"
’When, however, I had performed all these things, though I had some intervals
of quiet, I was still far off from true peace of conscience; for, whenever I
descended into myself, or raised my mind to Thee, extreme terror seized
me—terror which no expiations or satisfactions could cure. And the more closely
I examined myself, the sharper the stings with which my conscience was pricked,
so that the only solace which remained to me was to delude myself by
obliviousness. Still, as nothing better offered, I continued the course which I
had begun, when, lo! a very different form of doctrine started up, not one
which led us away from the Christian profession, but one which brought it back
to its fountain-head, and, as it were, clearing away the dross, restored it to
its original purity.
"
’Offended by the novelty, I lent an unwilling ear, and at first, I confess,
strenuously and passionately resisted; for (such is the firmness or effrontery
with which it is natural to men to persist in the course which they have once
undertaken) it was with the greatest difficulty I was induced to confess that I
had all my life long been in ignorance and error. One thing, in particular,
made me averse to those new teachers, viz. reverence for the Church.
"
’But when once I opened my ears, and allowed myself to be taught, I perceived
that this fear of derogating from the majesty of the Church was groundless. For
they reminded me how great the difference is between schism from the Church,
and studying to correct the faults by which the Church herself was
contaminated. They spoke nobly of the Church, and showed the greatest desire to
cultivate unity. And lest it should seem they quibbled on the term Church, they
showed it was no new thing for Antichrists to preside there in place of
pastors. Of this they produced not a few examples, from which it appeared they
aimed at nothing but the edification of the Church, and in that respect were
similarly circumstanced with many of Christ’s servants whom we ourselves
included in the catalogue of saints.
"
’For inveighing more freely against the Roman Pontiff, who was reverenced as
the Vicegerent of Christ, the Successor of Peter, and the Head of the Church,
they excused themselves thus: Such titles as those are empty bugbears, by which
the eyes of the pious ought not to be so blinded as not to venture to look at
them and sift the reality. It was when the world was plunged in ignorance and
sloth, as in a deep sleep, that the pope had risen to such an eminence;
certainly neither appointed head of the Church by the Word of God, nor ordained
by a legitimate act of the Church, but of his own accord, self-elected.
Moreover, the tyranny which he let loose against the people of God was not to
be endured, if we wished to have the kingdom of Christ amongst us in safety.
"
’And they wanted not most powerful arguments to confirm all their positions.
First, they clearly disposed of everything that was then commonly adduced to
establish the primacy of the pope. When they had taken away all these props,
they also, by the Word of God, tumbled him from his lofty height. On the whole,
they make it clear and palpable, to learned and unlearned, that the true order
of the Church had then perished,—that the keys under which the discipline of
the Church is comprehended had been altered very much for the worse; that
Christian liberty had fallen,—in short, that the kingdom of Christ was
prostrated when this primacy was reared up. They told me, moreover, as a means
of pricking my conscience, that I could not safely connive at these things as
if they concerned me not; that so far art Thou from patronizing any voluntary
error, that even he who is led astray by mere ignorance does not err with
impunity. This they proved by the testimony of Thy Son (<scripRef passage = "Matt.
15:14">Matt.
15:14</scripRef>): "If the blind lead
the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
"
’My mind being now prepared for serious attention, I at length perceived, as if
light had broken in upon me, in what a stye of error I had wallowed, and how
much pollution and impurity I had thereby contracted. Being exceedingly alarmed
at the misery into which I had fallen, and much more at that which threatened
me in the view of eternal death, I, as in duty bound, made it my first business
to betake myself to Thy way, condemning my past life, not without groans and
tears.
"
’And now, O Lord, what remains to a wretch like me, but, instead of defence,
earnestly to supplicate Thee not to judge according to its deserts that fearful
abandonment of Thy Word, from which, in Thy wondrous goodness, Thou hast at
last delivered me.’
"Now,
Sadolet, if you please, compare this pleading with that which you have put into
the mouth of your plebeian. It will be strange if you hesitate which of the two
you ought to prefer. For the safety of that man hangs by a thread whose defence
turns wholly on this—that he has constantly adhered to the religion handed down
to him from his forefathers. At this rate, Jews and Turks and Saracens would
escape the judgment of God.
"Away,
then, with this vain quibbling at a tribunal which will be erected, not to
approve the authority of man, but to condemn all flesh of vanity and falsehood,
and vindicate the truth of God only."
Calvin
descends to repel with just indignation the groundless charge of avarice and
greed which Sadolet was not ashamed to cast upon the Reformers, who might have
easily reached the dignity and wealth of bishops and cardinals, but who
preferred to live and die in poverty for the sake of their sacred convictions.
"Would
not," he asked, "the shortest road to riches and honors have been to
accept the terms which were offered at the very first? How much would your pontiff then have
paid to many for their silence?
How much would he pay for it even at the present day? If they were actuated in the least
degree by avarice, why do they cut off all hope of improving their fortune, and
prefer to be thus perpetually wretched, rather than enrich themselves without
difficulty and in a moment?
"But
ambition, forsooth, withholds them!
What ground you had for this other insinuation I see not, since those
who first engaged in this cause could expect nothing else than to be spurned by
the whole world, and those who afterwards adhered to it, exposed themselves
knowingly and willingly to endless insults and revilings from every
quarter."
He
then answers to "the most serious charge of all:" that the Reformers
had "dismembered the Spouse of Christ," while in fact they attempted,
to present her as a chaste virgin of Christ," and, "seeing her
polluted by base seducers, to recall her to conjugal fidelity," after
having been defiled by the idolatry of image-worship and numberless
superstitions. Peace and unity can only be found in Christ and his truth. He
concludes with the wish: —
"May
the Lord grant, Sadolet, that you and all your party may at length perceive
that the only true bond of Church unity is Christ the Lord, who has reconciled
us to God the Father, and will gather us out of our present dispersion into the
fellowship of His body, that so, through His one Word and Spirit, we may grow
together into one heart and one soul."
Such
is a summary of that remarkable Answer—a masterpiece of dignified and
gentlemanly theological controversy. There is scarcely a parallel to it in the
literature of that age, which teems with uncharitable abuse and coarse
invective. Melanchthon might have equalled it in courtesy and good taste, but
not in adroitness and force. No wonder that the old lion of Wittenberg was
delighted with this triumphant vindication of the evangelical Reformation by a
young Frenchman, who was to carry on the conflict which he himself had begun
twenty years before by his Theses and his heroic stand at the Diet of Worms.
"This answer," said Luther to Cruciger, who had met Calvin at the
Colloquies in Worms and Regensburg, "has hand and foot, and I rejoice that
God raises up men who will give the last blow to popery, and finish the war
against Antichrist which I began."583
The
Answer made a deep and lasting impression. It was widely circulated, with
Sadolet’s Letter, in manuscript, printed in Latin, first at Strassburg,
translated into French, and published in both languages by the Council of
Geneva at the expense of the city (1540). The prelates who had met at Lyons
lost courage; the papal party in Geneva gave up all hope of restoring the mass.
Three years afterwards Cardinal Pierre de la Baume died—the last bishop of
Geneva.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="92" title="Calvin’s Marriage and Home
Life">
§ 92.
Calvin’s Marriage and Home Life.
Calvin’s
Letters to Farel and Viret quoted below.
Jules
Bonnet: Idelette de Bure, femme de Calvin. In the "Bulletin de la Société
de l’histoire du protestantisme français." Quatrième année. Paris, 1856. pp. 636–646.—D. Lenoir, ibid.
1860. p. 26. (A brief note.)
Henry,
I. 407 sqq.—Dyer, 99 sqq.—Stähelin, I. 272 sqq.—Merle d’Aubigné, bk. XI. ch.
XVII, (vol. VI. 601–608).—Stricker, l.c. 42–50. (Kampschulte is silent on this
topic.)
The
most important event in Calvin’s private life during his sojourn in Germany was
his marriage, which took place early in August, 1540.584 He expresses his views on marriage in
his comments on Ephesians 5:28–33. "It is a thing against nature," he
remarks, "that any one should not love his wife, for God has ordained
marriage in order that two may be made one person—a result which, certainly, no
other alliance can bring about. When Moses says that a man shall leave father
and mother and cleave unto his wife, he shows that a man ought to prefer
marriage to every other union, as being the holiest of all. It reflects our
union with Christ, who infuses his very life unto us; for we are flesh of his
flesh, and bone of his bone. This is a great mystery, the dignity of which
cannot be expressed in words."
He
himself was in no hurry to get married, and put it off till he was over thirty.
He rather boasted that people could not charge him with having assailed Rome,
as the Greeks besieged Troy, for the sake of a woman. What led him first to
think of it, was the sense of loneliness and the need of proper care, that he
might be able the better to serve the Church. He had a housekeeper, with her
son, a woman of violent temper who sorely tried his patience. At one time she
abused his brother so violently that he left the house, and then she ran away,
leaving her son behind. The disturbance made him sick.585
He was
often urged by his friend Farel (who himself found no time to think of marrying
till his old age), and by Bucer, to take a wife, that he might enjoy the
comforts of a well-ordered home. He first mentions the subject in a letter to
Farel, from Strassburg, May 19, 1539, in which he says: "I am none of
those insane lovers who, when once smitten with the fine figure of a woman,
embrace also her faults. This only is the beauty which allures me, if she be
chaste, obliging, not fastidious, economical, patient, and careful for my
health.586 Therefore, if you
think well of it, set out immediately, lest some one else [Bucer?] gets the
start of you. But if you think otherwise we will let it pass." It seems Farel could not find a person
that combined all these qualities, and the matter was dropped for several
months.
In
Feb. 6, 1540, Calvin, in a letter to the same friend, touched again upon the
subject of matrimony, but only incidentally, as if it were a subordinate
matter. After informing him about his trouble with Caroli, his discussion with
Hermann, an Anabaptist, the good understanding of Charles V. and Francis I.,
and the alarm of the Protestant princes of Germany, he goes on to say:
"Nevertheless, in the midst of such commotions as these, I am so much at
my ease as to have the audacity to think of taking a wife. A certain damsel of
noble rank has been proposed to me,587 and with a fortune above my condition. Two considerations
deterred me from that connection—because she did not understand our language,
and because I feared she might be too mindful of her family and
education."588
He
sent his brother for another lady, who was highly recommended to him. He
expected to get married March 10, and invited Farel to celebrate the wedding.
But this project also failed, and he thought of abandoning all further
attempts.
At
last he married a member of his congregation, Idelette de Bure, the widow of
Jean Stordeur (or Storder) of Liège,589 a prominent Anabaptist whom
he had converted to the orthodox faith,590 and who had died of the
pestilence in the previous February. She was probably the daughter of Lambert
de Bure who, with six of his fellow-citizens, had been deprived of his property
and banished forever, after having been legally convicted of heresy in 1533.591 She was the mother of several children,
poor, and in feeble health. She lived in retirement, devoted to the education
of her children, and enjoyed the esteem of her friends for her good qualities
of head and heart. Calvin visited her frequently as pastor, and was attracted
by her quiet, modest, gentle character. He found in her what he desired—firm
faith, devoted love, and domestic helpfulness. He calls her "the excellent
companion of my life," "the ever-faithful assistant of my
ministry," and a "rare woman."592 Beza speaks of her as "a grave and honorable
lady."593
Calvin
lived in happy wedlock, but only for nine years. His wife was taken from him at
Geneva, after a protracted illness, early in April, 1549. He felt the loss very
deeply, and found comfort only in his work. He turned from the coffin to his
study table, and resumed the duties of his office with quiet resignation and conscientious
fidelity as if nothing had happened. He remained a widower the remaining
fifteen years of his life. "My wife, a woman of rare qualities," he
wrote, "died a year and a half ago, and I have now willingly chosen to
lead a solitary life."
We
know much less of Calvin’s domestic life than of Luther’s. He was always
reticent concerning himself and his private affairs, while Luther was very
frank and demonstrative. In selecting their wives neither of the Reformers had
any regard to the charms of beauty and wealth which attract most lovers, nor
even to intellectual endowment; they looked only to moral worth and domestic
virtue. Luther married at the age of forty-one, Calvin at the age of
thirty-one. Luther married a Catholic ex-nun, after having vainly recommended
her to his friend Amsdorf, whom she proudly refused, looking to higher
distinction. He married her under a sudden impulse, to the consternation of his
friends, in the midst of the disturbances of the Peasants’ War, that he might
please his father, tease the pope, and vex the devil. Calvin married, like
Zwingli, a Protestant widow with several children; he married from esteem
rather than affection, after due reflection and the solicitation of friends.
Katherine
Luther cut a prominent figure in her husband’s personal history and
correspondence, and survived him several years, which she spent in poverty and
affliction. Idelette de Bure lived in modest retirement, and died in peace
fifteen years before Calvin. Luther submitted as "a willing servant" to
the rule of his "Lord Kathe," but he loved her dearly, played with
his children in childlike simplicity, addressed to her his last letters, and
expressed his estimate of domestic happiness in the beautiful sentence:
"The greatest gift of God to man is a pious, kindly, God-fearing, domestic
wife."594
Luther’s
home life was enlivened and cheered by humor, poetry, and song; Calvin’s was
sober, quiet, controlled by the fear of God, and regulated by a sense of duty,
but none the less happy. Nothing can be more unjust than the charge that Calvin
was cold and unsympathetic.595
His
whole correspondence proves the reverse. His letters on the death of his wife
to his dearest friends reveal a deep fountain of tenderness and affection. To
Farel he wrote, April 2, 1549:—596
"Intelligence
of my wife’s death has perhaps reached you before now. I do what I can to keep
myself from being overwhelmed with grief. My friends also leave nothing undone
that may administer relief to my mental suffering. When your brother left, her
life was all but despaired of. When the brethren were assembled on Tuesday,
they thought it best that we should join together in prayer. This was done.
When Abel, in the name of the rest, exhorted her to faith and patience, she
briefly (for she was now greatly worn) stated her frame of mind. I afterwards
added an exhortation, which seemed to me appropriate to the occasion. And then,
as she had made no allusion to her children, I, fearing that, restrained by
modesty, she might be feeling an anxiety concerning them, which would cause her
greater suffering than the disease itself, declared in the presence of the
brethren, that I should henceforth care for them as if they were my own. She
replied, ’I have already committed them to the Lord.’ When I replied, that that was not to hinder me from doing my
duty, she immediately answered, ’If the Lord shall care for them, I know they
will be commended to you.’ Her
magnanimity was so great, that she seemed to have already left the world. About
the sixth hour of the day, on which she yielded up her soul to the Lord, our
brother Bourgouin addressed some pious words to her, and while he wag doing so,
she spoke aloud, so that all saw that her heart was raised far above the world.
For these were her words: ’O glorious resurrection! O God of Abraham, and of all our fathers, in thee have the
faithful trusted during so many past ages, and none of them have trusted in vain.
I also will hope.’ These short
sentences were rather ejaculated than distinctly spoken. This did not come from
the suggestion of others, but from her own reflections, so that she made it
obvious in few words what were her own meditations. I had to go out at six
o’clock. Having been removed to another apartment after seven, she immediately
began to decline. When she felt her voice suddenly failing her she said: ’Let
us pray; let us pray. All pray for me.’
I had now returned. She was unable to speak, and her mind seemed to be
troubled. I, having spoken a few words about the love of Christ, the hope of
eternal life, concerning our married life, and her departure, engaged in
prayer. In full possession of her mind, she both heard the prayer, and attended
to it. Before eight she expired, so calmly, that those present could scarcely
distinguish between her life and her death. I at present control my sorrow so
that my duties may not be interfered with. But in the meanwhile the Lord has
sent other trials upon me, Adieu, brother, and very excellent friend. May the
Lord Jesus strengthen you by His Spirit; and may He support me also under this
heavy affliction, which would certainly have overcome me, had not He, who
raises up the prostrate, strengthens the weak, and refreshes the weary,
stretched forth His hand from heaven to me. Salute all the brethren and your
whole family.
To
Viret he wrote a few days later, April 7, 1549, as follows: —
"Although
the death of my wife has been exceedingly painful to me, yet I subdue my grief
as well as I can. Friends, also, are earnest in their duty to me. It might be
wished, indeed, that they could profit me and themselves more; yet one can
scarcely say how much I am supported by their attentions. But you know well
enough how tender, or rather soft, my mind is. Had not a powerful self-control,
therefore, been vouchsafed to me, I could not have borne up so long. And truly
mine is no common source of grief. I have been bereaved of the best companion
of my life, of one who, had it been so ordered, would not only have been the
willing sharer of my exile and poverty, but even of my death.597 During her life she was the faithful
helper of my ministry.
"From
her I never experienced the slightest hindrance. She was never troublesome to
me throughout the entire course of her illness; she was more anxious about her
children than about herself. As I feared these private cares might annoy her to
no purpose, I took occasion, on the third day before her death to mention that
I would not fail in discharging my duty to her children. Taking up the matter
immediately, she said, ’I have already committed them to God.’ When I said that that was not to
prevent me from caring for them, she replied, ’I know you will not neglect what
you know has been committed to God.’
Lately, also, when a certain woman insisted that she should talk with me
regarding these matters, I, for the first time, heard her give the following
brief answer: ’Assuredly the principal thing is that they live a pious and holy
life. My husband is not to be urged to instruct them in religious knowledge and
in the fear of God. If they be pious, I am sure he will gladly be a father to
them; but if not, they do not deserve that I should ask for aught in their
behalf.’ This nobleness of mind
will weigh more with me than a hundred recommendations. Many thanks for your
friendly consolation.
"Adieu,
most excellent and honest brother. May the Lord Jesus watch over and direct
yourself and your wife. Present my best wishes to her and to the
brethren."
In
reply to this letter, Viret wrote to Calvin, April 10, 1549: —
"Wonderfully
and incredibly have I been refreshed, not by empty rumors alone, but especially
by numerous messengers who have informed me how you, with a heart so broken and
lacerated, have attended to all your duties even better than hitherto, ... and
that, above all, at a time when grief was so fresh, and on that account all the
more severe, might have prostrated your mind. Go on then as you have begun, ...
and I pray God most earnestly, that you may be enabled to do so, and that you
may receive daily greater comfort and be strengthened more and more."
Calvin’s
character shines in the same favorable light at the loss of his only son who
died in infancy (1542). He thanked Viret and his wife (he always sends
greetings to Viret’s wife and daughter) for their tender sympathy with him in
this bereavement, stating that Idelette would write herself also but for her
grief. "The Lord," he says, "has dealt us a severe blow in
taking from us our infant son; but it is our Father who knows what is best for
his children."598
He found compensation for his want of offspring in the multitude of his
spiritual children. "God has given me a little son, and taken him away;
but I have myriads of children in the whole Christian world."599
Of
Calvin’s deep sympathy with his friends in domestic affliction we have a most
striking testimony in a private letter which was never intended for
publication. It is the best proof of his extraordinary fidelity as a pastor.
While he was in attendance at Ratisbon, the pestilence carried away, among
other friends, Louis de Richebourg, who together with his older brother,
Charles, lived in his house at Strassburg as a student and pensionnaire, under
the tutorship of Claude Féray, Calvin’s dearly beloved assistant. On hearing
the sad intelligence, early in April, 1541, he wrote to his father—a gentleman
from Normandy, probably the lord of the village de Richebourg between Rouen and
Beauvais, but otherwise unknown to us—a long letter of condolence and comfort,
from which we give the following extracts:600 —
"Ratisbon
(Month of April), 1541.
"When
I first received the intelligence of the death of Claude and of your son Louis,
I was so utterly overpowered (tout esperdu et confus en mon esprit) that for
many days I was fit for nothing but to weep; and although I was somehow upheld
before the Lord by those aids wherewith He sustains our souls in affliction,
yet among men I was almost a nonentity; so far at least as regards my discharge
of duty, I appeared to myself quite as unfit for it as if I had been half dead
(un homme demi-mort). On the one hand, I was sadly grieved that a most
excellent and faithful friend [Claude Féray] had been snatched away from me—a
friend with whom I was so familiar, that none could be more closely united than
we were; on the other hand, there arose another cause of grief, when I saw the
young man, your son, taken away in the very flower of his age, a youth of most
excellent promise, whom I loved as a son, because, on his part, he showed that
respectful affection toward me as he would to another father.
"To
this grievous sorrow was still added the heavy and distressing anxiety we
experienced about those whom the Lord had spared to us. I heard that the whole
household were scattered here and there. The danger of Malherbe601
caused me very great misery, as well as the cause of it, and warned me also as
to the rest. I considered that it could not be otherwise but that my wife must
be very much dismayed. Your Charles,602 I assure you, was continually
recurring to my thoughts; for in proportion as he was endowed with that
goodness of disposition which had always appeared in him towards his brother as
well as his preceptor, it never occurred to me to doubt but that he would be
steeped in sorrow and soaked in tears. One single consideration somewhat
relieved me, that he had my brother along with him, who, I hoped, would prove
no small comfort in this calamity; even that, however, I could not reckon upon,
when at the same time I recollected that both were in jeopardy, and neither of
them were yet beyond the reach of danger. Thus, until the letter arrived which
informed me that Malherbe was out of danger, and that Charles and my brother,
together with my wife and the others, were safe,603 I would have been all but
utterly cast down, unless, as I have already mentioned, my heart was refreshed
in prayer and private meditations, which are suggested by His Word ....
"The
son whom the Lord had lent you for a season, He has taken away. There is no
ground, therefore, for those silly and wicked complaints of foolish men: O
blind death! O hard fate! O implacable daughters of Destiny! O cruel fortune! The Lord who had lodged him here for a
season, at this stage of his career has called him away. What the Lord has done,
we must, at the same time, consider has not been done rashly, nor by chance,
neither from having been impelled from without, but by that determinate
counsel, whereby He not only foresees, decrees, and executes nothing but what
is just and upright in itself, but also nothing but what is good and wholesome
for us. Where justice and good judgment reign paramount, there it is impious to
remonstrate. When, however, our advantage is bound up with that goodness, how
great would be the degree of ingratitude not to acquiesce, with a calm and
well-ordered temper of mind, in whatever is the wish of our Father ....
"It
is God who has sought back from you your son, whom He had committed to you to
be educated, on the condition that he might always be His own. And, therefore,
He took him away, because it was both of advantage to him to leave this world,
and by this bereavement to humble you, or to make trial of your patience. If
you do not understand the advantage of this, without delay, first of all,
setting aside every other object of consideration, ask of God that He may show
you. Should it be His will to exercise you still farther, by concealing it from
you, submit to that will, that you may become wiser than the weakness of thine
own understanding can ever attain to.
"In
what regards your son, if you bethink yourself how difficult it is, in this
most deplorable age to maintain an upright course through life, you will judge
him to be blessed, who, before encountering so many coming dangers which
already were hovering over him, and to be encountered in his day and
generation, was so early delivered from them all. He is like one who has set
sail upon a stormy and tempestuous sea, and before he has been carried out into
the deeps, gets in safety to the secure haven. Nor, indeed, is long life to be
reckoned so great a benefit of God, that we can lose anything, when separated
only for the space of a few years, we are introduced to a life which is far
better. Now, certainly, because the Lord Himself, who is the Father of us all,
had willed that Louis should be put among the children as a son of His
adoption, He bestowed this benefit upon you, out of the multitude of His
mercies, that you might reap the excellent fruit of your careful education
before his death; whence also you might know your interest in the blessings
that belonged to you, ’I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.’
"From
his earliest boyhood, so far as his years allowed, Louis was grounded in the
best studies, and had already made such a competent proficiency and progress,
that we entertained great hope of him for the future. His manners and behavior
had met with the approval of all good men. If at any time he fell into error,
he not only patiently suffered the word of admonition, but also that of
reproof, and proved himself teachable and obedient, and willing to hearken to
advice … That, however, which we rate most highly in him was, that he had
imbibed so largely the principles of piety, that he had not merely a correct
and true understanding of religion, but had also been faithfully imbued with
the unfeigned fear and reverence of God.
"This
exceeding kindness of God toward your offspring ought with good reason to
prevail more effectually with you in soothing the bitterness of death, than
death itself have power to inflict grief upon you.
"With
reference to my own feelings, if your sons had never come hither at all, I
should never have been grieved on account of the death of Claude and Louis.
Never, however, shall this most crushing sorrow, which I suffer on account of
both, so overcome me, as to reflect with grief upon that day on which they were
driven hither by the hand of God to us, rather than led by any settled purpose
of their own, when that friendship commenced which has not only continued
undiminished to the last, but which, from day to day, was rather increased and
confirmed. Whatever, therefore, may have been the kind or model of education
they were in search of, I rejoice that they lived under the same roof with me.
And since it was appointed them to die, I rejoice also that they died under my
roof, where they rendered back their souls to God more composedly, and in
greater circumstances of quiet, than if they had happened to die in those
places where they would have experienced greater annoyance from the importunity
of those by whom they ought to have been assisted, than from death itself. On
the contrary, it was in the midst of pious exhortations, and while calling upon
the name of the Lord, that these sainted spirits fled from the communion of
their brethren here to the bosom of Christ. Nor would I desire now to be free
from all sorrow at the cost of never having known them. Their memory will ever
be sacred to me to the end of my days, and I am persuaded that it will also be
sweet and comforting.
"But
what advantage, you will say, is it to me to have had a son of so much promise,
since he has been torn away from me in the first flower of his youth? As if, forsooth, Christ had not
merited, by His death, the supreme dominion over the living and the dead! And if we belong to Him (as we ought),
why may He not exercise over us the power of life and of death? However brief, therefore, either in
your opinion or in mine, the life of your son may have been, it ought to
satisfy us that he has finished the course which the Lord had marked out for
him.
"Moreover,
we may not reckon him to have perished in the flower of his age, who had grown
ripe in the sight of the Lord. For I consider all to have arrived at maturity
who are summoned away by death; unless, perhaps, one would contend with Him, as
if He can snatch away any one before his time. This, indeed, holds true of
every one; but in regard to Louis, it is yet more certain on another and more
peculiar ground. For he had arrived at that age, when, by true evidences, he
could prove himself a member of the body of Christ: having put forth this
fruit, he was taken from us and transplanted. Yes, instead of this transient
and vanishing shadow of life, he has regained the real immortality of being.
"Nor
can you consider yourself to have lost him, whom you will recover in the
blessed resurrection in the kingdom of God. For they had both so lived and so
died, that I cannot doubt but they are now with the Lord. Let us, therefore,
press forward toward this goal which they have reached. There can be no doubt
but that Christ will bind together both them and us in the same inseparable
society, in that incomparable participation of His own glory. Beware,
therefore, that you do not lament your son as lost, whom you acknowledge to be
preserved by the Lord, that he may remain yours forever, who, at the pleasure
of His own will, lent him to you only for a season ....
"Neither
do I insist upon your laying aside all grief. Nor, in the school of Christ, do
we learn any such philosophy as requires us to put off that common humanity
with which God has endowed us, that, being men, we should be tamed into stones.604 These considerations reach only so far
as this, that you do set bounds, and, as it were, temper even your most
reasonable sadness, that, having shed those tears which were due to nature and
to fatherly affection, you by no means give way to senseless wailing. Nor do I
by any means interfere because I am distrustful of your prudence, firmness, or
high-mindedness; but only lest I might here be wanting, and come short in my
duty to you.
"Moreover,
I have requested Melanchthon and Bucer that they would also add their letters
to mine, because I entertained the hope that it would not be unacceptable that
they too should afford some evidence of their good-will toward you.
"Adieu,
most distinguished sir, and my much-respected in the Lord. May Christ the Lord
keep you and your family, and direct you all with His own Spirit, until you may
arrive where Louis and Claude have gone before."
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="XII" title="Calvin’s
Second Sojourn And Labors At Geneva. 1541–1564">
CHAPTER
XII.
CALVIN’S
SECOND SOJOURN AND LABORS AT GENEVA. 1541–1564.
The
sources on this and the following chapters in § 81, p. 347.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="93" title="The State of Geneva after the expulsion of the
Reformers">
§ 93.
The State of Geneva after the expulsion of the Reformers.
I.
The correspondence in Opera, vols. X. and XI., and Herminjard, Vols. V., VI.,
and VII.—Annal. Calv, XXI. 235–282.—The Chronicles of Roset and Bonivard; the
histories of Spon, Gaberel, Roget, etc.
II.
Henry, I. ch. XIX.—Stähelin, I. 283–299.—Dyer, 113–123.—Kampschulte, I. 342
sqq.—Merle D’Aubigné, bk. XI. chs. XVIII. (vol. VI. 610 sqq.) and XIX. (vol.
VII. 1 sqq.).
C. A.
Cornelius (Cath.): Die Rückkehr Calvins nach Genf. München, 1889. Continuation
of his essay, Die Verbannung Calvins aus Genf. München, 1886. Both in the
Transactions of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences.
The
answer to Sadolet was one of the means of saving Geneva from the grasp of
popery, and endearing Calvin to the friends of freedom. But there were other
causes which demanded his recall. Internal disturbances followed his expulsion,
and brought the little republic to the brink of ruin.
Calvin
was right in predicting a short régime to his enemies. In less than a year they
were demoralized and split up into factions. In the place of the expelled
Reformers, two native preachers and two from Bern were elected on the basis of
the Bernese customs, but they were below mediocrity, and not fit for the
crisis. The supremacy of the State was guarded. Foreigners who could not show a
good practical reason for their residence were banished; among them, even
Saunier and Cordier, the rectors of the schools who faithfully adhered to the
Reformers.
There
were three main parties in Geneva, with subdivisions.
1.
The government party was controlled by the syndics of 1538 and other enemies of
the Reformers. They were called Articulants or, by a popular nickname,
Artichauds,605 from the twenty-one articles of a treaty with Bern, which had
been negotiated and signed by three counsellors and deputies of the city—Ami de
Chapeaurouge, Jean Lullin, and Monathon. The government subjected the Church to
the State, and was protected by Bern, but unable to maintain order. Tumults and
riots multiplied in the streets; the schools were ruined by the expulsion of
the best teachers; the pulpit lost its power; the new preachers became objects
of contempt or pity; pastoral care was neglected; vice and immorality
increased; the old licentiousness and frivolities, dancing, gambling,
drunkenness, masquerades, indecent songs, adulteries, reappeared; persons went
naked through the streets to the sound of drums and fifes.
Moreover,
the treaty with Bern, when it became known, was very unpopular because it
conceded to Bern the rights of sovereignty. The Council of Two Hundred would
not submit to it because it sacrificed their liberties and good customs. But
the judges of Bern decided that the Genevese must sign the treaty and pay the
costs. This created a great commotion. The people cried "treason,"
and demanded the arrest of the three deputies who had been outwitted by the
diplomacy of Bern, but they made their escape; whereupon they were condemned to
death as forgers and rebels. The discontent extended to the pastors who had
been elected in the place of Farel and Calvin.
Within
two years after the banishment of the Reformers, the four syndics who had
decreed it came to grief. Jean Philippe, the captain-general of the city and
most influential leader of the Artichauds, but a man of violent passions, was
beheaded for homicide, and as a mover of sedition, June 10, 1540. Two others,
Chapeaurouge and Lullin, were condemned to death as forgers and rebels; the
fourth, Richardet, died in consequence of an injury which he received in the
attempt to escape justice. Such a series of misfortunes was considered a
nemesis of Providence, and gave the death-blow to the anti-reform party.
2.
The party of the Roman Catholics raised its head after the expulsion of the
Reformers, and received for a short time great encouragement from the banished
bishop Pierre de la Baume, whom Paul III. had made a cardinal, and from the
Letter of Cardinal Sadolet. A number of priests and monks returned from France
and Savoy, but the Answer of Calvin destroyed all the hopes and prospects of
the Romanists, and the government showed them no favor.
3.
The third party was friendly to the Reformers. It reaped all the benefit of the
blunders and misfortunes of the other two parties, and turned them to the best
account. Its members were called by their opponents Guillermains, after Master
Guillaume (Farel). They were led by Perrin, Porral, Pertemps, and Sept. They
were united, most active, and had a definite end in view—the restoration of the
Reformation. They kept up a correspondence with the banished Reformers,
especially with Farel in Neuchâtel, who counselled and encouraged them. They
were suspected of French sympathies and want of patriotism, but retorted by
charging the government with subserviency to Bern. They were inclined to
extreme measures. Calvin exhorted them to be patient, moderate, and forgiving.
As
the Artichauds declined, the Guillermains increased in power over the people.
The vacant posts of the late syndics were filled from their ranks. The new
magistrates assumed a bold tone of independence towards Bern, and insisted on
the old franchises of Geneva. It is curious that they were encouraged by a
letter of the Emperor Charles V., who thus unwittingly aided the cause of
Calvin.606
The
way was now prepared for the recall of Calvin. The best people of Geneva looked
to him as the saviour of their city. His name meant order, peace, reform in
Church and State.
Even
the Artichauds, overpowered by public opinion, proposed in a general assembly
of citizens, June 17, 1540, the resolution to restore the former status, and
spoke loudly against popery. Two of the new preachers, Marcourt and Morland,
resigned Aug. 10, and returned to Bern. The other two, Henri de la Mare and
Jacques Bernard, humbly besought the favor of Calvin, and begged him to return.
A remarkable tribute from his rivals and enemies.607
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="94" title="Calvin’s Recall to
Geneva">
§ 94.
Calvin’s Recall to Geneva.
Literature
in § 93, especially the Correspondence and Registers.
Calvin
did not forget Geneva. He proved his interest in her welfare by his Answer to
Sadolet. But he had no inclination to return, and could only be induced to do
so by unmistakable indications of the will of Providence.
He
had found a place of great usefulness in a city where he could act as mediator
between Germany and France, and benefit both countries; his Sunday services
were crowded; his theological lectures attracted students from France and other
countries; he had married a faithful wife, and enjoyed a peaceful home. The
government of Strassburg appreciated him more and more, and his colleagues
wished to retain him.
Melanchthon
thought he could spare him less at the Colloquies of Worms and Ratisbon than
anybody else. Looking to Geneva he could, from past experience, expect nothing
but severe and hard trials. "There is no place in the world," he
wrote to Viret, "which I fear more; not because I hate it, but because I
feel unequal to the difficulties which await me there." 608
He called it an abyss from which he shrank back much more now than he had done
in 1536. Indeed, he was not mistaken in his fears, for his subsequent life was
an unbroken struggle. We need not wonder then that he refused call upon call,
and requested Farel and Viret to desist from their efforts to allure him away.609
At
the same time, he was determined to obey the will of God as soon as it would be
made clear to him by unmistakable indications of Providence. "When I
remember," he wrote to Farel, "that in this matter I am not my own
master, I present my heart as a sacrifice and offer it up to the Lord."610 A very characteristic sentence, which
reveals the soul of his piety. A seal of Calvin bears this motto, and the
emblem is a hand presenting a heart to God. Seventeen years later, when he
looked back upon that critical period of his life, he expressed the same view.
"Although the welfare of that Church," he says, "was so dear to
me, that I could without difficulty sacrifice my life for it; yet my timidity
presented to me many reasons of excuse for declining to take such a heavy
burden on my shoulders. But the sense of duty prevailed, and led me to return
to the flock from which I had been snatched away. I did this with sadness,
tears, and great anxiety and distress of mind, the Lord being my witness, and
many pious persons who would gladly have spared me that pain, if not the same
fear had shut their mouth."611
He mentions especially Martin Bucer, "that excellent servant of
Christ," who threatened him with the example of Jonah; as Farel, on
Calvin’s first visit to Geneva, had threatened him with the wrath of God.
His
friends in Geneva, the Council and the people, were convinced that Calvin alone
could save the city from anarchy, and they made every effort to secure his
return. His recall was first seriously discussed in the Council early in 1539,
again in February, 1540, and decided upon Sept. 21, 1540. Preparatory steps
were taken to secure the co-operation of Bern, Basel, Zürich, and Strassburg.
On the 13th of October, Michel Du Bois, an old friend of Calvin, was sent by
the Large Council with a letter to him, and directed to press the invitation by
oral representation. Without waiting for an answer, other petitions and
deputations were forwarded. On the 19th of October the Council of Two Hundred
resolved to use every effort for the attainment of that object. Ami Perrin and
Louis Dufour were sent (Oct. 21 and 22) as deputies, with a herald, to
Strassburg "to fetch Master Calvin." Twenty dollars gold (écus au soleil) were voted, on the
27th, for expenses.612
The Registres of that month are full of actions concerning the recall of
"the learned and pious Mr. Calvin." No more complete vindication of the cause of the Reformers
could be imagined.
Farel’s
aid was also solicited. With incomparable self-denial he pardoned the
ingratitude of the Genevese in not recalling him, and made every exertion to
secure the return of his younger friend, whom he had first compelled by moral
force to stop at Geneva. He bombarded him with letters. He even travelled from
Neuchàtel to Strassburg, and spent two days there, pressing him in person and
trying to persuade him, as well as Capito and Bucer, of the absolute necessity
of his return to Geneva, which, in his opinion, was the most important spot in
the world.
Dufour
arrived at Strassburg in November, called upon the senate, followed Calvin to
Worms, where he was in attendance on the Colloquy, and delivered the formal
letter of invitation, dated Oct. 22, and signed by the syndics and Council of
Geneva. It concludes thus: "On behalf of our Little, Great, and General
Councils (all of which have strongly urged us to take this step), we pray you
very affectionately that you will be pleased to come over to us, and to return
to your former post and ministry; and we hope that by God’s help this course
will be a great advantage for the furtherance of the holy gospel, seeing that
our people very much desire you, and we will so deal with you that you shall
have reason to be satisfied."
The letter was fastened with a seal bearing the motto: "Post
tenebras spero lucem."
Calvin
was thus most urgently and most honorably recalled by the united voice of the
Council, the ministers, and the people of that city which had unjustly banished
him three years before.
He
was moved to tears by these manifestations of regard and confidence, and began
to waver. But the deputies of Strassburg at Worms, under secret instruction
from their government, entered a strong protest against his leaving. Bucer,
Capito, Sturm, and Grynaeus, when asked for advice, decided that Calvin was
indispensable to Strassburg as the head of the French Church which represented
Protestant France; as a theological teacher who attracted students from
Germany, France, and Italy, to send them back to their own countries as
evangelists; and as a helper in making the Church of Strassburg a seminary of
ministers of the gospel. No one besides Melanchthon could be compared with him.
Geneva was indeed an important post, and the gate to France and Italy, but
uncertain, and liable to be involved again in political complications which
might destroy the evangelical labors of Calvin. The pastors and senators of
Strassburg, urged by the churches of Zürich and Basel, came at last to the
conclusion to consent to Calvin’s return after the Colloquy of Worms, but only
for a season, hoping that he may soon make their city his final home for the
benefit of the whole Church.613
Thus
two cities, we might almost say, two nations, were contending for the
possession of "the Theologian."
His whole future life, and a considerable chapter of Church history,
depended on the decision. Under these circumstances he could make no definite
promise, except that he would pay a visit to Geneva after the close of the
Colloquy, on condition of getting the consent of Strassburg and Bern. He also
prescribed, like a victorious general, the terms of surrender, namely, the
restoration of Church discipline.
He
had previously advised that Viret be called from Lausanne. This was done in
Dec. 31, 1540, with the permission of Bern, but only for half a year. Viret
arrived in Geneva Jan. 17, 1541. His persuasive sermons were well attended, and
the magistrates showed great reverence for the Word of God; but he found so
much and such difficult work in church and school, in the hospital and the
poorhouse, that he urged Calvin to come soon, else he must withdraw or perish.
On
the 1st of May, 1541, the General Council recalled, in due form, the sentence
of banishment of April 23, 1538, and solemnly declared that every citizen
considered Calvin, Farel, and Saunier to be honorable men, and true servants of
God.614 On the 26th of May the senate sent
another pressing request to Strassburg, Zürich, and Basel to aid Geneva in
securing the return of Calvin.615
It
is astonishing what an amount of interest this question of Calvin’s return
excited throughout Switzerland and Germany. It was generally felt that the fate
of Geneva depended on Calvin, and that the fate of evangelical religion in
France and Italy depended on Geneva. Letters arrived from individuals and
corporations. Farel continued to thunder, and reproached the Strassburgers for
keeping Calvin back. He was indignant at Calvin’s delay. "Will you
wait," he wrote him, "till the stones call thee?"
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="95" title="Calvin’s Return to Geneva.
1541">
§ 95.
Calvin’s Return to Geneva. 1541.
In the
middle of June, Calvin left Regensburg, before the close of the Colloquy, much
to the regret of Melanchthon; and after attending to his affairs in Strassburg,
he set out for Switzerland. The Genevese sent Eustace Vincent, a mounted
herald, to escort him, and voted thirty-six écus for expenses (Aug. 26).
The
Strassburgers requested him to retain his right of citizenship, and the annual
revenues of a prebend, which they had assigned him as the salary of his
theological professorship. "He gladly accepted," says Beza, "the
former mark of respect, but could never be induced to accept the latter, since
the care of riches occupied his mind the least of anything."
Bucer,
in the name of the pastors of Strassburg, gave him a letter to the Syndics and
Council of Geneva, Sept. 1, 1541, in which he says: "Now he comes at last,
Calvin, that elect and incomparable instrument of God, to whom no other in our
age may be compared, if at all there can be the question of another alongside
of him." He added that such a
highly favored man Strassburg could only spare for a season, on condition of
his certain return.616
The Council of Strassburg wrote to the Council of Geneva on the same
day, expressing the hope that Calvin may soon return to them for the benefit of
the Church universal.617
The Senate of Geneva, in a letter of thanks (Sept. 17, 1541), expressed
the determination to keep Calvin permanently in their city, where he could be
as useful to the Church universal as at Strassburg.618
Calvin
visited his friends in Basel, who affectionately commended him to Bern and
Geneva (Sept. 4).619
Bern was not very favorable to Calvin and the clerical ascendency in
Geneva, but gave him a safe-conduct through her territory.
At
Soleure (Solothurn) he learned that Farel was deposed, without a trial, by the
magistracy of Neuchâtel, because he had attacked a person of rank from the
pulpit for scandalous conduct. He, therefore, turned from the direct route, and
spent some days with his friend, trying to relieve him of the difficulty. He
did not succeed at once, but his efforts were supported by Zürich, Strassburg,
Basel, and Bern; and the seignory of Neuchâtel resolved to keep Farel, who continued
to labor there till his death.620
Calvin
wrote to the Council of Geneva from Neuchâtel on Sept. 7, explaining the reason
of his delay.621 The next day he
proceeded to Bern and delivered letters from Strassburg and Basel.
He
was expected at Geneva on the 9th of September, but did not arrive, it seems,
before the 13th. He wished to avoid a noisy reception, for which he had no
taste.622 But there is no
doubt that his arrival caused general rejoicing among the people.623
The
Council provided for the Reformer a house and garden in the Rue des Chanoines
near St. Peter’s Church,624 and promised him (Oct. 4), in consideration
of his great learning and hospitality to strangers, a fixed salary of fifty
gold dollars, or five hundred florins, besides twelve measures of wheat and two
casks of wine.625 It also voted him
a new suit of broadcloth, with furs for the winter. This provision was liberal
for those days, yet barely sufficient for the necessary expenses of the
Reformer and the claims on his hospitality. Hence the Council made him
occasional presents for extra services; but he declined them whenever he could
do without them. He lived in the greatest simplicity compatible with his
position. A pulpit in St. Peter’s was prepared for him upon a broad, low
pillar, that the whole congregation might more easily hear him.
The
Council sent three horses and a carriage to bring Calvin’s wife and furniture.
It took twenty-two days for the escort from Geneva to Strassburg and back (from
Sept. 17 to Oct. 8).626
On
the 13th of September Calvin appeared before the Syndics and the Council in the
Town Hall, delivered the letters from the senators and pastors of Strassburg
and Basel, and apologized for his long delay. He made no complaint and demanded
no punishment of his enemies, but asked for the appointment of a commission to
prepare a written order of church government and discipline. The Council
complied with this request, and resolved to retain him permanently, and to
inform the Senate of Strassburg of this intention. Six prominent laymen, four
members of the Little Council, two members of the Large Council,—Pertemps,
Perrin, Roset, Lambert, Goulaz, and Porral,—were appointed to draw up the
ecclesiastical ordinances in conference with the ministers.627
On
Sept. 16, Calvin wrote to Farel: "Thy wish is granted, I am held fast
here. May God give his blessing."628
He
desired to retain Viret and to secure Farel as permanent co-laborers; but in
this he was disappointed—Viret being needed at Lausanne, and Farel at
Neuchâtel. By special permission of Bern, however, Viret was allowed to remain
with him till July of the next year. His other colleagues were rather a
hindrance than a help to him, as "they had no zeal and very little
learning, and could not be trusted."
Nearly the whole burden of reconstructing the Church of Geneva rested on
his shoulders. It was a formidable task.
Never
was a man more loudly called by government and people, never did a man more
reluctantly accept the call, never did a man more faithfully and effectively
fulfil the duties of the call than John Calvin when, in obedience to the voice
of God, he settled a second time at Geneva to live and to die at this post of
duty.
"Of
all men in the world," says one of his best biographers and greatest
admirers,629 "Calvin is the one who most worked, wrote, acted, and
prayed for the cause which he had embraced. The coexistence of the sovereignty
of God and the freedom of man is assuredly a mystery; but Calvin never supposed
that because God did all, he personally had nothing to do. He points out
clearly the twofold action, that of God and that of man. ’God,’ said he, ’after
freely bestowing his grace on us, forthwith demands of us a reciprocal
acknowledgment. When he said to Abraham, "I am thy God," it was an
offer of his free goodness; but he adds at the same time what he required of
him: "Walk before me, and be thou perfect." This condition is tacitly annexed to all the promises. They
are to be to us as spurs, inciting us to promote the glory of God.’ And elsewhere he says, ’This doctrine
ought to create new vigor in all your members, so that you may be fit and
alert, with might and main, to follow the call of God.’ "630
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="96" title="The First Years after the Return">
§ 96.
The First Years after the Return.
Calvin
entered at once upon his labors, and continued them without interruption for
twenty-three years—till his death, May 27, 1564.
The
first years were full of care and trial, as he had anticipated. His duties were
more numerous and responsible than during his first sojourn. Then he was
supported by the older Farel; now he stood at the head of the Church at Geneva,
though yet a young man of thirty-two. He had to reorganize the Church, to
introduce a constitution and order of worship, to preach, to teach, to settle
controversies, to conciliate contending parties, to provide for the instruction
of youth, to give advice even in purely secular affairs. No wonder that he
often felt discouraged and exhausted, but trust in God, and a sense of duty
kept him up.
Viret
was of great service to him, but he was called back to Lausanne in July, 1542.
His other colleagues—Jacques Bernard, Henri de la Mare, and Aimé
Champereau—were men of inferior ability, and not reliable. In 1542 four new
pastors were appointed,—Pierre Blanchet, Matthias de Greneston, Louis
Trappereau, and Philippe Ozias (or Ozeas). In 1544 Geneva had twelve pastors,
six of them for the county Churches. Calvin gradually trained a corps of
enthusiastic evangelists. Farel and Viret visited Geneva on important
occasions. For his last years, he had a most able and learned colleague in his
friend Theodore Beza.
He
pursued a wise and conciliatory course, which is all the more creditable to him
when we consider the stern severity of his character and system. He showed a
truly Christian forbearance to his former enemies, and patience with the
weakness of his colleagues.631
"I
will endeavor," he wrote to Bucer, in a long letter, Oct. 15, 1541,
"to cultivate a good understanding and harmony with my neighbors, and also
brotherly kindness (if they will allow me), with as much fidelity and diligence
as I possibly can. So far as it depends on me, I shall give no ground of
offence to any one … If in any way I do not answer your expectation, you know
that I am in your power, and subject to your authority. Admonish me, chastise
me, exercise towards me all the authority of a father over his son. Pardon my
haste … I am entangled in so many employments that I am almost beside
myself."632
To
Myconius of Basel he wrote, March 14, 1542:
"I
value the public peace and concord so highly, that I lay restraint upon myself;
and this praise even the adversaries are compelled to award to me.633 This feeling prevails to such an
extent, that, from day to day, those who were once open enemies have become
friends; others I conciliate by courtesy, and I feel that I have been in some
measure successful, although not everywhere and on all occasions.
"On
my arrival it was in my power to have disconcerted our enemies most
triumphantly, entering with full sail among the whole of that tribe who had
done the mischief. I have abstained; if I had liked, I could daily, not merely
with impunity, but with the approval of very many, have used sharp reproof. I
forbear; even with the most scrupulous care do I avoid everything of the kind,
lest even by some slight word I should appear to persecute any individual, much
less all of them at once. May the Lord confirm me in this disposition of
mind."634
He
met at first with no opposition, but hearty co-operation among the people.
About a fortnight after his arrival he presented a formula of the
ecclesiastical order to the Small Council. Objection was made to the monthly
celebration of the Lord’s Supper, instead of the custom of celebrating it only
four times a year. Calvin, who strongly favored even a more frequent
celebration, yielded his better judgment "in consideration of the weakness
of the times," and for the sake of harmony. With this modification, the
Small Council adopted the constitution Oct. 27; the Large Council confirmed it
Nov. 9; and the general assembly of the citizens ratified it, by a very large
majority, in St. Peter’s Church, the 20th of November, 1541. The small
minority, however, included some of the leading citizens who were opposed to
ecclesiastical discipline. The Articles, after the insertion of some trifling
amendments and additions, were definitely adopted by the three Councils, Jan.
2, 1542.635
This
was a great victory; for the ecclesiastical ordinances, which we shall consider
afterwards, laid a solid foundation for a strong and well-regulated evangelical
church.
Calvin
preached at St. Peter’s, Viret at St. Gervais. The first services were of a
penitential character, and their solemnity was enhanced by the fearful ravages
of the pestilence in the neighboring cities. An extraordinary celebration of
the holy communion on the first Sunday in November, and a weekly day of
humiliation and prayer were appointed to invoke the mercy of God upon Geneva
and the whole Church.
The
second year after his return was very trying. The pestilence, which in 1541 had
been raging in Strassburg and all along the Rhine, crept into Switzerland,
diminishing the population of Basel and Zürich, and reached Geneva in the
autumn, 1542. To the pestilence was added the scourge of famine, as is often
the case. The evil was aggravated by the great influx of strangers who were
attracted by Calvin’s fame and sought refuge from persecution under his
shelter. The pest-house outside of the city was crowded. Calvin and Pierre
Blanchet offered their services to the sick, while the rest of the ministers
shrank back.636 The Council
refused to let Calvin go, because the Church could not spare him.637 Blanchet risked his life, and fell a
victim to his philanthrophy in eight or nine months. Calvin, in a letter dated
October, 1542, gives the following account to Viret, who, in July, had left for
Lausanne:638 —
"The
pestilence also begins to rage here with greater violence, and few who are at
all affected by it escape its ravages. One of our colleagues was to be set
apart for attendance upon the sick. Because Peter [Blanchet] offered himself
all readily acquiesced. If anything happens to him, I fear that I must take the
risk upon myself, for, as you observe, because we are debtors to one another,
we must not be wanting to those who, more than any others, stand in need of our
ministry. And yet it is not my opinion, that while we wish to provide for one
portion we are at liberty to neglect the body of the Church itself. But so long
as we are in this ministry, I do not see that any pretext will avail us, if,
through fear of infection, we are found wanting in the discharge of our duty
when there is most need of our assistance."
Farel,
on a like occasion, visited the sick daily, rich and poor, friend and foe,
without distinction.639
We must judge Calvin by his spirit and motive. He had undoubtedly the
spirit of a martyr, but felt it his duty to obey the magistrates, and to spare
his life till the hour of necessity. We may refer to the example of Cyprian,
who fled during the Decian persecution, but died heroically as a martyr in the
Valerian persecution.
In
1545 Geneva was again visited by a pestilence, which some Swiss soldiers
brought from France. The horrors were aggravated by a diabolical conspiracy of
wicked persons, including some women, connected with the pest-house, for spreading
the plague by artificial means, to gain spoils from the dead. The conspirators
used the infected linen of those who had died of the disease, and smeared the
locks of the houses with poison. A woman confessed, under torture, that she had
killed eighteen men by her infernal arts. The ravages were fearful; Geneva was
decimated; two thousand died out of a population of less than twenty thousand.
Seven men and twenty-one women were burned alive for this offence. The
physician of the lazaretto and two assistants were quartered.
Calvin
formed a modest estimate of his labors during the first years, as may be seen
from his letters. He wrote to Myconius, the first minister of Basel, March 14,
1542:640—
"The
present state of our affairs I can give you in a few words. For the first month
after resuming the ministry, I had so much to attend to, and so many
annoyances, that I was almost worn out; such a work of labor and difficulty has
it been to upbuild once more a fallen edifice (collapsum edificium instaurare).
Although certainly Viret had already begun successfully to restore, yet,
nevertheless, because he had deferred the complete form of order and discipline
until my arrival, it had, as it were, to be commenced anew. When, having
overcome this labor, I believed that there would be breathing-time allowed me,
lo! new cares presented themselves, and those of a kind not much lighter than
the former. This, however, somewhat consoles and refreshes me, that we do not
labor altogether in vain, without some fruit appearing; which, although it is
not so plentiful as we could wish, yet neither is it so scanty but that there
does appear some change for the better. There is a brighter prospect for the
future if Viret can be left here with me; on which account I am all the more
desirous to express to you my most thankful acknowledgment, because you share
with me in my anxiety that the Bernese may not call him away; and I earnestly
pray, for the sake of Christ, that you would do your utmost to bring that
about; for whenever the thought of his going away presents itself, I faint and
lose courage entirely … Our other colleagues are rather a hindrance than a help
to us; they are rude and self-conceited, have no zeal and less learning. But
what is worst of all, I cannot trust them, even although I very much wish that
I could; for by many evidences they show their estrangement from us, and give
scarcely any indication of a sincere and trustworthy disposition. I bear with
them, however, or rather I humor them, with the utmost lenity; a course from
which I shall not be induced to depart, even by their bad conduct. But if, in
the long run, the sore need a severer remedy, I shall do my utmost, and shall
see to it by every method I can think of, to avoid disturbing the peace of the
Church with our quarrels; for I dread the factions which must always
necessarily arise from the dissensions of ministers. On my first arrival I
might have driven them away had I wished to do so, and that is also even now in
my power. I shall never, however, repent the degree of moderation which I have
observed, since no one can justly complain that I have been too severe. These
things I mention to you in a cursory way, that you may the more clearly
perceive how wretched I shall be if Viret is taken away from me."
A
month later (April 17, 1542), he wrote to Myconius:641 —
"In
what concerns the private condition of this Church, I somehow, along with
Viret, sustain the burden of it. If he is taken away from me, my situation will
be more deplorable than I can describe to you, and even should he remain, there
is some hazard that very much may not be obtained in the midst of so much
secret animosity [between Geneva and Bern]. But that I may not torment myself
beforehand, the Lord will see to it, and provide some one on whom I am
compelled to cast this care."
In
February, 1543, he wrote to Melanchthon:
"As
to our own affairs, there is much that I might write, but the sole cause which
imposes silence upon me is, that I could find no end. I labor here and do my
utmost, but succeed indifferently. Nevertheless, all are astonished that my
progress is so great in the midst of so many impediments, the greater part of
which arise from the ministers themselves. This, however, is a great
alleviation of my troubles, that not only this Church, but also the whole
neighborhood, derive some benefit from my presence. Besides that, somewhat
overflows from hence upon France, and even spreads as far as Italy."642
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="97" title="Survey of Calvin’s Activity">
§ 97.
Survey of Calvin’s Activity.
Calvin
combined the offices of theological professor, preacher, pastor, church-ruler,
superintendent of schools, with the extra labors of equal, yea, greater,
importance, as author, correspondent, and leader of the expanding movement of
the Reformation in Western Europe. He was involved in serious disciplinary and
theological controversies with the Libertines, Romanists, Pelagians,
Antitrinitarians, and Lutherans. He had no help except from one or more young
men, whom he kept in his house and employed as clerks. When unwell he dictated
from his bed. He had an amazing power for work notwithstanding his feeble
health. When interrupted in dictation, he could at once resume work at the
point where he left off.643
He indulged in no recreation except a quarter or half an hour’s walk in
his room or garden after meals, and an occasional game of quoits or la clef
with intimate friends. He allowed himself very little sleep, and for at least
ten years he took but one meal a day, alleging his bad digestion.644 No wonder that he undermined his
health, and suffered of headache, ague, dyspepsia, and other bodily infirmities
which terminated in a premature death.
Luther
and Zwingli were as indefatigable workers as Calvin, but they had an abundance
of flesh and blood, and enjoyed better health. Luther liked to play with his
children, and to entertain his friends with his humorous table-talk. Zwingli
also found recreation in poetry and music, and played on several instruments.
A
few years before his death, Calvin was compelled to speak of his work in
self-defence against the calumnies of an ungrateful student and amanuensis,
François Baudouin, a native of Arras, who ran away with some of Calvin’s
papers, turned a Romanist, and publicly abused his benefactor. "I will
not," he says, "enumerate the pleasures, conveniences, and riches I
have renounced for Christ. I will only say that, had I the disposition of
Baudouin, it would not have been very difficult for me to procure those things
which he has always sought in vain, and which he now but too greedily gloats
upon. But let that pass. Content with my humble fortune, my attention to frugality
has prevented me from being a burden to anybody. I remain tranquil in my
station, and have even given up a part of the moderate salary assigned to me,
instead of asking for any increase. I devote all my care, labor, and study not
only to the service of this Church, to which I am peculiarly bound, but to the
assistance of all the Churches by every means in my power. I so discharge my
office of a teacher, that no ambition may appear in my extreme faithfulness and
diligence. I devour numerous griefs, and endure the rudeness of many; but my
liberty is uncontrolled by the power of any man. I do not indulge the great by
flattery; I fear not to give offence. No prosperity has hitherto inflated me;
whilst I have intrepidly borne the many severe storms by which I have been
tossed, till by the singular mercy of God I emerged from them. I live affably
with my equals, and endeavor faithfully to preserve my friendships."645
Beza,
his daily companion, thus describes "the ordinary labors" of Calvin,
as he calls them: "During the week he preached every alternate, and
lectured every third day; on Thursday he presided in the meetings of Presbytery
(Consistory); and on Friday he expounded the Scripture in the assembly which we
call ’the Congregation.’ He
illustrated several sacred books with most learned commentaries, besides
answering the enemies of religion, and maintaining an extensive correspondence
on matters of great importance. Any one who reads these attentively, will be
astonished how one little man (unicus homunculus) could be fit for labors so
numerous and great. He availed himself much of the aid of Farel and Viret,646
while, at the same time, he conferred greater benefits on them. Their
friendship and intimacy was not less hateful to the wicked than delightful to
all the pious; and, in truth, it was a most pleasing spectacle to see and hear
those three distinguished men carrying on the work of God in the Church so
harmoniously, with such a variety of gifts. Farel excelled in a certain
sublimity of mind, so that nobody could either hear his thunders without
trembling, or listen to his most fervent prayers without being almost carried
up to heaven. Viret possessed such suavity of eloquence, that his hearers were
compelled to hang upon his lips. Calvin filled the mind of the hearers with as
many weighty sentiments as he uttered words. I have often thought that a
preacher compounded of the three would be absolutely perfect. In addition to
these employments, Calvin had many others, arising out of circumstances
domestic and foreign. The Lord so blessed his ministry that persons flocked to
him from all parts of the Christian world; some to take his advice in matters
of religion, and others to hear, him. Hence, we have seen an Italian, an
English, and, finally, a Spanish Church at Geneva, one city seeming scarcely
sufficient to entertain so many nests. But though at home he was courted by the
good and feared by the bad, and matters had been admirably arranged, yet there
were not wanting individuals who gave him great annoyance. We will unfold these
contests separately, that posterity may be presented with a singular example of
fortitude, which each may imitate according to his ability."647
We
shall now consider this astounding activity of the Reformer in detail: his
Church polity, his theological system, his controversies, and his relation to,
and influence on, foreign churches.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="XIII" title="Constitution And Discipline
Of The Church Of Geneva">
CHAPTER
XIII.
CONSTITUTION
AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="98" title="Literature">
§ 98.
Literature.
I.
Calvin’s Institutio Christ. Religionis, the fourth book, which treats of the
Church and the Sacraments.—Les | ordinances | ecclésiastiques de | l’église de
Genève. | Item | l’ordre des escoles | de la dite cité.| Gen., 1541. 92 pp. 4°; another ed.,
1562, 110 pp. Reprinted in Opera, X. fol. 15–30. (Projet d’ordinances
ecclésiastiques, 1541). The same vol. contains also L’ordre du College de
Genève; Leges academicae (1559), fol. 65–90; and Les ordinances ecclésiastiques
de 1561, fol. 91–124. Comp. the Prolegomena, IX. sq., and also the earliest
document on the organization and worship of the Church of Geneva, 1537, fol.
5–14.
II.
Dr. Georg Weber: Geschichtliche Darstellung des Calvinismus im Verhältniss zum
Staat in Genf und Frankreich bis zur Aufhebung des Edikts von Nantes,
Heidelberg, 1836 (pp. 872). The first two chapters only (pp. 1–32) treat of
Calvin and Geneva; the greater part of the book is a history of the French
Reformation till 1685.—C. B. Hundeshagen: Ueber den Einfluss des Calvinismus
auf die Ideen von Staat, und staats-bürgerlicher Freiheit, Bern, 1842.—*Amédée
Roget: L’église et l’état à Genève du vivant de Calvin. Étude d’histoire
politico-ecclèsiastique, Genève, 1867 (pp. 92). Comp. also his Histoire du
peuple de Genève depuis la réforme jusqu’à l’escalade (1536–1602), 1870–1883, 7
vols.
III.
Henry, Part II. chs. III.–VI. Comp. his small biography, pp. 165–196.—Dyer, ch.
III.—Stähelin, bk. IV. (vol. I. 319 sqq.).—Kampschulte, I. 385–480. This is the
end of his work; vols. II. and III. were prevented by his premature death (Dec.
3, 1872), and intrusted to Professor Cornelius of Munich (a friend and
colleague of the late Dr. Döllinger), but he has so far only published a few
papers on special points, in the Transactions of the Munich Academy. See p.
230. Merle D’Aubigné, bk. XI. chs. XXII.–XXIV. (vol. VII. 73 sqq.). These are
his last chapters on Calvin, coming down to February, 1542; the continuation
was prevented by his death in 1872.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="99" title="Calvin’s Idea of the Holy
Catholic Church">
§ 99.
Calvin’s Idea of the Holy Catholic Church.
During
his sojourn at Strassburg, Calvin matured his views on the Church and the
Sacraments, and embodied them in the fourth book of the second edition of his
Institutes, which appeared in the same year as his Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans (1539). His ideal was high and comprehensive, far beyond what he was
able to realize in the little district of Geneva. "In no respect,
perhaps," says a distinguished Scotch Presbyterian scholar,648
"are the Institutes more remarkable than in a certain comprehensiveness
and catholicity of tone, which to many will appear strangely associated with
his name. But Calvin was far too enlightened not to recognize the grandeur of
the Catholic idea which had descended through so many ages; this idea had, in
truth, for such a mind as his, special attractions, and his own system mainly
sought to give to the same idea a new and higher form. The narrowness and
intolerance of his ecclesiastical rule did not so much spring out of the
general principles laid down in the Institutes, as from his special
interpretation and application of these principles."
When
Paul was a prisoner in Rome, chained to a heathen soldier, and when Christianity
was confined to a small band of humble believers scattered through a hostile
world, he described to the Ephesians his sublime conception of the Church as
the mystical "body of Christ, the fulness of Him who filleth all in
all." Yet in the same and
other epistles he finds it necessary to warn the members of this holy
brotherhood even against such vulgar vices as theft, intemperance, and
fornication. The contradiction is only apparent, and disappears in the
distinction between the ideal and the real, the essential and the phenomenal,
the Church as it is in the mind of Christ and the Church as it is in the masses
of nominal Christians.
The
same apparent contradiction we find in Calvin, in Luther, and other Reformers.
They cherished the deepest respect for the holy Catholic Church of Christ, and
yet felt it their duty to protest with all their might against the abuses and
corruptions of the actual Church of their age, and especially against the papal
hierarchy which ruled it with despotic power. We may go further back to the
protest of the Hebrew Prophets against the corrupt priesthood. Christ himself,
who recognized the divine economy of the history of Israel, and came to fulfil
the Law and the Prophets, attacked with withering severity the self-righteousness
and hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses’ seat, and was
condemned by the high priest and the Jewish hierarchy to the death of the
cross. These scriptural antecedents help very much to understand and to justify
the course of the Reformers.
Nothing
can be more truly Catholic than Calvin’s description of the historic Church. It
reminds one of the finest passages in St. Cyprian and St. Augustin. After
explaining the meaning of the article of the Apostles’ Creed on the holy
Catholic Church, as embracing not only the visible Church, but all God’s elect,
living and departed, he thus speaks of the visible or historic Catholic Church:649
"As
our present design is to treat of the visible Church, we may learn even from
the title of mother, how useful and even necessary it is for us to know her;
since there is no other way of entrance into life, unless we are conceived by
her, born of her, nourished at her breast, and continually preserved under her
care and government till we are divested of this mortal flesh and become I like
the angels’ (<scripRef passage = "Matt. 22:30">Matt. 22:30</scripRef>). For our infirmity will
not admit of our dismission from her school; we must continue under her
instruction and discipline to the end of our lives. It is also to be remarked
that out of her bosom there can be no hope of remission of sins, or any
salvation, according to the testimony of Isaiah (<scripRef passage = "Isaiah
37:32">37:32</scripRef>) and Joel (<scripRef passage
= "Joel 2:32">2:32</scripRef>); which is confirmed by
Ezekiel (<scripRef
passage = "Ezekiel 13:9">13:9</scripRef>), when he denounces that
those whom God excludes from the heavenly life shalt not be enrolled among his
people. So, on the contrary, those who devote themselves to the service of God
are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which
reason the Psalmist says, ’Remember me, O Lord, with the favor that thou
bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation, that I may see the
prosperity of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation,
that I may glory with thine inheritance’ (<scripRef passage = "Ps. 106:4,
5">Ps106:4,
5</scripRef>). In these words the
paternal favor of God, and the peculiar testimony of the spiritual life, are
restricted to his flock, to teach us that it is always fatally dangerous to be
separated from the Church."650
So
strong are the claims of the visible Church upon us that even abounding
corruptions cannot justify a secession. Reasoning against the Anabaptists and
other radicals who endeavored to build up a new Church of converts directly
from the Bible, without any regard to the intervening historical Church, he
says:651
"Dreadful
are those descriptions in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others,
deplore the disorders of the Church at Jerusalem. There was such general and
extreme corruption in the people, in the magistrates, and in the priests that
Isaiah does not hesitate to compare Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah. Religion
was partly despised, partly corrupted. Their manners were generally disgraced
by thefts, robberies, treacheries, murders, and similar crimes.
"Nevertheless,
the Prophets on this account neither raised themselves new churches, nor built
new altars for the oblation of separate sacrifices; but whatever were the
characters of the people, yet because they considered that God had deposited
his word among that nation, and instituted the ceremonies in which he was there
worshipped, they lifted up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the
impious. If they had thought that they contracted any contagion from these
services, surely they would have suffered a hundred deaths rather than have
permitted themselves to be dragged to them. There was nothing, therefore, to
prevent their departure from them, but the desire of preserving the unity of
the Church.
"But
if the holy Prophets were restrained by a sense of duty from forsaking the
Church on account of the numerous and enormous crimes which were practiced, not
by a few individuals, but almost by the whole nation, it is extreme arrogance
in us, if we presume immediately to withdraw from the communion of a Church,
where the conduct of all the members is not compatible either with our judgment
or even with the Christian profession.
"Now
what kind of an age was that of Christ and his Apostles? Yet the desperate impiety of the
Pharisees, and the dissolute lives everywhere led by the people, could not
prevent them from using the same sacrifices, and assembling in the same temple
with others, for the public exercises of religion. How did this happen, but from
a knowledge that the society of the wicked could not contaminate those who,
with pure consciences, united with them in the same solemnities.
"If
any one pay no deference to the Prophets and the Apostles, let him at least
acquiesce in the authority of Christ. Cyprian has excellently remarked:
’Although tares, or impure vessels, are found in the Church, yet this is not a
reason why we should withdraw from it. It only behooves us to labor that we may
be the wheat, and to use our utmost endeavors and exertions that we may be
vessels of gold or of silver. But to break in pieces the vessels of earth
belongs to the Lord alone, to whom a rod of iron is also given. Nor let any one
arrogate to himself what is the exclusive province of the Son of God, by
pretending to fan the floor, clear away the chaff, and separate all the tares
by the judgment of man. This is proud obstinacy, and sacrilegious presumption,
originating in a corrupt frenzy.’
"Let
these two points, then, be considered as decided: first, that he who voluntarily
deserts the external communion of the Church where the Word of God is preached,
and the sacraments are administered, is without any excuse; secondly, that the
faults either of few persons or of many form no obstacles to a due profession
of our faith in the use of the ceremonies instituted by God; because the pious
conscience is not wounded by the unworthiness of any other individual, whether
he be a pastor or a private person; nor are the mysteries less pure and
salutary to a holy and upright man, because they are received at the same time
by the impure."
How,
then, with such high churchly views, could Calvin justify his separation from
the Roman Church in which he was born and trained? He vindicated his position in the Answer to Sadolet, from
which we have given large extracts.652 He did it more fully in his masterly work, "On the
Necessity of Reforming the Church," which, "in the name of all who
wish Christ to reign," he addressed to the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet
to be assembled at Speier in February, 1544. It is replete with weighty
arguments and accurate learning, and by far one of the ablest controversial
books of that age.653
The following is a passage bearing upon this point:654
"The
last and principal charge which they bring against us is, that we have made a
schism in the Church. And here they fiercely maintain against us, that for no
reason is it lawful to break the unity of the Church. How far they do us
injustice the books of our authors bear witness. Now, however, let them take
this brief reply—that we neither dissent from the Church, nor are aliens from
her communion. But, as by this specious name of Church, they are wont to cast
dust in the eyes even of persons otherwise pious and right-hearted, I beseech
your Imperial Majesty, and you, Most Illustrious Princes, first, to divest
yourselves of all prejudice, that you may give an impartial ear to our defence;
secondly, not to be instantly terrified on hearing the name of Church, but to
remember that the Prophets and Apostles had, with the pretended Church of their
days, a contest similar to that which you see us have in the present day with
the Roman pontiff and his whole train. When they, by the command of God,
inveighed freely against idolatry, superstition, and the profanation of the
temple, and its sacred rites, against the carelessness and lethargy of
priests,—and against the general avarice, cruelty, and licentiousness, they
were constantly met with the objection which our opponents have ever in their
mouths—that by dissenting from the common opinion, they violated the unity of
the Church. The ordinary government of the Church was then vested in the
priests. They had not presumptuously arrogated it to themselves, but God had
conferred it upon them by his law. It would occupy too much time to point out
all the instances. Let us, therefore, be contented with a single instance, in
the case of Jeremiah.
"He
had to do with the whole college of priests, and the arms with which they
attacked him were these: ’Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for
the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the
word from the prophet’ (<scripRef passage = "Jer.
18:18">Jer.
18:18</scripRef>). They had among them a
high priest, to reject whose judgment was a capital crime, and they had the
whole order to which God himself had committed the government of the Jewish
Church concurring with them. If the unity of the Church is violated by him,
who, instructed solely by Divine truth, opposes himself to ordinary authority,
the Prophet must be a schismatic; because, not at all deterred by such menaces
from warring with the impiety of the priests, he steadily persevered.
"That
the eternal truth of God preached by the Prophets and Apostles, is on our side,
we are prepared to show, and it is indeed easy for any man to perceive. But all
that is done is to assail us with this battering-ram, ’Nothing can excuse
withdrawal from the Church.’ We
deny out and out that we do so. With what, then, do they urge us? With nothing more than this, that to
them belongs the ordinary government of the Church. But how much better right
had the enemies of Jeremiah to use this argument? To them, at all events, there still remained a legal
priesthood, instituted by God; so that their vocation was unquestionable. Those
who in the present day have the name of prelates, cannot prove their vocation
by any laws, human or divine. Be it, however, that in this respect both are on
a footing, still, unless they previously convict the holy Prophet of schism,
they will prove nothing against us by that specious title of Church.
"I
have thus mentioned one Prophet as an example. But all the others declare that
they had the same battle to fight—wicked priests endeavoring to overwhelm them
by a perversion of this term Church. And how did the Apostles act? Was it not necessary for them, in
professing themselves the servants of Christ, to declare war upon the synagogue
? And yet the office and dignity
of the priesthood were not then lost. But it will be said that, though the
Prophets and Apostles dissented from wicked priests in doctrine, they still
cultivated communion with them in sacrifices and prayers. I admit they did, provided
they were not forced into idolatry. But which of the Prophets do we read of as
having ever sacrificed in Bethel?
Which of the faithful, do we suppose, communicated in impure sacrifices,
when the temple was polluted by Antiochus, and profane rites were introduced
into it?
"On
the whole, we conclude that the servants of God never felt themselves
obstructed by this empty title of Church, when it was put forward to support
the reign of impiety. It is not enough, therefore, simply to throw out the name
of Church, but judgment must be used to ascertain which is the true Church, and
what is the nature of its unity. And the thing necessary to be attended to,
first of all, is, to beware of separating the Church from Christ, its Head.
When I say Christ, I include the doctrine of his gospel which he sealed with
his blood. Our adversaries, therefore, if they would persuade us that they are
the true Church must, first of all, show that the true doctrine of God is among
them; and this is the meaning of what we often repeat, viz. that the uniform
characteristics of a well-ordered Church are the preaching of sound doctrine,
and the pure administration of the Sacraments. For, since Paul declares (<scripRef passage
= "Eph. 2:20">Eph. 2:20</scripRef>) that the Church is ’built
upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,’ it necessarily follows that
any church not resting on this foundation must immediately fall.
"I
come now to our opponents.
"They,
no doubt, boast in lofty terms that Christ is on their side. As soon as they
exhibit him in their word we will believe it, but not sooner. They, in the same
way, insist on the term Church. But where, we ask, is that doctrine which Paul
declares to be the only foundation of the Church? Doubtless, your Imperial Majesty now sees that there is a
vast difference between assailing us with the reality and assailing us only
with the name of Church. We are as ready to confess as they are that those who
abandon the Church, the common mother of the faithful, the ’pillar and ground of
the truth,’ revolt from Christ also; but we mean a Church which, from
incorruptible seed, begets children for immortality, and, when begotten,
nourishes them with spiritual food (that seed and food being the Word of God),
and which, by its ministry, preserves entire the truth which God deposited in
its bosom. This mark is in no degree doubtful, in no degree fallacious, and it
is the mark which God himself impressed upon his Church, that she might be
discerned thereby. Do we seem unjust in demanding to see this mark? Wherever it exists not, no face of a
Church is seen. If the name, merely, is put forward, we have only to quote the
well-known passage of Jeremiah, ’Trust ye not in lying words, saying, the
temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these’
(<scripRef
passage = "Jer. 7:4">Jer. 7:4</scripRef>). Is this house, which is
called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?’ (<scripRef passage
= "Jer. 7:11">Jer. 7:11</scripRef>).
"In
like manner, the unity of the Church, such as Paul describes it, we protest we
hold sacred, and we denounce anathema against all who in any way violate it.
The principle from which Paul derives unity is, that there is ’one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,’ who hath called us into one
hope (<scripRef
passage = "Eph. 4:4–6">Eph. 4:4–6</scripRef>). Therefore, we are one
body and one spirit, as is here enjoined, if we adhere to God only, i.e. be
bound to each other by the tie of faith. We ought, moreover, to remember what is
said in another passage, ’that faith cometh by the word of God.’ Let it, therefore, be a fixed point,
that a holy unity exists amongst us, when, consenting in pure doctrine, we are
united in Christ alone. And, indeed, if concurrence in any kind of doctrine
were sufficient, in what possible way could the Church of God be distinguished
from the impious factions of the wicked?
Wherefore, the Apostle shortly after adds, that the ministry was
instituted ’for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the
unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God: that we be no more
children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, but
speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the
Head, even Christ’ (<scripRef passage = "Eph.
4:12–15">Eph.
4:12–15</scripRef>). Could he more plainly
comprise the whole unity of the Church in a holy agreement in true doctrine,
than when he calls us back to Christ and to faith, which is included in the
knowledge of him, and to obedience to the truth? Nor is any lengthened demonstration of this needed by those
who believe the Church to be that sheepfold of which Christ alone is the
Shepherd, and where his voice only is heard, and distinguished from the voice
of strangers. And this is confirmed by Paul, when he prays for the Romans, ’The
God of patience and consolation grant you to be of the same mind one with
another, according to Christ Jesus; that, ye may with one accord and one mouth
glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (<scripRef passage = "Rom. 15:5,
6">Rom.
15:5, 6</scripRef>).
"Let
our opponents, then, in the first instance, draw near to Christ, and then let
them convict us of schism, in daring to dissent from them in doctrine. But,
since I have made it plain that Christ is banished from their society, and the
doctrine of his gospel exterminated, their charge against us simply amounts to
this, that we adhere to Christ in preference to them. For what man, pray, will
believe that those who refuse to be led away from Christ and his truth, in
order to deliver themselves into the power of men, are thereby schismatics, and
deserters from the communion of the Church?
"I
certainly admit that respect is to be shown to priests, and that there is great
danger in despising ordinary authority. If, then, they were to say, that we are
not at our own hand to resist ordinary authority, we should have no difficulty
in subscribing to the sentiment. For we are not so rude as not to see what
confusion must arise when the authority of rulers is not respected. Let
pastors, then, have their due honor—an honor, however, not derogatory in any
degree to the supreme authority of Christ, to whom it behooves them and every
man to be subject. For God declares, by Malachi, that the government of the
Israelitish Church was committed to the priests, under the condition that they
should faithfully fulfil the covenant made with them, viz. that ’their lips
should keep knowledge,’ and expound the law to the people (<scripRef passage
= "Mal. 2:7">Mal. 2:7</scripRef>). When the priests
altogether failed in this condition, he declares, that, by their perfidy, the
covenant was abrogated and made null. Pastors are mistaken if they imagine that
they are invested with the government of the Church on any other terms than
that of being ministers and witnesses of the truth of God. As long, therefore,
as, in opposition to the law and to the nature of their office, they eagerly
wage war with the truth of God, let them not arrogate to themselves a power
which God never bestowed, either formerly on priests, or now on bishops, on any
other terms than those which have been mentioned."
When
the Romanists demanded miracles from the Reformers as a test of their
innovations, Calvin replied that this was "unreasonable; for we forgo no
new gospel, but retain the very same, whose truth was confirmed by all the
miracles ever wrought by Christ and the Apostles. The opponents have this
advantage over us, that they confirm their faith by continual miracles even to
this day. But they allege miracles which are calculated to unsettle a mind
otherwise well established; for they are frivolous and ridiculous, or vain and
false. Nor, if they were ever so preternatural, ought they to have any weight
in opposition to the truth of God, since the name of God ought to be sanctified
in all places and at all times, whether by miraculous events or by the common
order of nature."655
Luther
had the same Catholic Church feeling, and gave strong expression to it in his
writings against the radicals, and in a letter to the Margrave of Brandenburg
and Duke of Prussia (1532), in which he says: "It is dangerous and
terrible to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony of the
entire holy Christian Church as held from the beginning for now over fifteen
hundred years in all the world."656 And yet he asserted the right of conscience and private judgment
at Worms against popes and Councils, because he deemed it "unsafe and
dangerous to do anything against the conscience bound in the Word of God."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="100" title="The Visible and Invisible Church">
§ 100.
The Visible and Invisible Church.
Comp.
vol. VI. § 85, and the literature there quoted.
A
distinction between real and nominal Christianity is as old as the Church, and
has never been denied. "Many are called, but few are chosen." We can know all that are actually called,
but God only knows those who are truly chosen. The kindred parables of the
tares and of the net illustrate the fact that the kingdom of heaven in this
world includes good and bad men, and that a final separation will not take
place before the judgment day.657
Paul distinguishes between an outward circumcision of the flesh and an
inward circumcision of the heart; between a carnal Israel and a spiritual
Israel; and he speaks of Gentiles who are ignorant of the written law, yet, do
by nature the things of the law," and will judge those who," with the
letter and circumcision, are transgressors of the law." He thereby intimates that God’s mercy
is not bounded by the limits of the visible Church.658
Augustin
makes a distinction between the true body of Christ, which consists of the
elect children of God from the beginning, and the mixed body of Christ, which
comprehends all the baptized.659
In the Middle Ages the Church was identified with the dominion of the papacy,
and the Cyprianic maxim, "<foreign lang="la">Extra ecclesiam nulla salus</foreign>," was narrowed <foreign
lang="la">into
"Extra ecclesiam Romanam nulla salus</foreign>," to the exclusion not
only of heretical sects, but also of the Oriental Church. Wiclif and Hus, in
opposition to the corruptions of the papal Church, renewed the distinction of
Augustin, under a different and less happy designation of the congregation of
the predestinated or the elect, and the congregation of those who are only foreknown.660
The
Reformers introduced the terminology "visible" and invisible"
Church. By this they did not mean two distinct and separate Churches, but
rather two classes of Christians within the same outward communion. The
invisible Church is in the visible Church, as the soul is in the body, or the
kernel in the shell, but God only knows with certainty who belong to the invisible
Church and will ultimately be saved; and in this sense his true children are
invisible, that is, not certainly recognizable and known to men. We may object
to the terminology, but the distinction is real and important.
Luther,
who openly adopted the view of Hus at the disputation of Leipzig, first applied
the term "invisible" to the true Church, which is meant in the
Apostles’ Creed.661
The Augsburg Confession defines the Church to be "the congregation
of saints (or believers), in which the Gospel is purely taught, and the
sacraments are rightly administered." This definition is too narrow for the invisible Church, and
would exclude the Baptists and Quakers.662
The
Reformed system of doctrine extends the domain of the invisible or true Church
and the possibility of salvation beyond the boundaries of the visible Church,
and holds that the Spirit of God is not bound to the ordinary means of grace,
but may work and save "when, where, and how he pleases."663 Zwingli first introduced both terms. He
meant by the "visible" Church the community of all who bear the
Christian name, by the "invisible" Church the totality of true
believers of all ages.664
And he included in the invisible Church all the pious heathen, and all
infants dying in infancy, whether baptized or not. In this liberal view,
however, he stood almost alone in his age and anticipated modern opinions.665
Calvin
defines the distinction more clearly and fully than any of the Reformers, and
his view passed into the Second Helvetic, the Scotch, the Westminster, and
other Reformed Confessions.
"The
Church," he says,666 "is used in the sacred Scriptures in
two senses. Sometimes when they mention ’the Church’ they intend that which is
really such in the sight of God (quae revera est coram Deo), into which none
are received but those who by adoption and grace are the children of God, and
by the sanctification of the Spirit are the true members of Christ. And then it
comprehends not only the saints at any one time resident on earth, but all the
elect who have lived from the beginning of the world.
"But
the word ’Church’ is frequently used in the Scriptures to designate the whole
multitude dispersed all over the world, who profess to worship one God and
Jesus Christ, who are initiated into his faith by baptism, who testify their
unity in true doctrine and charity by a participation of the sacred supper, who
consent to the word of the Lord, and preserve the ministry which Christ has
instituted for the purpose of preaching it. In this Church are included many
hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and appearance; many
persons, ambitious, avaricious, envious, slanderous, and dissolute in their
lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because they cannot be convicted by
a legitimate process, or because discipline is not always maintained with
sufficient vigor.
"As
it is necessary therefore to believe that Church which is invisible to us, and
known to God alone, so this Church, which is visible to men, we are commanded
to honor, and to maintain communion with it."
Calvin
does not go as far as Zwingli in extending the number of the elect, but there
is nothing in his principles to forbid such extension. He makes salvation
dependent upon God’s sovereign grace, and not upon the visible means of grace.
He expressly includes in the invisible Church "all the elect who have
lived from the beginning of the world," and even those who had no
historical knowledge of Christ. He says, in agreement with Augustin:, According
to the secret predestination of God, there are many sheep without the pale of
the Church, and many wolves within it. For God knows and seals those who know
not either him or themselves. Of those who externally bear his seal, his eyes
alone can discern who are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere to the end, which
is the completion of salvation."
But in the judgment of charity, he continues, we must acknowledge as
members of the Church "all those who, by a confession of faith, an
exemplary life, and a participation in the sacraments, profess the same God and
Christ with ourselves."667
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="101" title="The Civil Government">
§ 101.
The Civil Government.
On
civil government see Institutes, IV. ch. XX., De politica administratione (in
Tholuck’s ed. II. 475–496).
Calvin
discusses the nature and function of Civil Government at length, and with the
ability and wisdom of a statesman, in the last chapter of his Institutes.
He
holds that the Church is consistent with all forms of government and social
conditions, even with civil servitude (<scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
7:21">1
Cor. 7:21</scripRef>). But some kind of
government is as necessary to mankind in this world as bread and water, light
and air; and it is far more excellent, since it protects life and property,
maintains law and order, and enables men to live peaceably together, and to
pursue their several avocations.
As
to the different forms of government, Calvin discusses the merits of monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy. All are compatible with Christianity and command
our obedience. All have their advantages and dangers. Monarchy easily
degenerates into despotism, aristocracy into oligarchy or the faction of a few,
democracy into mobocracy and sedition. He gives the preference to a mixture of
aristocracy and democracy. He infused a more aristocratic spirit into the
democratic Republic of Geneva, and saw a precedent in the government of Moses
with seventy elders elected from the wisest and best of the people. It is
safer, he thinks, for the government to be in the hands of many than of one,
for they may afford each other assistance, and restrain arrogance and ambition.
Civil
government is of divine origin. "All power is ordained of God" (<scripRef passage
= "Rom. 13:1">Rom. 13:1</scripRef>). "By me kings reign,
and princes decree justice" (<scripRef passage = "Prov.
8:15">Prov.
8:15</scripRef>). The magistrates are
called "gods "(<scripRef passage = "Ps. 82:1,
6">Ps.
82:1, 6</scripRef>; a passage indorsed by
Christ, <scripRef
passage = "John 10:35">John 10:35</scripRef>), because they are invested
with God’s authority and act as his vicegerents. "Civil magistracy is not
only holy and legitimate, but far the most sacred and honorable in human
life." Submission to lawful
government is the duty of every citizen. To resist it, is to set at naught the
ordinance of God (<scripRef passage = "Rom. 13:3,
4">Rom.
13:3, 4</scripRef>; comp. <scripRef passage
= "Tit. 3:1">Tit. 3:1</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Pet.
2:13, 14">1
Pet. 2:13, 14</scripRef>). Paul admonishes Timothy that in the public congregation
"supplication, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for kings and
for all that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in
all godliness and gravity" (<scripRef passage = "1 Tim.
2:1, 2">1
Tim. 2:1, 2</scripRef>). We must obey and pray even for bad rulers, and endure in
patience and humility till God exercises his judgment. The punishment of
evildoers belongs only to God and to the magistrates. Sometimes God punishes
the people by wicked rulers, and punishes these by other bad rulers. We, as
individuals, must suffer rather than rebel. Only in one case are we required to
disobey,—when the civil ruler commands us to do anything against the will of
God and against our conscience. Then, we must obey God rather than men" (<scripRef passage
= "Acts 5:29">Acts 5:29</scripRef>).668
Calvin
was thus a strong upholder of authority in the State. He did not advise or
encourage the active resistance of the Huguenots at the beginning of the civil
wars in France, although he gave a tacit consent.
Calvin
extended the authority and duty of civil government to both Tables of the Law.
He assigns to it, in Christian society, the office,—"to cherish and
support the external worship of God, to preserve the true doctrine of religion,
to defend the constitution of the Church, and to regulate our lives in a manner
requisite for the social welfare."
He proves this view from the Old Testament, and quotes the passage in <scripRef passage
= "Isaiah 49:23">Isaiah 49:23</scripRef>, that "kings shall be
nursing-fathers and queens nursing-mothers" to the Church. He refers to
the examples of Moses, Joshua and the Judges, David, Josiah, and Hezekiah.
Here
is the critical point where religious persecution by the State comes in as an
inevitable consequence. Offences against the Church are offences against the
State, and vice versa, and deserve punishment by fines, imprisonment, exile,
and, if necessary, by death. On this ground the execution of Servetus and other
heretics was justified by all who held the same theory; fortunately, it has no
support whatever in the New Testament, but is directly contrary to the spirit
of the gospel.
Geneva,
after the emancipation from the power of the bishop and the duke of Savoy, was
a self-governing Republic under the protection of Bern and the Swiss
Confederacy. The civil government assumed the episcopal power, and exercised it
first in favor, then against, and at last permanently for the Reformation.
The
Republic was composed of all citizens of age, who met annually in general
assembly (conseil général), usually in St. Peter’s, under the sounding of
bells, and trumpets, for the ratification of laws and the election of officers.
The administrative power was lodged in four Syndics; the legislative power in
two Councils, the Council of Sixty, and the Council of Two Hundred. The former
existed since 1457; the latter was instituted in 1526, after the alliance with
Freiburg and Bern, in imitation of the Constitution of these and other Swiss
cities. The Sixty were by right members of the Council of Two Hundred. In 1530
the Two Hundred assumed the right to elect the ordinary or little Council of
Twenty-Five, who were a part of the two other Councils and had previously been
elected by the Syndics. The real power lay in the hands of the Syndics and the
little Council of Twenty-five, which formed an oligarchy with legislative,
executive, and judicial functions.
Calvin
did not change these fundamental institutions of the Republic, but he infused
into them a Christian and disciplinary spirit, and improved the legislation. He
was appointed, together with the Syndics Roset, Porral, and Balard, to draw up
a new code of laws, as early as Nov. 1, 1541.669 He devoted much time to this work, and paid attention even
to the minutest details concerning the administration of justice, the city
police, the military, the firemen, the watchmen on the tower, and the like.670
The
city showed her gratitude by presenting him with "a cask of old wine"
for these extra services.671
Many
of his regulations continued in legal force down to the eighteenth century.
Calvin
was consulted in all important affairs of the State, and his advice was usually
followed; but he never occupied a political or civil office. He was not even a
citizen of Geneva till 1559 (eighteen years after his second arrival), and
never appeared before the Councils except when some ecclesiastical question was
debated, or when his advice was asked. It is a mistake, therefore, to call him
the head of the Republic, except in a purely intellectual and moral sense.
The
code of laws was revised with the aid of Calvin by his friend, Germain Colladon
(1510–1594), an eminent juris-consult and member of a distinguished family of
French refugees who settled at Geneva. The revised code was begun in 1560, and
published in 1568.672
Among
the laws of Geneva we mention a press law, the oldest in Switzerland, dated
Feb. 15, 1560. Laws against the freedom of the press existed before, especially
in Spain. Alexander VI., a Spaniard, issued a bull in 1501, instructing the
German prelates to exercise a close supervision over printers. Ferdinand and
Isabella the Catholic established a censorship which prohibited, under severe
penalties, the printing, importation, and sale of any book that had not
previously passed an examination and obtained a license. Rome adopted the same
policy. Other countries, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, followed the
example. In Russia, the severest restrictions of the press are still in force.
The
press law of Geneva was comparatively moderate. It put the press under the
supervision of three prudent and experienced men, to be appointed by the
government. These men have authority to appoint able and trustworthy printers,
to examine every book before it is printed, to prevent popish, heretical, and
infidel publications, to protect the publisher against piracy; but Bibles,
catechisms, prayers, and psalms may be printed by all publishers; new
translations of the Scriptures are privileged in the first edition.673
The
censorship of the press continued in Geneva till the eighteenth century. In
1600 the Council forbade the printing of the essays of Montaigne; in 1763
Rousseau’s Emile was condemned to be burned.
It
should be noted, however, that under the influence of Calvin Geneva became one
of the most important places of publication. The famous Robert Stephen
(Etienne, 1503–1559), being censured by the Sorbonne of Paris, settled in
Geneva after the death of his father, Henri, as a professed Protestant, and
printed there two editions of the Hebrew Bible, and an edition of the Greek
Testament, with the Vulgate and Erasmian versions, in 1551, which for the first
time contains the versicular division of the text according to our present
usage. To him we owe the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (third ed. 1543, in 4
vols.), and to his son, Henri, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (1572, 4 vols.).
Beza published several editions of his Greek Testament in Geneva (1565–1598),
which were chiefly used by King James’ translators. In the same city appeared
the English version of the New Testament by Whittingham, 1557; then of the
whole Bible, 1560. This is the so-called "Geneva Bible," or
"Breeches Bible" (from the rendering of Gen. 3:7), which was for a
long time the most popular English version, and passed through about two
hundred editions from 1560 to 1630.674 Geneva has well maintained its literary reputation to this
day.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="102" title="Distinctive Principles of Calvin’s Church Polity">
§ 102.
Distinctive Principles of Calvin’s Church Polity.
Calvin
was a legislator and the founder of a new system of church polity and
discipline. He had a legal training, which was of much use to him in organizing
the Reformed Church at Geneva. If he had lived in the Middle Ages, he might
have been a Hildebrand or an Innocent III. But the spirit of the Reformation
required a reconstruction of church government on an evangelical and popular
basis.
Calvin
laid great stress on the outward organization and order of the Church, but in
subordination to sound doctrine and the inner spiritual life. He compares the
former to the body, while the doctrine which regulates the worship of God, and
points out the way of salvation, is the soul which animates the body and
renders it lively and active.675
The
Calvinistic system of church polity is based upon the following principles,
which have exerted great influence in the development of Protestantism: —
1.
The autonomy of the Church, or its right of self-government under the sole
headship of Christ.
The
Roman Catholic Church likewise claims autonomy, but in a hierarchical sense,
and under the supreme control of the pope, who, as the visible vicar of Christ,
demands passive obedience from priests and people. Calvin vests the
self-government in the Christian congregation, and regards all the ministers of
the gospel, in their official character, as ambassadors and representatives of
Christ. "Christ alone," he says, "ought to rule and reign in the
Church, and to have all preeminence in it, and this government ought to be
exercised and administered solely by his word; yet as he dwells not among us by
a visible presence, so as to make an audible declaration of his will to us, he
uses for this purpose the ministry of men whom he employs as his delegates, not
to transfer his right and honor to them, but only that he may himself do his
work by their lips; just as an artificer makes use of an instrument in the
performance of his work."676
In
practice, however, the autonomy both of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and of the
Protestant Churches is more or less curtailed and checked by the civil government
wherever Church and State are united, and where the State supports the Church.
For self-government requires self-support. Calvin intended to institute synods,
and to make the clergy independent of State patronage, but in this he did not
succeed.
The
Lutheran Reformers subjected the Church to the secular rulers, and made her an
obedient handmaid of the State; but they complained bitterly of the selfish and
arbitrary misgovernment of the princes. The congregations in most Lutheran
countries of Europe have no voice in the election of their own pastors. The
Reformers of German Switzerland conceded more power to the people in a
democratic republic, and introduced synods, but they likewise put the supreme
power into the hands of the civil government of the several cantons. In
monarchical England the governorship of the Church was usurped and exercised by
Henry VIII. and, in a milder form, by Queen Elizabeth and her successors, and
acquiesced in by the bishops. The churches under Calvin’s influence always
maintained, at least in theory, the independence of the Church in all spiritual
affairs, and the right of individual congregations in the election of their own
pastors. Calvin derives this right from the Greek verb used in the passage
which says that Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters by the suffrages or votes
of the people.677 "Those two
apostles," he says, "ordained the presbyters; but the whole
multitude, according to the custom observed among the Greeks, declared by the
elevation of their hands who was the object of their choice … . It is not
credible that Paul granted to Timothy and Titus more power (<scripRef passage
= "1 Tim. 5:22">1 Tim. 5:22</scripRef> <scripRef passage = "Tit.
1:5">Tit.
1:5</scripRef>) than he assumed to
himself." After quoting with
approval two passages from Cyprian, he concludes that the apostolic and best
mode of electing pastors is by the consent of the whole people; yet other pastors
ought to preside over the election, "to guard the multitude from falling
into improprieties through inconstancy, intrigue, and confusion."678
The
Presbyterian Church of Scotland has labored and suffered more than any
Protestant Church for the principle of the sole headship of Christ; first
against popery, then against prelacy, and last against patronage. In North
America this principle is almost universally acknowledged.
2.
The parity of the clergy as distinct from a jure divino hierarchy whether papal
or prelatical.
Calvin
maintained, with Jerome, the original identity of bishops (overseers) and
presbyters (elders); and in this he has the support of the best modern exegetes
and historians.679
But
he did not on this account reject all distinctions among ministers, which rest
on human right and historical development, nor deny the right of adapting the
Church order to varying conditions and circumstances. He was not an exclusive
or bigoted Presbyterian. He had no objection to episcopacy in large countries,
like Poland and England, provided the evangelical doctrines be preached.680 In his correspondence with Archbishop
Cranmer and Protector Somerset, he suggests various improvements, but does not
oppose episcopacy. In a long letter to King Sigismund Augustus of Poland, he
even approves of it in that kingdom.681
But
Presbyterianism and Congregationalism are more congenial to the spirit of
Calvinism than prelacy. In the conflict with Anglican prelacy during the
seventeenth century, the Calvinistic Churches became exclusively Presbyterian
in Scotland, or Independent in England and New England. During the same period,
in opposition to the enforced introduction of the Anglican liturgy, the
Presbyterians and Congregationalists abandoned liturgical worship; while Calvin
and the Reformed Churches on the Continent approved of forms of devotion in
connection with free prayer in public worship.
3.
The participation of the Christian laity in Church government and discipline.
This is a very important feature.
In
the Roman Church the laity are passive, and have no share whatever in
legislation. Theirs is simply to obey the priesthood. Luther first effectively
proclaimed the doctrine of the general priesthood of the laity, but Calvin put
it into an organized form, and made the laity a regular agency in the local
congregation, and in the synods and Councils of the Church. His views are
gaining ground in other denominations, and are almost generally adopted in the
United States. Even the Protestant Episcopal Church gives, in the lower house
of her diocesan and general conventions, to the laity an equal representation
with the clergy.
4.
Strict discipline to be exercised jointly by ministers and lay-elders, with the
consent of the whole congregation.
In
this point Calvin went far beyond the older Reformers, and achieved greater
success, as we shall see hereafter.
5.
Union of Church and State on a theocratic basis, if possible, or separation, if
necessary to secure the purity and self-government of the Church. This requires
fuller exposition.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="103" title="Church and State">
§ 103.
Church and State.
Calvin’s
Church polity is usually styled a theocracy, by friends in praise, by foes in
censure.682 This is true, but
in a qualified sense. He aimed at the sole rule of Christ and his Word both in
Church and State, but without mixture and interference. The two powers were
almost equally balanced in Geneva. The early Puritan colonies in New England
were an imitation of the Geneva model.
In
theory, Calvin made a clearer distinction between the spiritual and secular
powers than was usual in his age, when both were inextricably interwoven and
confused. He compares the Church to the soul, the State to the body. The one
has to do with the spiritual and eternal welfare of man, the other with the
affairs of this present, transitory life.683 Each is independent and sovereign in its own sphere. He was
opposed to any interference of the civil government with the internal affairs
and discipline of the Church. He was displeased with the servile condition of
the clergy in Germany and in Bern, and often complained (even on his death-bed)
of the interference of Bern with the Church in Geneva. But he was equally
opposed to a clerical control of civil and political affairs, and confined the
Church to the spiritual sword. He never held a civil office. The ministers were
not eligible to the magistracy and the Councils.
Yet
he did not go so far as to separate the two powers; on the contrary, he united
them as closely as their different functions would admit. His fundamental idea
was, that God alone is Lord on earth as well as in heaven, and should rule
supreme in Church and State. In this sense he was theocratic or christocratic.
God uses Church and State as two distinct but co-operative arms for the
upbuilding of Christ’s kingdom. The law for both is the revealed will of God in
the Holy Scriptures. The Church gives moral support to the State, while the
State gives temporal support to the Church.
Calvin’s
ideal of Christian society resembles that of Hildebrand, but differs from it on
the following important points:
1.
Calvin’s theory professed to be based upon the Scriptures, as the only rule of
faith and practice; the papal theocracy drew its support chiefly from tradition
and the Canon law.
Calvin’s
arguments, however, are exclusively taken from the Old Testament. The
Calvinistic as well as the papal theocracy is Mosaic and legalistic rather than
Christian and evangelical. The Apostolic Church had no connection whatever with
the State except to obey its legitimate demands. Christ’s rule is expressed in
that wisest word ever uttered on this subject: "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" (<scripRef passage
= "Matt. 22:21">Matt. 22:21</scripRef>).
2.
Calvin recognized only the invisible headship of Christ, and rejected the papal
claim to world-dominion as an anti-christian usurpation.
3.
He had a much higher view of the State than the popes. He considered it equally
divine in origin and authority as the Church, and fully independent in all
temporal matters; while the papal hierarchy in the Middle Ages often overruled
the State by ecclesiastical authority. Hildebrand compared the Church to the
sun, the State to the moon which borrows her light from the sun, and claimed
and exercised the right of deposing kings and absolving subjects from their
oaths of allegiance. Boniface VIII. formulated this claim in the well-known
theory of the two swords.
4.
Calvin’s theocracy was based upon the sovereignty of the Christian people and
the general priesthood of believers; the papal theocracy was an exclusive rule
of the priesthood.
In
practice, the two powers were not as clearly distinct at Geneva as in theory.
They often intermeddled with each other. The ministers criticised the acts of
the magistrates from the pulpit; and the magistrates called the ministers to
account for their sermons. Discipline was a common territory for both, and the
Consistory was a mixed body of clergymen and laymen. The government fixed and
paid the salaries of the pastors, and approved their nomination and transfer
from one parish to another. None could even absent himself for a length of time
without leave by the Council. The Large Council voted on the Confession of
Faith and Discipline, and gave them the power of law.
The
Reformed Church of Geneva, in one word, was an established Church or State
Church, and continues so to this day, though no more in an exclusive sense, but
with liberty to Dissenters, whether Catholic or Protestant, who have of late
been increasing by immigration.
The
union of Church and State is tacitly assumed or directly asserted in nearly all
the Protestant Confessions of Faith, which make it the duty of the civil
government to support religion, to protect orthodoxy, and to punish heresy.684
In
modern times the character of the State and its attitude towards the Church has
undergone a material change in Switzerland as well as in other countries. The
State is no longer identified with a particular Church, and has become either
indifferent, or hostile, or tolerant. It is composed of members of all creeds,
and should, in the name of justice, support all, or none; in either case
allowing to all full liberty as far as is consistent with the public peace.
Under
these circumstances the Church has to choose between liberty with self-support,
and dependence with government support. If Calvin lived at this day, he would
undoubtedly prefer the former. Calvinists and Presbyterians have taken the lead
in the struggle for Church independence against the Erastian and rationalistic
encroachments of the civil power. Free Churches have been organized in French
Switzerland (Geneva, Vaud, Neuchàtel), in France, Holland, and especially in
Presbyterian Scotland. The heroic sacrifices of the Free Church of Scotland in seceding
from the Established Church, and making full provision for all her wants by
voluntary contributions, form one of the brightest chapters in the history of
Protestantism. The Dissenters in England have always maintained and exercised
the voluntary principle since their legal recognition by the Toleration Act of
1689. In the British Provinces and in North America, all denominations are on a
basis of equality before the law, and enjoy, under the protection of the
government, full liberty of self-government with the corresponding duty of
self-support. The condition of modern society demands a peaceful separation of
Church and State, or a Free Church in a Free State.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="104" title="The Ecclesiastical Ordinances">
§ 104.
The Ecclesiastical Ordinances.
Comp.
§ 83 (352 sqq.) and § 86 (367 sqq.). Calvin discusses the ministerial office in
the third chapter of the fourth book of his Institutes.
Having
considered Calvin’s general principles on Church government, we proceed to their
introduction and application in the little Republic of Geneva.
We
have seen that in his first interview with the Syndics and Council after his
return, Sept. 13, 1541, he insisted on the introduction of an ecclesiastical
constitution and discipline in accordance with the Word of God and the
primitive Church.685
The Council complied with his wishes, and intrusted the work to the five
pastors (Calvin, Viret, Jacques Bernard, Henry de la Mare, and Aymé Champereau)
and six councillors (decided Guillermins), to whom was added Jean Balard as
advisory member. The document was prepared under his directing influence,
submitted to the Councils, slightly altered, and solemnly ratified by a general
assembly of citizens (the Conseil général), Jan. 2, 1542, as the fundamental
church law of the Republic of Geneva.686 Its essential features have passed into the constitution and
discipline of most of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches of Europe and
America.
The
official text of the "Ordinances "is preserved in the Registers of
the Venerable Company, and opens with the following introduction: —
"In
the name of God Almighty, we, the Syndics, Small and Great Councils with our
people assembled at the sound of the trumpet and the great clock, according to
our ancient customs, have considered that the matter above all others worthy of
recommendation is to preserve the doctrine of the holy gospel of our Lord in
its purity, to protect the Christian Church, to instruct faithfully the youth,
and to provide a hospital for the proper support of the poor,—all of which
cannot be done without a definite order and rule of life, from which every
estate may learn the duty of its office. For this reason we have deemed it wise
to reduce the spiritual government, such as our Lord has shown us and
instituted by his Word, to a good form to be introduced and observed among us.
Therefore we have ordered and established to follow and to guard in our city
and territory the following ecclesiastical polity, taken from the gospel of
Jesus Christ."687
The
document is inspired by a high view of the dignity and responsibility of the
ministry of the gospel, such as we find in the Epistles of Paul to the
Corinthians and Ephesians. "It may be confidently asserted," says a
Catholic historian,688 "that in no religious society of
Christian Europe the clergy was assigned a position so dignified, prominent,
and influential as in the Church which Calvin built up in Geneva."
In
his Institutes Calvin distinguishes three extraordinary officers of the
Church,—Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists,—and four ordinary officers—Pastors
(Bishops), Teachers, Ancients (Lay-elders), and Deacons.689
Extraordinary
officers were raised up by the Lord at the beginning of his kingdom, and are
raised up on special occasions when required "by the necessity of the
times." The Reformers must be
regarded as a secondary class of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists. Calvin
himself intimates the parallel when he says:690 "I do not deny that
ever since that period [of the Apostles] God has sometimes raised up Apostles
or Evangelists in their stead, as he has done in our own time. For there was a
necessity for such persons to recover the Church from the defection of
Antichrist. Nevertheless, I call this an extraordinary office, because it has
no place in well-constituted Churches."691
The
extraordinary offices cannot be regulated by law. The Ordinances, therefore,
give directions only for the ordinary offices of the Church.
1.
The Pastors,692 or ministers of the gospel, as Calvin likes to call them, have
"to preach the Word of God, to instruct, to admonish, to exhort and
reprove in public and private, to administer the sacraments, and, jointly with
the elders, to exercise discipline."693
No
one can be a pastor who is not called, examined, ordained, or installed. In the
examination, the candidate must give satisfactory evidence of his knowledge of
the Scriptures, his soundness in doctrine, purity of motives, and integrity of
character. If he proves worthy of the office, he receives a testimony to that
effect from the Council to be presented to the congregation. If he fails in the
examination, he must wait for another call and submit to another examination.
The best mode of installation is by prayer and laying on of hands, according to
the practice of the Apostles and the early Church; but it should be done
without superstition.
All
the ministers are to hold weekly conferences for mutual instruction,
edification, correction, and encouragement in their official duties. No one
should absent himself without a good excuse. This duty devolves also on the
pastors of the country districts. If doctrinal controversies arise, the
ministers settle them by discussion; and if they cannot agree, the matter is referred
to the magistracy.
Discipline
is to be strictly exercised over the ministers, and a number of sins and vices
are specified which cannot be tolerated among them, such as heresy, schism,
rebellion against ecclesiastical order, blasphemy, impurity, falsehood,
perjury, usury, avarice, dancing, negligence in the study of the Scriptures.
The
Ordinances prescribe for Sunday a service in the morning, catechism—that is,
instruction of little children—at noon, a second sermon in the afternoon at
three o’clock. Three sermons are to be preached during the week—Monday,
Tuesday, and Friday. For these services are required, in the city, five regular
ministers and three assistant ministers.
In
the Institutes, Calvin describes the office of Pastors to be the same as that
of the Apostles, except in the extent of their field and authority. They are
all ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (<scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 4:1">1 Cor. 4:1</scripRef>). What Paul says of himself
applies to them all: "Woe is to me, if I preach not the gospel" (<scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 9:16">1 Cor. 9:16</scripRef>).
2.
The office of the Teachers694 is to instruct the believers in sound
doctrine, in order that the purity of the gospel be not corrupted by ignorance
or false opinions.
Calvin
derived the distinction between Teachers and Pastors from <scripRef passage
= "Eph. 4:11">Eph. 4:11</scripRef>, and states the difference
to consist in this, "that Teachers have no official concern with
discipline, nor the administration of the sacraments, nor admonitions and
exhortations, but only with the interpretation of the Scripture; whereas the
pastoral office includes all these duties."695 He also says that the Teachers sustain the same resemblance
to the ancient Prophets as the Pastors to the Apostles. He himself had the
prophetic gift of luminous and convincing teaching in a rare degree.
Theological Professors occupy the highest rank among Teachers.
3.
The Ancients or Lay-Elders watch over the good conduct of the people. They must
be God-fearing and wise men, without and above suspicion. Twelve were to be
selected—two from the Little Council, four from the Council of the Sixty, and
six from the Council of the Two Hundred. Each was to be assigned a special
district of the city.
This
is a very important office in the Presbyterian Churches. In the Institutes,
Calvin. quotes in support of it the gifts of government.696 "From the beginning," he
says,697
"every Church has had its senate or council, composed of pious, grave, and
holy men, who were invested with that jurisdiction in the correction of vices …
. This office of government is necessary in every age." He makes a distinction between two
classes of Elders,—Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders,—on the basis of <scripRef passage
= "1 Tim. 5:17">1 Tim. 5:17</scripRef>:, Let the elders that rule
well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word
and in teaching."698
The exegetical foundation for such a distinction is weak, but the ruling
Lay-Eldership has proved a very useful institution and great help to the
teaching ministry.
4.
The Deacons have the care of the poor and the sick, and of the hospitals. They
must prevent mendicancy which is contrary to good order.699 Two classes of Deacons are
distinguished, those who administer alms, and those who devote themselves to
the poor and sick.700
5.
Baptism is to be performed in the Church, and only by ministers and their
assistants. The names of the children and their parents must be entered in the
Church registers.
6.
The Lord’s Supper is to be administered every month in one of the Churches, and
at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas. The elements must be distributed
reverently by the ministers and deacons. None is to be admitted before having
been instructed in the catechism and made a profession of his faith.
The
remainder of the Ordinances contains regulations about marriage, burial, the
visitation of the sick, and prisons.
The
Ministers and Ancients are to meet once a week on Thursday, to discuss together
the state of the Church and to exercise discipline. The object of discipline is
to bring the sinner back to the Lord.701
The
Ecclesiastical Ordinances of 1541 were revised and enlarged by Calvin, and
adopted by the Little and Large Councils, Nov. 13, 1561. This edition contains
also the oaths of allegiance of the Ministers, Pastors, Doctors, Elders,
Deacons, and the members of the Consistory, and fuller directions concerning
the administration of the sacraments, marriage, the visitation of the sick and
prisoners, the election of members of the Consistory, and excommunication.702
A
new revision of the Ordinances was made and adopted by the General Council, June
3, 1576.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="105" title="The Venerable Company and the
Consistory">
§ 105.
The Venerable Company and the Consistory.
The
Church of Geneva consisted of all baptized and professing Christians subject to
discipline. It had, at the time of Calvin, a uniform creed; Romanists and
sectarians being excluded. It was represented and governed by the Venerable
Company and the Consistory.
1.
The Venerable Company was a purely clerical body, consisting of all the pastors
of the city and district of Geneva. It had no political power. It was intrusted
with the general supervision of all strictly ecclesiastical affairs, especially
the education, qualification, ordination, and installation of the ministers of
the gospel. But the consent of the civil government and the congregation was
necessary for the final induction to the ministry. Thus the pastors and the
people were to co-operate.
2.
The Consistory or Presbytery was a mixed body of clergymen and laymen, and
larger and more influential than the Venerable Company. It represented the
union of Church and State. It embraced, at the time of Calvin, five city
Pastors and twelve Seniors or Lay-Elders, two of whom were selected from the
Council of Sixty and ten from the Council of Two Hundred. The laymen,
therefore, had the majority; but the clerical element was comparatively fixed,
while the Elders were elected annually under the influence of the clergy. A
Syndic was the constitutional head.703 Calvin never presided in form, but ruled the proceedings in
fact by his superior intelligence and weighty judgment.704
The
Consistory went into operation immediately after the adoption of the
Ordinances, and met every Thursday. The reports begin from the tenth meeting,
which was held on Thursday, Feb. 16, 1542.705
The
duty of the Consistory was the maintenance and exercise of discipline. Every
house was to be visited annually by a Minister and Elder. To facilitate the
working of this system the city was divided into three parishes—St. Peter’s,
the Magdalen, and St. Gervais. Calvin officiated in St. Peter’s.
The
Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has
often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber.
But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and
temporal punishments, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of
Gruet, Bolsec, and Servetus do not even appear in its records.706 Calvin wrote to the ministers of
Zürich, Nov. 26, 1553: "The Consistory has no civil jurisdiction, but only
the right to reprove according to the Word of God, and its severest punishment
is excommunication."707
He wisely provided for the preponderance of the lay-element.
At
first the Council, following the example of Basel and Bern, denied to the
Consistory the right of excommunication.708 The persons excluded from the Lord’s Table usually appealed
to the Council, which often interceded in their behalf or directed them to make
an apology to the Consistory. There was also a difference of opinion as regards
the consequences of excommunication. The Consistory demanded that persons cut
off from the Church for grievous offenses and scandalous lives should be
banished from the State for a year, or until they repent; but the Council did
not agree. Calvin could not always carry out his views, and acted on the
principle to tolerate what he could not abolish.709 It was only after his final victory over the Libertines in
1555 that the Council conceded to the Consistory the undisputed power of
excommunication.710
From
these facts we may judge with what right Calvin has so often been called
"the Pope of Geneva," mostly by way of reproach.711 As far as the designation is true, it
is an involuntary tribute to his genius and character. For he had no material
support, and he never used his influence for gain or personal ends. The
Genevese knew him well and obeyed him freely.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="106" title="Calvin’s Theory of
Discipline">
§ 106.
Calvin’s Theory of Discipline.
Discipline
is so important an element in Calvin’s Church polity, that it must be more
fully considered. Discipline was the cause of his expulsion from Geneva, the
basis of his flourishing French congregation at Strassburg, the chief reason
for his recall, the condition of his acceptance, the struggle and triumph of
his life, and the secret of his moral influence to this day. His rigorous
discipline, based on his rigorous creed, educated the heroic French, Dutch,
English, Scotch, and American Puritans (using this word in a wider sense for
strict Calvinists). It fortified them for their trials and persecutions, and
made them promoters of civil and religious liberty.
The
severity of the system has passed away, even in Geneva, Scotland, and New
England, but the result remains in the power of self-government, the capacity
for organization, the order and practical efficiency which characterizes the
Reformed Churches in Europe and America.
Calvin’s
great aim was to realize the purity and holiness of the Church as far as human
weakness will permit. He kept constantly in view the ideal of "a Church
without spot or wrinkle or blemish," which Paul describes in the Epistle
to the Ephesians 5:27. He wanted every Christian to be consistent with his
profession, to show his faith by good works, and to strive to be perfect as our
Father in heaven is perfect. He was the only one among the Reformers who
attempted and who measurably carried out this sublime idea in a whole
community.
Luther
thought the preaching of the gospel would bring about all the necessary
changes, but he had to complain bitterly, at the end of his life, of the
dissolute manners of the students and citizens at Wittenberg, and seriously
thought of leaving the city in disgust.712
Calvin
knew well enough that the ideal could only be imperfectly realized in this
world, but that it was none the less our duty to strive after perfection. He
often quotes Augustin against the Donatists who dreamed of an imaginary purity
of the Church, like the Anabaptists who, he observes, "acknowledge no
congregation to belong to Christ, unless it be in all respects conspicuous for
angelic perfection, and who, under pretext of zeal, destroy all
edification." He consents to
Augustin’s remark that "schemes of separation are pernicious and
sacrilegious, because they proceed from pride and impiety, and disturb the good
who are weak, more than they correct the wicked who are bold." In commenting on the parable of the net
which gathered of every kind (<scripRef passage = "Matt.
13:47">Matt.
13:47</scripRef>), he says: "The Church
while on earth is mixed with good and bad and will never be free of all
impurity … . Although God, who is a God of order, commands us to exercise
discipline, he allows for a time to hypocrites a place among believers until he
shall set up his kingdom in its perfection on the last day. As far as we are
concerned, we must strive to correct vices and to purge the Church of impurity,
although she will not be free from all stain and blemish till Christ shall
separate the goats from the sheep."713
Calvin
discusses the subject of discipline in the twelfth chapter of the fourth book
of his Institutes. His views are sound and scriptural. "No society,"
he says at the outset, "no house can be preserved in proper condition
without discipline. The Church ought to be the most orderly society of all. As
the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the Church, so discipline forms
the nerves and ligaments which connect the members and keep each in its proper
place. It serves as a bridle to curb and restrain the refractory who resist the
doctrine of Christ; or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and sometimes as a
father’s rod to chastise, in mercy and with the gentleness of the spirit of
Christ, those who have grievously fallen away. It is the only remedy against a
dreadful desolation in the Church."
One
of the greatest objections which he had against the Roman Church of his day was
the utter want of discipline in constant violation of the canons. He asserts,
without fear of contradiction, that "there was scarcely one of the (Roman)
bishops, and not one in a hundred of the parochial clergy, who, if sentence
were to be passed upon his conduct according to the ancient canons, would not
be excommunicated, or, to say the very least, deposed from his office."714
He
distinguished between the discipline of the people and the discipline of the
clergy.715
1.
The discipline of members has three degrees: private admonition; a second
admonition in the presence of witnesses or before the Church; and, in case of
persistent disobedience, exclusion from the Lord’s Table. This is in accordance
with the rule of Christ (Matt. 18:15–17). The object of discipline is
threefold: to protect the body of the Church against contamination and
profanation; to guard the individual members against the corrupting influence
of constant association with the wicked; and to bring the offender to
repentance that he may be saved and restored to the fellowship of the faithful.
Excommunication and subsequent restoration were exercised by Paul in the case of
the Corinthian offender, and by the Church in her purer days. Even the Emperor
Theodosius was excluded from communion by Bishop Ambrose of Milan on account of
the massacre perpetrated in Thessalonica at his order.716
Excommunication
should be exercised only against flagitious crimes which disgrace the Christian
profession; such as adultery, fornication, theft, robbery, sedition, perjury,
contempt of God and his authority. Nor should it be exercised by the bishop or
pastor alone, but by the body of elders, and, as is pointed out by Paul,
"with the knowledge and approbation of the congregation; in such a manner,
however, that the multitude of the people may not direct the proceeding, but
may watch over it as witnesses and guardians, that nothing be done by a few
persons from any improper motive."
Moreover, "the severity of the Church must be tempered by a spirit
of gentleness. For there is constant need of the greatest caution, according to
the injunction of Paul concerning a person who may have been censured, ’lest by
any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow’ (2 Cor.
2:7); for thus a remedy would become a poison."
When
the sinner gives reasonable evidence of repentance he is to be restored. Calvin
objects to "the excessive austerity of the ancients," who refused to
readmit the lapsed. He approves of the course of Cyprian, who says: "Our
patience and kindness and tenderness is ready for all who come; I wish all to
return into the Church; I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be assembled in the
camp of Christ, and all our brethren to be received into the house of God our
Father. I forgive everything; I conceal much. With ready and sincere affection
I embrace those who return with penitence." Calvin adds: "Such as are expelled from the Church, it
is not for us to expunge from the number of the elect, or to despair of them as
already lost. It is proper to consider them as strangers to the Church, and
consequently to Christ, but this only as long as they remain in a state of
exclusion. And even then let us hope better things of them for the future, and
not cease to pray to God on their behalf. Let us not condemn to eternal death
the offender, nor prescribe laws to the mercy of God who can change the worst
of men into the best." He
makes a distinction between excommunication and anathema; the former censures
and punishes with a view to reformation and restoration; the latter precludes
all pardon, and devotes a person to eternal perdition. Anathema ought never to
be resorted to, or at least very rarely. Church members ought to exert all
means in their power to promote the reformation of an excommunicated person,
and admonish him not as an enemy, but as a brother (2 Cor. 2:8). "Unless
this tenderness be observed by the individual members as well as by the Church
collectively, our discipline will be in danger of speedily degenerating into
cruelty."
2.
As regards the discipline of the clergy, Calvin objects to the exemption of
ministers from civil jurisdiction, and wants them to be subject to the same
punishments as laymen. They are more guilty, as they ought to set a good
example. He quotes with approval the ancient canons, so shamefully neglected in
the Roman Church of his day, against hunting, gambling, feasting, usury,
commerce, and secular amusements. He recommends annual visitations and synods
for the correction and examination of delinquent clergymen.
But
he rejects the prohibition of clerical marriage as an "act of impious
tyranny contrary to the Word of God and to every principle of justice. With
what impunity fornication rages among them [the papal clergy] it is unnecessary
to remark; emboldened by their polluted celibacy, they have become hardened to
every crime … . Paul places marriage among the virtues of a bishop; these men
teach that it is a vice not to be tolerated in the clergy … . Christ has been
pleased to put such honor upon marriage as to make it an image of his sacred
union with the Church. What could be said more in commendation of the dignity
of marriage? With what face can
that be called impure and polluted, which exhibits a similitude of the
spiritual grace of Christ?... Marriage is honorable in all; but whoremongers
and adulterers God will judge (Heb. 13:4). The Apostles themselves have proved
by their own example that marriage is not unbecoming the sanctity of any
office, however excellent: for Paul testifies that they not only retained their
wives, but took them about with them (1 Cor. 9:5)."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="107" title="The Exercise of Discipline in Geneva">
§ 107.
The Exercise of Discipline in Geneva.
Calvin
succeeded after a fierce struggle in infusing the Church of Geneva with his
views on discipline. The Consistory and the Council rivalled with each other,
under his inspiration, in puritanic zeal for the correction of immorality; but
their zeal sometimes transgressed the dictates of wisdom and moderation. The
union of Church and State rests on the false assumption that all citizens are
members of the Church and subject to discipline.
Dancing,
gambling, drunkenness, the frequentation of taverns, profanity, luxury,
excesses at public entertainments, extravagance and immodesty in dress,
licentious or irreligious songs were forbidden, and punished by censure or fine
or imprisonment. Even the number of dishes at meals was regulated. Drunkards
were fined three sols for each offence. Habitual gamblers were exposed in the
pillory with cords around their neck. Reading of bad books and immoral novels
was also prohibited, and the popular "Amadis de Gaul "was ordered to
be destroyed (1559). A morality play on "the Acts of the Apostles,"
after it had been performed several times, and been attended even by the
Council, was forbidden. Parents were warned against naming their children after
Roman Catholic saints who nourished certain superstitions; instead of them the
names of Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Nehemiah became
common. (This preference for Old Testament names was carried even further by
the Puritans of England and New England.) The death penalty against heresy,
idolatry, and blasphemy, and the barbarous custom of the torture were retained.
Adultery, after a second offence, was likewise punished by death.
These
were prohibitive and protective laws intended to prevent and punish irreligion
and immorality.
But
the Council introduced also coercive laws, which are contrary to the nature of
religion, and apt to breed hypocrisy or infidelity. Attendance on public
worship was commanded on penalty of three sols.717 When a refugee from Lyons once gratefully exclaimed,
"How glorious is the liberty we enjoy here," a woman bitterly
replied: "Free indeed we formerly were to attend mass, but now we are
compelled to hear a sermon."
Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members
of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine into the faith and
morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported,
and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and
warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment. No respect
was paid to person, rank, or sex. The strictest impartiality was maintained, and
members of the oldest and most distinguished families, ladies as well as
gentlemen, were treated with the same severity as poor and obscure people.
Let
us give a summary of the most striking cases of discipline. Several women,
among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for
dancing (which was usually connected with excesses). Bonivard, the hero of
political liberty, and a friend of Calvin, was cited before the Consistory
because he had played at dice with Clement Marot, the poet, for a quart of
wine.718 A man was banished from the city for
three months because, on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly: "He prays
a beautiful psalm."719
A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on
housekeeping with the remark: "This is the best Psalter." A lady of Ferrara was expelled from the
city for expressing sympathy with the Libertines, and abusing Calvin and the Consistory.
Three men who had laughed during the sermon were imprisoned for three days.
Another had to do public penance for neglecting to commune on Whitsunday. Three
children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the
sermon to eat cakes. A man who swore by the "body and blood of
Christ" was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the
public square. A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a
she-devil (diabless). A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to
vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment.
A
banker was executed for repeated adultery, but he died penitent and praised God
for the triumph of justice. A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days
because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint)
instead of Abraham, as the minister wished, and saying that he would sooner
keep his son unbaptized for fifteen years.720 Bolsec, Gentilis, and Castellio were expelled from the
Republic for heretical opinions. Men and women were burnt for witchcraft. Gruet
was beheaded for sedition and atheism. Servetus was burnt for heresy and
blasphemy. The last is the most flagrant case which, more than all others
combined, has exposed the name of Calvin to abuse and execration; but it should
be remembered that he wished to substitute the milder punishment of the sword
for the stake, and in this point at least he was in advance of the public
opinion and usual practice of his age.721
The
official acts of the Council from 1541 to 1559 exhibit a dark chapter of
censures, fines, imprisonments, and executions. During the ravages of the
pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for
witchcraft, and a wicked conspiracy to spread the horrible disease.722 From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgments
of death and seventy-six decrees of banishments were passed.723 During the years 1558 and 1559 the
cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred
and fourteen—a very large proportion for a population of 20,000.
The
enemies of Calvin-Bolsec, Audin, Galiffe (father and son)—make the most of
these facts, and, ignoring all the good he has done, condemn the great Reformer
as a heartless and cruel tyrant.724
It
is impossible to deny that this kind of legislation savors more of the
austerity of old heathen Rome and the Levitical code than of the gospel of
Christ, and that the actual exercise of discipline was often petty, pedantic,
and unnecessarily severe. Calvin was, as he himself confessed, not free from
impatience, passion, and anger, which were increased by his physical
infirmities; but he was influenced by an honest zeal for the purity of the
Church, and not by personal malice. When he was threatened by Perrin and the
Favre family with a second expulsion, he wrote to Perrin: "Such threats
make no impression upon me. I did not return to Geneva to obtain leisure and
profit, nor will it be to my sorrow if I should have to leave it again. It was
the welfare and safety of the Church and State that induced me to return."725 He must be judged by the standard of
his own, and not of our, age. The most cruel of those laws—against witchcraft,
heresy, and blasphemy—were inherited from the Catholic Middle Ages, and
continued in force in all countries of Europe, Protestant as well as Roman
Catholic, down to the end of the seventeenth century. Tolerance is a modern
virtue. We shall return to this subject again in the chapter on Servetus.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="108" title="Calvin’s Struggle with the
Patriots and Libertines">
§ 108.
Calvin’s Struggle with the Patriots and Libertines.
Contre
la secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertins qui se nomment Spirituelz. Geneva, 1545; 2d ed. 1547. Reprinted in
Opera, vol. VII. 145–252. Latin version by Nic. des Gallars, 1546. Farel also
wrote a French book against the Libertines, Geneva, 1550.
The
works of J. A. Galiffe and J. B. G. Galiffe on the Genevese families and the
criminal processes of Perrin, Ameaux, Berthelier, etc., quoted above, p. 224.
Hostile to Calvin. Audin, chs. XXXV., XXXVI., and XLIII. Likewise hostile.
F.
Trechsel: Libertiner, in the first ed. of Herzog’s Encykl., VIII. 375–380
(omitted in the second ed.), and his Antitrinitarier, I. 177 sqq.—Henry II. 402
sqq.—Hundeshagen in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1845, pp. 866
sqq.—Dyer, 177, 198, 368, 390 sqq.—Stähelin, I. 382 sqq.; 457 sqq. On the side
of Calvin.
Charles
Schmidt: Les Libertins spirituels, Bâle, 1876 (pp. xiv. and 251). From a
manuscript autograph of one J. F., an adept of the sect, written between 1547
and 1550. An extract in La France Protest. III. 590 sq.
It
required a ten years’ conflict till Calvin succeeded in carrying out his system
of discipline. The opposition began to manifest itself in 1545, during the
raging of the pestilence; it culminated at the trial of Servetus in 1553, and
it finally broke down in 1555.
Calvin
compares himself in this controversy with David fighting against the
Philistines. "If I should describe," he says in the Preface to his
Commentary on the Psalms (1557),726 "the course of my struggles by which
the Lord has exercised me from this period, it would make a long story, but a
brief reference may suffice. It affords me no slight consolation that David
preceded me in these conflicts. For as the Philistines and other foreign foes
vexed this holy king by continual wars, and as the wickedness and treachery of
the faithless of his own house grieved him still more, so was I on all sides
assailed, and had scarcely a moment’s rest from outward or inward struggles.
But when Satan had made so many efforts to destroy our Church, it came at
length to this, that I, unwarlike and timid as I am,727 found myself
compelled to oppose my own body to the murderous assault, and so to ward it
off. Five years long had we to struggle without ceasing for the upholding of
discipline; for these evil-doers were endowed with too great a degree of power
to be easily overcome; and a portion of the people, perverted by their means,
wished only for an unbridled freedom. To such worthless men, despisers of the
holy law, the ruin of the Church was a matter of utter indifference, could they
but obtain the liberty to do whatever they desired. Many were induced by
necessity and hunger, some by ambition or by a shameful desire of gain, to
attempt a general overthrow, and to risk their own ruin as well as ours, rather
than be subject to the laws. Scarcely a single thing, I believe, was left
unattempted by them during this long period which we might not suppose to have
been prepared in the workshop of Satan. Their wretched designs could only be
attended with a shameful disappointment. A melancholy drama was thus presented
to me; for much as they deserved all possible punishment, I should have been
rejoiced to see them passing their lives in peace and respectability: which
might have been the case, had they not wholly rejected every kind of prudent
admonition."
At
one time he almost despaired of success. He wrote to Farel, Dec. 14, 1547:
"Affairs are in such a state of confusion that I despair of being able
longer to retain the Church, at least by my own endeavors. May the Lord hear
your incessant prayers in our behalf." And to Viret he wrote, on Dec. 17, 1547: "Wickedness
has now reached such a pitch here that I hardly hope that the Church can be
upheld much longer, at least by means of my ministry. Believe me, my power is
broken, unless God stretch forth his hand."728
The
adversaries of Calvin were, with a few exceptions, the same who had driven him
away in 1538. They never cordially consented to his recall. They yielded for a
time to the pressure of public opinion and political necessity; but when he
carried out the scheme of discipline much more rigorously than they had
expected, they showed their old hostility, and took advantage of every
censurable act of the Consistory or Council. They hated him worse than the
pope.729 They abhorred the very word
"discipline." They
resorted to personal indignities and every device of intimidation; they
nicknamed him "Cain," and gave his name to the dogs of the street;
they insulted him on his way to the lecture-room; they fired one night fifty
shots before his bed-chamber; they threatened him in the pulpit; they
approached the communion table to wrest the sacred elements from his hands, but
he refused to profane the sacrament and overawed them. On another occasion he
walked into the midst of an excited crowd and offered his breast to their
daggers. As late as October 15, 1554, he wrote to an old friend: "Dogs
bark at me on all sides. Everywhere I am saluted with the name of ’heretic,’
and all the calumnies that can possibly be invented are heaped upon me; in a
word, the enemies among my own flock attack me with greater bitterness than my
declared enemies among the papists."730
And
yet in the midst of these troubles be continued to discharge all his duties,
and found time to write some of his most important works.
It
seems incredible that a man of feeble constitution and physical timidity should
have been able to triumph over such determined and ferocious opposition. The
explanation is in the justice of his cause, and the moral purity and
"majesty of his character, which so strongly impressed the Genevese.
We
must distinguish two parties among Calvin’s enemies—the Patriots, who opposed
him on political grounds, and the Libertines, who hated his religion. It would
be unjust to charge all the Patriots with the irreligious sentiments of the
Libertines. But they made common cause for the overthrow of Calvin and his
detested system of discipline. They had many followers among the discontented
and dissolute rabble which abounds in every large city, and is always ready for
a revolution, having nothing to lose and everything to gain.
1.
The Patriots or Children of Geneva (Enfants de Genève), as they called
themselves, belonged to some of the oldest and most influential families of
Geneva,—Favre (or Fabri), Perrin, Vandel, Berthelier, Ameaux.731 They or their fathers had taken an
active part in the achievement of political independence, and even in the
introduction of the Reformation, as a means of protecting that independence.
But they did not care for the positive doctrines of the Reformation. They
wanted liberty without law. They resisted every encroachment on their personal
freedom and love of amusements. They hated the evangelical discipline more than
the yoke of Savoy.
They
also disliked Calvin as a foreigner, who was not even naturalized before 1559.
In the pride and prejudice of nativism, they denounced the refugees, who had
sacrificed home and fortune to religion, as a set of adventurers, soldiers of
fortune, bankrupts, and spies of the Reformer. "These dogs of
Frenchmen," they said, "are the cause that we are slaves, and must
bow before Calvin and confess our sins. Let the preachers and their gang go to
the —." They deprived the refugees of the right to carry arms, and opposed
their admission to the rights of citizenship, as there was danger that they
might outnumber and outvote the native citizens. Calvin secured, in 1559,
through a majority of the Council, at one time, the admission of three hundred
of these refugees, mostly Frenchmen.
The
Patriots disliked also the protectorate of Bern, although Bern never favored
the strict theology and discipline of Calvin.
2.
The Libertines732 or Spirituels, as they called themselves, were far worse than
the Patriots. They formed the opposite extreme to the severe discipline of
Calvin. He declares that they were the most pernicious of all the sects that
appeared since the time of the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans, and that they
answer the prophetic description in the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle
of Jude. He traces their immediate origin to Coppin of Yssel and Quintin of
Hennegau, in the Netherlands, and to an ex-priest, Pocquet or Pocques, who
spent some time in Geneva, and wanted to get a certificate from Calvin; but
Calvin saw through the man and refused it. They revived the antinomian
doctrines of the mediaeval sect of the "Brethren and Sisters of the Free
Spirit," a branch of the Beghards, who had their headquarters at Cologne
and the Lower Rhine, and emancipated themselves not only from the Church, but
also from the laws of morality.733
The
Libertines described by Calvin were antinomian pantheists. They confounded the
boundaries of truth and error, of right and wrong. Under the pretext of the
freedom of the spirit, they advocated the unbridled license of the flesh. Their
spiritualism ended in carnal materialism. They taught that there is but one
spirit, the Spirit of God, who lives in all creatures, which are nothing
without him. "What I or you do," said Quintin, "is done by God,
and what God does, we do; for he is in us." Sin is a mere negation or privation, yea, an idle illusion
which disappears as soon as it is known and disregarded. Salvation consists in
the deliverance from the phantom of sin. There is no Satan, and no angels, good
or bad. They denied the truth of the gospel history. The crucifixion and
resurrection of Christ have only a symbolical meaning to show us that sin does
not exist for us.
The
Libertines taught the community of goods and of women, and elevated spiritual
marriage above legal marriage, which is merely carnal and not binding. The wife
of Ameaux justified her wild licentiousness by the doctrine of the communion of
saints, and by the first commandment of God given to man: "Be fruitful and
multiply and replenish the earth (<scripRef passage = "Gen.
1:28">Gen.
1:28</scripRef>).
The
Libertines rejected the Scriptures as a dead letter, or they resorted to wild
allegorical interpretations to suit their fancies. They gave to each of the
Apostles a ridiculous nickname.734
Some carried their system to downright atheism and blasphemous
anti-Christianity.
They
used a peculiar jargon, like the Gypsies, and distorted common words into a
mysterious meaning. They were experts in the art of simulation and justified
pious fraud by the parables of Christ. They accommodated themselves to
Catholics or Protestants according to circumstances, and concealed their real
opinions from the uninitiated.
The
sect made progress among the higher classes of France, where they converted
about four thousand persons. Quintin and Pocquet insinuated themselves into the
favor of Queen Marguerite of Navarre, who protected and supported them at her
little court at Nérac, yet without adopting their opinions and practices.735 She took offence at Calvin’s severe
attack upon them. He justified his course in a reply of April 28, 1545, which
is a fine specimen of courtesy, frankness, and manly dignity. Calvin assured
the queen, whose protection he had himself enjoyed while a fugitive from
persecution, that he intended no reflection on her honor, or disrespect to her
royal majesty, and that he wrote simply in obedience to his duty as a minister.
"Even a dog barks if he sees any one assault his master. How could I be
silent if God’s truth is assailed?736 ... As for your saying that
you would not like to have such a servant as myself, I confess that I am not
qualified to render you any great service, nor have you need of it … .
Nevertheless, the disposition is not wanting, and your disdain shall not
prevent my being at heart your humble servant. For the rest, those who know me
are well aware that I have never studied to enter into the courts of princes,
for I was never tempted to court worldly honors.737 For I have good reason to be contented with the service of
that good Master, who has accepted me and retained me in the honorable office
which I hold, however contemptible in the eyes of the world. I should, indeed,
be ungrateful beyond measure if I did not prefer this condition to all the
riches and honors of the world."738
Beza
says: "It was owing to Calvin that this horrid sect, in which all the most
monstrous heresies of ancient times were renewed, was kept within the confines
of Holland and the adjacent provinces."
During
the trial of Servetus the political and religious Libertines combined in an
organized effort for the overthrow of Calvin at Geneva, but were finally
defeated by a failure of an attempted rebellion in May, 1555.
</div3><div3
type = "Section" n="109" title="The Leaders of the
Libertines and their punishment: — Gruet, Perrin, Ameaux, Vandel,
Berthelier">
§ 109.
The Leaders of the Libertines and their punishment: — Gruet, Perrin, Ameaux,
Vandel, Berthelier.
We
shall now give sketches of the chief Patriots and Libertines, and their
quarrels with Calvin and his system of discipline. The heretical
opponents—Bolsec, Castellio, Servetus—will be considered in a separate chapter
on the Doctrinal Controversies.
1.
Jacques Gruet was the first victim of Calvin’s discipline who suffered death
for sedition and blasphemy. His case is the most famous next to that of
Servetus. Gruet739 was a Libertine of the worst type, both
politically and religiously, and would have been condemned to death in any
other country at that time. He was a Patriot descended from an old and
respectable family, and formerly a canon. He lay under suspicion of having
attempted to poison Viret in 1535. He wrote verses against Calvin and the
refugees which (as Audin says) were "more malignant than
poetic." He was a regular
frequenter of taverns, and opposed to any rules in Church and State which
interfered with personal liberty. When in church, he looked boldly and
defiantly into the face of the preacher. He first adopted the Bernese fashion
of wearing breeches with plaits at the knees, and openly defied the discipline
of the Consistory which forbade it. Calvin called him a scurvy fellow, and
gives an unfavorable account of his moral and religious character, which the
facts fully justified.
On
the 27th of June, 1547, a few days after the wife of Perrin had defied the
Consistory,740 the following libel, written in the Savoyard patois, was
attached to Calvin’s pulpit in St. Peter’s Church: —
"Gross
hypocrite (Gros panfar), thou and thy companions will gain little by your
pains. If you do not save yourselves by flight, nobody shall prevent your
overthrow, and you will curse the hour when you left your monkery. Warning has
been already given that the devil and his renegade priests were come hither to
ruin every thing. But after people have suffered long they avenge themselves.
Take care that you are not served like Mons. Verle of Fribourg.741 We will not have so many masters. Mark
well what I say."742
The
Council arrested Jacques Gruet, who had been heard uttering threats against
Calvin a few days previously, and had written obscene and impious verses and
letters. In his house were found a copy of Calvin’s work against the Libertines
with a marginal note, Toutes folies, and several papers and letters filled with
abuse of Calvin as a haughty, ambitious, and obstinate hypocrite who wished to
be adored, and to rob the pope of his honor. There were also found two Latin
pages in Gruet’s handwriting, in which the Scriptures were ridiculed, Christ
blasphemed, and the immortality of the soul called a dream and a fable.
Gruet
was tortured every day for a month, after the inhuman fashion of that age.743 He confessed that he had affixed the
libel, and that the papers found in his house belonged to him; but he refused
to name any accomplices. He was condemned for religious, moral, and political
offences; being found guilty of expressing contempt for religion; of declaring
that laws, both human and divine, were but the work of man’s caprice; and that
fornication was not criminal when both parties were consenting; and of
threatening the clergy and the Council itself.744
He
was beheaded on the 26th of July, 1547. The execution instead of terrifying the
Libertines made them more furious than ever. Three days afterwards the Council
was informed that more than twenty young men had entered into a conspiracy to
throw Calvin and his colleagues into the Rhone. He could not walk the streets
without being insulted and threatened.
Two
or three years after the death of Gruet, a treatise of his was discovered full
of horrible blasphemies against Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Prophets and
Apostles, against the Scriptures, and all religion. He aimed to show that the
founders of Judaism and Christianity were criminals, and that Christ was justly
crucified. Some have confounded this treatise with the book "De tribus
Impostoribus," which dates from the age of Emperor Frederick II., and puts
Moses, Christ, and Mohammed on a level as religious impostors.
Gruet’s
book was, at Calvin’s advice, publicly burnt by the hangman before Gruet’s
house, May 22, 1550.745
2.
Ami Perrin (Amy Pierre), the military chief (captain-general) of the Republic,
was the most popular and influential leader of the Patriotic party. He had been
one of the earliest promoters of the Reformation, though from political rather
than religious motives; he had protected Farel against the violence of the
priests, and had been appointed deputy to Strassburg to bring Calvin back to
Geneva.746 He was one of the
six lay-members who, with the ministers, drew up the Ecclesiastical Ordinances
of 1542, and for some time he supported Calvin in his reforms. He could wield
the sword, but not the pen. He was vain, ambitious, pretentious, and
theatrical. Calvin called him, in derision, the stage-emperor, who played now
the "Caesar comicus," and now the "Caesar tragicus."747
Perrin’s
wife, Francesca, was a daughter of François Favre, who had taken a prominent
part in the political struggle against Savoy, but mistook freedom for license,
and hated Calvin as a tyrant and a hypocrite. His whole family shared in this
hatred. Francesca had an excessive fondness for dancing and revelry, a violent
temper, and an abusive tongue. Calvin called her "Penthesilea" (the
queen of the Amazons who fought a battle against the Greeks, and was slain by
Achilles), and "a prodigious fury."748
He
found out too late that it is foolish and dangerous to quarrel with a woman. He
forgot Christ’s conduct towards the adulteress, and Mary Magdalene.
A
disgraceful scene which took place at a wedding in the house of the widow
Balthazar at Belle Rive, brought upon the family of Favre, who were present,
the censure of the Consistory and the punishment of the Council. Perrin, his
wife and her father were imprisoned for a few weeks in April, 1546. Favre
refused to make any confession, and went to prison, shouting:
"Liberty! Liberty! I would give a thousand crowns to have
a general council."749
Perrin made an humble apology to the Consistory. Calvin plainly told the
Favre family that as long as they lived in Geneva they must obey the laws of
Geneva, though every one of them wore a diadem.750
From
this time on Perrin stood at the head of the opposition to Calvin. He loudly
denounced the Consistory as a popish tribunal. He secured so much influence
over the Council that a majority voted, in March, 1547, to take the control of
Church discipline into their own hands. But Calvin made such a vigorous
resistance that it was determined eventually to abide by the established
Ordinances.751
Perrin
was sent as ambassador to Paris (April 26, 1547), and was received there with
much distinction. The Cardinal du Bellay sounded him as to whether some French
troops under his command could be stationed at Geneva to frustrate the hostile
designs of the German emperor against Switzerland. He gave a conditional
consent. This created a suspicion against his loyalty.
During
his absence, Madame Perrin and her father were again summoned before the
Consistory for bacchanalian conduct (June 23, 1547). Favre refused to appear.
Francesca denied the right of the court to take cognizance of her private life.
When remonstrated with, she flew into a passion, and abused the preacher, Abel
Poupin, as "a reviler, a slanderer of her father, a coarse swine-herd, and
a malicious liar." She was
again imprisoned, but escaped with one of her sons. Meeting Abel Poupin at the
gate of the city she insulted him afresh and "even more shamefully than
before."752
On
the 27th of June, 1547, Gruet’s threatening libel was published.753 Calvin was reported to have been
killed. He received letters from Burgogne and Lyons that the Children of Geneva
had offered five hundred crowns for his head.754
On
his return from Paris, Perrin was capitally indicted on a charge of treason,
and of intending to quarter two hundred French cavalry, under his own command,
at Geneva. His excuse was that he had accepted the command of these troops with
the reservation of the approval of the government of Geneva. Bonivard, the old
soldier of liberty and prisoner of Chillon, took part against Perrin. The ambassadors
of Bern endeavored to divert the storm from the head of Perrin to the French
ambassador Maigret the Magnifique. Perrin was expelled from the Council, and
the office of captain-general was suppressed, but he was released from prison,
together with his wife and father-in-law, Nov. 29, 1547.755
The
Libertines summoned all their forces for a reaction. They called a meeting of
the Council of Two Hundred, where they expected most support. A violent scene
took place on Dec. 16, 1547, in the Senate house, when Calvin, unarmed and at
the risk of his life, appeared in the midst of the armed crowd and called upon
them, if they designed to shed blood, to begin with him. He succeeded, by his
courage and eloquence, in calming the wild storm and preventing a disgraceful
carnage. It was a sublime victory of reason over passion, of moral over
physical force.756
The
ablest of the detractors of Calvin cannot help paying here an involuntary
tribute to him and to the truth of history. This is his dramatic account.
"The
Council of the Two Hundred was assembled. Never had any session been more
tumultuous; the parties, weary of speaking, began to appeal to arms. The people
heard the appeal. Calvin appears, unattended; he is received at the lower part
of the hall with cries of death. He folds his arms, and looks the agitators
fixedly in the face. Not one of them dares strike him. Then, advancing through
the midst of the groups, with his breast uncovered: ’If you want blood,’ says
he, ’there are still a few drops here; strike, then!’ Not an arm is raised. Calvin then slowly ascends the
stairway to the Council of the Two Hundred. The hall was on the point of being
drenched with blood; swords were flashing on beholding the Reformer, the
weapons were lowered, and a few words sufficed to calm the agitation. Calvin,
taking the arm of one of the councillors, again descends the stairs, and cries
out to the people that he wishes to address them. He does speak, and with such
energy and feeling, that tears flow from their eyes. They embrace each other,
and the crowd retires in silence. The patriots had lost the day. From that moment,
it was easy to foretell that victory would remain with the Reformer. The
Libertines, who had shown themselves so bold when it was a question of
destroying some front of a Catholic edifice, overturning some saint’s niche, or
throwing down an old wooden cross weakened by age, trembled like women before
this man, who, in fact, on this occasion, exhibited something of the Homeric
heroism."757
Notwithstanding
this triumph, Calvin did not trust enemies, and expressed in letters to Farel
and Viret even the fear that he could no longer maintain his position unless
God stretch forth his hand for his protection.758
A
sort of truce was patched up between the contending parties. "Our
çi-devant Caesar (hesternus noster Caesar)," Calvin wrote to Farel, Dec.
28, 1547, "denied that he had any grudge against me, and I immediately met
him half-way and pressed out the matter from the sore. In a grave and moderate
speech, I used, indeed, some sharp reproofs (punctiones acutas), but not of a
nature to wound; yet though he grasped my hand whilst promising to reform, I
still fear that I have spoken to deaf ears."759
In
the next year, Calvin was censured by the Council for saying, in a private
letter to Viret which had been intercepted, that the Genevese "under
pretence of Christ wanted to rule without Christ," and that he had to
combat their, hypocrisy." He
called to his aid Viret and Farel to make a sort of apology.760
Perrin
behaved quietly, and gained an advantage from this incident. He was restored to
his councillorship and the office of captain-general (which had been
abolished). He was even elected First Syndic, in February, 1549. He held that
position also during the trial of Servetus, and opposed the sentence of death
in the Council (1553).
Shortly
after the execution of Servetus, the Libertines raised a demonstration against
Farel, who had come to Geneva and preached a very severe sermon against them
(Nov. 1, 1553).761
Philibert Berthelier and his brother François Daniel, who had charge of
the mint, stirred up the laborers to throw Farel into the Rhone. But his
friends formed a guard around him, and his defence before the Council convinced
the audience of his innocence. It was resolved that all enmity should be
forgotten and buried at a banquet. Perrin, the chief Syndic, in a sense of
weakness, or under the impulse of his better feelings, begged Farel’s pardon,
and declared that he would ever regard him as his spiritual father and pastor.762
After
this time Calvin’s friends gained the ascendency in the Council. A large number
of religious refugees were admitted to the rights of citizenship.
Perrin,
then a member of the Little Council, and his friends, Peter Vandel and
Philibert Berthelier, determined on rule or ruin, now concocted a desperate and
execrable conspiracy, which proved their overthrow. They proposed to kill all
foreigners who had fled to Geneva for the sake of religion, together with their
Genevese sympathizers, on a Sunday while people were at church. But,
fortunately, the plot was discovered before it was ripe for execution. When the
rioters were to be tried before the Council of the Two Hundred, Perrin and
several other ringleaders had the audacity to take their places as judges; but
when he saw that matters were taking a serious turn in favor of law and order,
he fled from Geneva, together with Vandel and Berthelier. They were summoned by
the public herald, but refused to appear. On the day appointed for the trial
five of the fugitives were condemned to death; Perrin, moreover, to have his
right hand cut off, with which he had seized the bâton of the Syndic at the
riot. The sentence was executed in effigy in June, 1555.763
Their
estates were confiscated, and their wives banished from Geneva. The office of
captain-general was again abolished to avoid the danger of a military
dictatorship.
But
the government of Bern protected the fugitives, and allowed them to commit
outrages on Genevese citizens within their reach, and to attack Calvin and
Geneva with all sorts of reproaches and calumnies.
Thus
the "comic Caesar" ended as the "tragic Caesar." An impartial biographer of Calvin calls
the last chapter in Perrin’s career "a caricature of the Catilinarian
conspiracy."764
3.
The case of Pierre Ameaux shows a close connection between the political and
religious Libertines. He was a member of the Council of Two Hundred. He sought
and obtained a divorce from his wife, who was condemned to perpetual
imprisonment for the theory and practice of free-lovism of the worst kind. But
he hated Calvin’s theology and discipline. At a supper party in his own house
he freely indulged in drink, and roundly abused Calvin as a teacher of false
doctrine, as a very bad man, and nothing but a Picard.765
For
this offence he was imprisoned by the Council for two months and condemned to a
fine of sixty dollars. He made an apology and retracted his words. But Calvin
was not satisfied, and demanded a second trial. The Council condemned him to a
degrading punishment called the amende honorable, namely, to parade through the
streets in his shirt, with bare head, and a lighted torch in his hand, and to
ask on bended knees the pardon of God, of the Council, and of Calvin. This
harsh judgment provoked a popular outbreak in the quarter of St. Gervais, but
the Council proceeded in a body to the spot and ordered the wine-shops to be
closed and a gibbet to be erected to frighten the mob. The sentence on Ameaux
was executed April 5, 1546. Two preachers, Henri de la Mare and Aimé Maigret,
who had taken part in the drinking scene, were deposed. The former had said before
the Council that Calvin was, a good and virtuous man, and of great intellect,
but sometimes governed by his passions, impatient, full of hatred, and
vindictive." The latter had
committed more serious offences.766
4.
Pierre Vandel was a handsome, brilliant, and frivolous cavalier, and loved to
exhibit himself with a retinue of valets and courtesans, with rings on his
fingers and golden chains on his breast. He had been active in the expulsion of
Calvin, and opposed him after his recall. He was imprisoned for his
debaucheries and insolent conduct before the Consistory. He was Syndic in 1548.
He took a leading part in the conspiracy of Perrin and shared his condemnation
and exile.767
5.
Philibert Berthelier (or Bertelier, Bertellier), an unworthy son of the
distinguished patriot who, in 1519, had been beheaded for his part in the war
of independence, belonged to the most malignant enemies of Calvin. He had gone
to Noyon, if we are to believe the assertion of Bolsec, to bring back
scandalous reports concerning the early life of the Reformer, which the same
Bolsec published thirteen years after Calvin’s death, but without any evidence.768 If the Libertines had been in
possession of such information, they would have made use of it. Berthelier is
characterized by Beza as "a man of the most consummate impudence" and
"guilty of many iniquities."
He was excommunicated by the Consistory in 1551 for abusing Calvin, for
not going to church, and other offences, and for refusing to make any apology.
Calvin was absent during these sessions, owing to sickness. Berthelier appealed
to the Council, of which he was the secretary. The Council at first confirmed
the decision of the Consistory, but afterwards released him, during the
syndicate of Perrin and the trial of Servetus, and gave him letters of
absolution signed with the seal of the Republic (1553).769
Calvin
was thus brought into direct conflict with the Council, and forced to the
alternative of submission or disobedience; in the latter case he ran the risk
of a second and final expulsion. But he was not the man to yield in such a
crisis. He resolved to oppose to the Council his inflexible non possumus.
On
the Sunday which followed the absolution of Berthelier, the September communion
was to be celebrated. Calvin preached as usual in St. Peter’s, and declared at
the close of the sermon that he would never profane the sacrament by
administering it to an excommunicated person. Then raising his voice and lifting
up his hands, he exclaimed in the words of St. Chrysostom: "I will lay
down my life ere these hands shall reach forth the sacred things of God to
those who have been branded as his despisers."
This
was another moment of sublime Christian heroism.
Perrin,
who had some decent feeling of respect for religion and for Calvin’s character,
was so much impressed by this solemn warning that he secretly gave orders to
Berthelier not to approach the communion table. The communion was celebrated,
as Beza reports, "in profound silence, and under a solemn awe, as if the
Deity himself had been visibly present among them."770
In
the afternoon, Calvin, as for the last time, preached on Paul’s farewell
address to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20:31); he exhorted the congregation to
abide in the doctrine of Christ, and declared his willingness to serve the
Church and each of its members, but added in conclusion: "Such is the
state of things here that this may be my last sermon to you; for they who are
in power would force me to do what God does not permit. I must, therefore,
dearly beloved, like Paul, commend you to God, and to the Word of his
grace."771
These
words made a deep impression even upon his worst foes. The next day Calvin,
with his colleagues and the Presbytery, demanded of the Council to grant them
an audience before the people, as a law was attacked which had been sanctioned
by the General Assembly. The Council refused the request, but resolved to
suspend the decree by which the power of excommunication was declared to belong
to the Council.
In
the midst of this agitation the trial of Servetus was going on, and was brought
to a close by his death at the stake, Oct. 27. A few days afterwards (Nov. 3),
Berthelier renewed his request to be admitted to the Lord’s Table—he who
despised religion. The Council which had condemned the heretic, was not quite
willing to obey Calvin as a legislator, and wished to retain the power of
excommunication in their own hands. Yet, in order to avoid a rupture with the
ministers, who would not yield to any compromise, the Council resolved to
solicit the opinions of four Swiss cantons on the subject.772
Bullinger,
in behalf of the Church and magistracy of Zürich, replied in December,
substantially approving of Calvin’s view, though he admonished him privately
against undue severity. The magistrates of Bern replied that they had no
excommunication in their Church. The answers of the two other cantons are lost,
but seem to have been rather favorable to Calvin’s cause.
In
the meantime matters assumed a more promising aspect. On Jan. 1, 1554, at a
grand dinner given by the Council and judges, Calvin being present, a desire
for peace was universally expressed. On the second of February the Council of
Two Hundred swore, with uplifted hands, to conform to the doctrines of the
Reformation, to forget the past, to renounce all hatred and animosity, and to
live together in unity.
Calvin
regarded this merely as a truce, and looked for further troubles. He declared
before the Council that he readily forgave all his enemies, but could not
sacrifice the rights of the Consistory, and would rather leave Geneva. The
irritation continued in 1554. The opposition broke out again in the conspiracy
against the foreigners and the council, which has been already described. The
plot failed. Berthelier was, with Perrin, condemned to death, but escaped with
him the execution of justice by flight.773
This
was the end of Libertinism in Geneva.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="110" title="Geneva Regenerated. Testimonies Old and
New">
§ 110.
Geneva Regenerated. Testimonies Old and New.
The
final result of this long conflict with Libertinism is the best vindication of
Calvin. Geneva came out of it a new city, and with a degree of moral and
spiritual prosperity which distinguished her above any other Christian city for
several generations. What a startling contrast she presents, for instance, to
Rome, the city of the vicar of Christ and his cardinals, as described by Roman
Catholic writers of the sixteenth century! If ever in this wicked world the ideal of Christian society
can be realized in a civil community with a mixed population, it was in Geneva
from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, when
the revolutionary and infidel genius of Rousseau (a native of Geneva) and of
Voltaire (who resided twenty years in the neighborhood, on his estate at
Ferney) began to destroy the influence of the Reformer.
After
the final collapse of the Libertine party in 1555, the peace was not seriously
disturbed, and Calvin’s work progressed without interruption. The authorities
of the State were as zealous for the honor of the Church and the glory of
Christ as the ministers of the gospel. The churches were well filled; the Word
of God was preached daily; family worship was the rule; prayer and singing of
Psalms never ceased; the whole city seemed to present the aspect of a community
of sincere, earnest Christians who practised what they believed. Every Friday a
spiritual conference and experience meeting, called the
"Congregation," was held in St. Peter’s, after the model of the
meetings of "prophesying," which had been introduced in Zürich and
Bern. Peter Paul Vergerius, the former papal nuncio, who spent a short time in
Geneva, was especially struck with these conferences. "All the
ministers," he says,774 "and many citizens attend. One of the
preachers reads and briefly explains a text from the Scriptures. Another
expresses his views on the subject, and then any member may make a contribution
if so disposed. You see, it is an imitation of that custom in the Corinthian
Church of which Paul speaks, and I have received much edification from these
public colloquies."
The
material prosperity of the city was not neglected. Greater cleanliness was
introduced, which is next to godliness, and promotes it. Calvin insisted on the
removal of all filth from the houses and the narrow and crooked streets. He
induced the magistracy to superintend the markets, and to prevent the sale
ofunhealthy food, which was to be cast into the Rhone. Low taverns and drinking
shops were abolished, and intemperance diminished. Mendicancy on the streets
was prohibited. A hospital and poor-house was provided and well conducted.
Efforts were made to give useful employment to every man that could work.
Calvin urged the Council in a long speech, Dec. 29, 1544, to introduce the
cloth and silk industry, and two months afterwards he presented a detailed
plan, in which he recommended to lend to the Syndic, Jean Ami Curtet, a
sufficient sum from the public treasury for starting the enterprise. The
factories were forthwith established and soon reached the highest degree of
prosperity. The cloth and silk of Geneva were highly prized in Switzerland and
France, and laid the foundation for the temporal wealth of the city. When
Lyons, by the patronage of the French crown, surpassed the little Republic in
the manufacture of silk, Geneva had already begun to make up for the loss by
the manufacture of watches, and retained the mastery in this useful industry
until 1885, when American machinery produced a successful rivalry.775
Altogether,
Geneva owes her moral and temporal prosperity, her intellectual and literary
activity, her social refinement, and her world-wide fame very largely to the
reformation and discipline of Calvin. He set a high and noble example of a
model community. It is impossible, indeed, to realize his church ideal in a
large country, even with all the help of the civil government. The Puritans
attempted it in England and in New England, but succeeded only in part, and
only for a short period. But nothing should prevent a pastor from making an
effort in his own congregation on the voluntary principle. Occasionally we find
parallel cases in small communities under the guidance of pastors of
exceptional genius and consecration, such as Oberlin in the Steinthal, Harms in
Hermannsburg, and Löhe in Neudettelsau, who exerted an inspiring influence far
beyond their fields of labor.
Let
us listen to some testimonies of visitors who saw with their own eyes the
changes wrought in Geneva through Calvin’s influence.
William
Farel, who knew better than any other man the state of Geneva under Roman
Catholic rule, and during the early stages of reform before the arrival of
Calvin, visited the city again in 1557, and wrote to Ambrosius Blaurer that he
would gladly listen and learn there with the humblest of the people, and that
"he would rather be the last in Geneva than the first anywhere else."776
John
Knox, the Reformer of Scotland, who studied several years in Geneva as a pupil
of Calvin (though five years his senior), and as pastor of the English
congregation, wrote to his friend Locke, in 1556: "In my heart I could
have wished, yea, I cannot cease to wish, that it might please God to guide and
conduct yourself to this place where, I neither fear nor am ashamed to say, is
the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of
the Apostles. In other places I confess Christ to be truly preached; but
manners and religion to be so seriously reformed, I have not yet seen in any
other place besides."777
Dr.
Valentine Andreae (1586–1654), a bright and shining light of the Lutheran
Church of Würtemberg (a grandson of Jacob Andreae, the chief author of the
Lutheran Formula of Concord), a man full of glowing love to Christ, visited
Geneva in 1610, nearly fifty years after Calvin’s death, with the prejudices of
an orthodox Lutheran against Calvinism, and was astonished to find in that city
a state of religion which came nearer to his ideal of a Christocracy than any
community he had seen in his extensive travels, and even in his German
fatherland.
"When
I was in Geneva," he writes, "I observed something great which I
shall remember and desire as long as I live. There is in that place not only
the perfect institute of a perfect republic, but, as a special ornament, a
moral discipline, which makes weekly investigations into the conduct, and even
the smallest transgressions of the citizens, first through the district
inspectors, then through the Seniors, and finally through the magistrates, as
the nature of the offence and the hardened state of the offender may require.
All cursing and swearing gambling, luxury, strife, hatred, fraud, etc., are
forbidden; while greater sins are hardly heard of. What a glorious ornament of
the Christian religion is such a purity of morals! We must lament with tears that it is wanting with us, and
almost totally neglected. If it were not for the difference of religion, I
would have forever been chained to that place by the agreement in morals, and I
have ever since tried to introduce something like it into our churches. No less
distinguished than the public discipline was the domestic discipline of my
landlord, Scarron, with its daily devotions, reading of the Scriptures, the
fear of God in word and in deed, temperance in meat and drink and dress. I have
not found greater purity of morals even in my father’s home."778
A
stronger and more impartial testimony of the deep and lasting effect of Calvin’s
discipline so long after his death could hardly be imagined.
NOTES.
MODERN TESTIMONIES.
The
condemnation of Calvin’s discipline and his conduct toward the Libertines has
been transplanted to America by two dignitaries of the Roman Church—Dr. John
McGill, bishop of Richmond, the translator of Audin’s Life of Calvin
(Louisville, n. d.), and Dr. M. S. Spalding, archbishop of Baltimore (between
1864 and 1872), in his History of the Protestant Reformation (Louisville,
1860), 8th ed., Baltimore, 1875. This book is not a history, but a chronique
scandaleuse of the Reformation, and unworthy of a Christian scholar. Dr.
Spalding devotes twenty-two pages to Calvin (vol. I. 370–392), besides an
appendix on Rome and Geneva, and a letter addressed to Merle D’Aubigné and
Bungener (pp. 495–530). He ignores his Commentaries and Institutes, which have
commanded the admiration even of eminent Roman Catholic divines, and simply
repeats, with some original mistakes and misspellings, the slanders of Bolsec
and Audin, which have long since been refuted.
"Calvin,"
he says, "crushed the liberties of the people in the name of liberty. A
foreigner, he insinuated himself into Geneva and, serpent-like, coiled himself
around the very heart of the Republic which had given him hospitable shelter.
He thus stung the very bosom which had warmed him. He was as watchful as a
tiger preparing to pounce on its prey, and as treacherous … . His reign in
Geneva was truly a reign of terror. He combined the cruelty of Danton and
Robespierre with the eloquence of Marat and Mirabeau … . He was worse than ’the
Chalif of Geneva,’ as Audin calls him—he was a very Nero!... He was a monster
of impurity and iniquity. The story of his having been guilty of a crime of
nameless turpitude at Noyon, though denied by his friends, yet rests upon very
respectable authority. Bolsec, a contemporary writer, relates it as certain … .
He ended his life in despair, and died of a most shameful and disgusting
disease which God has threatened to rebellious and accursed reprobates." The early Calvinists were hypocrites,
and "their boasted austerity was little better than a sham, if it was not
even a cloak to cover enormous wickedness. They exhibit their own favorite doctrine
of total depravity in its fullest practical development!" The archbishop, however, is kind enough
to add in conclusion (p. 391), that he "would not be understood as wishing
to reflect upon the character or conduct of the present professors of Calvinistic
doctrines, many of whom are men estimable for their civic virtues."
The
best answer to such a caricature, which turns the very truth into a lie, is
presented in the facts of this chapter. With ignorance and prejudice even the
gods contend in vain. But it is proper, at this place, to record the judgments
of impartial historians who have studied the sources, and cannot be charged
with any doctrinal bias in favor of Calvinism. Comp. other testimonies in § 68,
pp. 270 sqq.
Gieseler,
one of the coolest and least dogmatic of church historians, says (K. G. III. P.
I. p. 389): "<foreign lang="de">Durch Calvin’s eiserne
Festigkeit wurden Genf’s Sitten ganz umgewandelt: so dankte die Stadt der
Reformation ihre Freiheit, ihre Ordnung, und ihren aufblühenden Wohlstand</foreign>."
From
the Article "Calvin" in La France Protestante (III. 530): "<foreign
lang="fr">Une
telle Organisation, un pareil pouvoir sur les individus, une autorité aussi
parfaitement inquisitoriale nous indignent aujourd’hui; c’était chose toute
simple avec l’ardeur religieuse du XVIe siècle. Le consistoire atteignit le but
que Calvin s’était proposé. En moins de trois générations, les moeurs de Genève
subirent une métamorphose complète. A la mondanité naturelle succéda cette
austérité un peu raide, cette gravité un peu étudiée qui caractérisèrent, dans
les siècles passés, les disciples du réformateur. L’histoire ne nous offre que
deux hommes qui aient su imprimer à tout un peuple le cachet particulier de
leur génie: Lycurgue et Calvin, deux grands caractères qui offrent plus d’une
analogie. Que de fades plaisanteries ne s’est-on pas permises sur l’esprit
genevois! et Genève est devenue un foyer de lumières et d’émancipation
intellectuelle, même pour ses détracteurs.</foreign>"
Marc-Monnier.
Marc-Monnier
was born in Florence of French parents, 1829, distinguished as a poet and
historian, professor of literature in the University of Geneva, and died 1885.
His "La Renaissance de Dante à Luther" (1884) was crowned by the
French Academy.
From
"La Réforme, de Luther à Shakespeare"(Paris, 1885), pp. 70–72.
<foreign lang="fr">"Calvin fut done de son
temps comme les papes, les empereurs et tons les rois, méme François 1er, qui
brûlèrent des hérétiques, mais ceux qui ne voient dans Calvin que le meurtrier
de Servet ne le connaissent pas. Ce fut une conviction, une intelligence, une
des forces les plus étonnantes de ce grand siècle: pour le peser selon son
mérite, il faut jeter dans la balance autre chose que nos tendresses et nos
pitiés. Il faut voir tout l’homme, et le voir tel qu’il fut: ’un corps frêle et
débile, sobre jusqu’à l’excès,’ rongé par des maladies et des infirmites qui
devaient l’emporter avant le temps, mais acharné à sa tâche, ’ne vivant que
pour le travail et ne travaillant que pour établir le royaume de Dieu sur la
terre; devoué à cette cause jusqu’à lui tout sacrifier:’ le repos, la santé, la
vie, plus encore: les études favorites, et avec une infatigable activité qui
épouvantait ses adversaires, menant de front, à brides abattues, religion,
morale, politique, législation, littérature, enseignement, prédication,
pamphlets, oeuvres de longue haleine, correspondance énorme avec le roi et la
reine de Navarre, la duchesse de Ferrare, le roi François 1er, avec d’autres
princes encore, avec les réformateurs, les théologiens, les humanistes, les âmes
travaillées et chargées, les pauvres prisonnières de Paris. Il écrivait dans
l’Europe entière; deux mille Églises s’organisaient selon ses idées ou celles
de ses amis; des missionnaires, animés de son souffle, partaient pour
l’Angleterre, l’Écosse, les Pays-Bas, ’en remerciant Dieu et lui chantant des
psaumes.’ En même temps cet homme
seul, ce malade surmené s’emparait a Genève d’un peuple allègre, raisouneur,
indiscipliné, le tenait dans sa main et le forçait d’obéir. Sans étre magistrat
ni même citoyen (il ne le devint qu’aux dernières années de sa vie), sans
mandat officiel ni titre reconnu, sans autre autorité que celle de son nom et
d’une volonté inflexible, il commandait aux consciences, il gouvernait les
maisons, il s’imposait, avec une foule de réfugiés venus de toute part, à une
population qui n’a jamais aimé les étrangers ni les maîtres; il heurtait enfin
de parti pris les coutumes, les traditions, les susceptibilités nationales et
il les brisait. Non seulement il pesait sur les consciences et les opinions,
mais aussi sur les moeurs, proscrivait la luxure et même le luxe, la
bijouterie, la soie et le velours, les cheveux longs, les coiffures frisées, la
bonne chère: toute espèce de plaisir et de distraction; cependant, malgré les
haines et les colères suscitées par cette compression morale, ’le corps brisé,
mais la tête haute,’ il gouverna longtemps les Genevois par l’autorité de son
caractère et fut accompagné à sa tombe par le peuple tout entier. Voilà l’homme
dont il est facile de rire, mais qu’il importe avant tout de connaitre.
"Calvin
détruisit Genève pour la refaire à son image et, en dépit de toutes les
révolutions, cette reconstitution improvisée dure encore: il existe aux portes
de la France une ville de strictes croyances, de bonnes études et de bonnes
moeurs: une ’cité de Calvin.’ "
</foreign>A remarkable tribute from a scholar who was no theologian,
and no clergyman, but thoroughly at home in the history, literature, manners,
and society of Geneva. Marc-Monnier speaks also very highly of Calvin’s merits
as a French classic, and quotes with approval the judgment of Paul Lacroix (in
his ed. of select Oeuvres françoises de J. Calvin): "<foreign
lang="fr">Le
style de Calvin est un des plus grands styles du seizième siècle: simple,
correct, élégant, clair, ingénieux, animé, varie de formes et de tons, il a
commencé à fixer la langue française pour la prose, comme celui de Clement
Marot l’avait fait pour les ve</foreign>rs."
George
Bancroft.
George
Bancroft, the American historian and statesman, born at Worcester, Mass., 1800,
died at Washington, 1891, served his country as secretary of the Navy, and
ambassador at London and Berlin, with the greatest credit.
"A
word on Calvin, the Reformer." From his Literary and Historical
Miscellanies (New York, 1855), pp. 405 sqq.
"It
is intolerance only, which would limit the praise of Calvin to a single sect,
or refuse to reverence his virtues and regret his failings. He lived in the
time when nations were shaken to their centre by the excitement of the
Reformation; when the fields of Holland and France were wet with the carnage of
persecution; when vindictive monarchs on the one side threatened all
Protestants with outlawry and death, and the Vatican, on the other, sent forth
its anathemas and its cry for blood. In that day, it is too true, the influence
of an ancient, long-established, hardly disputed error, the Constant danger of
his position, the intense desire to secure union among the antagonists of popery,
the engrossing consciousness that his struggle was for the emancipation of the
Christian world, induced the great Reformer to defend the use of the sword for
the extirpation of heresy. Reprobating and lamenting his adhesion to the cruel
doctrine, which all Christendom had for centuries implicitly received, we may,
as republicans, remember that Calvin was not only the founder of a sect, but
foremost among the most efficient of modern republican legislators. More truly
benevolent to the human race than Solon, more self-denying than Lycurgus, the
genius of Calvin infused enduring elements into the institutions of Geneva, and
made it for the modern world the impregnable fortress of popular liberty, the
fertile seed-plot of democracy.
"We
boast of our common schools; Calvin was the father of popular education, the
inventor of the system of free schools. We are proud of the free States that
fringe the Atlantic. The pilgrims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best
influence in South Carolina came from the Calvinists of France. William Penn
was the disciple of the Huguenots; the ships from Holland that first brought
colonists to Manhattan were filled with Calvinists. He that will not honor the
memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of
American liberty.
"If
personal considerations chiefly win applause, then, no one merits our sympathy
and our admiration more than Calvin; the young exile from France, who achieved
an immortality of fame before he was twenty-eight years of age; now boldly
reasoning with the king of France for religious liberty; now venturing as the
apostle of truth to carry the new doctrines into the heart of Italy, and hardly
escaping from the fury of papal persecution; the purest writer, the keenest
dialectician of his century; pushing free inquiry to its utmost verge, and yet
valuing inquiry solely as the means of arriving at fixed conclusions. The light
of his genius scattered the mask of darkness which superstition had held for
centuries before the brow of religion. His probity was unquestioned, his morals
spotless. His only happiness consisted in his ’task of glory and of good;’ for
sorrow found its way into all his private relations. He was an exile from his
country; he became for a season an exile from his place of exile. As a husband
he was doomed to mourn the premature loss of his wife; as a father he felt the
bitter pang of burying his only child. Alone in the world, alone in a strange
land, he went forward in his career with serene resignation and inflexible
firmness; no love of ease turned him aside from his vigils; no fear of danger
relaxed the nerve of his eloquence; no bodily infirmities checked the
incredible activity of his mind; and so he continued, year after year, solitary
and feeble, yet toiling for humanity, till after a life of glory, he bequeathed
to his personal heirs, a fortune, in books and furniture, stocks and money, not
exceeding two hundred dollars, and to the world, a purer reformation, a
republican spirit in religion, with the kindred principles of republican
liberty."
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="XIV" title="Calvin’s
Theology">
CHAPTER
XIV.
CALVIN’S
THEOLOGY.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="111" title="Calvin’s
Commentaries">
§ 111.
Calvin’s Commentaries.
I.
Calvin’s Commentaries on the Old Test. in Opera, vols. XXIII.–XLIV., on the New
Test., vols. XLV. sqq. (not yet completed). Separate Latin ed. of the
Commentaries on the New Test. by Tholuck, Berlin, and Halle, 1831, 1836, etc.,
7 vols.; also on Genesis (by Hengstenberg, Berlin, 1838) and on the Psalms (by
Tholuck, 1836, 2 vols.). Translations in French (by J. Girard, 1650, and
others), English (by various writers, 1570 sqq.), and other languages. Best
English ed. by the "Calvin Translation Soc.," Edinburgh, 1843–55 (30
vols. for the O. T., 13 for the N. T.). See list in Darling’s Cyclopaedia
Bibliographica, sub "Calvin."
II.
A. Tholuck: Die Verdienste Calvin’s als Schriftausleger, in his "Lit.
Anzeiger," 1831, reprinted in his "Vermischte Schriften"
(Hamburg, 1839), vol. II. 330–360, and translated by Wm. Pringle (added to Com.
on Joshua in the Edinb. ed. 1854, pp. 345–375).—G. W. Meyer: Geschichte der
Schrifterklaerung, II. 448–475.—D. G. Escher.: De Calvino interprete, Traj.,
1840.—Ed. Reuss: Calvin considéré comme exegète, in "Revue," VI.
223.—A. Vesson: Calvin exegète, Montaub, 1855.—E. Staehelin: Calvin, I.
182–198.— Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, I. 457–460.—Merx: Joel, Halle, 1879,
pp. 428–444.—Fred. W. Farrar: History of Interpretation (London, 1886), pp. 342–354.
Calvin
was an exegetical genius of the first order. His commentaries are unsurpassed
for originality, depth, perspicuity, soundness, and permanent value. The
Reformation period was fruitful beyond any other in translations and
expositions of the Scripture. If Luther was the king of translators, Calvin was
the king of commentators. Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis, apologizes for
not referring more frequently to Calvin, because others had so largely borrowed
from him that to quote them was to quote him. Reuss, the chief editor of his
works and himself an eminent biblical scholar, says that Calvin was, beyond all
question the greatest exegete of the sixteenth century."779 Archdeacon Farrar literally echoes this
judgment.780 Diestel, the best
historian of Old Testament exegesis, calls him "the creator of genuine
exegesis."781
Few exegetical works outlive their generation; those of Calvin are not
likely to be superseded any more than Chrysostom’s Homilies for patristic
eloquence, or Bengel’s Gnomon for pregnant and stimulating hints, or Matthew
Henry’s Exposition for devotional purposes and epigrammatic suggestions to
preachers.782
Calvin
began his series of Commentaries at Strassburg with the Epistle to the Romans,
on which his system of theology is chiefly built. In the dedication to his
friend and Hebrew teacher Grynaeus, at Basel (Oct. 18, 1539), he already lays
down his views of the best method of interpretation, namely, comprehensive
brevity, transparent clearness, and strict adherence to the spirit and letter
of the author. He gradually expounded the most important books of the Old
Testament, the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and all the books of
the New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse, which he wisely left
alone. Some of his expositions, as the Commentary on the Minor Prophets, were
published from notes of his free, extempore lectures and sermons. His last
literary work was a Commentary on Joshua, which he began in great bodily
infirmity and finished shortly before his death and entrance into the promised
land.
It
was his delight to expound the Word of God from the chair and from the pulpit.
Hence his theology is biblical rather than scholastic. The Commentaries on the
Psalms and the Epistles of Paul are regarded as his best. He was in profound
sympathy with David and Paul, and read in their history his own spiritual
biography. He calls the Psalms (in the Preface) "an anatomy of all the
parts of the soul; for there is not an emotion of which any one can be
conscious that is not here represented as in a mirror. Or, rather, the Holy
Spirit has here drawn to the life the griefs, the sorrows, the fears, the
doubts, the hopes, the cares, the perplexities, in short, all the distracting
emotions with which the minds of men are wont to be agitated." He adds that his own trials and
conflicts helped him much to a clearer understanding of these divine
compositions.
He
combined in a very rare degree all the essential qualifications of an
exegete—grammatical knowledge, spiritual insight, acute perception, sound
judgment, and practical tact. He thoroughly sympathized with the spirit of the
Bible; he put himself into the situation of the writers, and reproduced and
adapted their thoughts for the benefit of his age.
Tholuck
mentions as the most prominent qualities of Calvin’s commentaries these four:
doctrinal impartiality, exegetical tact, various learning, and deep Christian
piety. Winer praises his "truly wonderful sagacity in perceiving, and
perspicuity in expounding, the meaning of the Apostle."783
1.
Let us first look at his philological outfit. Melanchthon well says: "The
Scripture cannot be understood theologically unless it be first understood
grammatically."784
He had passed through the school of the Renaissance; he had a rare
knowledge of Greek; he thought in Greek, and could not help inserting rare
Greek words into his letters to learned friends. He was an invaluable help to
Luther in his translation of the Bible, but his commentaries are dogmatical
rather than grammatical, and very meagre, as compared with those of Luther and
Calvin in depth and force.785
Luther
surpassed all other Reformers in originality, freshness, spiritual insight,
bold conjectures, and occasional flashes of genius. His commentary on the
Epistle to the Galatians, which he called "his wife," is a
masterpiece of sympathetic exposition and forceful application of the leading idea
of evangelical freedom to the question of his age. But Luther was no exegete in
the proper sense of the term. He had no method and discipline. He condemned
allegorizing as a mere "monkey-game" (Affenspiel), and yet he often
resorted to it in Job, the Psalms, and the Canticles. He was eminently
spiritual, and yet, as against Zwingli, slavishly literal in his
interpretation. He seldom sticks to the text, but uses it only as a
starting-point for popular sermons, or polemical excursions against papists and
sectarians. He cared nothing for the consensus of the fathers. He applied
private judgment to the interpretation with the utmost freedom, and judged the
canonicity and authority of the several books of the Bible by a dogmatic and
subjective rule—his favorite doctrine of solifidian justification; and as he
could not find it in James, he irreverently called his epistle "an epistle
of straw." He anticipated
modern criticism, but his criticism proceeded from faith in Christ and God’s
Word, and not from scepticism. His best work is a translation, and next to it,
his little catechism for children.
Zwingli
studied the Greek at Glarus and Einsiedeln that he might be able, "to draw
the teaching of Christ from the fountains."786 He learnt Hebrew after he was called to Zuerich. He also
studied the fathers, and, like Erasmus, took more to Jerome than to Augustin.
His expositions of Scripture are clear, easy, and natural, but somewhat
superficial. The other Swiss Reformers and exegetes—Oecolampadius, Grynaeus,
Bullinger, Pellican, and Bibliander—had a good philological preparation.
Pellican, a self-taught scholar (d. 1556), who was called to Zuerich by Zwingli
in 1525, wrote a little Hebrew grammar even before Reuchlin,787
and published at Zuerich comments on the whole Bible.788 Bibliander (d. 1564) was likewise
professor of Hebrew in Zuerich, and had some acquaintance with other Semitic
languages; he was, however, an Erasmian rather than a Calvinist, and opposed
the doctrine of the absolute decrees.
For
the Hebrew Bible these scholars used the editions of Daniel Bomberg (Venice,
1518–45); the Complutensian Polyglot, which gives, besides the Hebrew text,
also the Septuagint and Vulgate and a Hebrew vocabulary (Alcala, printed
1514–17; published 1520 sqq.); also the editions of Sabastian Muenster (Basel,
1536), and of Robert Stephens (Etienne, Paris, 1539–46). For the Greek
Testament they had the editions of Erasmus (Basel, five ed. 1516–35), the
Complutensian Polyglot (1520), Colinaeus (Paris, 1534), Stephens (Paris and
Geneva, 1546–51). A year after Calvin’s death, Beza began to publish his
popular editions of the Greek Testament, with a Latin version (Geneva,
1565–1604).
Textual
criticism was not yet born, and could not begin its operations before a
collection of the textual material from manuscripts, ancient versions, and
patristic quotations. In this respect, therefore, all the commentaries of the
Reformation period are barren and useless. Literary criticism was stimulated by
the Protestant spirit of inquiry with regard to the Jewish Apocrypha and some
Antilegomena of the New Testament, but was soon repressed by dogmatism.
Calvin,
besides being a master of Latin and French, had a very good knowledge of the
languages of the Bible. He had learned the Greek from Volmar at Bourges, the
Hebrew from Grynaeus during his sojourn at Basel, and he industriously
continued the study of both.789
He was at home in classical antiquity; his first book was a Commentary
on Seneca, De Clementia, and he refers occasionally to Plato, Aristotle,
Plutarch, Polybius, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Terence, Livy, Pliny,
Quintilian, Diogenes Laërtius, Aulus Gellius, etc. He inferred from Paul’s
quotation of Epimenides, <scripRef passage = "Tit.
1:12">Tit.
1:12</scripRef>, "that those are
superstitious who never venture to quote anything from profane authors. Since
all truth is from God, if anything has been said aptly and truly even by
impious men, it ought not to be rejected, because it proceeded from God. And
since all things are of God, why is it not lawful to turn to his glory whatever
may be aptly applied to this use?"
On <scripRef passage = "1 Cor. 8:1">1 Cor. 8:1</scripRef>, he observes: "Science
is no more to be blamed when it puffs up than a sword when it falls into the
hands of a madman." But he
never makes a display of learning, and uses it only as a means to get at the
sense of the Scripture. He wrote for educated laymen as well as for scholars,
and abstained from minute investigations and criticisms; but he encouraged Beza
to publish his Commentary on the New Testament in which philological scholarship
is more conspicuous.
Calvin
was also familiar with the patristic commentators, and had much more respect
for them than Luther. He fully appreciated the philological knowledge and tact
of Jerome, the spiritual depth of Augustin, and the homiletical wealth of
Chrysostom; but he used them with independent judgment and critical
discrimination.790
2.
Calvin kept constantly in view the primary and fundamental aim of the
interpreter, namely, to bring to light the true meaning of the biblical authors
according to the laws of thought and speech.791 He transferred himself into their mental state and
environment so as to become identified with them, and let them explain what
they actually did say, and not what they might or should have said, according
to our notions or wishes. In this genuine exegetical method he has admirably
succeeded, except in a few cases where his judgment was biassed by his favorite
dogma of a double predestination, or his antagonism to Rome; though even there
he is more moderate and fair than his contemporaries, who indulge in diffuse
and irrelevant declamations against popery and monkery. Thus he correctly
refers the "Rock" in <scripRef passage = "Matt.
16:18">Matt.
16:18</scripRef> to the person of Peter, as
the representative of all believers.792 He stuck to the text. He detested irrelevant twaddle and
diffuseness. He was free from pedantry. He never evades difficulties, but
frankly meets and tries to solve them. He carefully studies the connection. His
judgment is always clear, strong, and sound. Commentaries are usually dry,
broken, and indifferently written. His exposition is an easy, continuous flow
of reproduction and adaptation in elegant Erasmian Latinity. He could truly
assert on his death-bed that he never knowingly twisted or misinterpreted a
single passage of the Scriptures; that he always aimed at simplicity, and
restrained the temptation to display acuteness and ingenuity.
He
made no complete translation of the Bible, but gave a Latin and a French
version of those parts on which he commented in either or both languages, and
he revised the French version of his cousin, Pierre Robert Olivetan, which
appeared first in 1535, for the editions of 1545 and 1551.793
3.
Calvin is the founder of modern grammatico-historical exegesis. He affirmed and
carried out the sound and fundamental hermeneutical principle that the biblical
authors, like all sensible writers, wished to convey to their readers one
definite thought in words which they could understand. A passage may have a
literal or a figurative sense, but cannot have two senses at once. The word of
God is inexhaustible and applicable to all times; but there is a difference
between explanation and application, and application must be consistent with
explanation.
Calvin
departed from the allegorical method of the Middle Ages, which discovered no
less than four senses in the Bible,794 turned it into a nose of
wax, and substituted pious imposition for honest exposition. He speaks of
"puerile" and "far-fetched" allegories, and says that he
abstains from them because there is nothing "solid and firm" in them.
It is an almost sacrilegious audacity to twist the Scriptures this way and that
way, to suit our fancy.795
In commenting on the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, <scripRef passage
= "Gal. 4:22–26">Gal. 4:22–26</scripRef>, he censures Origen for his
arbitrary allegorizing, as if the plain historical view of the Bible were too
mean and too poor. "I acknowledge," he says, "that Scripture is
a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom, but I deny that its
fertility consists in the various meanings which any man at his pleasure may
put into it. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the
natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let
us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions,
those pretended expositions which lead us away from the natural
meaning." He approvingly
quotes Chrysostom, who says that the word "allegory" in this passage
is used in an improper sense.796
He was averse to all forced attempts to harmonize difficulties. He
constructed his Harmony of the Gospels from the three Synoptists alone, and
explained John separately.
4.
Calvin emancipated exegesis from the bondage of dogmatism. He was remarkably free
from traditional orthodox prepossessions and prejudices, being convinced that
the truths of Christianity do not depend upon the number of dicta probantia. He
could see no proof of the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural Elohim,797
nor in the three angel visitors of Abraham, Gen.18:2, nor in the Trisagion, <scripRef passage
= "Ps. 6:3">Ps. 6:3</scripRef>,798 nor of the divinity
of the Holy Spirit in <scripRef passage = "Ps.
33:6">Ps.
33:6</scripRef>.799
5.
He prepared the way for a proper historical understanding of prophecy. He fully
believed in the Messianic prophecies, which are the very soul of the faith and
hope of Israel; but he first perceived that they had a primary bearing and
practical application to their own times, and an ulterior fulfilment in Christ,
thus serving a present as well as a future use. He thus explained <scripRef passage
= "Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45, 68, 110">Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45,
68, 110</scripRef>, as typically and
indirectly Messianic. On the other hand, he made excessive use of typology,
especially in his Sermons, and saw not only in David but in every king of
Jerusalem a, figure of Christ."
In his explanation of the protevangelium, <scripRef passage = "Gen.
3:15">Gen.
3:15</scripRef>, he correctly understands
the "seed of the woman," collectively of the human race, in its
perpetual conflict with Satan, which will culminate ultimately in the victory
of Christ, the head of the race.800
He widens the sense of the formula "that it might be
fulfilled" (i{na plhrwqh|'), so as to express
sometimes simply an analogy or correspondence between an Old Testament and a
New Testament event. The prophecy, <scripRef passage = "Hos.
11:1">Hos.
11:1</scripRef>, quoted by Matthew as
referring to the return of the Christ-child from Egypt, must, accordingly,
"not be restricted to Christ," but is, skilfully adapted to the
present occasion."801
In like manner, Paul, in <scripRef passage = "Rom.
10:6">Rom.
10:6</scripRef>, gives only an
embellishment and adaptation of a word of Moses to the case in hand.802
6.
He had the profoundest reverence for the Scriptures, as containing the Word of
the living God and as the only infallible and sufficient rule of faith and
duty; but he was not swayed by a particular theory of inspiration. It is true,
he never would have approved the unguarded judgments of Luther on James, Jude,
Hebrews, and the Apocalypse;803 but he had no hesitancy in admitting incidental
errors which do not touch the vitals of faith. He remarks on <scripRef passage
= "Matt. 27:9">Matt. 27:9</scripRef>: "How the name of
Jeremiah crept in, I confess I know not, nor am I seriously troubled about it.
That the name of Jeremiah has been put for Zechariah by an error, the fact
itself shows, because there is no such statement in Jeremiah."804 Concerning the discrepancies between
the speech of Stephen in Acts 7 and the account of Genesis, he suggests that
Stephen or Luke drew upon ancient traditions rather than upon Moses, and made
"a mistake in the name of Abraham."805 He was far from the pedantry of the Purists in the
seventeenth century, who asserted the classical purity of the New Testament
Greek, on the ground that the Holy Spirit could not be guilty of any solecism
or barbarism, or the slightest violation of grammar; not remembering that the
Apostles and Evangelists carried the heavenly treasure of truth in earthen
vessels, that the power and grace of God might become more manifest, and that
Paul himself confesses his rudeness "in speech," though not "in
knowledge." Calvin justly
remarks, with special reference to Paul, that by a singular providence of God
the highest mysteries were committed to us "sub contemptibili verborum
humilitate," that our faith may not rest on the power of human eloquence,
but solely on the efficacy of the divine Spirit; and yet he fully recognized
the force and fire, the majesty and weight of Paul’s style, which he compares
to flashes of lightning.806
The
scholastic Calvinists, like the scholastic Lutherans of the seventeenth
century, departed from the liberal views of the Reformers, and adopted a
mechanical theory which confounds inspiration with dictation, ignores the human
element in the Bible, and reduces the sacred writers to mere penmen of the Holy
Spirit. This theory is destructive of scientific exegesis. It found symbolical
expression, but only for a brief period, in the Helvetic Consensus Formula of
1675, which, in defiance of historical facts, asserts even the inspiration of
the Masoretic vowel points. But notwithstanding this restraint, the Calvinistic
exegetes adhered more closely to the natural grammatical and historical sense
of the Scriptures than their Lutheran and Roman Catholic contemporaries.807
7.
Calvin accepted the traditional canon of the New Testament, but exercised the
freedom of the ante-Nicene Church concerning the origin of some of the books.
He denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews on account of
the differences of style and mode of teaching (ratio docendi), but admitted its
apostolic spirit and value. He doubted the genuineness of the Second Epistle of
Peter, and was disposed to ascribe it to a pupil of the Apostle, but he saw
nothing in it which is unworthy of Peter. He prepared the way for a distinction
between authorship and editorship as to the Pentateuch and the Psalter.
He
departed from the traditional view that the Scripture rests on the authority of
the Church. He based it on internal rather than external evidence, on the
authority of God rather than the authority of men. He discusses the subject in
his Institutes,808 and states the case as follows: —
"There
has very generally prevailed a most pernicious error that the Scriptures have
only so much weight as is conceded to them by the suffrages of the Church, as
though the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will
of men.809 ... For, as God alone is a sufficient witness of Himself in
His own Word, so also the Word will never gain credit in the hearts of men till
it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit. It is necessary,
therefore, that the same Spirit, who spake by the mouths of the prophets,
should penetrate into our hearts, to convince us that they faithfully delivered
the oracles which were divinely intrusted to them … Let it be considered, then,
as an undeniable truth, that they who have been inwardly taught by the Spirit,
feel an entire acquiescence in the Scripture, and that it is
self-authenticated, carrying with it its own evidence, and ought not to be made
the subject of demonstrations and arguments from reason; but it obtains the
credit which it deserves with us by the testimony of the Spirit. For though it
commands our reverence by its internal majesty, it never seriously affects us
till it is confirmed by the Spirit in our hearts. Therefore, being illuminated
by him, we now believe the divine original of the Scripture, not from our own
judgment or that of others, but we esteem the certainty that we have received
it from God’s own mouth, by the ministry of men, to be superior to that of any
human judgment, and equal to that of an intuitive perception of God himself in
it … . Without this certainty, better and stronger than any human judgment, in
vain will the authority of the Scripture be either defended by arguments, or
established by the authority of the Church, or confirmed by any other support,
since, unless the foundation be laid, it remains in perpetual suspense."810
This
doctrine of the intrinsic merit and self-evidencing character of the Scripture,
to all who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit, passed into the Gallican,
Belgic, Second Helvetic, Westminster, and other Reformed Confessions. They present
a fuller statement of the objective or formal principle of
Protestantism,—namely, the absolute supremacy of the Word of God as the
infallible rule of faith and practice, than the Lutheran symbols which give
prominence to the subjective or material principle of justification by faith.811
At
the same time, the ecclesiastical tradition is of great value, as a witness to
the human authorship and canonicity of the several books, and is more fully
recognized by modern biblical scholarship, in its conflict with destructive
criticism, than it was in the days of controversy with Romanism. The internal
testimony of the Holy Spirit and the external testimony of the Church join in
establishing the divine authority of the Scriptures.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="112" title="The Calvinistic System">
§ 112.
The Calvinistic System.
Comp.
§ 78, pp. 327–343, and the exposition of the Augustinian System and the
Pelagian controversy in vol. III. §§ 146–158, pp. 783–856.—Dorner: Geschichte
der protestantischen Theologie, pp. 374–404.—Loofs: Dogmengeschichte, 2d ed.,
pp. 390–401.
Calvin
is still a living force in theology as much as Augustin and Thomas Aquinas. No
dogmatician can ignore his Institutes any more than an exegete can ignore his
Commentaries. Calvinism is embedded in several confessions of the Reformed
Church, and dominates, with more or less rigor, the spirit of a large section
of Protestant Christendom, especially in Great Britain and North America.
Calvinism is not the name of a Church, but it is the name of a theological
school in the Reformed Churches. Luther is the only one among the Reformers
whose name was given to the Church which he founded. The Reformed Churches are
independent of personal authority, but all the more bound to tho teaching of
the Bible.
Calvinism
is usually identified with Augustinianism, as to anthropology and soteriology,
in opposition to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Augustin and Calvin were
intensely religious, controlled by a sense of absolute dependence on God, and
wholly absorbed in the contemplation of his majesty and glory. To them God was
everything; man a mere shadow. Blessed are the elect upon whom God bestows all
his amazing mercy; but woe to the reprobate from whom he withholds it. They lay
equal emphasis on the doctrines of sin and grace, the impotence of man and the
omnipotence of God, the sinfulness of sin and the sovereignty of regenerating
grace. In Christology they made no progress. Their theology is Pauline rather
than Johannean. They passed through the same conflict with sin, and achieved
the same victory, by the power of divine grace, as the great Apostle of the
Gentiles. Their spiritual experience is reflected in their theology. But Calvin
left us no such thrilling record of his experience as Augustin in his
Confessions. He barely alludes to his conversion, in the preface to his
Commentary on the Psalms and in his Answer to Sadolet.
The
profound sympathy of Calvin with Augustin is shown in the interesting fact that
he quotes him far more frequently than all the Greek and Latin fathers
combined, and quotes him nearly always with full approbation.812
But
in some respects Augustin and Calvin were widely different. Augustin wandered
for nine years in the labyrinth of the Manichaean heresy, and found at last
rest and peace in the orthodox Catholic Church of his day, which was far better
than any philosophical school or heretical sect, though not much purer than in
the sixteenth century. He became the chief architect of scholastic and mystic
theology, which ruled in the Middle Ages, and he still carries more weight in
the Roman communion than any of the ancient fathers. Calvin was brought up in
the Roman Catholic Church, but fled from its prevailing corruptions to the
citadel of the Holy Scripture, and became the most formidable enemy of the
papacy. If Augustin had lived in the sixteenth century, he might, perhaps, have
gone half way with the Reformers; but, judging from his high estimate of
visible church unity and his conduct towards the schismatic Donatists, it is
more probable that he would have become the leader of an evangelical school of
Catholicism within the Roman Church.
The
difference between the two great teachers may be briefly stated in two
sentences which are antagonistic on the surface, though reconcilable at bottom.
Augustin says: "I would not believe the gospel if it were not for the
Church."813 Calvin teaches
(in substance, though not in these words): "I would not believe the Church
if it were not for the gospel."
The reconciliation must be found in the higher principle: I believe in
Christ, and therefore I believe in the gospel and the Church, which jointly
bear witness of him.
As
to the doctrines of the fall, of total depravity, the slavery of the human
will, the sovereignty of saving grace, the bishop of Hippo and the pastor of
Geneva are essentially agreed; the former has the merit of priority and
originality; the latter is clearer, stronger, more logical and rigorous, and
far superior as an exegete.
Their
views are chiefly derived from the Epistle to the Romans as they understood it,
and may be summed up in the following propositions: God has from eternity
foreordained all things that should come to pass, with a view to the
manifestation of his glory; he created man pure and holy, and with freedom of
choice; Adam was tried, disobeyed, lost his freedom, and became a slave of sin;
the whole human race fell with him, and is justly condemned in Adam to
everlasting death; but God in his sovereign mercy elects a part of this mass of
corruption to everlasting life, without any regard to moral merit, converts the
elect by irresistible grace, justifies, sanctifies, and perfects them, and thus
displays in them the riches of his grace; while in his inscrutable, yet just
and adorable counsel he leaves the rest of mankind in their inherited state of
condemnation, and reveals in the everlasting punishment of the wicked the glory
of his awful justice.
The
Lutheran system is a compromise between Augustinianism and Semi-Pelagianism.
Luther himself was fully agreed with Augustin on total depravity and
predestination, and stated the doctrine of the slavery of the human will even
more forcibly and paradoxically than Augustin or Calvin.814 But the Lutheran Church followed him
only half way. The Formula of Concord (1577) adopted his doctrine of total
depravity in the strongest possible terms, but disclaimed the doctrine of
reprobation; it represents the natural man as spiritually dead like "a
stone" or "a block," and teaches a particular and unconditional
election, but also an universal vocation.815
The
Augustinian system was unknown in the ante-Nicene age, and was never accepted
in the Eastern Church. This is a strong historical argument against it.
Augustin himself developed it only during the Pelagian controversy; while in
his earlier writings he taught the freedom of the human will against the
fatalism of the Manichaeans.816
It triumphed in the Latin Church over Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism,
which were mildly condemned by the Synod of Orange (529). But his doctrine of
an absolute predestination, which is only a legitimate inference from his
anthropological premises, was indirectly condemned by the Catholic Church in
the Gottschalk controversy (853), and in the Jansenist controversy (1653),
although the name and authority of the great doctor and saint were not touched.
The
Calvinistic system was adopted by a large portion of the Reformed Church, and
has still able and earnest advocates. Calvin himself is now better understood,
and more highly respected by scholars (French and German) than ever before; but
his predestinarian system has been effectively opposed by the Arminians, the
Quakers, and the Methodists, and is undergoing a serious revision in the
Presbyterian and Calvinistic Churches of Europe and America.
The
Augustinian, Lutheran, and Calvinistic systems rest on the same anthropology,
and must stand or fall together with the doctrine of the universal damnation of
the whole human race on the sole ground of Adam’s sin, including infants and
entire nations and generations which never heard of Adam, and which cannot
possibly have been in him as self-conscious and responsible beings.817 They have alike to answer the question
how such a doctrine is reconcilable with the justice and mercy of God. They are
alike dualistic and particularistic. They are constructed on the ruins of the
fallen race, instead of the rock of the redeemed race; they destroy the
foundation of moral responsibility by teaching the slavery of the human will;
they turn the sovereignty of God into an arbitrary power, and his justice into
partiality; they confine the saving grace of God to a particular class. Within
that favorite and holy circle all is as bright as sunshine, but outside of it
all is as dark as midnight. These systems have served, and still serve, a great
purpose, and satisfy the practical wants of serious Christians who are not
troubled with theological and philosophical problems; but they can never
satisfy the vast majority of Christendom.
We
are, indeed, born into a world of sin and death, and we cannot have too deep a
sense of the guilt of sin, especially our own; and, as members of the human
family, we should feel the overwhelming weight of the sin and guilt of the
whole race, as our Saviour did when he died on the cross. But we are also born
into an economy of righteousness and life, and we cannot have too high a sense
of God’s saving grace which passeth knowledge. As soon as we enter into the
world we are met with the invitation, "Suffer little children to come unto
me." The redemption of the
race is as much an accomplished fact as the fall of the race, and it alone can
answer the question, why God permitted or caused the fall. Where sin has
abounded, grace has abounded not less, but much more.
Calvinism
has the advantage of logical compactness, consistency, and completeness.
Admitting its premises, it is difficult to escape its conclusions. A system can
only be overthrown by a system. It requires a theological genius of the order
of Augustin and Calvin, who shall rise above the antagonism of divine
sovereignty and human freedom, and shall lead us to a system built upon the
rock of the historic Christ, and inspired from beginning to end with the love
of God to all mankind.
NOTES
ON AMERICAN CALVINISM.
1.
Calvinism was imported and naturalized in America, by the Puritans, since 1620,
and dominated the theology and church life of New England during the colonial
period. It found its ablest defender in Jonathan Edwards,—the great theological
metaphysician and revival preacher,—who may be called the American Calvin. It
still controls the Orthodox Congregational and Baptist churches. But it has
provoked Unitarianism in New England (as it did in England), and has undergone
various modifications. It is now gradually giving way to a more liberal and
catholic type of Calvinism. The new Congregational Creed of 1883 is thoroughly
evangelical, but avoids all the sharp angles of Calvinism.
2.
The Presbyterian Calvinism is best represented by the theological systems of
Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and Henry B. Smith. The first is the mildest,
the second the severest, the third the broadest, champion of modern American
Calvinism; they alike illustrate the compatibility of logical Calvinism with a
sweet and lovely Christian temper, but they dissent from Calvin’s views by
their infralapsarianism, their belief in the salvation of all infants dying in
infancy, and of the large number of the saved.
Henry
B. Smith, under the influence of modern German theology, took a step in
advance, and marks the transition from old Calvinism to Christological
divinity, but died before he could elaborate it. "The central idea,"
he says, in his posthumous System of Christian Theology (New York, p. 341, 4th
ed., 1890), "to which all the parts of theology are to be referred, and by
which the system is to be made a system, or to be constructed, is what we have
termed the Christological or Mediatorial idea, viz., that God was in Christ
reconciling the world unto himself. This idea is central, not in the sense that
all the other parts of theology are logically deduced from it, but rather that
they centre in it. The idea is that of an Incarnation in order to Redemption.
This is the central idea of Christianity, as distinguished, or distinguishable,
from all other religions, and from all forms of philosophy; and by this, and
this alone, are we able to construct the whole system of the Christian faith on
its proper grounds. This idea is the proper centre of unity to the whole
Christian system, as the soul is the centre of unity to the body, as the North
Pole is to all the magnetic needles. It is so really the centre of unity that
when we analyze and grasp and apply it, we find that the whole of Christian
theology is in it." To this
remarkable passage should be added a note which Dr. George L. Prentiss, his
most intimate friend, found among the last papers of Dr. Smith, which may be
called his theological will and testament. "What Reformed theology has got
to do is to christologize predestination and decrees, regeneration and
sanctification, the doctrine of the Church, and the whole of eschatology."
3.
The movement for the revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith has
seized, by an irresistible force within the last few years, the Presbyterian
Churches of England, Scotland, and North America, and is inspired by the
cardinal truth of God’s love to all mankind (<scripRef passage = "John
3:16">John
3:16</scripRef>), and the consequent duty
of the Church to preach the gospel to every creature, in obedience to Christ’s
command (<scripRef
passage = "Mark 16:15">Mark 16:15</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Matt.
28:19, 20">Matt.
28:19, 20</scripRef>). The United Presbyterian
Church (1879) and the Free Church (1891) of Scotland express their dissent from
the Westminster Standards in an explanatory statement, setting forth their
belief in the general love of God, in the moral responsibility of man, and in
religious liberty,—all of which are irreconcilable with a strict construction
of those standards. The English Presbyterian Church has adopted a new creed,
together with a declaratory statement (1890). The General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States ordered, in 1889, a revision of the
Westminster Confession, which is now going on; and, at the same time, the
preparation of a new, short, and popular creed that will give expression to the
living faith of the present Church, and serve, not as a sign of division and
promoter of sectarian strife, but as a bond of harmony with other evangelical
churches, and help rather than hinder the ultimate reunion of Christendom. See
Schaff, Creed Revision in the Presbyterian Churches, 1890.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="113" title="Predestination">
§ 113.
Predestination.
1.
Inst. bk. III. chs. XXI.–XXIV.
Articuli de Praedestinatione, first published from an autograph of
Calvin by the Strassburg editors, in Opera, IX. 713. The Consensus Genevensis
(1552), Opera, VIII. 249–366. Calvin’s polemical writings against Pighius
(1543), vol. VI. 224–404; Bolsec (1551), vol. VIII. 85–140; and Castellio (15,
57–58), vol. IX. 253–318. He treats the subject also in several of his sermons,
e.g. on First and Second Timothy.
2.
Alex. Schweizer: Die Protestantischen Centraldogmen (Zuerich, 1854), vol. I.
150–179.—Staehelin, I. 271 sqq.—Dorner: Geschichte der protest. Theol.,
386–395.—Philip Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, I. 451–455.
Luther
and Calvin.
The
dogma of a double predestination is the cornerstone of the Calvinistic system,
and demands special consideration.
Calvin
made the eternal election of God, Luther made the temporal justification by
faith, the article of the standing or falling Church, and the source of
strength and peace in the battle of life. They agreed in teaching salvation by
free grace, and personal assurance of salvation by a living faith in Christ and
his gospel. But the former went back to the ultimate root in a pre-mundane
unchangeable decree of God; the latter looked at the practical effect of saving
grace upon the individual conscience. Both gave undue prominence to their
favorite dogma, in opposition to Romanism, which weakened the power of divine
grace, magnified human merit, and denied the personal certainty of salvation.
They wished to destroy all basis for human pride and boasting, to pluck up
Phariseeism by the root, and to lay a firm foundation for humility, gratitude,
and comfort. This was a great progress over the mediaeval soteriology.
But
there is a higher position, which modern evangelical theology has reached. The
predestinarian scheme of Calvin and the solifidian scheme of Luther must give
way or be subordinated to the Christocentric scheme. We must go back to Peter’s
confession, which has only one article, but it is the most important article,
and the oldest in Christendom. The central place in the Christian system
belongs to the divine-human person and work of Christ: this is the immovable
rock of the Church, against which the gates of Hades shall never prevail, and
on which the creeds of Christendom will have to unite (<scripRef passage = "Matt.
16:16–18">Matt.
16:16–18</scripRef>; comp. <scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 2:2; 3:11">1 Cor. 2:2; 3:11</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Rom.
4:25">Rom.
4:25</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 John
4:2, 3">1
John 4:2, 3</scripRef>). The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are
Christocentric and Trinitarian.
The
Reformers All Predestinarians.
All
the Reformers of the sixteenth century, following the lead of Augustin and of
the Apostle Paul,—as they understood him,—adopted, under a controlling sense of
human depravity and saving grace, and in antagonism to self-righteous legalism,
the doctrine of a double predestination which decides the eternal destiny of
all men.818 Nor does it seem
possible, logically, to evade this conclusion if we admit the two premises of
Roman Catholic and Evangelical orthodoxy—namely, the wholesale condemnation of
all men in Adam, and the limitation of saving grace to the present life. All
orthodox Confessions reject Universalism, and teach that some men are saved,
and some are lost, and that there is no possibility of salvation beyond the
grave. The predestinarians maintain that this double result is the outcome of a
double decree, that history must harmonize with the divine will and cannot
defeat it. They reason from the effect to the cause, from the end to the
beginning.
Yet
there were some characteristic differences in the views of the leading
Reformers on this subject. Luther, like Augustin, started from total moral
inability or the servum arbitrium; Zwingli, from the idea of an all-ruling
providentia; Calvin, from the eternal decretum absolutum.
The
Augustinian and Lutheran predestinarianism is moderated by the churchly and
sacramental principle of baptismal regeneration. The Calvinistic
predestinarianism confines the sacramental efficacy to the elect, and turns the
baptism of the non-elect into an empty form; but, on the other hand, it opens a
door for an extension of electing grace beyond the limits of the visible
Church. Zwingli’s position was peculiar: on the one hand, he went so far in his
supralapsarianism as to make God the sinless author of sin (as the magistrate
in inflicting capital punishment, or the soldier in the battle, are innocently
guilty of murder); but, on the other hand, he undermined the very foundation of
the Augustinian system—namely, the wholesale condemnation of the race for the
single transgression of one; he admitted hereditary sin, but denied hereditary
guilt; and he included all infants and pious heathen in the kingdom of heaven.
Such a view was then universally abhorred, as dangerous and heretical.819
Melanchthon,
on further study and reflection, retreated in the Semi-Pelagian direction, and
prepared the way for Arminianism, which arose, independently, in the heart of
Calvinism at the beginning of the seventeenth century. He abandoned his earlier
view, which he characterized as Stoic fatalism, and proposed the Synergistic
scheme, which is a compromise between Augustinianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and
makes the human will co-operate with preceding divine grace, but disowns human
merit.820
The
Formula of Concord (1577) rejected both Calvinism and Synergism, yet taught, by
a logical inconsistency, total disability and unconditional election, as well
as universal vocation.
Calvin’s
Theory.
Calvin
elaborated the doctrine of predestination with greater care and precision than
his predecessors, and avoided their "paradoxes," as he called some
extravagant and unguarded expressions of Luther and Zwingli. On the other hand,
he laid greater emphasis on the dogma itself, and assigned it a higher position
in his theological system. He was, by his Stoic temper and as an admirer of
Seneca, predisposed to predestinarianism, and found it in the teaching of Paul,
his favorite apostle. But his chief interest in the doctrine was religious
rather than metaphysical. He found in it the strongest support for his faith. He
combined with it the certainty of salvation, which is the privilege and comfort
of every believer. In this important feature he differed from Augustin, who
taught the Catholic view of the subjective uncertainty of salvation.821 Calvin made the certainty, Augustin the
uncertainty, a stimulus to zeal and holiness.
Calvin
was fully aware of the unpopularity of the doctrine. "Many," he says,
"consider nothing more unreasonable than that some of the common mass of
mankind should be foreordained to salvation, and others to destruction … When
the human mind hears these things, its petulance breaks all restraint, and it
discovers a serious and violent agitation as if alarmed by the sound of a
martial trumpet." But he
thought it impossible to "come to a clear conviction of our salvation,
till we are acquainted with God’s eternal election, which illustrates his grace
by this comparison, that he adopts not all promiscuously to the hope of
salvation, but gives to some what he refuses to others." It is, therefore, not from the general
love of God to all mankind, but from his particular favor to the elect that
they, and they alone, are to derive their assurance of salvation and their only
solid comfort. The reason of this preference can only be found in the
inscrutable will of God, which is the supreme law of the universe. As to
others, we must charitably assume that they are among the elect; for there is
no certain sign of reprobation except perseverance in impenitence until death.
Predestination,
according to Calvin, is the eternal and unchangeable decree of God by which he
foreordained, for his own glory and the display of his attributes of mercy and
justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal
salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal
damnation. "Predestination," he says, "we call the eternal
decree of God, by which he has determined in himself the destiny of every man.
For they are not all created in the same condition, but eternal life is
foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore,
being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated
either to life or to death."822
This
applies not only to individuals, but to whole nations. God has chosen the people
of Israel as his own inheritance, and rejected the heathen; he has loved Jacob
with his posterity, and hated Esau with his posterity. "The counsel of
God, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally
irrespective of human merit; but to those whom he devotes to condemnation the
gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, though incomprehensible
judgment."823
God’s will is the supreme rule of justice,824 so that "what he wills must be considered just for the
very reason that he wills it. When you ask, therefore, why the Lord did so, the
answer must be, Because he would. But if you go further and ask why he so
determined, you are in search of something higher and greater than the will of
God, which can never be found. Let human temerity, therefore, desist from
seeking that which is not, lest it should fail of finding that which is. This
will be a sufficient restraint to any one disposed to reason with reverence
concerning the secrets of his God."825 Calvin infers from the passage, "God hath mercy on whom
he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth "(Rom. 9:13), that Paul
attributes both equally "to the mere will of God. If, therefore, we can
assign no reason why God grants mercy to his people but because such is his
pleasure, neither shall we find any other cause but his will for the
reprobation of others. For when God is said to harden or show mercy to whom he
pleases, men are taught by this declaration to seek no cause behind his
will."826
Predestination,
therefore, implies a twofold decree—a decree of election unto holiness and
salvation, and a decree of reprobation unto death on account of sin and guilt.
Calvin deems them inseparable. "Many indeed," he says, "as if
they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny
that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because election
itself could not exist without being opposed to reprobation … . Whom God passes
by, he reprobates (Quos Deus praeterit, reprobat), and from no other cause than
his determination to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for
his children."827
God
bestows upon the reprobate all the common mercies of daily life as freely as
upon the elect, but he withholds from them his saving mercy. The gospel also is
offered to them, but it will only increase their responsibility and enhance
their damnation, like the preaching of Christ to the unbelieving Jews (Isa.
6:9, 10; Matt. 13:13–15). But how shall we reconcile this with the sincerity of
such an offer?
Infralapsarianism
and Supralapsarianism.
Within
the Calvinistic system there arose two schools in Holland during the Arminian
controversy, the Infralapsarians (also called Sublapsarians) and the
Supralapsarians, who held different views on the order of the divine decrees
and their relation to the fall (lapsus). The Infralapsarians adjust, as it
were, the eternal counsel of God to the temporal fall of man, and assume that
God decreed, first to create man in holiness; then to permit him to fall by the
self-determination of his free will; next, to save a definite number out of the
guilty mass; and last, to leave the rest in sin, and to ordain them to eternal
punishment.828 The
Supralapsarians reverse the order, so that the decree of election and
reprobation precedes the decree of creation; they make uncreated and unfallen
man (that is, a non-ens) the object of God’s double decree. The
Infralapsarians, moreover, distinguish between an efficient or active and a
permissive or passive decree of God, and exclude the fall of Adam from the
efficient decree; in other words, they maintain that God is not in any sense
the author of the fall, but that he simply allowed it to come to pass for
higher ends. He did not cause it, but neither did he prevent it. The
Supralapsarians, more logically, include the fall itself in the efficient and positive
decree; yet they deny as fully as the Infralapsarians, though less logically,
that God is the author of sin. The Infralapsarians attribute to Adam before the
fall the gift of free choice, which was lost by the fall; some Supralapsarians
deny it. The doctrine of probation (except in the one case of Adam) has no
place in the Calvinistic system, and is essentially Arminian. It is entirely
inapplicable to infants dying in infancy. The difference between the two
schools is practically worthless, and only exposes the folly of man’s daring to
search the secrets of God’s eternal counsel. They proceed on a pure
metaphysical abstraction, for in the eternal God there is no succession of
time, no before nor after.829
Calvin
was claimed by both schools. He must be classed rather with the
Supralapsarians, like Beza, Gomarus, Twysse, and Emmons. He saw the
inconsistency of exempting from the divine foreordination the most important
event in history, which involved the whole race in ruin. "It is not
absurd," he says, "to assert that God not only foresaw, but also
foreordained the fall of Adam and the ruin of his posterity." He expressly rejects the distinction
between permission (permissio) and volition (voluntas) in God, who cannot
permit what he does not will. "What reason," he asks, "shall we
assign for God’s permitting the destruction of the impious, but because it is
his will? It is not probable that
man procured his own destruction by the mere permission, and without any
appointment of God. As though God had not determined what he would choose to be
the condition of the chief of his creatures. I shall not hesitate, therefore,
to confess with Augustin, ’that the will of God is the necessity of things, and
what he has willed will necessarily come to pass; as those things are really
about to happen which he has foreseen."830
But
while his inexorable logic pointed to this abyss, his moral and religious sense
shrunk from the last logical inference of making God the author of sin; for
this would be blasphemous, and involve the absurdity that God abhors and justly
punishes what he himself decreed. He attributes to Adam the freedom of choice,
by which he might have obtained eternal life, but he wilfully disobeyed.831 Hence his significant phrase: "Man
falls, God’s providence so ordaining it; yet he falls by his own guilt."832 Here we have supralapsarian logic
combined with ethical logic. He adds, however, that we do not know the reason
why Providence so ordained it, and that it is better for us to contemplate the
guilt of man than to search after the bidden predestination of God. "There
is," he says, "a learned ignorance of things which it is neither
permitted nor lawful to know, and avidity of knowledge is a species of madness."
Here
is, notwithstanding this wholesome caution, the crucial point where the
rigorous logic of Calvin and Augustin breaks down, or where the moral logic
triumphs over intellectual logic. To admit that God is the author of sin would
destroy his holiness, and overthrow the foundation of morality and religion.
This would not be Calvinism, but fatalism and pantheism. The most rigorous
predestinarian is driven to the alternative of choosing between logic and
morality. Augustin and Calvin could not hesitate for a moment. Again and again,
Calvin calls it blasphemy to make God the author of sin, and he abhorred sin as
much as any man ever did. It is an established fact that the severest
Calvinists have always been the strictest moralists.833
Infant
Salvation and Damnation.
Are
infants dying in infancy included in the decree of reprobation? This is another crucial point in the
Augustinian system, and the rock on which it splits.
St.
Augustin expressly assigns all unbaptized children dying in infancy to eternal
damnation, because of original sin inherited from Adam’s transgression. It is
true, he mitigates their punishment and reduces it to a negative state of
privation of bliss, as distinct from positive suffering.834 This does credit to his heart, but does
not relieve the matter; for "damnatio," though "levissima"
and "mitissima," is still damnatio.
The
scholastic divines made a distinction between poena damni, which involves no
active suffering, and poena sensus, and assigned to infants dying unbaptized
the former but not the latter. They invented the fiction of a special
department for infants in the future world, namely, the Limbus Infantum, on the
border region of hell at some distance from fire and brimstone. Dante describes
their condition as one of "sorrow without torment."835 Roman divines usually describe their
condition as a deprivation of the vision of God. The Roman Church maintains the
necessity of baptism for salvation, but admits the baptism of blood (martyrdom)
and the baptism of intention, as equivalent to actual baptism. These
exceptions, however, are not applicable to infants, unless the vicarious desire
of Christian parents be accepted as sufficient.
Calvin
offers an escape from the horrible dogma of infant damnation by denying the
necessity of water baptism for salvation, and by making salvation dependent on
sovereign election alone, which may work regeneration without baptism, as in
the case of the Old Testament saints and the thief on the cross. We are made
children of God by faith and not by baptism, which only recognizes the fact.
Calvin makes sure the salvation of all elect children, whether baptized or not.
This is a great gain. In order to extend election beyond the limits of the
visible means of grace, he departed from the patristic and scholastic interpretation
of John 3:5, that "water" means the sacrament of baptism, as a
necessary condition of entrance into the kingdom of God. He thinks that a
reference to Christian baptism before it was instituted would have been
untimely and unintelligible to Nicodemus. He, therefore, connects water and
Spirit into one idea of purification and regeneration by the Spirit.836
Whatever
be the meaning of "water," Christ cannot here refer to infants, nor
to such adults as are beyond the reach of the baptismal ordinance. He said of
children, as a class, without any reference to baptism or circumcision:
"Of such is the kingdom of God." A word of unspeakable comfort to bereaved parents. And to
make it still stronger, he said: "It is not the will of your Father, who
is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" (<scripRef passage
= "Matt. 18:14">Matt. 18:14</scripRef>). These declarations of our
Saviour, which must decide the whole question, seem to justify the inference
that all children who die before having committed any actual transgression, are
included in the decree of election. They are born into an economy of salvation,
and their early death may be considered as a sign of gracious election.
But
Calvin did not go so far. On the contrary, he intimates very clearly that there
are reprobate or non-elect children as well as reprobate adults. He says that
"some infants," having been previously regenerated by the Holy
Spirit, "are certainly saved," but he nowhere says that all infants
are saved.837 In his comments
on <scripRef
passage = "Rom. 5:17">Rom. 5:17</scripRef>, he confines salvation to
the infants of pious (elect) parents, but leaves the fate of the rest more than
doubtful.838 Arguing with
Catholic advocates of free-will, who yet admitted the damnation of unbaptized
infants, he asks them to explain in any other way but by the mysterious will of
God, the terrible fact "that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy,
should involve so many nations with their infant children in eternal death.
Their tongues so loquacious on every other point must here be struck
dumb."839
And
in this connection he adds the significant words:, It is an awful (horrible)
decree, I confess, but no one can deny that God foreknew the future, final fate
of man before he created him, and that he did foreknow it, because it was
appointed by his own decree."840
Our
best feelings, which God himself has planted in our hearts, instinctively
revolt against the thought that a God of infinite love and justice should
create millions of immortal beings in his own image—probably more than half of
the human race—in order to hurry them from the womb to the tomb, and from the tomb
to everlasting doom! And this not
for any actual sin of their own, but simply for the transgression of Adam of
which they never heard, and which God himself not only permitted, but somehow
foreordained. This, if true, would indeed be a "decretum horribile."
Calvin,
by using this expression, virtually condemned his own doctrine. The expression
so often repeated against him, does great credit to his head and heart, and
this has not been sufficiently appreciated in the estimate of his character. He
ventured thus to utter his humane sentiments far more strongly than St.
Augustin dared to do. If he, nevertheless, accepted this horrible decree, he
sacrificed his reason and heart to the, rigid laws of logic and to the letter
of the Scripture as he understood it. We must honor him for his obedience, but
as he claimed no infallibility, as an interpreter, we must be allowed to
challenge his interpretation.
Zwingli,
as already remarked, was the first and the only Reformer who entertained and
dared to express the charitable hope and belief in universal infant salvation
by the atonement of Christ, who died for all. The Anabaptists held the same
view, but they were persecuted as heretics by Protestants and Catholics alike,
and were condemned in the ninth article of the Augsburg Confession.841 The Second Scotch Confession of 1590
was the first and the only Protestant Confession of the Reformation period
which uttered a testimony of abhorrence and detestation of the cruel popish
doctrine of infant damnation.842
But
gradually the doctrine of universal infant salvation gained ground among
Arminians, Quakers, Baptists, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, and is now adopted by
almost all Protestant divines, especially by Calvinists, who are not hampered
by the theory of baptismal regeneration.843
Zwingli,
as we have previously shown, was equally in advance of his age in regard to the
salvation of pious heathens, who die in a state of readiness for the reception
of the gospel; and this view has likewise penetrated the modern Protestant
consciousness.844
Defence
of the Doctrine of Predestination.
Calvin
defended the doctrine of predestination in his Institutes, and his polemical
writings against Pighius, Bolsec, and Castellio, with consummate skill against
all objections, and may be said to have exhausted the subject on his side of
the question. His arguments were chiefly drawn from the Scriptures, especially
the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; but he unduly stretched
passages which refer to the historical destiny of individuals and nations in
this world, into declarations of their eternal fate in the other world; and he
undervalued the proper force of opposite passages (such as <scripRef passage
= "Ezek. 33:11; 18:23, 32">Ezek. 33:11; 18:23, 32</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "John 1:29;
3:16">John
1:29; 3:16</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 John
2:2; 4:14">1
John 2:2; 4:14</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Tim.
2:4">1
Tim. 2:4</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "2 Pet.
3:9">2
Pet. 3:9</scripRef>) by a distinction between
the secret and revealed will of God (voluntas arcani and voluntas beneplaciti),
which carries an intolerable dualism and contradiction into the divine will.
He
closes the whole discussion with this sentence: "Now while many arguments
are advanced on both sides, let our conclusion be to stand astonished with Paul
at so great a mystery; and amidst the clamor of petulant tongues let us not be
ashamed to exclaim with him, ’O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’ For, as Augustin justly contends, it is
acting a most perverse part to set up the measure of human justice as the
standard by which to measure the justice of God."
Very
true; but how can we judge of God’s justice at all without our own sense of
justice, which comes from God? And
how can that be justice in God which is injustice in man, and which God himself
condemns as injustice? A
fundamental element in justice is impartiality and equity.
Practical
Effect.
The
motive and aim of this doctrine was not speculative but practical. It served as
a bulwark of free grace, an antidote to Pelagianism and human pride, a stimulus
to humility and gratitude, a source of comfort and peace in trial and
despondency. The charge of favoring license and carnal security was always indignantly
repelled as a slander by the Pauline "God forbid!" and refuted in
practice. He who believes in Christ as his Lord and Saviour may have a
reasonable assurance of being among the elect, and this faith will constrain
him to follow Christ and to persevere to the end lest he be cast away. Those
who believe in the perseverance of saints are likely to practice it. Present
unbelief is no sure sign of reprobation as long as the way is open for
repentance and conversion.
Calvin
sets the absolute sovereignty of God and the infallibility of the Bible over
against the pretended sovereignty and infallibility of the pope. Fearing God,
he was fearless of man. The sense of God’s sovereignty fortified his followers
against the tyranny of temporal sovereigns, and made them champions and
promoters of civil and political liberty in France, Holland, England, and
Scotland.
Confessional
Approval.
The
doctrine of predestination received the official sanction of the pastors of
Geneva, who signed the Consensus Genevensis prepared by Calvin (1552).845 It was incorporated, in its milder,
infralapsarian form, in the French Confession (1559), the Belgic Confession
(1561), and the Scotch Confession (1560). It was more logically formulated in
the Lambeth Articles (1595), the Irish Articles (1615), the Canons of Dort
(1619), the Westminster Confession and Larger Catechism (1647), and the
Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675). On the other hand, the First Helvetic
Confession (1536), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic
Confession (1566), and the Anglican Articles (1571, Art. XVII.) indorse merely
the positive part of the free election of believers, and are wisely silent
concerning the decree of reprobation and preterition; leaving this to
theological science and private opinion.846 It is noteworthy that Calvin himself emitted the doctrine of
predestination in his own catechism. Some minor Reformed Confessions, as that
of Brandenburg, expressly declare that God sincerely wishes the salvation of
all men, and is not the author of sin and damnation.
NOTES.
AUTHORITATIVE
STATEMENTS OF THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE OF A DOUBLE PREDESTINATION.
I.
Calvin’s Articuli de Praedestinatione.
Calvin
gave a condensed statement of his system in the following articles, which were
first published by the Strassburg editors, in 1870, from his autograph in the
University library of Geneva: —
[Ex
autographo Calvini Bibl. Genev., Cod. 145, fol. 100.]
<foreign lang="la">"Ante creatum primum
hominem statuerat Deus aeterno consilio quid de toto genere humano fieri
vellet.
"Hoc
arcano Dei consilio factum est ut Adam ab integro naturae suae statu deficeret
ac sua defectione traheret omnes suos posteros in reatum aeternae mortis.
"Ab
hoc eodem decreto pendet discrimen inter electos et reprobos: quia alios sibi
adoptavit in salutem, alios aeterno exitio destinavit.
"Tametsi
justae Dei vindictae vasa sunt reprobi, rursum electi vasa misericordiae, causa
tamen discriminis non alia in Deo quaerenda est quam mera eius voluntas, quae
summa est justitiae regula.
"Tametsi
electi fide percipiunt adoptionis gratiam, non tamen pendet electio a fide, sed
tempore et ordine prior est.
"Sicut
initium et perseverantia fidei a gratuita Dei electione fluit, ita non alii
vere illuminantur in fidem, nec alii spiritu regenerationis donantur, nisi quos
Deus elegit: reprobos vero vel in sua caecitate manere necesse est, vel
excidere a parte fidei, si qua in illis fuerit.
"Tametsi
in Christo eligimur, ordine tamen illud prius est ut nos Dominus in suis
censeat, quam ut faciat Christi membra.
"Tametsi
Dei voluntas summa et prima est rerum omnium causa, et Deus diabolum et impios
omnes suo arbitrio subiectos habet, Deus tamen neque peccati causa vocari
potest, neque mali autor, neque ulli culpae obnoxius est.
"Tametsi
Deus peccato vere infensus est et damnat quidquid est iniustitiae in hominibus,
quia illi displicet, non tamen nuda eius permissione tantum, sed nutu quoque et
arcano decreto gubernantur omnia hominum facta.
"Tametsi
diabolus et reprobi Dei ministri sunt et organa, et arcana eius judicia
exsequuntur, Deus tamen incomprehensibili modo sic in illis et per illos
operatur ut nihil ex eorum vitio labis contrahat, quia illorum malitia iuste
recteque utitur in bonum finem, licet modus saepe nobis sit absconditus.
"Inscite
vel calumniose faciunt qui Deum fieri dicunt autorem peccati, si omnia eo
volente et ordinante fiant: quia inter manifestam hominum pravitatem et arcana
Dei iudicia non distinguunt."
</foreign>
II.
The Lambeth Articles.
In
full agreement with Calvin are the Lambeth Articles, 1595. They were intended
to be an obligatory appendix to the Thirty-nine Articles which, in Art. XVII.,
present only the positive side of the doctrine of predestination, and ignore
reprobation. They were prepared by Dr. Whitaker, Professor of Divinity in
Cambridge, and approved by, Dr. Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Hutton,
Archbishop of York, and a number of prelates convened at Lambeth Palace,
London; also by Hooker (with a slight modification; see Hooker’s Works, ed. by
Keble, II. 752 sq.). But they were not sanctioned by Queen Elizabeth, who was
displeased that a Lambeth Synod was called without her authority, nor by James
I., and gradually lost their power during the Arminian reaction under the
Stuarts. They are as follows: —
"1.
God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life; certain men he hath
reprobated.
"2.
The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight
of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the
person predestinated, but only the good will and pleasure of God.
"3.
There is predetermined a certain number of the predestinate, which can neither
be augmented nor diminished.
"4.
Those who are not predestinated to salvation shall be necessarily damned for
their sins.
"5.
A true, living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying
[sanctifying] is not extinguished, falleth not away; it vanisheth not away in
the elect, either finally or totally.
"6.
A man truly faithful, that is, such a one who is endued with a justifying
faith, is certain, with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his
sins and of his everlasting salvation by Christ.
7.
Saving grace is not given, is not granted, is not communicated to all men, by
which they may be saved if they will.
"8.
No man can come unto Christ unless it shall be given unto him, and unless the
Father shall draw him; and all men are not drawn by the Father that they may
come to the Son.
"9.
It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved."
The
Lambeth Articles were accepted by the Convocation at Dublin, 1615, and
engrafted on the Irish Articles of Religion, which were probably composed by
the learned Archbishop Ussher (at that time Professor of Divinity in Trinity
College, Dublin), and form the connecting link between the Thirty-Nine Articles
and the Westminster Confession. Some of the strongest statements of the Irish
Articles passed literally (without any acknowledgment) into the Westminster
Confession. The Irish Articles are printed in Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom,
III. 526–544.
III.
The Westminster Confession.
Chap.
III. Of God’s Eternal Decree.
The
Westminster Confession of Faith, prepared by the Westminster Assembly in 1647,
adopted by the Long Parliament, by the Kirk of Scotland, and the Presbyterian
Churches of America, gives the clearest and strongest symbolic statement of
this doctrine. It assigns to it more space than to the holy Trinity, or the
Person of Christ, or the atonement.
"1.
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will,
freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither
is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures,
nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
established.
"2.
Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,
yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that
which would come to pass upon such conditions.
"3.
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels
are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting
death.
"4.
These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and
unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it
cannot be either increased or diminished.
"5.
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation
of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the
secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto
everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight
of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing
in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the
praise of his glorious grace.
"6.
As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most
free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they
who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually
called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified,
adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation.
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified,
adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
"7.
The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of
his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the
glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them
to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
"8.
The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with
special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his
Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their
effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this
doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of
humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the
gospel."
IV.
Methodism And Calvinism.
The
severest condemnation of the Westminster Calvinism came from John Wesley, the
most apostolic man that the Anglo-Saxon race has produced. He adopted the
Arminian creed and made it a converting agency; he magnified the free grace of
God, like the Calvinists, but extended it to all men. In a sermon on Free
Grace, preached at Bristol (Sermons, vol. I. 482 sqq.), he charges the doctrine
of predestination with "making vain all preaching, and tending to destroy
holiness, the comfort of religion and zeal for good works, yea, the whole
Christian revelation by involving it in fatal contradictions." He goes so far as to call it "a
doctrine full of blasphemy," because "it represents our blessed Lord
as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity, as
mocking his helpless creatures by offering what he never intends to give, by
saying one thing and meaning another." It destroys "all the attributes of God, his justice,
mercy, and truth, yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil,
as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust." This is as hard and unjust as anything
that Pighius, Bolsec, Castellio, and Servetus said against Calvin. And yet
Wesley cooperated for some time with George Whitefield, the great Calvinistic
revival preacher, and delivered his funeral sermon in Tottenham-Court-Road,
Nov. 18, 1770, on the text, <scripRef passage = "Num.
23:10">Num.
23:10</scripRef>, in which he spoke in the
highest terms of Whitefield’s personal piety and great usefulness (Sermons, I.
470–480). "Have we read or heard," he asked, "of any person
since the apostles, who testified the gospel of the grace of God through so
widely extended a space, through so large a part of the habitable world? Have we read or heard of any person,
who called so many thousands, so many myriads of sinners to repentance? Above all, have we read or heard of
any, who has been a blessed instrument in his hand of bringing so many sinners
from ’darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God?’ "— This is
a striking illustration how widely great and good men may differ in theology,
and yet how nearly they may agree in religion.
Charles
Wesley fully sided with the Arminianism of his brother John, and abused his
poetic gift by writing poor doggerel against Calvinism.847 He had a bitter controversy on the
subject with Toplady, who was a devout Calvinist. But their theological
controversy is dead and buried, while their devotional hymns still live, and
Calvinists and Methodists heartily join in singing Wesley’s "Jesus, Lover
of my Soul," and Toplady’s "Rock of Ages, cleft for me."
V.
Modern Calvinism.
Modern
Calvinism retains the doctrine of an all-ruling providence and saving grace,
but denies reprobation and preterition, or leaves them to the sphere of
metaphysical theology. It lays also great stress on the moral responsibility of
the human will, and on the duty of offering the gospel sincerely to every
creature, in accordance with the modern missionary spirit. This, at least, is
the prevailing and growing tendency among Presbyterian Churches in Europe and
America, as appears from the recent agitation on the revision of the
Westminster Confession. The new creed of the Presbyterian Church of England,
which was adopted in 1890, avoids all the objectionable features of old
Calvinism, and substitutes for the eight sections of the third chapter of the
Westminster Confession the following two articles, which contain all that is
necessary in a public confession: —
ART.
IV. Of Providence.
"We
believe that God the Creator upholds all things by the word of his power,
preserving and providing for all his creatures, according to the laws of their
being; and that he, through the presence and energy of his Spirit in nature and
history, disposes and governs all events for his own high design; yet is he not
in any wise the author or approver of sin, neither are the freedom and
responsibility of man taken away, nor have any bounds been set to the sovereign
liberty of him who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth."
ART.
XII. Of Election and Regeneration.
"We
humbly own and believe that God the Father, before the foundation of the world,
was pleased of his sovereign grace to choose unto himself in Christ a people,
whom he gave to the Son, and to whom the Holy Spirit imparts spiritual life by
a secret and wonderful operation of his power, using as his ordinary means,
where years of understanding have been reached, the truths of his Word in ways
agreeable to the nature of man; so that, being born from above, they are the
children of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="114" title="Calvinism examined">
§ 114.
Calvinism examined.
We
cannot dismiss this important subject without examining the Calvinistic system
of predestination in the light of Christian experience, of reason, and the
teaching of the Bible.
Calvinism,
as we have seen, starts from a double decree of absolute predestination, which
antedates creation, and is the divine program of human history. This program
includes the successive stages of the creation of man, an universal fall and
condemnation of the race, a partial redemption and salvation, and a partial
reprobation and perdition: all for the glory of God and the display of his
attributes of mercy and justice. History is only the execution of the original
design. There can be no failure. The beginning and the end, God’s immutable
plan and the issue of the world’s history, must correspond.
We
should remember at the outset that we have to deal here with nothing less than
a solution of the world-problem, and should approach it with reverence and an
humble sense of the limitation of our mental capacities. We stand, as it were,
before a mountain whose top is lost in the clouds. Many who dared to climb to
the summit have lost their vision in the blinding snowdrifts. Dante, the
deepest thinker among poets, deems the mystery of predestination too far
removed from mortals who cannot see "the first cause in its
wholeness," and too deep even for the comprehension of the saints in
Paradise, who enjoy the beatific vision, yet "do not know all the
elect," and are content "to will whatsoever God wills."848 Calvin himself confesses that, the
predestination of God is a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no
means extricate itself."849
The
only way out of the labyrinth is the Ariadne thread of the love of God in
Christ, and this is a still greater, but more blessed mystery, which we can
adore rather than comprehend.
The
Facts of Experience.
We
find everywhere in this world the traces of a revealed God and of a hidden God;
revealed enough to strengthen our faith, concealed enough to try our faith.
We
are surrounded by mysteries. In the realm of nature we see the contrasts of
light and darkness, day and night, heat and cold, summer and winter, life and
death, blooming valleys and barren deserts, singing birds and poisonous snakes,
useful animals and ravenous beasts, the struggle for existence and the survival
of the fittest. Turning to human life, we find that one man is born to
prosperity, the other to misery; one a king, the other a beggar; one strong and
healthy, the other a helpless cripple; one a genius, the other an idiot; one
inclined to virtue, another to vice; one the son of a saint, the other of a criminal;
one in the darkness of heathenism, another in the light of Christianity. The
best men as well as the worst are exposed to fatal accidents, and whole nations
with their innocent offspring are ravaged and decimated by war, pestilence, and
famine.
Who
can account for all these and a thousand other differences and perplexing
problems? They are beyond the
control of man’s will, and must be traced to the inscrutable will of God, whose
ways are past finding out.
Here,
then, is predestination, and, apparently, a double predestination to good or
evil, to happiness or misery.
Sin
and death are universal facts which no sane man can deny. They constitute the
problem of problems. And the only practical solution of the problem is the fact
of redemption. "Where sin has abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly;
that as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness
unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord "(<scripRef passage = "Rom. 5:20,
21">Rom.
5:20, 21</scripRef>).
If
redemption were as universal in its operation as sin, the solution would be
most satisfactory and most glorious. But redemption is only partially revealed
in this world, and the great question remains: What will become of the immense
majority of human beings who live and die without God and without hope in this
world? Is this terrible fact to be
traced to the eternal counsel of God, or to the free agency of man? Here is the point where Augustinianism
and Calvinism take issue with Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Synergism, and
Arminianism.
The
Calvinistic system involves a positive truth: the election to eternal life by
free grace, and the negative inference: the reprobation to eternal death by
arbitrary justice. The former is the strength, the latter is the weakness of the
system. The former is practically accepted by all true believers; the latter
always has been, and always will be, repelled by the great majority of
Christians.
The
doctrine of a gracious election is as clearly taught in the New Testament as
any other doctrine. Consult such passages as <scripRef passage = "Matt.
25:34">Matt.
25:34</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "John 6:37,
44, 65; 10:28; 15:16; l7:12; 18:9">John 6:37, 44, 65; 10:28;
15:16; l7:12; 18:9</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Acts
13:48">Acts
13:48</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Rom.
8:28–39">Rom.
8:28–39</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Gal.
1:4">Gal.
1:4</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Eph.
1:4–11; 2:8–10">Eph. 1:4–11; 2:8–10</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Thess.
1:4">1
Thess. 1:4</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "2 Thess.
2:13, 14">2
Thess. 2:13, 14</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "2 Tim.
1:9">2
Tim. 1:9</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Pet.
1:2">1
Pet. 1:2</scripRef>. The doctrine is confirmed
by experience. Christians trace all their temporal and spiritual blessings,
their life, health, and strength, their regeneration and conversion, every good
thought and deed to the undeserved mercy of God, and hope to be saved solely by
the merits of Christ, "by grace through faith," not by works of their
own. The more they advance in spiritual life, the more grateful they feel to
God, and the less inclined to claim any merit. The greatest saints are also the
humblest. Their theology reflects the spirit and attitude of prayer, which
rests on the conviction that God is the free giver of every good and perfect
gift, and that, without God, we are nothing. Before the throne of grace all
Christians may be called Augustinians and Calvinists.
It
is the great merit of Calvin to have brought out this doctrine of salvation by
free grace more forcibly and clearly than any divine since the days of
Augustin. It has been the effective theme of the great Calvinistic preachers
and writers in Europe and America to this day. Howe, Owen, Baxter, Bunyan,
South, Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Robert Hall, Chalmers, Spurgeon, were
Calvinists in their creed, though belonging to different
denominations,—Congregational, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist,—and had no
superiors in pulpit power and influence. Spurgeon was the most popular and
effective preacher of the nineteenth century, who addressed from week to week
five thousand bearers in his Tabernacle, and millions of readers through his
printed sermons in many tongues. Nor should we forget that some of the most
devout Roman Catholics were Augustinians or Jansenists.
On
the other hand, no man is saved mechanically or by force, but through faith,
freely, by accepting the gift of God. This implies the contrary power of
rejecting the gift. To accept is no merit, to reject is ingratitude and guilt.
All Calvinistic preachers appeal to man’s responsibility. They pray as if
everything depended on God; and yet they preach and work as if everything
depended on man. And the Church is directed to send the gospel to every
creature. We pray for the salvation of all men, but not for the loss of a
single human being. Christ interceded even for his murderers on the cross.
Here,
then, is a practical difficulty. The decree of reprobation cannot be made an
object of prayer or preaching, and this is an argument against it. Experience
confirms election, but repudiates reprobation.
The
Logical Argument.
The
logical argument for reprobation is that there can be no positive without a
negative; no election of some without a reprobation of others. This is true by
deductive logic, but not by inductive logic. There are degrees and stages of
election. There must be a chronological order in the history of salvation. All
are called sooner or later; some in the sixth, others in the ninth, others in
the eleventh, hour, according to God’s providence. Those who accept the call
and persevere in faith are among the elect (<scripRef passage = "1 Pet.
1:1; 2:9">1
Pet. 1:1; 2:9</scripRef>). Those who reject it, become reprobate by their own
unbelief, and against God’s wish and will. There is no antecedent decree of
reprobation, but only a judicial act of reprobation in consequence of man’s
sin.
Logic
is a two-edged sword. It may lead from predestinarian premises to the
conclusion that God is the author of sin, which Calvin himself rejects and
abhors as a blasphemy. It may also lead to fatalism, pantheism, or
universalism. We must stop somewhere in our process of reasoning, or sacrifice
a part of the truth. Logic, it should be remembered, deals only with finite
categories, and cannot grasp infinite truth. Christianity is not a logical or
mathematical problem, and cannot be reduced to the limitations of a human
system. It is above any particular system and comprehends the truths of all
systems. It is above logic, yet not illogical; as revelation is above reason,
yet not against reason.
We
cannot conceive of God except as an omniscient and omnipotent being, who from
eternity foreknew and, in some way, also foreordained all things that should
come to pass in his universe. He foreknew what he foreordained, and he
foreordained what he foreknew; his foreknowledge and foreordination, his
intelligence and will are coeternal, and must harmonize. There is no succession
of time, no before nor after in the eternal God. The fall of the first man,
with its effects upon all future generations, cannot have been an accident
which God, as a passive or neutral spectator, simply permitted to take place
when he might so easily have prevented it. He must in some way have
foreordained it, as a means for a higher end, as a negative condition for the
greatest good. So far the force of reasoning, on the basis of belief in a
personal God, goes to the full length of Calvinistic supralapsarianism, and
even beyond it, to the very verge of universalism. If we give up the idea of a
self-conscious, personal God, reason would force us into fatalism or pantheism.
But
there is a logic of ethics as well as of metaphysics. God is holy as well as
almighty and omniscient, and therefore cannot be the author of sin. Man is a
moral as well as an intellectual being, and the claims of his moral
constitution are equal to the claims of his intellectual constitution.
Conscience is as powerful a factor as reason. The most rigid believer in divine
sovereignty, if he be a Christian, cannot get rid of the sense of personal
accountability, though he may be unable to reconcile the two. The harmony lies
in God and in the moral constitution of man. They are the two complementary
sides of one truth. Paul unites them in one sentence: "Work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to
will and to work, for his good pleasure" (<scripRef passage = "Phil.
2:13">Phil.
2:13</scripRef>). The problem, however,
comes within the reach of possible solution, if we distinguish between
sovereignty as an inherent power, and the exercise of sovereignty. God may
limit the exercise of his sovereignty to make room for the free action of his
creatures. It is by his sovereign decree that man is free. Without such self-limitation
he could not admonish men to repent and believe. Here, again, the Calvinistic
logic must either bend or break. Strictly carried out, it would turn the
exhortations of God to the sinner into a solemn mockery and cruel irony.
The
Scripture Argument.
Calvin,
though one of the ablest logicians, cared less for logic than for the Bible,
and it is his obedience to the Word of God that induced him to accept the
decretum horribile against his wish and will. His judgment is of the greatest
weight, for he had no superior, and scarcely an equal, in thorough and
systematic Bible knowledge and exegetical insight.
And
here we must freely admit that not a few passages, especially in the Old
Testament, favor a double decree to the extent of supreme supralapsarianism;
yea, they go beyond the Calvinistic system, and seem to make God himself the
author of sin and evil. See <scripRef passage = "Ex. 4:21;
7:13">Ex.
4:21; 7:13</scripRef> (repeatedly said of God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart); <scripRef passage
= "Isa. 6:9, 10; 44:18">Isa. 6:9, 10; 44:18</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Jer.
6:21">Jer.
6:21</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Amos
3:6">Amos
3:6</scripRef> ("Shall there be evil
in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"); <scripRef passage = "Prov.
16:4">Prov.
16:4</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Matt.
11:25; 13:14, 15">Matt. 11:25; 13:14, 15</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "John
12:40">John
12:40</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Rom.
9:10–23; 11:7, 8">Rom. 9:10–23; 11:7, 8</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
14:3">1
Cor. 14:3</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "2 Thess.
2:11">2
Thess. 2:11</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Pet.
2:8">1
Pet. 2:8</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Jude
4">Jude
4</scripRef> ("who were of old set
forth unto this condemnation ").850
The
rock of reprobation is Romans 9. It is not accidental that Calvin elaborated
and published the second edition of his Institutes simultaneously with his
Commentary on the Romans, at Strassburg, in 1539.
There
are especially three passages in Romans 9, which in their strict literal sense
favor extreme Calvinism, and are so explained by some of the severest
grammatical commentators of modern times (as Meyer and Weiss).
(a)
<scripRef
passage = "Rom. 9:13">9:13</scripRef>: "Jacob I loved, but
Esau I hated," quoted from <scripRef passage = "Mal. 1:2,
3">Mal.
1:2, 3</scripRef>. This passage, whether we
take it in a literal or anthropopathic sense, has no reference to the eternal
destiny of Jacob and Esau, but to their representative position in the history
of the theocracy. This removes the chief difficulty. Esau received a temporal
blessing from his father (<scripRef passage = "Gen.
27:39, 40">Gen.
27:39, 40</scripRef>), and behaved kindly and
generously to his brother (<scripRef passage = "Gen.
33:4">33:4</scripRef>); he probably repented of
the folly of his youth in selling his birthright,851 and may be among the saved,
as well as Adam and Eve—the first among the lost and the first among the saved.
Moreover,
the strict meaning of a positive hatred seems impossible in the nature of the
case, since it would contradict all we know from the Bible of the attributes of
God. A God of love, who commands us to love all men, even our enemies, cannot
hate a child before his birth, or any of his creatures made in his own image.
"Can a woman forget her sucking child," says the Lord, "that she
should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, these may forget, yet will I not forget thee" (<scripRef passage
= "Isa. 49:15">Isa. 49:15</scripRef>). This is the prophet’s
conception of the tender mercies of God. How much more must it be the
conception of the New Testament?
The word hate must, therefore, be understood as a strong Hebraistic
expression for loving less or putting back; as in <scripRef passage = "Gen.
29:31">Gen.
29:31</scripRef>, where the original text
says, "Leah was hated" by Jacob, i.e. loved less than Rachel (comp. <scripRef passage
= "Gen. 29:30">29:30</scripRef>). When our Saviour says, <scripRef passage
= "Luke 14:26">Luke 14:26</scripRef>: "If any man hateth
not his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple," he does not mean
that his disciples should break the fifth commandment, and act contrary to his
direction: "Love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you" (<scripRef passage
= "Matt. 5:44">Matt. 5:44</scripRef>), but simply that we should
prefer him above everything, even life itself, and should sacrifice whatever
comes in conflict with him. This meaning is confirmed by the parallel passage, <scripRef passage
= "Matt. 10:37">Matt. 10:37</scripRef>: "He that loveth father
and mother more than me is not worthy of me."
(b)
<scripRef
passage = "Rom. 9:17">Rom. 9:17</scripRef>. Paul traces the hardening
of Pharaoh’s heart to the agency of God, and so far makes God responsible for
sin. But this was a judicial act of punishing sin with sin; for Pharaoh had
first hardened his own heart (<scripRef passage = "Ex. 8:15,
32; 9:34">Ex.
8:15, 32; 9:34</scripRef>). Moreover, this passage has no reference to Pharaoh’s
future fate any more than the passage about Esau, but both refer to their place
in the history of Israel.
(c)
In <scripRef
passage = "Rom. 9:22, 23">Rom. 9:22 and 23</scripRef>, the Apostle speaks of
"vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction" kathrtismevna eij"
ajpwvleian), and "vessels of mercy which he (God) prepared unto
glory" (a} prohtoivmasen eij" dovxan). But the difference of the
verbs, and the difference between the passive (or middle) in the first clause
and the active in the second is most significant, and shows that God has no
direct agency in the destruction of the vessels of wrath, which is due to their
self-destruction; the participle perfect denotes the result of a gradual
process and a state of maturity for destruction, but not a divine purpose.
Calvin is too good an exegete to overlook this difference, and virtually admits
its force, although he tries to weaken it.
They
observe," he says of his opponents, "that it is not said without
meaning, that the vessels of wrath are fitted for destruction, but that God
prepared the vessels of mercy; since by this mode of expression, Paul ascribes
and challenges to God the praise of salvation, and throws the blame of
perdition on those who by their choice procure it to themselves. But though I
concede to them that Paul softens the asperity of the former clause by the
difference of phraseology; yet it is not at all consistent to transfer the
preparation for destruction to any other than the secret counsel of God, which
is also asserted just before in the context, ’that God raised up Pharaoh, and
whom he will he hardeneth.’ Whence
it follows, that the cause of hardening is the secret counsel of God. This,
however, I maintain, which is observed by Augustin, that when God turns wolves
into sheep, he renovates them by more powerful grace to conquer their
obstinacy; and therefore the obstinate are not converted, because God exerts
not that mightier grace, of which he is not destitute if he chose to display
it."852
Paul’s
Teaching of the Extent of Redemption.
Whatever
view we may take of these hard passages, we should remember that Romans 9 is
only a part of Paul’s philosophy of history, unfolded in chapters 9–11. While
Rom. 9 sets forth the divine sovereignty, Rom. 10 asserts the human
responsibility, and Rom. 11 looks forward to the future solution of the dark
problem, namely, the conversion of the fulness of the Gentiles and the
salvation of all Israel (<scripRef passage = "Rom.
11:25">11:25</scripRef>). And he winds up the whole
discussion with the glorious sentence: "God hath shut up all unto
disobedience, that he might have mercy—upon all" (<scripRef passage = "Rom.
11:32">11:32</scripRef>). This is the key for the
understanding, not only of this section, but of the whole Epistle to the
Romans.853
And
this is in harmony with the whole spirit and aim of this Epistle. It is easier
to make it prove a system of conditional universalism than a system of
dualistic particularism. The very theme, <scripRef passage = "Rom.
1:16">1:16</scripRef>, declares that the gospel
is a power of God for the salvation, not of a particular class, but of
"every one" that believeth. In drawing a parallel between the first
and the second Adam (<scripRef passage = "Rom. 5:12–21">5:12–21</scripRef>), he represents the effect
of the latter as equal in extent, and greater in intensity than the effect of
the former; while in the Calvinistic system it would be less. We have no right
to limit "the many" (oiJ polloiv) and the, "all"
(pavnte") in one clause, and to take it literally in the other. "If,
by the trespass of the one [Adam], death reigned through the one, much more
shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ. So, then, as through one
trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one
act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many [i.e. all] were made
sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many [all] be made
righteous" (<scripRef passage = "Rom.
5:17–19">5:17–19</scripRef>).854 The same parallel, without any
restriction, is more briefly expressed in the passage (<scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
15:21">1
Cor. 15:21</scripRef>): "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be
made alive;" and in a different form in <scripRef passage = "Rom.
11:32">Rom.
11:32</scripRef> and <scripRef passage = "Gal.
3:22">Gal.
3:22</scripRef>, already quoted.
These
passages contain, as in a nutshell, the theodicy of Paul. They dispel the
darkness of Romans 9. They exclude all limitations of God’s plan and intention
to a particular class; they teach not, indeed, that all men will be actually
saved—for many reject the divine offer, and die in impenitence,—but that God
sincerely desires and actually provides salvation for all. Whosoever is saved,
is saved by grace; whosoever is lost, is lost by his own guilt of unbelief.
The
Offer of Salvation.
There
remains, it is true, the great difficulty that the offer of salvation is
limited in this world, as far as we know, to a part of the human race, and that
the great majority pass into the other world without any knowledge of the
historical Christ.
But
God gave to every man the light of reason and conscience (<scripRef passage
= "Rom. 1:19; 2:14, 15">Rom. 1:19; 2:14, 15</scripRef>). The Divine Logos
"lighteth every man" that cometh into the world (<scripRef passage
= "John 1:9">John 1:9</scripRef>). God never left himself
"without witness" (<scripRef passage = "Acts
14:17">Acts
14:17</scripRef>). He deals with his
creatures according to the measure of their ability and opportunity, whether
they have one or five or ten talents (<scripRef passage = "Matt.
25:15">Matt.
25:15</scripRef> sqq.). He is "no
respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh
righteousness, is acceptable to him" (<scripRef passage = "Acts
10:35">Acts
10:35</scripRef>).
May
we not then cherish at least a charitable hope, if not a certain belief, that a
God of infinite love and justice will receive into his heavenly kingdom all
those who die innocently ignorant of the Christian revelation, but in a state
of preparedness or disposition for the gospel, so that they would thankfully
accept it if offered to them?
Cornelius was in such a condition before Peter entered his house, and he
represents a multitude which no man can number. We cannot know and measure the
secret operations of the Spirit of God, who works "when, where, and how he
pleases."
Surely,
here is a point where the rigor of the old orthodoxy, whether Roman Catholic,
or Lutheran, or Calvinistic, must be moderated. And the Calvinistic system
admits more readily of an expansion than the churchly and sacramental type of
orthodoxy.
The
General Love of God to all Men.
This
doctrine of a divine will and divine provision of a universal salvation, on the
sole condition of faith, is taught in many passages which admit of no other
interpretation, and which must, therefore, decide this whole question. For it
is a settled rule in hermeneutics that dark passages must be explained by clear
pas-sages, and not vice versa. Such passages are the following: —
"I
have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord our God:
wherefore turn yourselves, and live" (<scripRef passage = "Ezek.
18:32, 23; 33:11">Ezek. 18:32, 23; 33:11</scripRef>). "And I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself" (<scripRef passage
= "John 12:32">John 12:32</scripRef>). "God so loved the
world" (that is, all mankind) "that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life"
(<scripRef
passage = "John 3:16">John 3:16</scripRef>). "God our Saviour
willeth that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth
"(<scripRef
passage = "1 Tim. 2:4">1 Tim. 2:4</scripRef>).855 "The grace of God hath appeared,
bringing salvation to all men" (<scripRef passage = "Tit.
2:11">Tit.
2:11</scripRef>). "The Lord is
long-suffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance" (<scripRef passage = "2 Pet.
3:9">2
Pet. 3:9</scripRef>).856 "Jesus Christ is the propitiation
for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for (the sins of) the whole
world" (<scripRef passage = "1 John 2:2">1 John 2:2</scripRef>). It is impossible to state
the doctrine of a universal atonement more clearly in so few words.857
To
these passages should be added the divine exhortations to repentance, and the
lament of Christ over the inhabitants of Jerusalem who "would not"
come to him (<scripRef passage = "Matt. 23:37">Matt. 23:37</scripRef>). These exhortations are
insincere or unmeaning, if God does not want all men to be saved, and if men
have not the ability to obey or disobey the voice. The same is implied in the
command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole creation (<scripRef passage
= "Mark 16:15">Mark 16:15</scripRef>), and to disciple all
nations (<scripRef
passage = "Matt. 28:19">Matt. 28:19</scripRef>).
It is
impossible to restrict these passages to a particular class without doing
violence to the grammar and the context.
The
only way of escape is by the distinction between a revealed will of God, which
declares his willingness to save all men, and a secret will of God which means
to save only some men.858
Augustin and Luther made this distinction. Calvin uses it in explaining <scripRef passage
= "2 Pet. 3:9">2 Pet. 3:9</scripRef>, and those passages of the
Old Testament which ascribe repentance and changes to the immutable God.
But
this distinction overthrows the system which it is intended to support. A
contradiction between intention and expression is fatal to veracity, which is
the foundation of human morality, and must be an essential attribute of the
Deity. A man who says the reverse of what he means is called, in plain English,
a hypocrite and a liar. It does not help the matter when Calvin says,
repeatedly, that there are not two wills in God, but only two ways of speaking
adapted to our weakness. Nor does it remove the difficulty when he warns us to
rely on the revealed will of God rather than brood over his secret will.
The
greatest, the deepest, the most comforting word in the Bible is the word,
"God is love," and the greatest fact in the world’s history is the
manifestation of that love in the person and the work of Christ. That word and
this fact are the sum and substance of the gospel, and the only solid
foundation of Christian theology. The sovereignty of God is acknowledged by
Jews and Mohammedans as well as by Christians, but the love of God is revealed
only in the Christian religion. It is the inmost essence of God, and the key to
all his ways and works. It is the central truth which sheds light upon all
other truths.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="115" title="Calvin’s Theory of the
Sacraments">
§ 115.
Calvin’s Theory of the Sacraments.
Inst.
bk. IV. chs. XIV.–XIX.
Next
to the doctrine of predestination, Calvin paid most attention to the doctrine
of the sacraments. And here he was original, and occupied a mediating position
between Luther and Zwingli. His sacramental theory passed into all the Reformed
Confessions more than his view of predestination.
Calvin
accepts Augustin’s definition that a sacrament (corresponding to the Greek
"mystery") is "a visible sign of an invisible grace," but
he improves it by emphasizing the sealing character of the sacrament, according
to <scripRef
passage = "Rom. 4:11">Rom. 4:11</scripRef>, and the necessity of faith
as the condition of receiving the benefit of the ordinance. "It is,"
he says, "an outward sign by which the Lord seals in our consciences the
promises of his good-will towards us, to support the weakness of our faith, or
a testimony of his grace towards us, with a reciprocal attestation of our piety
towards him." It is even more
expressive than the word. It is a divine seal of authentication, which sustains
and strengthens our faith. "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief"
(<scripRef
passage = "Mark 9:24">Mark 9:24</scripRef>). To be efficacious, the
sacraments must be accompanied by the Spirit, that internal Teacher, by whose
energy alone our hearts are penetrated, and our affections moved. Without the
influence of the Spirit, the sacraments can produce no more effect upon our
minds, than the splendor of the sun on blind eyes, or the sound of a voice upon
deaf ears. If the seed falls on a desert spot, it will die; but if it be cast
upon a cultivated field, it will bring forth abundant increase.
Calvin
vigorously opposes, as superstitious and mischievous, the scholastic opus
operatum theory that the sacraments justify and confer grace by an intrinsic
virtue, provided we do not obstruct their operation by a mortal sin. A
sacrament without faith misleads the mind to rest in the exhibition of a
sensuous object rather than in God himself, and is ruinous to true piety.
He
agrees with Augustin in the opinion that the sign and the matter of the
sacrament are not inseparably connected, and that it produces its intended
effect only in the elect. He quotes from him the sentence: "The morsel of
bread given by the Lord to Judas was poison; not because Judas received an evil
thing, but because, being a wicked man, he received a good thing in a sinful
manner." But this must not be
understood to mean that the virtue and truth of the sacrament depend on the
condition or choice of him who receives it. . The symbol consecrated by the word
of the Lord is in reality what it is declared to be, and preserves its virtue,
although it confers no benefit on a wicked and impious person. Augustin happily
solves this question in a few words: "If thou receive it carnally, still
it ceases not to be spiritual; but it is not so to thee." The office of the sacrament is the same
as that of the word of God; both offer Christ and his heavenly grace to us, but
they confer no benefit without the medium of faith.
Calvin
discusses at length the seven sacraments of the Roman Church, the doctrine of
transubstantiation, and the mass. But it is sufficient here to state his views
on baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the only sacraments which Christ directly
instituted for perpetual observance in the Church.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="116" title="Baptism">
§ 116.
Baptism.
Inst.
IV. chs. XV. and XVI. Also his Brieve instruction, pour armer tous bons fideles
contre les erreurs de la secte commune des Anabaptistes, Geneva, 1544, 2d ed.
1545; Latin version by Nicolas des Gallars. In Opera, VII. 45 sqq. This tract
was written against the fanatical wing of the Anabaptists at the request of the
pastors of Neuchâtel. His youthful treatise On the Sleep of the Soul was also
directed against the Anabaptists. See above, § 77, pp. 325 sqq. Calvin’s wife
was the widow of a converted Anabaptist.
Baptism,
Calvin says, is the sacrament of ablution and regeneration; the Eucharist is
the sacrament of redemption and sanctification. Christ "came by water and
by blood" (<scripRef passage = "1 John
5:6">1
John 5:6</scripRef>); that is, to purify and to
redeem. The Spirit, as the third and chief witness, confirms and secures the
witness of water and blood; that is, of baptism and the eucharist (<scripRef passage
= "1 John 5:8">1 John 5:8</scripRef>).859 This sublime mystery was strikingly
exhibited on the cross, when blood and water issued from Christ’s side, which
on this account Augustin justly called ’the fountain of our sacraments.’ "
I.
Calvin defines baptism as, a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into
the society of the Church, in order that, being incorporated into Christ, we
may be numbered among the children of God."
II.
Faith derives three benefits from this sacrament.
1.
It assures us, like a legal instrument properly attested, that all our sins are
cancelled, and will never be imputed unto us (<scripRef passage = "Eph.
5:26">Eph.
5:26</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Tit.
3:5">Tit.
3:5</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Pet.
3:21">1
Pet. 3:21</scripRef>). It is far more than a
mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the
insignia of their sovereign. It is "for the remission of sins," past
and future. No new sacrament is necessary for sins committed after baptism. At
whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified for the whole life.
"Whenever we have fallen, we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and
arm our minds with the consideration of it, that we may be always certified and
assured of the remission of our sins."
2.
Baptism shows us our mortification in Christ, and our new life in him. All who
receive baptism with faith experience the efficacy of Christ’s death and the
power of his resurrection, and should therefore walk in newness of life (<scripRef passage
= "Rom. 6:3, 4, 11">Rom. 6:3, 4, 11</scripRef>).
3.
Baptism affords us "the certain testimony that we are not only engrafted
into the life and death of Christ, but are so united to him as to be partakers
of all his benefits" (<scripRef passage = "Gal. 3:26,
27">Gal.
3:26, 27</scripRef>).
But
while baptism removes the guilt and punishment of hereditary and actual sin, it
does not destroy our natural depravity, which is perpetually producing works of
the flesh, and will not be wholly abolished till the close of this mortal life.
In the mean time we must hold fast to the promise of God in baptism, fight
manfully against sin and temptation, and press forward to complete victory.
III.
On the question of the validity of baptism by unworthy ministers, Calvin fully
agrees with Augustin against the view of the Donatists, who measured the virtue
of the sacrament by the moral character of the minister. He applies the
argument to the Anabaptists of his day, who denied the validity of Catholic
baptism on account of the idolatry and corruption of the papal Church.
"Against these follies we shall be sufficiently fortified, if we consider
that we are baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and consequently that it is not the baptism of
man, but of God, by whomsoever administered." The papal priests "did not baptize us into the
fellowship of their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus
Christ, because they invoked, not their own name, but the name of God, and
baptized in no name but his. As it was the baptism of God, it certainly
contained the promise of remission of sins, mortification of the flesh,
spiritual vivification, and participation of Christ. Thus it was no injury to
the Jews to have been circumcised by impure and Apostate priests; nor was the
sign on that account useless, so as to render it necessary to be repeated, but
it was sufficient to recur to the genuine original … . When Hezekiah and Josiah
assembled together out of all Israel, those who had revolted from God, they did
not call any of them to a second circumcision."
He
argues against the Anabaptists from the fact also, that the apostles who had
received the baptism of John, were not rebaptized. "And among us, what
rivers would be sufficient for the repetition of ablutions as numerous as the
errors which are daily corrected among us by the mercy of the Lord."860
IV.
He pleads for the simplicity of the ordinance against the adventitious medley
of incantation, wax-taper, spittle, salt, and "other fooleries,"
which from an early age were publicly introduced. "Such theatrical pomps
dazzle the eye and stupify the minds of the ignorant." The simple ceremony as instituted by
Christ, accompanied by a confession of faith, prayers, and thanksgivings,
shines with the greater lustre, unencumbered with extraneous corruptions. He
disapproves the ancient custom of baptism by laymen in cases of danger of
death. God can regenerate a child without baptism.
V.
The mode of baptism was not a subject of controversy at that time. Calvin
recognized the force of the philological and historical argument in favor of
immersion, but regarded pouring and sprinkling as equally valid, and left room
for Christian liberty according to the custom in different countries.861 Immersion was then still the prevailing
mode in England, and continued till the reign of Elizabeth, who was herself
baptized by immersion.
VI.
But while meeting the Baptists half-way on the question of the mode, he
strenuously defends paedobaptism, and devotes a whole chapter to it.862 He urges, as arguments, circumcision,
which was a type of baptism; the nature of the covenant, which comprehends the
offspring of pious parents; Christ’s treatment of children, as belonging to the
kingdom of heaven, and therefore entitled to the sign and seal of membership;
the word of Peter addressed to the converts on the day of Pentecost, who were accustomed
to infant circumcision, that "the promise is to you and your
children" (Acts 2:39); Paul’s declaration that the children are sanctified
by their parents (1 Cor. 7:14), etc. He refutes at length the objections of the
Anabaptists, with special reference to Servetus, who agreed with them on that
point.
He
assigns to infant baptism a double benefit: it ratifies to pious parents the
promise of God’s mercy to their children, and increases their sense of
responsibility as to their education; it engrafts the children into the body of
the Church, and afterwards acts as a powerful stimulus upon them to be true to
the baptismal vow.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="117" title="The Lord’s Supper. The
Consensus of Zuerich">
§ 117.
The Lord’s Supper. The Consensus of Zuerich.
I.
Inst. IV. chs. XVII. and XVIII. Comp. the first ed., cap. IV., in Opera, I. 118
sqq.—Petit traicté de la sainte cène de nostre Seigneur Jesus-Christ. Auquel est demontré la vraye
institution, profit et utilité d’icelle, Genève, 1541, 1542, 1549. Opera, V.
429–460. Latin version by Nicholas des Gallars: Libellus de Coena Domini, a
Ioanne Calvino pridem Gallica lingua scriptus, nunc vero in Latinum sermonem
conversus, Gen., 1545. Also translated into English. Remarkably moderate.—The
two catechisms of Calvin. — Consensio mutua in re sacramentaria Tigurinae
Ecclesiae et D. Calvini ministri Genevensis Ecclesiae jam nunc ab ipsis
authoribus edita (usually called Consensus Tigurinus), simultaneously published
at Geneva and Zuerich, 1551; French ed. L’accord passé, etc., Gen., 1551. In
Opera, VII. 689–748. The Latin text also in Niemeyer’s Collectio Conf, pp.
191–217. A German translation (Die Zuericher Uebereinkunft) in Bickel’s
Bekenntnissschriften der evang. reform. Kirche, pp. 173–181. Comp. the
correspondence of Calvin with Bullinger, Farel, etc., concerning the
Consensus.—Calvin’s polemical writings against Joachim Westphal, namely,
Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de sacramentis, Geneva, 1554, Zuerich,
1555; Secunda Defensio ... contra Westphali calumnias, Gen., 1556; and Ultima
Admonitio ad Westphalum, Gen., 1557. In Opera, IX. 1–120, 137–252. Lastly, his
book against Tilemann Hesshus (Hesshusen), Dilucida Explicatio sanae doctrinae
de vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra Coena, ad
discutiendas Heshusii nebulas, Gen., 1561. In Opera, IX. 457–524. (In the
Amsterdam ed., Tom. IX. 648–723.) Klebiz of Heidelberg, Beza, and Pierre Boquin
also took part in the controversy with Hesshus.
II.
For a comparative statement of the eucharistic views of Luther, Zwingli, and
Calvin, see this History, vol. VI. 669–682; and Creeds of Christendom, I. 455
sqq.; 471 sqq. Calvin’s doctrine has been fully set forth by Ebrard in fils
Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl, II. 402–525, and by Nevin in his Mystical Presence,
Philad., 1846, pp. 54–67; and in the "Mercersburg Review" for
September, 1850, pp. 421–548 (against Dr. Hodge in the "Princeton
Review" for 1848). Comp. also §§ 132–134 below; Henry, P. I. ch. XIII.;
and Staehelin, II. 189 sqq.
In the
eucharistic controversy, which raged with such fury in the age of the
Reformation, and was the chief cause of separation in its ranks, Calvin
consistently occupied from the beginning to the end the position of a mediator
and peacemaker between the Lutherans and Zwinglians, between Wittenberg and
Zuerich.
The
way for a middle theory was prepared by the Tetrapolitan or Swabian Confession,
drawn up by Martin Bucer, a born compromiser, during the Diet of Augsburg,
1530,863
and by the Wittenberg Concordia, 1536, which for a while satisfied the
Lutherans, but was justly rejected by the Swiss.
Calvin
published his theory in its essential features in the first edition of the
Institutes (1536), more fully in the second edition (1539), then in a special
tract written at Strassburg. He defended it in various publications, and
adhered to it with his usual firmness. It was accepted by the Reformed
Churches, and never rejected by Luther; on the contrary, he is reported to have
spoken highly of Calvin’s tract,—De Coena Domini, when he got hold of a Latin
copy in 1545, a year before his death.864
Calvin
approached the subject with a strong sense of the mystery of the vital union of
Christ with the believer, which is celebrated in the eucharist. "I exhort
my readers," he says, in the last edition of his Institutes, "to rise
much higher than I am able to conduct them; for as to myself, whenever I handle
this subject, after having endeavored to say everything, I am conscious of
having said but very little in comparison with its excellence. And though the
conceptions of the mind can far exceed the expressions of the tongue; yet, with
the magnitude of the subject, the mind itself is oppressed and overwhelmed.
Nothing remains for me, therefore, but to break forth in admiration of that
mystery, which the mind is unable clearly to understand, or the tongue to
express."865
He
aimed to combine the spiritualism of Zwingli with the realism of Luther, and to
avoid the errors of both. And he succeeded as well as the case will admit. He
agreed with Zwingli in the figurative interpretation of the words of
institution, which is now approved by the best Protestant exegetes, and
rejected the idea of a corporal presence and oral participation in the way of
transubstantiation or consubstantiation, which implies either a miracle or an
omnipresence of the body of Christ. But he was not satisfied with a purely
commemorative or symbolical theory, and laid the chief stress on the positive
side of an actual communion with the ever-living Christ. He expressed in
private letters the opinion that Zwingli had been so much absorbed with
overturning the superstition of a carnal presence that he denied or obscured
the true efficacy of the sacrament.866 He acknowledged the mystery of the real presence and real
participation, but understood them spiritually and dynamically. He confined the
participation of the body and blood of Christ to believers, since faith is the
only means of communion with Christ; while Luther extended it to all
communicants, only with opposite effects.
The
following is a brief summary of his view from the last edition of the
Institutes (1559): —
After
receiving us into his family by baptism, God undertakes to sustain and to nourish
us as long as we live, and gives us a pledge of his gracious intention in the
sacrament of the holy communion. This is a spiritual banquet, in which Christ
testifies himself to be the bread of life, to feed our souls for a true and
blessed immortality. The signs of bread and wine represent to us the invisible
nourishment which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. They are
exhibited in a figure and image, adapted to our feeble capacity, and rendered
certain by visible tokens and pledges, which the dullest minds can understand.
This mystical benediction, then, is designed to assure us that the body of the
Lord was once offered as a sacrifice for us upon which we may now feed, and
that his blood was once shed for us and is our perpetual drink. "His flesh
is true meat, and his blood is true drink" (<scripRef passage = "John
6:55">John
6:55</scripRef>). "We are members of
his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (<scripRef passage = "Eph.
5:30">Eph.
5:30</scripRef>). "This is a great
mystery" (<scripRef passage = "Eph. 5:32">5:32</scripRef>), which can be admired
rather than expressed. Our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ, just
as our corporal life is preserved and sustained by bread and wine. Otherwise
there would be no propriety in the analogy of the sign. The breaking of the
bread is indeed symbolical, yet significant; for God is not a deceiver who sets
before us an empty sign. The symbol of the body assures us of the donation of
the invisible substance, so that in receiving the sign we receive the thing
itself. The thing signified is exhibited and offered to all who come to that
spiritual banquet, but it is advantageously enjoyed only by those who receive
it with true faith and gratitude.
Calvin
lays great stress on the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit in the
communion. This was ignored by Luther and Zwingli. The Spirit raises our hearts
from earth to heaven, as he does in every act of devotion (sursum corda), and
he brings down the life-giving power of the exalted Redeemer in heaven, and
thus unites what is, according to our imperfect notions, separated by local
distance.867 The medium of
communication is faith. Calvin might have sustained his view by the old
liturgies of the Oriental Church, which have a special prayer invoking the Holy
Spirit at the consecration of the eucharistic elements.868
He
quotes several passages from Augustin in favor of the spiritual real presence.
Ratramnus in the ninth, and Berengar in the eleventh, century had likewise
appealed to Augustin against the advocates of a carnal presence and
participation.869
When
Luther reopened the eucharistic controversy by a fierce attack upon the
Zwinglians (1545), who defended their martyred Reformer in a sharp reply,
Calvin was displeased with both parties, and labored to bring about a
reconciliation.870
He corresponded with Bullinger (the Melanchthon of the Swiss Church),
and, on his invitation, he went to Zuerich with Farel (May, 1549). The delicate
negotiations were carried on by both parties with admirable frankness,
moderation, wisdom, and patience. The result was the "Consensus
Tigurinus," in which Calvin states his doctrine as nearly as possible in
agreement with Zwingli. This document was published in 1551, and adopted by all
the Reformed Cantons, except Bern, which cherished a strong dislike to Calvin’s
rigorism. It was also favorably received in France, England, and in parts of
Germany. Melanchthon declared to Lavater (Bullinger’s son-in-law) that he then
for the first time understood the Swiss, and would never again oppose them; but
he struck out the clause of the "Consensus" which confined the
efficacy of the sacrament to the elect.
But
while the "Consensus" brought peace to the Swiss Churches, and
satisfied the Melanchthonians, it was assailed by Westphal and Hesshus, who
out-luthered Luther in zeal and violence, and disturbed the last years of
Melanchthon and Calvin. We shall discuss this controversy in the next chapter.
The
Calvinistic theory of the Eucharist passed into all the Reformed Confessions,
and is very strongly stated in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the chief
symbol of the German and Dutch Reformed Churches.871 In practice, however, it has, among Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, and Baptists, largely given way to the Zwinglian view,
which is more plain and intelligible, but ignores the mystical element in the
holy communion.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="XV" title="Theological
Controversies">
CHAPTER
XV.
THEOLOGICAL
CONTROVERSIES.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="118" title="Calvin as a Controversialist">
§ 118.
Calvin as a Controversialist.
Calvin
was involved in several controversies, chiefly on account of his doctrine of
predestination. He displayed a decided superiority over all his opponents, as a
scholar and a reasoner. He was never at a loss for an argument. He had also the
dangerous gift of wit, irony, and sarcasm, but not the more desirable gift of
harmless humor, which sweetens the bitterness of controversy, and lightens the
burden of daily toil. Like David, in the imprecatory Psalms, he looked upon the
enemies of his doctrine as enemies of God. "Even a dog barks," he
wrote to the queen of Navarre, "when his master is attacked; how could I
be silent when the honor of my Lord is assailed?"872 He treated his opponents—Pighius,
Bolsec, Castellio, and Servetus—with sovereign contempt, and called them
"nebulones,873 nugatores, canes, porci, bestiae. Such
epithets are like weeds in the garden of his chaste and elegant style. But they
were freely used by the ancient fathers, with the exception of Chrysostom and
Augustin, in dealing with heretics, and occur even in the Scriptures, but
impersonally.874 His age saw
nothing improper in them. Beza says that "no expression unworthy of a good
man ever fell from the lips of Calvin." The taste of the sixteenth century differed widely from that
of the nineteenth. The polemical writings of Protestants and Romanists alike
abound in the most violent personalities and coarse abuse. Luther wielded the
club of Hercules against Tetzel, Eck, Emser, Cochlaeus, Henry VIII., Duke Henry
of Brunswick, and the Sacramentarians. Yet there were honorable exceptions even
then, as Melanchthon and Bullinger. A fiery temper is a propelling force in
history; nothing great can be done without enthusiasm; moral indignation
against wrong is inseparable from devotion to what is right; hatred is the
negative side of love. But temper must be controlled by reason, and truth
should be spoken in love, "with malice to none, with charity for
all." Opprobrious and abusive
terms always hurt a good cause; self-restraint and moderation strengthen it.
Understatement commands assent; overstatement provokes opposition.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="119" title="Calvin and Pighius">
§ 119.
Calvin and Pighius.
I.
Albertus Pighius: De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia libri decem.
Coloniae, 1542, mense Augusto. Dedicated to Cardinal Sadolet. He wrote also Assertio hierarchiae
ecclesiasticae, a complete defence of the Roman Church, dedicated to Pope Paul
III., 1538.
Calvin:
Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani
arbitrii adversus calumnias Alberti Pighii Campensis. With a preface to
Melanchthon. Geneva, 1543. In Opera, VI. 225–404. (Amsterdam ed. t. VIII. 116
sqq.) The same in French, Geneva,
1560.
II.
Bayle: Art. Pighius, in his "Dict. hist."—Henry, II. 285 sqq.
(English trans. I. 492 sqq.).—Dyer (1850), pp. 158–165.—Schweizer: Die protest.
Centraldogmen (1854), I. 180–200. Very satisfactory.—Werner (R. Cath.):
Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der christl. Theologie
(1865), IV. 272 sq. and 298. Superficial.—Stähelin, II. 281–287.—Prolegomena to
Calvin’s Opera, VI. pp. XXIII.–XXV.
As
Erasmus had attacked Luther’s doctrine on the slavery of the human will, and
provoked Luther’s crushing reply, Albert Pighius attacked Luther and chiefly
Calvin on the same vulnerable point.
Pighius
(or Pigghe) of Campen in Holland, educated at Louvain and Cologne, and a pupil
of Pope Adrian VI., whom he followed to Rome, was a learned and eloquent divine
and deputed on various missions by Clement VII. and Paul III. He may have seen
Calvin at the Colloquies in Worms and Ratisbon. He died as canon and archdeacon
of Utrecht, Dec. 26, 1542, a few months after the publication of his book
against Calvin and the other Reformers. Beza calls him the first sophist of the
age, who, by gaining a victory over Calvin, hoped to attain to a cardinal’s
hat. But it is wrong to judge of motives without evidence. His retirement to
Utrecht could not promote such ambition.875
Pighius
represents the dogma of the slavery of the human will, and of the absolute
necessity of all that happens, as the cardinal error of the Reformation, and
charges it with leading to complete moral indifference. He wrote ten books
against it. In the first six books, he defends the doctrine of free-will; in
the last four books, he discusses divine grace, foreknowledge, predestination,
and providence, and, last, the Scripture passages on these subjects. He teaches
the Semi-Pelagian theory with some Pelagian features, and declares that
"our works are meritorious before God." After the Synod of Trent had more carefully guarded the
doctrine of justification against Semi-Pelagianism, the Spanish Inquisition
placed his book,—De libero arbitrio, and his tract, De peccato originali, on
the Index, and Cardinal Bona recommended caution in reading them, since he did
not always present the reliable orthodox doctrine. Pighius was not ashamed to
copy, without acknowledgment, whole pages from Calvin’s Institutes, where it
suited his purpose. Calvin calls him a plagiarist, and says, "With what
right he publishes such sections as his own, I cannot see, unless he claims, as
enemy, the privilege of plunder."
The
arguments of Pighius against the doctrine of the slavery of the human will are
these: It contradicts common sense; it is inconsistent with the admitted
freedom of will in civil and secular matters; it destroys all morality and
discipline, turns men into animals and monsters, makes God the author of sin,
and perverts his justice into cruelty, and his wisdom into folly. He derives
these heresies from the ancient Gnostics and Simon Magus, except that Luther
surpassed them all in impiety.
Calvin’s
answer was written in about two months, and amidst many interruptions. He felt
the weight of the objections, but he always marched up to the cannon’s mouth.
He admits, incidentally, that Luther often used hyperbolic expressions in order
to rouse attention. He also allows the liberum arbitrium in the sense that man
acts voluntarily and of his inner impulse.876 But he denies that man,
without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, has the power to choose what is
spiritually good, and quotes <scripRef passage = "Rom. 6:17;
7:14, 23">Rom.
6:17; 7:14, 23</scripRef>. "Man has arbitrium spontaneum, so that he willingly
and by choice does evil, without compulsion from without, and, therefore, he
incurs guilt. But, owing to native depravity, his will is so given to sin that
it always chooses evil. Hence spontaneity and enslavement may exist together.
The voluntas is spontanea, but not libera; it is not coacta, yet
serva." This is an anticipation
of the artificial distinction between natural ability and moral inability—a
distinction which is practically useless. As regards the teaching of the early
Church, he could not deny that the Fathers, especially Origen, exalt the
freedom of the will; but he could claim Augustin in his later writings, in which
he retracted his earlier advocacy of freedom. The objection that the slavery of
the will nullifies the exhortations to repent, would be valid, if God did not
make them effective by his Spirit.
The
reply of Calvin to Pighius is more cautious and guarded than Luther’s reply to
Erasmus, and more churchly than Zwingli’s tract on Providence. In defending
himself, he defended what was then the common Protestant doctrine, in
opposition to the then prevailing Pelagianism in the Roman Church. It had a
good effect upon the Council of Trent, which distinctly disowned the Pelagian
and Semi-Pelagian heresy.877
Calvin
dedicated his book to Melanchthon, as a friend who had agreed with him and had
advised him to write against Pighius, if he should attack the Reformation. But
Melanchthon, who had taught the same doctrine, was at that time undergoing a
change in his views on the freedom of the will, chiefly because he felt that
the denial of it would make God the author of sin, and destroy man’s moral
accountability.878
He was as competent to appreciate the logical argument in favor of
necessity, but he was more open to the force of ethical and practical
considerations. In his reply to Calvin’s dedication, May 11, 1543, he
acknowledged the compliment paid to him, but modestly and delicately intimated
his dissent and his desire that Protestants should unite in the defence of
those more important doctrines, which commended themselves by their simplicity
and practical usefulness. "I wish," he says, "you would transfer
your eloquence to the adorning of these momentous subjects, by which our
friends would be strengthened, our enemies terrified, and the weak encouraged;
for who in these days possesses a more forcible or splendid style of
disputation? ... I do not write
this letter to dictate to you who are so learned a man, and so well versed in
all the exercises of piety. I am persuaded, indeed, that it agrees with your
sentiments, though less subtle and more adapted for use."879
Calvin
intended to answer the second part of the work of Pighius, but as he learned
that he had died shortly before, he did not wish "to insult a dead
dog" (!), and applied himself "to other pursuits."880 But nine years afterwards he virtually
answered it in the Consensus Genevensis (1552), which may be considered as the
second part of his refutation of Pighius, although it was occasioned by the
controversy with Bolsec.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="120" title="The Anti-Papal Writings. Criticism of the Council
of Trent. 1547">
§ 120.
The Anti-Papal Writings. Criticism of the Council of Trent. 1547.
I.
Most of Calvin’s anti-papal writings are printed in Opera, Tom. VI. (in the
Amsterdam ed., Tom. IX. 37–90; 99–335 and 409–485.) An English translation in vols. I. and III. of Tracts
relating the Reformation by John Calvin, translated from the original Latin by
Henry Beveridge, Esq. Edinburgh (Calvin Translation Society), 1844 and 1851.
II.
Acta Synodi Tridentinae elim antidoto. In Opera, VII. 305–506. Comp. Schweizer,
I. 239–249; Dyer, p. 229 sq.; Stähelin, II. 255 sqq.
Calvin’s
anti-papal writings are numerous. Among them his Answer to Cardinal Sadolet
(1540), and his Plea for the Necessity of the Reformation, addressed to Emperor
Charles V. (1544), deserve the first place. They are superior in ability and
force to any similar works of the sixteenth century. They have been
sufficiently noticed in previous sections.881 I will only add the manly conclusion of the Plea to the
Emperor: —
"But
be the issue what it may, we will never repent of having begun, and of having
proceeded thus far. The Holy Spirit is a faithful and unerring witness to our
doctrine. We know, I say, that it is the eternal truth of God that we preach.
We are, indeed, desirous, as we ought to be, that our ministry may prove
salutary to the world; but to give it this effect belongs to God, not to us.
If, to punish, partly the ingratitude, and partly the stubbornness of those to
whom we desire to do good, success must prove desperate, and all things go to
worse, I will say what it befits a Christian man to say, and what all who are
true to this holy profession will subscribe: We will die, but in death even be
conquerors, not only because through it we shall have a sure passage to a
better life, but because we know that our blood will be as seed to propagate
the Divine truth, which men now despise."
Next
to these books in importance is his criticism of the Council of Trent,
published in November, 1547.
The
Council of Trent, which was to heal the divisions of Western Christendom,
convened after long delay, Dec. 13, 1545; then adjourned, convened again, and
finally closed, Dec. 4, 1563, a few months before Calvin’s death. In the
fourth, fifth, and sixth sessions (1546), it settled the burning questions of
the rule of faith, original sin, and justification, in favor of the present
Roman system and against the views of the Reformers. The Council avoided the
ill-disguised Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism of Eck, Pighius, and other early
champions of Rome, and worded its decrees with great caution and
circumspection; but it decidedly condemned the Protestant doctrines of the
supremacy of the Bible, the slavery of the natural will, and justification by
faith alone.
Calvin
was the first to take up the pen against these decisions. He subjected them to
a searching criticism. He admits, in the introduction, that a Council might be
of great use and restore the peace of Christendom, provided it be truly,
oecumenical, impartial, and free. But he denies that the Council of Trent had
these essential characteristics. The Greek and the Evangelical Churches were
not represented at all. It was a purely Roman Council, and under the control of
the pope, who was himself the chief offender, and far more disposed to
perpetuate abuses than to abolish them. The members, only about forty, mostly
Italians, were not distinguished for learning or piety, but were a set of
wrangling monks and canonists and minions of the pope. They gave merely a nod
of assent to the living oracle of the Vatican, and then issued the decrees as
responses of the Holy Spirit., As soon as a decree is framed," he says,
"couriers flee off to Rome, and beg pardon and peace at the feet of their
idol. The holy father hands over what the couriers have brought to his private
advisers for examination. They curtail, add, and change as they please. The
couriers return, and a sederunt is appointed. The notary reads over what no one
dares to disapprove, and the asses shake their ears in assent. Behold the
oracle which imposes religious obligations on the whole world .... The
proclamation of the Council is entitled to no more weight than the cry of an
auctioneer."
Calvin
dissects the decrees with his usual polemic skill. He first states them in the
words of the Council, and then gives the antidote. He exposes the errors of the
Vulgate, which the Council put on a par with the original Hebrew and Greek
originals, and defends the supremacy of the Scriptures and the doctrine of
justification by faith.
He wrote
this work in two or three months, under constant interruption, while Chemnitz
took ten years to complete his. He submitted the manuscript to Farel, who was
delighted with it. He published also a French edition in a more popular form.
Cochlaeus
prepared, with much personal bitterness, a refutation of Calvin (1548), and was
answered by Des Gallars,882 and Beza, who numbers Cochlaeus among the
monsters of the animal kingdom.883
After
the close of the Council of Trent, Martin Chemnitz, the leading divine of the
Lutheran Church after the death of Melanchthon, wrote his more elaborate Examen
Concilii Tridentini (1565–1573; second ed. 1585), which was for a long time a
standard work in the Roman controversy.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="121" title="Against the German Interim. 1549">
§ 121.
Against the German Interim. 1549.
Interim
Adultero-Germanum: Cui adjecta est vera Christianae pacificationis et ecclesiae
reformandae ratio, per Joannem Calvinum. Cavete a fermento Pharisaeorum, 1549.
Opera, VII. 541–674.—It was reprinted in Germany, and translated into French
(1549) and Italian (1561). See Henry, II. 369 sqq.; III. Beilage, 211 sq.;
Dyer, 232 sq.
On
the Interim, comp. the German Histories of Ranke, (V. 25 sqq.) and Janssen
(III. 625 sqq.), and the monograph of Ludwig Pastor (Rom. Cath.): Die
kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V. Freiburg, 1879,
pp. 357 sqq.
Calvin’s
tract on the false German Interim is closely connected with his criticism of
the Council of Trent. After defeating the Smalkaldian League, the Emperor
imposed on the Protestants in Germany a compromise confession of faith to be
used till the final decision of the General Council. It was drawn up by two
Roman Catholic bishops, Pflug (an Erasmian) and Helding, with the aid of John
Agricola, the chaplain of Elector Joachim II. of Brandenburg. Agricola was a
vain, ambitious, and unreliable man, who had once been a secretary and table
companion of Luther, but fell out with him and Melanchthon in the Antinomian
controversy. He was suspected of having been bribed by the Catholics.884
The
agreement was laid before the Diet of Augsburg, and is called the Augsburg
Interim. It was proclaimed, with an earnest exhortation, by the Emperor, May
15, 1548. It comprehended the whole Roman Catholic system of doctrine and
discipline, but in a mild and conciliatory form, and without an express
condemnation of the Protestant views. The doctrine of justification was stated
in substantial agreement with that of the Council of Trent. The seven
sacraments, transubstantiation, the mass, the invocation of the saints, the
authority of the pope, and all the important ceremonies, were to be retained.
The only concession made to the Protestants was the use of the cup by the laity
in the holy communion, and the permission for married priests to retain their
wives. The arrangement suited the views of the Emperor, who, as Ranke remarks,
wished to uphold the Catholic hierarchy as the basis of his power, and yet to
make it possible for Protestants to be reconciled to him. It is very evident
that the adoption of such a confession was a virtual surrender of the cause of
the Reformation and would have ended in a triumph of the papacy.
The
Interim was received with great indignation by the Protestants, and was
rejected in Hesse, ducal Saxony, and the Northern cities, especially in
Madgeburg, which became the headquarters of the irreconcilable Lutherans under
the lead of Flacius. In Southern Germany it was enforced with great rigor by
Spanish soldiers. More than four hundred pastors in Swabia and on the Rhine
were expelled from their benefices for refusing the Interim, and wandered about
with their families in poverty and misery. Among them was Brenz, the Reformer
of Würtemburg, who fled to Basel, where he received a consolitary letter from
Calvin (Nov. 5, 1548). Martin Bucer, with all his zeal for Christian union, was
unwilling to make a compromise at the expense of his conscience, and fled from
Strassburg to England, where he was appointed professor of divinity in the
University of Cambridge.
It
was forbidden under pain of death to write against the Interim. Nevertheless,
over thirty attacks appeared from the "Chancellery of God" at
Magdeburg. Bullinger and Calvin wrote against it.
Calvin
published the imperial proclamation and the text of the Interim in full, and
then gave his reasons why it could never bring peace to the Church. He begins
with a quotation from Hilary in the Arian controversy: "Specious indeed is
the name of peace, and fair the idea of unity; but who doubts that the only
peace of the Church is that which is of Christ?" This is the key-note of his own exposition on the true
method of the pacification of Christendom.
Elector
Maurice of Saxony, who stood between two fires,—his Lutheran subjects and the
Emperor,—modified the Augsburg Interim, with the aid of Melanchthon and the
other theologians of Wittenberg, and substituted for it the Leipzig Interim,
Dec. 22, 1548. In this document the chief articles of faith are more cautiously
worded so as to admit of an evangelical interpretation, but the Roman
ceremonies are retained, as adiaphora, or things indifferent, which do not
compromise the conscience nor endanger salvation. it gave rise to the
Adiaphoristic Controversy between the strict and the moderate Lutherans.
Melanchthon was placed in a most trying position in the midst of the contest.
In the sincere wish to save Protestantism from utter overthrow and Saxony from
invasion and desolation by imperial troops, he yielded to the pressure of the
courtiers and accepted the Leipzig Interim in the hope of better times. For
this conduct he was severely attacked by Flacius, his former pupil, and denounced
as a traitor. When Calvin heard the news, he wrote an earnest letter of
fraternal rebuke to Melanchthon, and reminded him of Paul’s unyielding firmness
at the Synod of Jerusalem on the question of circumcision.885
Protestantism
in Germany was brought to the brink of ruin, but was delivered from it by the
treason of the Elector Maurice. This shrewd, selfish politician and master in
the art of dissimulation, had first betrayed the Protestants, by aiding the
Emperor in the defeat of the Smalkaldian League, whereby he gained the
electorate; and then he rose in rebellion against the Emperor and drove him and
the Fathers of Trent out of Tyrol (1551). He died in 1553 of a deadly wound
which he received in a victorious battle against his old friend Albrecht of
Brandenburg.886
The
final result of the defeat of the Emperor was the Augsburg Treaty of Peace,
1555, which for the first time gave to the Lutherans a legal status in the
empire, though with certain restrictions. This closes the period of the
Lutheran Reformation.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="122" title="Against the Worship of Relics. 1543">
§ 122.
Against the Worship of Relics. 1543.
Advertissement
tres-utile du grand proffit qui reviendroit à la Chrestienté, s’il se faisoit
inventoire de tous les corps sainctz et reliques, qui sont tant en Italia qu’en
France Allemaigne, Hespaigne, et autres Royaumes et Pays. Gen., 1543, 1544,
1551, 1563, 1579, 1599. Reprinted in Opera, VI. 405–452. A Latin edition by
Nicolaus Gallasius (des Gallars) was published at Geneva, 1548. It appeared
also in English (A very profitable treatise, etc.), London, 1561, and in two
German translations (by Jakob Eysenberg of Wittenberg, 1557, etc., and by J.
Fischart, 1584, or 1583, under the title Der heilig Brotkorb der h. Römischen
Reliquien). See Henry, II. 333 and III., Appendix, 204–206. A new English
translation by Beveridge in Calvin’s Tracts relating to the Reformation,
Edinb., 1844, pp. 289–341.
In the
same year in which Calvin answered Pighius, he published a French tract on
Relics, which was repeatedly printed and translated. It was the most popular
and effective of his anti-papal writings. He indulged here very freely in his
power of ridicule and sarcasm, which reminds one almost of Voltaire, but the
spirit is altogether different. He begins with the following judicious remarks,
which best characterize the book: —
"Augustin,
in his work, entitled On the Labor of Monks, complaining of certain itinerant
impostors, who, as early as his day, plied a vile and sordid traffic, by
carrying the relics of martyrs about from place to place, adds, ’If, indeed,
they are relics of martyrs.’ By
this expression he intimates the prevalence, even in his day, of abuses and
impostures, by which the ignorant populace were cheated into the belief that
bones gathered here and there were those of saints. While the origin of the
imposture is thus ancient, there cannot be a doubt that in the long period
which has since elapsed, it has exceedingly increased, considering, especially,
that the world has since been strangely corrupted, and has never ceased to
become worse, till it has reached the extreme wherein we now behold it.
"But
the first abuse and, as it were, beginning of the evil was, that when Christ
ought to have been sought in his Word, sacraments, and spiritual influences,
the world, after its wont, clung to his garments, vests, and swaddling-clothes;
and thus overlooking the principal matter, followed only its accessory. The
same course was pursued in regard to apostles, martyrs, and other saints. For when
the duty was to meditate diligently on their lives, and engage in imitating
them, men made it their whole study to contemplate and lay up, as it were in a
treasury, their bones, shirts, girdles, caps, and similar trifles.
"I
am not unaware that in this there is a semblance of pious zeal, the allegation
being, that the relics of Christ are kept on account of the reverence which is
felt for himself, and in order that the remembrance of him may take a firmer
hold of the mind. And the same thing is alleged with regard to the saints. But
attention should be paid to what Paul says, viz., that all divine worship of
man’s devising, having no better and surer foundation than his own opinion, be
its semblance of wisdom what it may, is mere vanity and folly.
"Besides,
any advantage, supposed to be derived from it, ought to be contrasted with the
danger. In this way it would be discovered that the possession of such relics
was of little use, or was altogether superfluous and frivolous, whereas, on the
other hand, it was most difficult, or rather impossible, that men should not
thereby degenerate into idolatry. For they cannot look upon them, or handle
them, without veneration; and there being no limit to this, the honor due to
Christ is forthwith paid to them. In short, a longing for relics is never free
from superstition, nay, what is worse, it is the parent of idolatry, with which
it is very generally conjoined.
"All
admit, without dispute, that God carried away the body of Moses from human
sight, lest the Jewish nation should fall into the abuse of worshipping it.
What was done in the case of one ought to be extended to all, since the reason
equally applies. But not to speak of saints, let us see what Paul says of
Christ himself. He declares, that after the resurrection of Christ he knew him
no more after the flesh, intimating by these words that everything carnal which
belonged to Christ should be consigned to oblivion and be discarded, in order
that we may make it our whole study and endeavor to seek and possess him in
spirit. Now, therefore, when men talk of it as a grand thing to possess some
memorial of Christ and his saints, what else is it than to seek an empty cloak
with which to hide some foolish desire that has no foundation in reason? But even should there seem to be a
sufficient reason for it, yet, seeing it is so clearly repugnant to the mind of
the Holy Spirit, as declared by the mouth of Paul, what more do we
require?"
The
following is a summary of this tract: —
What
was at first a foolish curiosity for preserving relics has degenerated into
abominable idolatry. The great majority of the relics are spurious. It could be
shown by comparison that every apostle has more than four bodies and every
saint two or three. The arm of St. Anthony, which was worshipped in Geneva,
when brought out from the case, turned out to be a part of a stag. The body of
Christ could not be obtained, but the monks of Charroux pretend to have,
besides teeth and hair, the prepuce or pellicle cut off in his circumcision.
But it is shown also in the Lateran church at Rome. The blood of Christ which
Nicodemus is said to have received in a handkerchief or a bowl, is exhibited in
Rochelle, in Mantua, in Rome, and many other places. The manger in which he
laid at his birth, his cradle, together with the shirt which his mother made,
the pillar on which he leaned when disputing in the Temple, the water-pots in
which he turned water into wine, the nails, and pieces of the cross, are shown
in Rome, Ravenna, Pisa, Cluny, Angers, and elsewhere.
The
table of the last Supper is at Rome, in the church of St. John in the Lateran;
some of the bread at St. Salvador in Spain; the knife with which the Paschal
Lamb was cut up, is at Treves.887
What semblance of possibility is there that that table was found seven
or eight hundred years after?
Besides, tables were in those days different in shape from ours, for
people used to recline at meals. Fragments of the cross found by St. Helena are
scattered over many churches in Italy, France, Spain, etc., and would form a
good shipload, which it would take three hundred men to carry instead of one.
But they say that this wood never grows less! Some affirm that their fragments were carried by angels,
others that they dropped down from heaven. Those of Poitiers say that their
piece was stolen by a maid-servant of Helena and carried off to France. There
is still a greater controversy as to the three nails of the cross: one of them
was fixed in the crown of Constantine, the other two were fitted to his horse’s
bridle, according to Theodoret, or one was kept by Helena herself, according to
Ambrose. But now there are two nails at Rome, one at Siena, one at Milan, one
at Carpentras, one at Venice, one at Cologne, one at Treves, two at Paris, one
at Bourges, etc. All the claims are equally good, for the nails are all
spurious. There is also more than one soldier’s spear, crown of thorns, purple
robe, the seamless coat, and Veronica’s napkin (which at least six cities boast
of having). A piece of broiled fish, which Peter offered to the risen Saviour
on the seashore, must have been wondrously well salted if it has kept for these
fifteen centuries! But, jesting
apart, is it supposable that the apostles made relics of what they had actually
prepared for dinner?
Calvin
exposes with equal effect the absurdities and impieties of the wonder-working
pictures of Christ; the relics of the hair and milk of the Virgin Mary,
preserved in so many places, her combs, her wardrobe and baggage, and her house
carried by angels across the sea to Loreto; the shoes of St. Joseph; the
slippers of St. James; the head of John the Baptist, of which Rhodes, Malta,
Lucca, Nevers, Amiens, Besançon, and Noyon claim to have portions; and his
fingers, one of which is shown at Besançon, another at Toulouse, another at
Lyons, another at Bourges, another at Florence. At Avignon they have the sword
with which John was beheaded, at Aix-la-Chapelle the linen cloth placed under
him by the kindness of the executioner, in Rome his girdle and the altar at
which he said prayers in the desert. It is strange, adds Calvin, that they do
not also make him perform mass.
The
tract concludes with this remark: "So completely are the relics mixed up
and huddled together, that it is impossible to have the bones of any martyr
without running the risk of worshipping the bones of some thief or robber, or,
it may be, the bones of a dog, or a horse, or an ass, or—Let every one,
therefore, guard against this risk. Henceforth no man will be able to excuse
himself by pretending ignorance."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="123" title="The Articles of the Sorbonne with an Antidote.
1544">
§ 123.
The Articles of the Sorbonne with an Antidote. 1544.
Articuli
a facultate s. theol. Parisiensi determinati super materiis fidei nostrae hodie
controversis. Cum Antidoto (1543), 1544. Opera, VII. 1–44. A French edition
appeared in the same year. English translation by Beveridge, in Calvin’s
Tracts, I. 72–122.
The
theological faculty of the University of Paris published, March 10, 1542, a
summary of the most obnoxious doctrines of the Roman Church, in twenty-five
articles, which were sanctioned by an edict of the king of France, and were to
be subscribed by all candidates of the priesthood.888
Calvin
republished these articles, and accompanied each, first with an ironical
defence, and then with a scriptural antidote. This reductio ad absurdum had
probably more effect in Paris than a serious and sober mode of refutation. The
following is a specimen: —
"Article
VI. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
"The
sacrifice of the Mass is, according to the institution of Christ, available for
the living and the dead."
"Proof,—Because
Christ says, ’This do.’ But to do
is to sacrifice, according to the passage in Vergil: ’When I will do (make an
offering) with a calf in place of produce, do you yourself come.’889 As to which signification, see
Macrobius. But when the Lutherans deride that subtlety, because Christ spoke
with the Apostles in the common Hebrew or Syriac tongue, and the Evangelists
wrote in Greek, answer that the common Latin translation outweighs them. And it
is well known that the sense of Scripture must be sought from the determination
of the Church. But of the value of sacrifice for the living and the dead we
have proof from experience. For many visions have appeared to certain holy
monks when asleep, telling them that by means of masses souls had been
delivered from Purgatory. Nay, St. Gregory redeemed the soul of Trajan from the
infernal regions."890
"Antidote
to Article VI.
"The
institution of Christ is, ’Take and eat’ (<scripRef passage = "Matt.
26:26">Matt.
26:26</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "Mark
14:22">Mark
14:22</scripRef>; <scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
11:24">1
Cor. 11:24</scripRef>), but not, offer. Therefore, sacrifice is not conformable
to the institution of Christ, but is plainly repugnant to it. Besides, it is
evident from Scripture that it is the peculiar and proper office of Christ to
offer himself; as an apostle says, that by one offering he has forever
perfected those that are sanctified (<scripRef passage = "Heb.
10:14">Heb.
10:14</scripRef>). Also, that ’once, in the
end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’
(<scripRef
passage = "Heb. 9:26">9:26</scripRef>). Also, that after this
sanctification, ’there remains no more a sacrifice for sins’ (<scripRef passage
= "Heb. 10:26">10:26</scripRef>). For to this end also was
he consecrated a priest after the order of Melchisdec, without successor or
colleague (<scripRef passage = "Heb. 5:6; 7:21">Heb. 5:6; 7:21</scripRef>).
"Christ,
therefore, is robbed of the honor of the priesthood, when the right of offering
is transferred to others. Lastly, no man ought to assume this honor unless
called by God, as an apostle testifies. But we read of none having been called
but Christ. On the other hand, since the promise is destined for those only who
communicate in the sacrament, by what right can it belong to the dead?"
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="124" title="Calvin and the Nicodemites. 1544">
§ 124.
Calvin and the Nicodemites. 1544.
Calvin:
Petit traicté monstrant que c’est que doit faire un homme fidele, cognoissant
la verité de l’Evangile quand il est entre les papistes, 1543. Excuse de Iehan
Calvin à Messieurs les Nico_ites, sur la complaincte qu’il font de so trop
grand rigueur. Excusatio ad Pseudo-Nicodemitas.) 1544. Embodied in the tractsDe
vitandis superstitionibus quae cum sincera fidei confessione pugnant. Genevae,
1549, 1550, and 1551. This collection contains also the opinions of
Melanchthon, Bucer, and Peter Martyr on the question raised by the Nicodemites.
Reprinted inOpera, VI. 537–644. A German translation appeared at Herborn, 1588;
an English translation by R. Golding, London, 1548. See the bibliographical
notes in Henry, III.; Beilage, 208 sq.; Proleg. toOpera, VI. pp. xxx–xxxiv; an
La France Protest., III. 584 sq.Dyer, 187 sqq. Stähelin, I. 542 sqq.
A
great practical difficulty presented itself to the Protestants in France, where
they were in constant danger of persecution. They could not emigrate en masse,
nor live in peace at home, without concealing or denying their convictions. A
large number were Protestants at heart, but outwardly conformed to the Roman
Church. They excused their conduct by the example of Nicodemus, the Jewish
Rabbi, who came to Jesus by night.
Calvin,
therefore, called them "Nicodemites," but with this difference, that
Nicodemus only buried the body of Christ, after anointing it with precious
aromatics; while they bury both his soul and body, his divinity and humanity,
and that, too, without honor. Nicodemus interred Christ when dead, but the
Nicodemites thrust him into the earth after he has risen. Nicodemus displayed a
hundred times more courage at the death of Christ than all the Nicodemites
after his resurrection. Calvin confronted them with the alternative of Elijah:,
How long halt ye between two opinions?
If the Lord be God, follow him: if Baal, then follow him "(<scripRef passage
= "1 Kings 18:21">1 Kings 18:21</scripRef>). He advised them either to
leave their country for some place of liberty, or to absent themselves from
idolatrous worship, even at the risk of their lives. The glory of God should be
much dearer to us than this transitory life, which is only a shadow.
He
distinguished several classes of Nicodemites: first, false preachers of the
gospel, who adopt some evangelical doctrines (meaning probably Gérard le Roux
or Roussel, for whom Margaret of Navarre had procured the bishopric of Oléron);
next, worldly people, courtiers, and refined ladies, who are used to flattery
and hate austerity; then, scholars and literary men, who love their ease and
hope for gradual improvement with the spread of education and intelligence;
lastly, merchants and citizens, who do not wish to be interrupted in their
avocations. Yet he was far from disowning them as brethren because of their
weakness. Owing to their great danger they could better expect pardon if they
should fall, than he himself who lived in comparative security.
The
Nicodemites charged Calvin with immoderate austerity. "Away with this Calvin!
he is too impolite. He would reduce us to beggary, and lead us directly to the
stake. Let him content himself with his own lot, and leave us in peace; or, let
him come to us and show us how to behave. He resembles the leader of an army
who incites the common soldiers to the attack, but himself keeps out of the
reach of danger." To this
charge he replied (in substance): "If you compare me with a captain, you
should not blame me for doing my duty. The question is not, what I would do in
your condition, but what is our present duty—yours and mine. If my life differs
from my teaching, then woe to me. God is my witness that my heart bleeds when I
think of your temptations and dangers, and that I cease not to pray with tears
that you may be delivered. Nor do I condemn always the persons when I condemn
the thing. I will not boast of superior courage, but it is not my fault, if I
am not more frequently in danger. I am not far from the shot of the enemy.
Secure to-day, I do not know what shall be to-morrow. I am prepared for every
event, and I hope that God will give me grace to glorify him with my blood as
well as with my tongue and pen. I shall lay down my life with no more sadness
than I now write down these words."
The
French Protestants were under the impression that Luther and Melanchthon had
milder and more practicable views on this subject, and requested Calvin to
proceed to Saxony for a personal conference. This he declined from want of
time, since it would take at least forty days for the journey from Geneva to
Wittenberg and back. Nor had he the means. "Even in favorable
seasons," he wrote to an unknown friend in France,891 "my income
barely suffices to meet expenses, and from the scarcity with which we had to
struggle during the last two years, I was compelled to run into
debt." He added that
"the season was unfavorable for consulting Luther, who has hardly had time
to cool from the heat of controversy." He thus missed the only opportunity of a personal interview
with Luther, who died a year later. It is doubtful whether it would have been
satisfactory. The old hero was then discontented with the state of the world
and the Church, and longing for departure.
But
Calvin prevailed on a young gentleman of tolerable learning to undertake the
journey for him. He gave him a literal Latin translation of his tracts against
the Nicodemites, together with letters to Luther and Melanchthon (Jan. 20,
1545). He asked the latter to act as mediator according to his best judgment.
The letter to Luther is very respectful and modest. After explaining the case,
and requesting him to give it a cursory examination and to return his opinion
in a few words, Calvin thus concludes this, his only, letter to the great
German Reformer: —
"I
am unwilling to give you this trouble in the midst of so many weighty and
various employments; but such is your sense of justice that you cannot suppose
me to have done this unless compelled by the necessity of the case; I therefore
trust that you will pardon me. Would that I could fly to you, that I might even
for a few hours enjoy the happiness of your society; for I would prefer, and it
would be far better, not only upon this question, but also about others, to
converse personally with yourself; but seeing that it is not granted to us on
earth, I hope that shortly it will come to pass in the kingdom of God. Adieu,
most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ, and my ever-honored
father. The Lord himself rule and direct you by His own Spirit, that you may
persevere even unto the end, for the common benefit and good of His own Church."
Luther
was still so excited by his last eucharistic controversy with the Swiss, and so
suspicious, that Melanchthon deemed it inexpedient to lay the documents before
him.892
"I
have not shown your letter to Dr. Martin," he replied to Calvin, April 17,
1545, "for he takes many things suspiciously, and does not like his
answers to questions of the kind you have proposed to him, to be carried round
and handed from one to another .... At present I am looking forward to exile
and other sorrows. Farewell! On
the day on which, thirty-eight hundred and forty-six years ago, Noah entered
into the ark, by which God gave testimony of his purpose never to forsake his
Church, even when she quivers under the shock of the billows of the great
sea."
He
gave, however, his own opinion; and this, as well as the opinions of Bucer and
Peter Martyr, and Calvin’s conclusion, were published, as an appendix to the
tracts on avoiding superstition, at Geneva in 1549.893 Melanchthon substantially agreed with
Calvin; he asserts the duty of the Christian to worship God alone (<scripRef passage
= "Matt. 4:10">Matt. 4:10</scripRef>), to flee from idols (<scripRef passage
= "1 John 5:21">1 John 5:21</scripRef>), and to profess Christ
openly before men (<scripRef passage = "Matt.
10:33">Matt.
10:33</scripRef>); but he took a somewhat
milder view as regards compliance with mere ceremonies and non-essentials.
Bucer and Peter Martyr agreed with this opinion. The latter refers to the
conduct of the early disciples, who, while holding worship in private houses,
still continued to visit the temple until they were driven out.
We
now proceed to Calvin’s controversies with Protestant opponents.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="125" title="Calvin and Bolsec">
§ 125.
Calvin and Bolsec.
I.
Actes du procès intenté par Calvin et les autres ministres de Genève à Jérôme
Bolsec de Paris (1551). Printed from the Register of the Venerable Company and
the Archives of Geneva, in Opera, VIII. 141–248.—Calvin: De aeterna Dei
Praedestinatione, etc., usually called Consensus Genevensis (1552)—chiefly an
extract from the respective sections of his Institutes; reprinted in Opera,
VIII. 249–366. It is the second part of his answer to Pighius ("the dead
dog," as he calls him), but occasioned by the process of Bolsec, whose
name he ignores in contempt.—Calvin’s letter to Libertetus (Fabri of
Neuchâtel), January, 1552, in Opera, XIV. 278 sq.—The Letters of the Swiss
Churches on the Bolsec affair, reprinted in vol. VIII. 229 sqq.—Beza: Vita
Calv. ad ann. 1551.
II.
Hierosme Hermes Bolsec, docteur Médecin à Lyon: Histoire de la vie, moeurs,
actes, doctrine, constance et mort de Jean Calvin, jadis ministre de Genève,
Lyon, 1577; Rééditée avec une introduction, des extraits de la vie de Th. de
Bèze, par le même, et des notes à l’appuipar M. Louis-François Chastel,
magistrat. Lyon, 1875 (xxxi and 328). On the character and different editions
of this book, see La France Protest., II. 755 sqq.
III.
Bayle: "Bolsec" in his "Diction. historique et
critique."—F. Trechsel: Die Protest. Antitrinitarier (Heidelberg, 1844).
Bd. I. 185–189 and 276–284.—Henry, III. 44 sqq., and the second Beilage to vol.
III., which gives the documents (namely, the charges of the ministers of
Geneva, Bolsec’s defence, his poem written in prison, the judgments of the
Churches of Bern and Zürich—all of which are omitted in the English version,
II. 130 sqq.).—Audin (favorable to Bolsec), ch. XXXIX.—Dyer,
265–283.—*Schweizer: Centraldogmen, I. 205–238.—Stähelin, I. 411–414; II.
287–292.—*La France Prot., sub, Bolsec," tom. II. 745–776 (second ed.).
Against this article: Lettre d’un protestant Genevois aux lecteurs de la France
Protestante, Genève, 1880. In defence of that article, Henri L. Bordier:
L’école historique de Jérôme Bolsec, pour servir de supplement à l’article
Bolsec de la France Protestante, Paris (Fischbacher), 1880.
Hieronymus
(Hierosme) Hermes Bolsec, a native of Paris, was a Carmelite monk, but left the
Roman Church, about 1545, and fled for protection to the Duchess of Ferrara,
who admitted him to her house under the title of an almoner. There he married,
and adopted the medical profession as a means of livelihood. Ever afterwards he
called himself "Doctor of Medicine." He made himself odious by his turbulent character and
conduct, and was expelled by the Duchess for some deception (as Beza reports).
In
1550 he settled at Geneva with his wife and a servant, and practised his
profession. But he meddled in theology, and began to question Calvin’s doctrine
of predestination. He denounced Calvin’s God as a hypocrite and liar, as a
patron of criminals, and as worse than Satan. He was admonished, March 8, 1551,
by the Venerable Company, and privately instructed by Calvin in that mystery,
but without success. On a second offence he was summoned before the Consistory,
and openly reprehended in the presence of fifteen ministers and other competent
persons. He acknowledged that a certain number were elected by God to
salvation, but he denied predestination to destruction; and, on closer
examination, he extended election to all mankind, maintaining that grace
efficacious to salvation is equally offered to all, and that the cause, why
some receive and others reject it, lies in the free-will, with which all men
were endowed. At the same time he abhorred the name of merits. This, in the
eyes of Calvin, was a logical contradiction and an absurdity; for, he says,
"if some were elected, it surely follows that others are not elected and
left to perish. Unless we confess that those who come to Christ are drawn by
the Father through the peculiar operation of the Holy Spirit on the elect, it
follows either that all must be promiscuously elected, or that the cause of
election lies in each man’s merit."
On
the 16th of October, 1551, Bolsec attended the religious conference, which was
held every Friday at St. Peter’s. John de St. André preached from John 8:47 on
predestination, and inferred from the text that those who are not of God,
oppose him to the last, because God grants the grace of obedience only to the
elect. Bolsec suddenly interrupted the speaker, and argued that men are not
saved because they are elected, but that they are elected because they have
faith. He denounced, as false and godless, the notion that God decides the fate
of man before his birth, consigning some to sin and punishment, others to
virtue and eternal happiness. He loaded the clergy with abuse, and warned the
congregation not to be led astray.
After
he had finished this harangue, Calvin, who had entered the church unobserved,
stepped up to him and so overwhelmed him, as Beza says, with arguments and with
quotations from Scripture and Augustin, that "all felt exceedingly ashamed
for the brazen-faced monk, except the monk himself." Farel also, who happened to be present,
addressed the assembly. The lieutenant of police apprehended Bolsec for abusing
the ministers and disturbing the public peace.
On
the same afternoon the ministers drew up seventeen articles against Bolsec and
presented them to the Council, with the request to call him to account. Bolsec,
in his turn, proposed several questions to Calvin and asked a categorical
answer (October 25). He asserted that Melanchthon, Bullinger, and Brenz shared
his opinion.
The
Consistory asked the Council to consult the Swiss Churches before passing
judgment. Accordingly, the Council sent a list of Bolsec’s errors to Zürich,
Bern, and Basel. They were five, as follows: —
1.
That faith depends not on election, but election on faith.
2.
That it is an insult to God to say that he abandons some to blindness, because
it is his pleasure to do so.
3.
That God leads to himself all rational creatures, and abandons only those who
have often resisted him.
4.
That God’s grace is universal, and some are not more predestinated to salvation
than others.
5.
That when St. Paul says (Eph. 1:5), that God has elected us through Christ, he
does not mean election to salvation, but election to discipleship and
apostleship.
At
the same time Calvin and his colleagues addressed a circular letter to the
Swiss Churches, which speaks in offensive and contemptuous terms of Bolsec, and
charges him with cheating, deception, and impudence. Beza also wrote from
Lausanne to Bullinger.
The
replies of the Swiss Churches were very unsatisfactory to Calvin, although the
verdict was, on the whole, in his favor. They reveal the difference between the
German and the French Swiss on the subject of divine decrees and free-will.
They assent to the doctrine of free election to salvation, but evade the
impenetrable mystery of absolute and eternal reprobation, which was the most
material point in the controversy.
The
ministers of Zürich defended Zwingli against Bolsec’s charge, that in his work
on Providence he made God the author of sin, and they referred to other works
in which Zwingli traced sin to the corruption of the human will. Bullinger, in
a private letter to Calvin, impressed upon him the necessity of moderation and
mildness. "Believe me," he said, "many are displeased with what
you say in your Institutes about predestination, and draw the same conclusions
from it as Bolsec has drawn from Zwingli’s book on Providence." This affair caused a temporary
alienation between Calvin and Bullinger. It was not till ten years afterwards
that Bullinger decidedly embraced the Calvinistic dogma, and even then he laid
no stress on reprobation.894
Myconius,
in the name of the Church of Basel, answered evasively, and dwelt on what
Calvin and Bolsec believed in common.
The
reply of the ministers of Bern anticipates the modern spirit of toleration.
They applaud the zeal for truth and unity, but emphasize the equally important
duty of charity and forbearance. The good Shepherd, they say, cares for the
sheep that has gone astray. It is much easier to win a man back by gentleness
than to compel him by severity. As to the awful mystery of divine predestination,
they remind Calvin of the perplexity felt by many good men who cling to the
Scripture texts of God’s universal grace and goodness.
The
effect of these letters was a milder judgment on Bolsec. He was banished for
life from the territory of Geneva for exciting sedition and for Pelagianism,
under pain of being whipped if he should ever return. The judgment was
announced Dec. 23, 1551, with the sound of the trumpet.895
Bolsec
retired to Thonon, in Bern, but as he created new disturbances he was banished
(1555). He left for France, and sought admission into the ministry of the
Reformed Church, but returned at last to the Roman communion.896 He was classed by the national synod of
Lyon among deposed ministers, and characterized as "an infamous liar"
and "Apostate" (1563). He lived near Lyon and at Autun, and died at
Annecy about 1584. Thirteen years after Calvin’s death he took mean and
cowardly revenge by the publication of a libellous "Life of Calvin,"
which injured him much more than Calvin; and this was followed by a slanderous
"Life of Beza," 1582. These books would long since have been
forgotten, had not partisan zeal kept them alive.897
The
dispute with Bolsec occasioned Calvin’s tract, "On the Eternal
Predestination of God," which he dedicated to the Syndics and Council of
Geneva, under the name of Consensus Genevensis, or Agreement of the Genevese
Pastors, Jan. 1, 1552. But it was not approved by the other Swiss Churches.
Beza
remarks of the result of this controversy: "All that Satan gained by these
discussions was, that this article of the Christian religion, which was
formerly most obscure, became clear and transparent to all not disposed to be
contentious."
The
quarrel with Bolsec caused the dissolution of the friendship between Calvin and
Jacques de Bourgogne, Sieur de Falais et Bredam, a descendant of the dukes of
Burgundy, who with his wife, Jolunde de Brederode, a descendant of the old
counts of Holland, settled in Geneva, 1548, and lived for some time in Calvin’s
house at his invitation, when the wife of the latter was still living. His
cook, Nicolas, served Calvin as clerk. Calvin took the greatest interest in De
Falais, comforted him over the confiscation of his goods by Charles V., at
whose court he had been educated, and wrote a defence for him against the
calumnies before the emperor.898
He also dedicated to him his Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians. His friendly correspondence from 1543 to 1852 is still extant, and
does great credit to him.899
But De Falais could not penetrate the mysteries of theology, nor
sympathize with the severity of discipline in Geneva. He was shocked at the
treatment of Bolsec; he felt indebted to him as a physician who had cured one
of his maid-servants of a cancer. He interceded for him with the magistrates of
Geneva and of Bern. He wrote to Bullinger: "Not without tears am I forced
to see and hear this tragedy of Calvin." He begged him to unite with Calvin for the restoration of
peace in the Church.
He
left Geneva after the banishment of Bolsec and moved to Bern, where he lost his
wife (1557) and married again. Bayle asserts, without authority, that in
disgust at the Protestant dissensions he returned to the Roman Church.900
Even
Melanchthon was displeased with Calvin’s conduct in this unfortunate affair;
but the alienation was only superficial and temporary. Judging from the
imperfect information of Laelius Socinus, he was disposed to censure the
Genevese for an excess of zeal in behalf of the "Stoic doctrine of
necessity," as he called it, while he applauded the Zürichers for greater
moderation. He expressed himself to this effect in private letters.901 Socinus appealed to the judgment of
Melanchthon in a letter to Calvin, and Calvin, in his reply, could not entirely
deny it. Yet, upon the whole, Melanchthon, like Bullinger, was more on the side
of Calvin, and in the more important affair of Servetus, both unequivocally
justified his conduct, which is now generally condemned by Protestants.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="126" title="Calvin and Castellio">
§ 126.
Calvin and Castellio.
I.
Castellio’s chief work is his Biblia sacra latina (Basil., 1551, 1554, 1555,
1556, 1572; the N. T. also at Amst., 1683, Leipz., 1760, Halle, 1776). His
French version is less important. He defended both against the attacks of Beza
(Defensio suarum translationum Bibliorum, Basil., 1562). After the execution of
Servetus, 1553, Castellio wrote several anonymous or pseudonymous booklets
against Calvin, and against the persecution of heretics, which provoked the
replies of Calvin and Beza (see below). His views against predestination and
the slavery of the will are best set forth in his four Dialogi de
praedestinatione, de electione, de libero arbitrio, de fide, which were published
after his death at Basel, 1578, 1613, 1619, and in English, 1679. See a
chronological list of his numerous works in La France Protestante, vol. IV.
126–141. I have before me (from the Union Seminary Library) a rare volume:
Sebastiani Castellionis Dialogi IV, printed at Gouda in Holland anno 1613,
which contains the four Dialogues above mentioned (pp. 1–225); Castellio’s
Defence against Calvin’s Adv. Nebulonem, his Annotations on the ninth ch. of
Romans, and several other tracts.
Calvin:
Brevis Responsio ad diluendas nebulonis cuiusdam calumnias quibus doctrinam de
aeterna Dei praedestinatione foedare conatus est, Gen. (1554), 1557. In Opera,
IX. 253–266. The unnamed nebulo (in the French ed. le broullion) is Castellio.
Calumniae nebulonis cujusdam adversus doctrinam Joh. Calvini de occulta Dei
providentia. Johannis Calvini ad easdem responsio, Gen., 1558. In Opera, IX.
269–318. In this book Castellio’s objections to Calvin’s predestinarian system
are set forth in twenty-four theses, with a defence, and then answered by
Calvin. The first thesis charges Calvin with teaching: "Deus maximam mundi
partem nudo puroque voluntatis suae arbitric creavit ad perditionem." Thes. V.: "Nullum adulterium, furtum,
homicidium committitur, quin Dei voluntas intercedat."
Beza:
Ad Seb. Castellionis calumnias, quibus unicum salutis nostrae fundamentum, i.e.
aeternam Dei praedestinationem evertere nititur, responsio, Gen., 1558. In his
Tractat. theol. I. 337–423 (second ed. Geneva, 1582).
II.
Bayle: Castalion in his "Dict. Hist. et crit."—Joh. C. Füsslin:
Lebensge-schichte Seb. Castellio’s. Frankf. and Leipzig, 1776.—F. Trechsel: Die
protest. Antitrinitarier, vol. I. (1839), pp. 208–214.—C. Rich. Brenner: Essai
sur la vie et les écrits de Séb. Chatillon, 1853.—Henry: II. 383 sqq.; III. 88
sqq.; and Beilage, 28–42.—*Alex. Schweizer: Centraldogmen, I. 310–356; and
Sebastian Castellio als Bekämpfer der Calvinischen Praedestinations-lehre, in
Baur’s "Theol. Jahrbücher" for 1851.—Stähelin, I. 377–381; II.
302–308.—Jacob Maehly: Seb. Castellio, ein biographischer Versuch, Basel,
1862.—Jules Bonnet: Séb. Chatillion ou la tolérance ait XVIe siècle, in the,
Bulletin de la Société de l’hist. du protest. français," Nos. XVI. and
XVII., 1867 and 1868.—Em. Brossoux: Séb. Chasteillon, Strasbourg, 1867.—B.
Riggenbach, in Herzog2, III. 160 sqq.—Lutteroth: Castallion in Lichten-berger,
II. 672–677.—*La France Protestante (2d ed.): Chateillon, tom. IV.
122–142.—*Ferd. Buisson: Sébastien Castellion, Paris, 1892, 2 vols.
Castellio
was far superior to Bolsec as a scholar and a man, and lived in peace with
Calvin until differences of opinion on predestination, free-will, the
Canticles, the descent into Hades, and religious toleration made them bitter
enemies. In the beat of the controversy both forgot the dignity and moderation
of a Christian scholar.
Sebastian
Castellio or Castalio was born at Chatillon in Savoy, in 1515, six years after
Calvin, of poor and bigoted parents.902 He acquired a classical and biblical education by hard
study. He had a rare genius for languages, and mastered Latin, Greek, and
Hebrew. In 1540 he taught Greek at Lyons, and conducted the studies of three
noblemen. He published there a manual of biblical history under the title
Dialogi sacri, which passed through several editions in Latin and French from
1540 to 1731. He wrote a Latin epic on the prophecies of Jonah; a Greek epic on
John the Baptist, which greatly delighted Melanchthon; two versions of the
Pentateuch, with a view to exhibit Moses as a master in all the arts and
sciences; a translation of the Psalms, and other poetic portions of the Old
Testament.
These
works were preparatory to a complete Latin translation of the Bible, which he
began at Geneva, 1542, and finished at Basel, 1551. It was dedicated to King
Edward VI. of England, and often republished with various improvements. He
showed some specimens in manuscript to Calvin, who disapproved of the style.
His object was to present the Bible in classical Latinity according to the
taste of the later humanists and the pedantic Ciceronianism of Cardinal Bembo.
He substituted classical for biblical terms; as lotio for baptismus, genius for
angelus, respublica for ecclesia, collegium for synagoge, senatus for
presbyterium, furiosi for daemoniaci. He sacrificed the contents to style,
obliterated the Hebraisms, and weakened the realistic force, the simplicity and
grandeur of the biblical writers. His translation was severely criticised by
Calvin and Beza as tending to secularize and profane the sacred book, but it
was commended as a meritorious work by such competent judges as Melanchthon and
Richard Simon. Castellio published also a French version of the Bible with
notes (1555), but his French was not nearly as pure and elegant as his Latin,
and was severely criticised by Beza. He translated portions of Homer, Xenophon,
the Dialogues of Ochino, and also two mystical books, the Theologia Germanica
(1557), and, in the last year of his life, the Imitatio Christi of Thomas à
Kempis,—"e latino in latinum," that is, from monkish into classical
Latin,—omitting, however, the fourth book.
Castellio
was a philologist and critic, an orator and poet, but not a theologian, and
unable to rise to the lofty height of Calvin’s views and mission. His
controversial tracts are full of bitterness. He combined a mystical with a sceptical
tendency.903 He was an
anachronism; a rationalist before Rationalism, an advocate of religious
toleration in an age of intolerance.
Castellio
became acquainted with Calvin at Strassburg, and lived with him in the same
house (1540). Calvin appreciated his genius, scholarship, and literary
industry, and, on his return to Geneva, he secured for him a call as rector of
the Latin school at a salary of four hundred and fifty florins (November,
1541), in the place of his old teacher, Maturin Cordier. He treated him at
first with marked kindness and forbearance. In 1542, when the pestilence raged,
Castellio offered to go to the hospital, but he was either rejected as not
qualified, not being a minister, or he changed his mind when the lot fell on
him.904
Early
in the year 1544, Castellio took offence at some of Calvin’s theological
opinions, especially his doctrine of predestination. He disliked his severe
discipline and the one-man-power. He anticipated the rationalistic opinion on
the Song of Solomon, and described it as an obscene, erotic poem, which should
be stricken out of the canon.905
He also objected to the clause of Christ’s descent into Hades in the
Apostles’ Creed, or rather to Calvin’s figurative explanation of it, as being a
vicarious foretaste of eternal pain by Christ on the cross.906 For these reasons Calvin opposed his
ordination, but recommended an increase of his salary, which the Council
refused, with the direction that he should keep better discipline in the
school.907 He also gave him
an honorable public testimony when he wished to leave Geneva, and added private
letters of recommendation to friends. Castellio went to Lausanne, but soon
returned to Geneva. In April, 1544, he asked the Council to continue him in his
position for April, May, and June, which was agreed to.908
In
a public discussion on some Scripture text in the weekly congregation at which
about sixty persons were present, May 30, 1544, he eulogized St. Paul and drew
an unfavorable contrast between him and the ministers of Geneva, charging them
with drunkenness, impurity, and intolerance. Calvin listened in silence, but
complained to the Syndics of this conduct.909 Castellio was summoned before the Council, which, after a patient
hearing, found him guilty of calumny, and banished him from the city.910
He
went to Basel, where the liberal spirit of Erasmus had not yet died out. He
lived there several years in great poverty till 1553, when he obtained a Greek
professorship in the University. That University was the headquarters of
opposition to Calvinism. Several sceptical Italians gathered there. Fr. Hotoman
wrote to Bullinger: "Calvin is no better spoken of here than in Paris. If
one wishes to scold another, he calls him a Calvinist. He is most unjustly and
immoderately assailed from all quarters."911
In
the summer of 1554, an anonymous letter was addressed to the Genevese with
atrocious charges against Calvin, who suspected that it was written by
Castellio, and complained of it to Antistes Sulzer of Basel; but Castellio
denied the authorship before the Council of Basel. About the same time appeared
from the same anonymous source a malignant tract against Calvin, which
collected his most obnoxious utterances on predestination, and was sent to
Paris for publication to fill the French Protestants, then struggling for
existence, with distrust of the Reformer (1555). Calvin and Beza replied with
much indignation and bitterness, and heaped upon the author such epithets as
dog, slanderer, corrupter of Scripture, vagabond, blasphemer. Calvin, upon
insufficient information, even charged him with theft. Castellio, in
self-defence, informs us that, with a large family dependent on him, he was in
the habit of gathering driftwood on the banks of the Rhine to keep himself
warm, and to cook his food, while working at the completion of his translation
of the Scriptures till midnight. He effectively replied to Calvin’s reproachful
epithets: "It ill becomes so learned a man as yourself, the teacher of so
many others, to degrade so excellent an intellect by such foul and sordid
abuse."
Castellio
incurred the suspicion of the Council of Basel by his translation of Ochino’s
Dialogues, which contained opinions favorable to Unitarianism and polygamy
(1563). He defended himself by alleging that he acted not as judge, but only as
translator, for the support of his family. He was warned to cease meddling with
theology and to stick to philology.
He
died in poverty, Dec. 29, 1563, only forty-eight years old, leaving four sons
and four daughters from two wives. Calvin saw in his death a judgment of God,
but a few months afterwards he died himself. Even the mild Bullinger expressed
satisfaction that the translator of Ochino’s dangerous books had left this
world.912 Three Polish
Socinians, who happened to pass through Basel, were more merciful than the
orthodox, and erected to Castellio a monument in the cloister adjoining the
minster. Faustus Socinus edited his posthumous works. The youngest of his
children, Frederic Castellio, acquired some distinction as a philologist,
orator, musician, and poet, and was appointed professor of Greek, and
afterwards of rhetoric, in Basel.
Castellio
left no school behind him, but his writings exerted considerable influence on
the development of Socinian and Arminian opinions. He opposed Calvinism with
the same arguments as Pighius and Bolsec, and charged it with destroying the
foundations of morality and turning God into a tyrant and hypocrite. He
essentially agreed with Pelagianism, and prepared the way for Socinianism.
He
differed also from Calvin on the subject of persecution. Being himself persecuted,
he was one of the very few advocates of religious toleration in opposition to
the prevailing doctrine and practice of his age. In this point also he
sympathized with the Unitarians. After the execution of Servetus and Calvin’s
defence of the same, there appeared, under the false name of Martinus Bellius,
a book against the theory of religious persecution, which was ascribed to
Castellio.913 He denied the
authorship. He had, however, contributed to it a part under the name of
Basilius (Sebastian) Montfortius (Castellio). The pseudo-name of Martinus
Bellius, the editor who wrote the dedicatory preface to Duke Christopher of
Württemberg (the protector of Vergerius), has never been unmasked. The book is
a collection of judgments of different writers against the capital punishment
of heretics. Calvin and Beza were indignant, and correctly ascribed the book to
a secret company of Italian "Academici,"—Laelius Socinus, Curio, and
Castellio. They also suspected that Magdeburg, the alleged place of publication,
was Basel, and the printer an Italian refugee, Pietro Perna.
Castellio
wrote also a tract, during the Huguenot wars in France, 1562, in which he
defended religious liberty as the only remedy against religious wars.914
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="127" title="Calvinism and Unitarianism. The Italian
Refugees">
§ 127.
Calvinism and Unitarianism. The Italian Refugees.
Comp.
§§ 38–40 (pp. 144–163).
I.
Calvin: Ad questiones Georgii Blandatrae responsum (1558); Responsum ad Fratres
Polonos quomodo mediator sit Christus ad refutandum Stancari errorem (1560);
Impietas Valentini Gentilis detecta et palam traducta qui Christum non sine
sacrilega blasphemia Deum essentiatum esse fingit (1561); Brevis admonitio ad
Fratres Polonos ne triplicem in Deo essentiam pro tribus personis imaginando
tres sibi Deos fabricent (1563); Epistola Jo. Calv. quo fidem Admonitionis ab
eo nuper editae apud Polonos confirmat (1563). All in Opera, Tom. IX. 321 sqq.
The correspondence of Calvin with Lelio Sozini and other Italians, see below.
On the controversy with Servetus, see next chapter.
The
Socinian writings are collected in the Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum quos
Unitarios vocant, Irenopoli (Amsterdam), 1656 sqq., 8 vols in 11 tomes fol. It
contains the writings of the younger Socinus and his successors (Schlichting,
Crell, etc.).
II.
Trechsel: Die Protestantischen Antitrinitarier, Heidelberg, 1839 and 1844, 2
vols. The first volume treats chiefly of Servetus; the second, of the Italian
Antitrinitarians.—Otto Fock: Der Socinianismus, Kiel, 1847. (The first part
contains the history, the second and more valuable part the system, of
Socinianism.)—Schweizer: Die Protest. Centraldogmen (Zürich, 1854), vol. I. 293
sqq.—Henry, III. 276 sqq.—Dyer, 446 sqq.—Stähelin, II. 319 sqq.—L. Coligny:
L’Antitrinitarianism à Genève au temps de Calvin. Genève, 1873.—Harnack:
Dogmengeschichte, III. (1890) 653–691. Comp. Sand: Bibliotheca
Antitrinitariorum, 1684.
The
Italian Protestants who were compelled to flee from the Inquisition, sought
refuge in Switzerland, and organized congregations under native pastors in the
Grisons, in Zürich, and Geneva. A few of them gathered also in Basel, and
associated there with Castellio and the admirers of Erasmus.915 An Italian Church was organized at
Geneva in 1542, and reorganized in 1551, under Galeazzo Caraccioli, Marquis of
Vico. Its chief pastors were Ragnione, Count Martinengo (who died 1557), and
Balbani.
Among
the 279 fugitives who received the rights of citizenship in that city on one
day of the year 1558, there were 200 Frenchmen, 50 Englishmen, 25 Italians, and
4 Spaniards.
The
descendants of the refugees gradually merged into the native population. Some
of the best families in Geneva, Zürich, and Basel still bear the names and
cherish the memories of their foreign ancestors. In the valleys of Poschiavo
and Bregaglia of the Grisons, several Protestant Italian congregations survive
to this day.916
The
Italian Protestants were mostly educated men, who had passed through the door
of the Renaissance to the Reformation, or who had received the first impulse
from the writings of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. We must distinguish among
them two classes, as they were chiefly influenced either by religious or
intellectual motives. Those who had experienced a severe moral struggle for
peace of conscience, became strict Calvinists; those who were moved by a desire
for freedom of thought from the bondage of an exclusive creed, sympathized more
with Erasmus than with Luther and Calvin, and had a tendency to Unitarianism
and Pelagianism. Zanchi warned Bullinger against recommending Italians for
sound doctrine until he had ascertained their views on God and on original sin.
The same national characteristics continue to this day among the Romanic races.
If Italians, Frenchmen, or Spaniards cease to be Romanists, they are apt to
become sceptics and agnostics. They rarely stop midway.
The
ablest, most learned, and most worthy representatives of orthodox Calvinism
among the converted Italians were Peter Martyr Vermigli of Florence (1500–1562),
who became, successively, professor at Strassburg (1543), at Oxford (1547), and
last at Zürich (1555), and his younger friend, Jerome Zanchi (1516–1590), who
labored first in the Grisons, and then as professor at Strassburg (1553) and at
Heidelberg (1568). Calvin made several ineffectual attempts to secure both for
the Italian congregation in Geneva.917
The
sceptical and antitrinitarian Italians were more numerous among the scholars.
Calvin aptly called them "sceptical Academicians." They assembled chiefly at Basel, where
they breathed the atmosphere of Erasmian humanism. They gave the Swiss Churches
a great deal of trouble. They took offence at the Catholic doctrine of the
Trinity, which they misconstrued into tritheism, or Sabellianism, at the
orthodox Christology of two natures in one person, and at the Calvinistic
doctrines of total depravity and divine predestination, which they charged with
tending to immorality. They doubted the right of infant baptism, and denied the
real presence in the Eucharist. They hated ecclesiastical disciplina. They
admired Servetus, and disapproved of his burning. They advocated religious
toleration, which threatened to throw everything into confusion.
To
this class belong the two Sozini,—uncle and nephew, Curio, Ochino (in his
latter years), Renato, Gribaldo, Biandrata, Alciati, and Gentile. Castellio is
also counted with these Italian sceptics. He thoroughly sided with their
anti-Calvinism, and translated from the Italian manuscripts into Latin the last
books of Ochino.
Thus
the seeds for a new and heretical type of Protestantism were abundantly sown by
these Italian refugees in the soil of the Swiss Churches, which had received
them with open-hearted hospitality.
Fausto
Sozini (1539–1604) formulated the loose heterodox opinions of this school of
sceptics into a theological system, and organized an ecclesiastical society in
Poland, where they enjoyed toleration till the Jesuitical reaction drove them
away. Poland was the Northern home of the Italian Renaissance. Italian
architects built the great churches and palaces in Cracow, Warsaw, and other
cities, and gave them an Italian aspect. Fausto Sozini spent some time in
Lyons, Zürich (where he collected the papers of his uncle), and Basel, but
labored chiefly in Poland, and acquired great influence with the upper classes
by his polished manners, amiability, and marriage with the daughter of a
nobleman. Yet he was once mobbed by fanatical students and priests it Cracow,
who dragged him through the streets and destroyed his library. He bore the
persecution like a philosopher. His writings were published by his nephew,
Wiszowaty, in the first two volumes of the Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum, 1656.
This
is not the place for a full history of Socinianism. We have only to do with its
initiatory movements in Switzerland, and its connection with Calvin. But a few
general remarks will facilitate an understanding.
Socinianism,
as a system of theology, has largely affected the theology of orthodox
Protestantism on the Continent during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
and was succeeded by modern Unitarianism, which has exerted considerable
influence on the thought and literature of England and America in the
nineteenth century. It forms the extreme left wing of Protestantism, and the
antipode to Calvinism. The Socinians admitted that Calvinism is the only
logical system on the basis of universal depravity and absolute foreknowledge
and foreordination; but they denied these premises, and taught moral ability,
free-will, and, strange to say, a limitation of divine foreknowledge. God foreknows
and foreordains only the necessary future, but not the contingent future, which
depends on the free-will of man. The two systems are therefore directly opposed
in their theology and anthropology.
And
yet there is a certain intellectual and moral affinity between them; as there
is between Lutheranism and Rationalism. It is a remarkable fact that modern
Unitarianism has grown up in the Calvinistic (Presbyterian and Independent)
Churches of Geneva, France, Holland, England, and New England, while Rationalism
has been chiefly developed in Lutheran Germany. But the reaction is also found
in those countries.
The
Italian and Polish Socinians took substantially the same ground as the English
and American Unitarians. They were opposed alike to Romanism and Calvinism;
they claimed intellectual freedom of dissent and investigation as a right; they
elevated the ethical spirit of Christianity above the dogmas, and they had much
zeal for higher liberal education. But they differ on an important point. The
Socinians had a theological system, and a catechism; the modern Unitarians
refuse to be bound by a fixed creed, and are independent in church polity. They
allow more liberty for new departures, either in the direction of rationalism
and humanitarianism, or in the opposite direction of supernaturalism and
trinitarianism.
Calvin
was in his early ministry charged with Arianism by a theological quack
(Caroli), because he objected to the damnatory clauses of the pseudo-Athanasian
creed, and expressed once an unfavorable opinion on the Nicene Creed.918 But his difficulty was only with the
scholastic or metaphysical terminology,919 not with the doctrine itself; and as to the divinity of
Christ and of the Holy Spirit, he was most emphatic.
It
is chiefly due to Calvin’s and Bullinger’s influence that Unitarianism, which
began to undermine orthodoxy, and to unsettle the Churches, was banished from
Switzerland. It received its death-blow in the execution of Servetus, who was a
Spaniard, but the ablest and most dangerous antitrinitarian. His case will be
discussed in a special chapter.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="128" title="Calvin and Laelius Socinus">
§ 128.
Calvin and Laelius Socinus.
F.
Trechsel (pastor at Vechingen, near Bern): Die protest. Antitrinitarier vor
Faustus Socinus nach den Quellen und Urkunden geschichtlich dargestellt.
Heidelberg, 1839, 1844. The first part of this learned work, drawn in part from
manuscript sources, is devoted to Michael Servetus and his predecessors; the
second part to Lelio Sozini and his sympathizing contemporaries. The third
section of vol. II. 137–201, with documents in the Appendix, pp. 431–459,
treats of Lelio Sozini.—Henry, II. 484 sqq.; III. 440, Beilage, 128.—Dyer, 251
(very brief).
Laelius
Socinus, or Lelio Sozini, of Siena (1525–1562), son of an eminent professor of
law, was well educated, and carried away by the reform movement in his early
youth. He voluntarily separated from the Roman Church, in 1546, at the
sacrifice of home and fortune. He removed to Chiavenna in 1547, travelled in
Switzerland, France, England, Germany, and Poland, leading an independent life
as a student, without public office, supported by the ample means of his
father. He studied Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic with Pellican and Bibliander at
Zürich and with Foster at Wittenberg, that he might reach "the fountain of
the divine law" in the Bible. He made Zürich his second home, and died
there in the prime of early manhood, leaving his unripe doubts and crude
opinions as a legacy to his more gifted and famous nephew, who gave them
definite shape and form.
Laelius
was learned, acute, polite, amiable, and prepossessing. He was a man of
affairs, better fitted for law or diplomacy than for theology. He was
constitutionally a sceptic, of the type of Thomas: an honest seeker after
truth; too independent to submit blindly to authority, and yet too religious to
run into infidelity. His scepticism stumbled first at the Roman Catholic, than
at the Protestant orthodoxy, and gradually spread over the doctrines of the
resurrection, predestination, original sin, the trinity, the atonement, and the
sacraments. Yet he remained in respectful connection with the Reformers, and
communed with the congregation at Zürich, although he thought that the
Consensus Tigurinus attributed too much power to the sacrament. He enjoyed the
confidence of Bullinger and Melanchthon, who treated him with fatherly
kindness, but regarded him better fitted for a secular calling than for the
service of the Church. Calvin also was favorably impressed with his talents and
personal character, but displeased with his excessive
"inquisitiveness."920
L.
Socinus came to Geneva in 1548 or 1549, seeking instruction from the greatest
divine of the age. He opened his doubts to Calvin with the modesty of a
disciple. Soon afterwards he addressed to him a letter from Zürich, asking for
advice on the questions, whether it was lawful for a Protestant to marry a
Roman Catholic; whether popish baptism was efficacious; and how the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body could be explained.
Calvin
answered in an elaborate letter (June 26, 1549),921 to the effect that marriage
with Romanists was to be condemned; that popish baptism was valid and
efficacious, and should be resorted to when no other can be had, since the
Roman communion, though corrupt, still retained marks of the true Church as
well as a scattered number of elect individuals, and since baptism was not a
popish invention but a divine institution and gift of God who fulfils his promises;
that the question on the mode of the resurrection, and its relation to the
changing states of our mortal body, was one of curiosity rather than utility.
Before
receiving this answer, Socinus wrote to Calvin again from Basel (July 25, 1549)
on the same subjects, especially the resurrection, which troubled his mind very
much.922 To this Calvin returned another answer
(December, 1549), and warned him against the dangers of his sceptical bent of
mind.923
Socinus
was not discouraged by the earnest rebuke, nor shaken in his veneration for
Calvin. During the Bolsec troubles, when at Wittenberg, he laid before him his
scruples about predestination and free-will, and appealed to the testimony of
Melanchthon, whom he had informed about the harsh treatment of Bolsec. Calvin
answered briefly and not without some degree of bitterness.924
Socinus
visited Geneva a second time in 1554, after his return from a journey to Italy,
and before making Zürich his final home. He was then, apparently, still in
friendly relations to Calvin and Caraccioli.925 Soon afterwards he opened to Calvin, in four questions, his
objections to the doctrine of the vicarious atonement. Calvin went to the
trouble to answer them at length, with solid arguments, June, 1555.926
But
Socinus was not satisfied. His scepticism extended further to the doctrine of
the sacraments and of the Trinity. He doubted first the personality of the Holy
Spirit, and then the eternal divinity of Christ. He disapproved the execution
of Servetus, and advocated toleration.
Various
complaints against Socinus reached Bullinger. Calvin requested him to restrain
the restless curiosity of the sceptic. Vergerio, then at Tübingen, Saluz of
Coire, and other ministers, sent warnings. Bullinger instituted a private
inquiry in a kindly spirit, and was satisfied with a verbal and written
declaration of Socinus (July 15, 1555) to the effect that he fully agreed with
the Scriptures and the Apostles’ Creed, that he disapproved the doctrines of
the Anabaptists and Servetus, and that he would not teach any errors, but live
in quiet retirement. Bullinger protected him against further attacks.
Socinus
ceased to trouble the Reformers with questions. He devoted himself to the
congregation of refugees from Locarno, and secured for them Ochino as pastor,
but exerted a bad influence upon him. Fortified with letters of recommendation
he made another journey to Italy,—via Germany and Poland, to recover his
property from the Inquisition. Calvin gave him a letter to Prince Radziwill of
Poland, dated June, 1558, to further his object.927 But Socinus was bitterly disappointed in his wishes, and
returned to Zürich in August, 1559. The last few years of his short life he
spent in quiet retirement. His nephew visited him several times, and revered
him as a divinely illuminated man to whom he owed his most fruitful ideas.
The
personal relation of Calvin and the elder Socinus is one of curious mutual
attraction and repulsion, like the two systems which they represent.928
The
younger Socinus, the real founder of the system called after him, did not come
into personal contact with Calvin, and labored among the scattered Unitarians
and Anabaptists in Poland.
Calvin
took a deep interest in the progress of the Reformation in Poland, and wrote
several letters to the king, to Prince Radziwill, and some of the Polish
nobility. But when the writings of Servetus and antitrinitarian opinions spread
in that kingdom, he warned the Polish brethren, in one of his last writings,
against the danger of this heresy.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="129" title="Bernardino Ochino. 1487–1565">
§ 129.
Bernardino Ochino. 1487–1565.
Comp.
§ 40, p. 162. Ochino’s Sermons, Tragedy, Catechism, Labyrinths, and Dialogues.
His works are very rare; one of the best collections is in the library of
Wolfenbüttel; copious extracts in Schelhorn, Trechsel, Schweizer, and Benrath.
A full list in Benrath’s monograph, Appendix II. 374–382. His letters (Italian
and Latin), ibid. AppendixI1. 337–373. Ochino is often mentioned in Calvin’s
and Bullinger’s correspondence.
Zaccaria
Boverio (Rom. Cath.) in the Chronicle of the Order of the Capuchins, 1630
(inaccurate and hostile). Bayle’s "Dict."—Schelhorn: Ergötzlich-keiten
aus der Kirchenhistorie, Ulm and Leipzig, 1764, vol. III. (with several
documents in Latin and Italian).—Trechsel: Antitrinitarier, II.
202–270.—Schweizer: Centraldogmen, I. 297–309.—Cesare Cantu (Rom. Cath.): Gli
Eretici d’Italia, Turin, 1565–1567, 3vols. —Büchsenschütz: Vie et écrits de B.
O., Strasbourg, 1872.—*Karl Benrath: Bernardino Ochino von Siena. Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte der Reformation, Leipzig, 1875 (384 pp.; 2d ed. 1892; transl. by
Helen Zimmern, with preface by William Arthur, London, 1876, 304 pp.; the
letters of Ochino are omitted).—Comp. C. Schmidt in his Peter Martyr Vermigli
(1858), pp. 21 sqq., and art. in Herzog2 X. 680–683. (This article is
unsatisfactory and shows no knowledge of Benrath, although he is mentioned in
the lit.)
Mi
sara facile tutto in Christo per el qual vivo et spero di morire.
(From
Ochino’s letter to the Council of Siena, Sept. 5, 1540; reproduced from
Benrath’s monograph.)
The
Capuchin Monk.
Bernardino
Ochino929 is one of the most striking and picturesque characters among
the Italian Protestants of the Reformation period. He was an oratorical genius
and monkish saint who shone with meteoric brilliancy on the sky of Italy, but
disappeared at last under a cloud of scepticism in the far North.
He
reminds one of three other eloquent monks: Savonarola, who was burnt in
Florence at the stake; Father Gavazzi, who became a Calvinist and died
peacefully in Rome; and Père Hyacinthe, who left the Carmelite order and the
pulpit of Notre Dame in Paris without joining any Protestant Church.
Ochino
was born in the fair Tuscan city of Siena, which is adorned by a Gothic marble
dome and gave birth to six popes, fifty cardinals, and a number of canonized
saints, among them the famous Caterina of Siena; but also to Protestant
heretics, like Lelio and Fausto Sozini. He joined the Franciscans, and
afterwards the severe order of the Capuchins, which had recently been founded
by Fra Matteo Bassi in 1525. He hoped to gain heaven by self-denial and good
works. He far surpassed his brethren in ability and learning,930
although his education was defective (he did not know the original languages of
the Bible). He was twice elected Vicar-General of the Order. He was revered by
many as a saint for his severe asceticism and mortification of the flesh.
Vittoria Colonna, the most gifted woman of Italy, and the Duchess Renata of
Ferrara were among his ardent admirers. Pope Paul III. intended to create him a
cardinal.931
Ochino
as an Orator.
Ochino
was the most popular preacher of Italy in his time. No such orator had appeared
since the death of Savonarola in 1498. He was in general demand for the course
of sermons during Lent, and everywhere—in Siena, Naples, Rome, Florence,
Venice—he attracted crowds of people who listened to him as to a prophet sent
from God.
We
can hardly understand from his printed sermons the extravagant laudations of
his contemporaries. But good preachers were rare in Italy, and the effect of
popular oratory depends upon action as much as on diction. We must take into
account the magnetism of his personality, the force of dramatic delivery, the
lively gestures, the fame of his monastic sanctity, his emaciated face, his
gleaming eyes, his tall stature and imposing figure. The portrait prefixed to
his "Nine Sermons," published at Venice, 1539, shows him to us as he
was at the time: a typical Capuchin monk, with the head bent, the gaze
upturned, the eyes deeply sunk under the brows, the nose aquiline, the mouth
half open, the head shaved on top, the beard reaching down to his breast.
Cardinal
Sadolet compared him to the orators of antiquity. One of his hearers in Naples
said, This man could make the very stones weep.932
Cardinal
Bembo933
secured him for Lent at Venice through Vittoria Colonna, and wrote to her (Feb.
23, 1539): "I have heard him all through Lent with such pleasure that I
cannot praise him enough. I have never heard more useful and edifying sermons
than his, and I no longer wonder that you esteem him so highly. He preaches in
a far more Christian manner than other preachers, with more real sympathy and
love, and utters more soothing and elevating thoughts. Every one is delighted
with him." A few months later
(April 4, 1539) he wrote to the same lady: "Our Fra Bernardino is
literally adored here. There is no one who does not praise him to the skies.
How deeply his words penetrate, how elevating and comforting his
discourses!" He begged him to
eat meat and to restrain from excessive abstinence lest he should break down.
Even
Pietro Aretino, the most frivolous and immoral poet of that time, was
superficially converted for a brief season by Ochino’s preaching, and wrote to
Paul III. (April 21, 1539): "Bembo has won a thousand souls for Paradise
by bringing to Venice Fra Bernardino, whose modesty is equal to his virtue. I
have myself begun to believe in the exhortations trumpeted forth from the mouth
of this apostolic monk."
Cardinal
Commendone, afterwards Bishop of Amelia, an enemy of Ochino, gives this
description of him: "Every thing about Ochino contributed to make the
admiration of the multitude almost overstep all human bounds,—the fame of his
eloquence; his prepossessing, ingratiating manner; his advancing years; his mode
of life; the rough Capuchin garb; the long beard reaching to his breast; the
gray hair; the pale, thin face; the artificial aspect of bodily weakness;
finally, the reputation of a holy life. Wherever he was to speak the citizens
might be seen in crowds; no church was large enough to contain the multitude of
listeners. Men flocked as numerously as women. When he went elsewhere the crowd
followed after to hear him. He was honored not only by the common people, but
also by princes and kings. Wherever he came he was offered hospitality; he was
met at his arrival, and escorted at his departure, by the dignitaries of the
place. He himself knew how to increase the desire to hear him, and the
reverence shown him. Obedient to the rule of his order, he only travelled on
foot; he was never seen to ride, although his health was delicate and his age
advanced. Even when Ochino was the guest of nobles—an honor he could not always
refuse—he could never be induced, by the splendor of palaces, dress, and
ornament, to forsake his mode of life. When invited to table, he ate of only
one very simple dish, and he drank little wine; if a soft bed had been prepared
for him, he begged permission to rest on a more comfortable pallet, spread his
cloak on the ground, and laid down to rest. These practices gain him incredible
honor throughout all Italy."
Conversion
to Protestantism.
Ochino
was already past fifty when he began to lose faith in the Roman Church. The
first traces of the change are found in his "Nine Sermons" and
"Seven Dialogues," which were published at Venice in 1539 and 1541.
He seems to have passed through an experience similar to that of Luther in the
convent at Erfurt, only less deep and lasting. The vain monastic struggle after
righteousness led him to despair of himself, and to find peace in the assurance
of justification by faith in the merits of Christ. As long as he was a monk, so
he informs us, he went even beyond the requirements of his order in reading
masses, praying the Pater Noster and Ave Maria, reciting Psalms and prayers,
confessing trifling sins once or twice a day, fasting and mortifying his body.
But he came gradually to the conviction that Christ has fully satisfied for his
elect, and conquered Paradise for them; that monastic vows were not obligatory,
and were even immoral; and that the Roman Church, though brilliant in outward
appearance, was thoroughly corrupt and an abomination in the eyes of God.
In
this transition state he was much influenced by his personal intercourse with
Jean de Valdés and Peter Martyr. Valdés, a Spanish nobleman who lived at Rome
and Naples, was an evangelical mystic, and the real author of that remarkable
book, "On the Benefit of Christ’s Death" (published at Venice, 1540).
It was formerly attributed to Aonio Paleario (a friend of Ochino), and had a
wide circulation in Italy till it was suppressed and publicly burnt at Naples
in 1553.
During
the Lent season of 1542, Ochino preached his last course of sermons at Venice.
The papal agents watched him closely and reported some expressions as
heretical. He was forbidden to preach, and cited to Rome.
Caraffa
had persuaded Pope Paul III. to use violent measures for the suppression of the
Protestant heresy. In Rome, Peter had conquered Simon Magus, the patriarch of
all heretics; in Rome’ the successor of Peter must conquer all successors of
the arch-heretic. The Roman Inquisition was established by the bull Licet ab
initio, July 21, 1542, under the direction of six cardinals. with plenary power
to arrest and imprison persons suspected of heresy, and to confiscate their
property. The famous General of the Capuchins was to be the first victim of the
"Holy Office."
Ochino
departed for Rome in August. Passing through Bologna, he called on the noble
Cardinal Contarini, who in the previous year had met Melanchthon and Calvin at
the Colloquy of Ratisbon, and was suspected of having a leaning to the Lutheran
doctrine of justification, and to a moderate reformation. The cardinal was
sick, and died soon after (August 24). The interview was brief, but left upon
Ochino the impression that there was no chance for him in Rome. He continued
his journey to Florence, met Peter Martyr in a similar condition, and was
warned of the danger awaiting both. He felt that he must choose between Rome or
Christ, between silence or death, and that flight was the only escape from this
alternative. He resolved to save his life for future usefulness, though he was
already fifty-six years old, gray-haired, and enfeebled by his ascetic life. If
I remain in Italy, he said, my mouth is sealed; if I leave, I may by my
writings continue to labor for the truth with some prospect of success.
He
proved by his conduct the sincerity of his conversion to Protestantism. He
risked every thing by secession from the papacy. An orator has no chance in a
foreign land with a foreign tongue.934
Ochino
in Switzerland.
In
August, 1542, he left Florence; Peter Martyr followed two days later. He was
provided with a servant and a horse by Ascanio Colonna, a brother of Vittoria,
his friend.935 At Ferrara, the
Duchess Renata furnished him with clothing and other necessaries, and probably
also with a letter to her friend Calvin. According to Boverius, the annalist of
the Capuchins, who deplores his apostasy as a great calamity for the order, he
was accompanied by three lay brethren from Florence.
He
proceeded through the Grisons to Zürich, and stopped there two days. He was
kindly received by Bullinger, who speaks of him in a letter to Vadian (Dec. 19,
1542) as a venerable man, famous for sanctity of life and eloquence.
He
arrived at Geneva about September, 1542, and remained there three years. He
preached to the small Italian congregation, but devoted himself chiefly to
literary work by which he hoped to reach a larger public in his native land. He
was deeply impressed with the moral and religious prosperity of Geneva, the
like of which he had never seen before, and gave a favorable description of it
in one of his Italian sermons.936
"In
Geneva, where I am now residing," he wrote in October, 1542,
"excellent Christians are daily preaching the pure word of God. The Holy
Scriptures are constantly read and openly discussed, and every one is at
liberty to propound what the Holy Spirit suggests to him, just as, according to
the testimony of Paul, was the case in the primitive Church. Every day there is
a public service of devotion. Every Sunday there is catechetical instruction of
the young, the simple, and the ignorant. Cursing and swearing, unchastity,
sacrilege, adultery, and impure living, such as prevail in many places where I
have lived, are unknown here. There are no pimps and harlots. The people do not
know what rouge is, and they are all clad in a seemly fashion. Games of chance
are not customary. Benevolence is so great that the poor need not beg. The
people admonish each other in brotherly fashion, as Christ prescribes. Lawsuits
are banished from the city; nor is there any simony, murder, or party spirit,
but only peace and charity. On the other hand, there are no organs here, no
noise of bells, no showy songs, no burning candles and lamps, no relics,
pictures, statues, canopies, or splendid robes, no farces, or cold ceremonies.
The churches are quite free from all idolatry."937
Ochino
wrote at Geneva a justification of his flight, in a letter to Girolamo Muzio
(April 7, 1543). In a letter to the magistrates of Siena, he gave a full
confession of his faith based chiefly on the eighth chapter of the Epistle to
the Romans (Nov. 3, 1543). He published, in rapid succession, seven volumes of
Italian sermons or theological essays.938
He
says in the Preface to these sermons: "Now, my dear Italy, I can no more
speak to you from mouth to mouth; but I will write to you in thine own
language, that everybody may understand me. My comfort is that Christ so willed
it, that, laying aside all earthly considerations, I may regard only the truth.
And as the justification of the sinner by Christ is the beginning of the
Christian life, let us begin with it in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ." His sermons are
evangelical, and show a mystical tendency, as we might expect from a disciple
of Valdes. He lays much stress on the vital union of the soul with Christ by
faith and love. He teaches a free salvation by the sole merits of Christ, and
the Calvinistic doctrine of sovereign election, but without the negative
inference of reprobation. He wrote also a popular, paraphrastic commentary on
his favorite Epistle to the Romans (1545), which was translated into Latin and
German. Afterwards, he published sermons on the Epistle to the Galatians, which
were printed at Augsburg, 1546.
He
lived on good terms with Calvin, who distrusted the Italians, but after careful
inquiry was favorably impressed with Ochino’s "eminent learning and
exemplary life."939
He mentions him first in a letter to Viret (September, 1542) as a
venerable refugee, who lived in Geneva at his own expense, and promised to be
of great service if he could learn French.940 In a letter to Melanchthon (Feb. 14, 1543), he calls him an
"eminent and excellent man, who has occasioned no little stir in Italy by
his departure."941
Two years afterwards (Aug. 15, 1545), he recommended him to Myconius of
Basel as "deserving of high esteem everywhere."942
Ochino
associated at Basel with Castellio, and employed him in the translation of his
works from the Italian. This connection may have shaken his confidence in the
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination and free-will.
Ochino
in Germany.
He
labored for some time as preacher and author in Strassburg, where he met his
old friend Peter Martyr, and in Augsburg, where he received from the city
council a regular salary of two hundred guilders as preacher among the
foreigners. This was his first regular settlement after he had left Italy. At
Augsburg he lived with his brother-in-law and sister. He seems to have married
at that time, if not earlier.943
Ochino in England.
After
his victory over the Smalkaldian League, the Emperor Charles V. held a
triumphant entry in Augsburg, Jan. 23, 1547, and demanded the surrender of the
Apostate monk, whose powerful voice he had heard from the pulpit at Naples
eleven years before. The magistrates enabled Ochino to escape in the night. He
fled to Zürich, where he accidentally met Calvin, who arrived there on the same
day. From Zürich he went to Basel.
Here
he received, in 1547, a call to England from Archbishop Cranmer, who needed
foreign aid in the work of the Reformation under the favorable auspices of the
young King Edward VI. At the same time he called Peter Martyr, then professor
at Strassburg, to a theological professorship at Oxford, and two years
afterwards he invited Bucer and Fagius of Strassburg, who refused to sign the
Augsburg Interim, to professorial chairs in the University of Cambridge (1549).
Ochino and Peter Martyr made the journey together in company with an English
knight, who provided the outfit and the travelling expenses.
Ochino
labored six years in London, from 1547 to 1554, probably the happiest of his
troubled life,—as evangelist among the Italian merchants and refugees, and as a
writer in aid of the Reformation. His family followed him. He enjoyed the
confidence of Cranmer, who appointed him canon of Canterbury (though he never
resided there), and received a competent salary from the private purse of the
king.
His
chief work of that period is a theological drama against the papacy under the
title "A Tragedy or a Dialogue of the unjust, usurped primacy of the
Bishop of Rome," with a flattering dedication to Edward VI. He takes the
ground of all the Reformers, that the pope is the predicted Antichrist, seated
in the temple of God; and traces, in a series of nine conversations, with
considerable dramatic skill but imperfect historical information, the gradual
growth of the papacy from Boniface III. and Emperor Phocas (607) to its
downfall in England under Henry VIII. and Edward VI.944
Ochino
again in Switzerland.
After
the accession of Queen Mary, Ochino had to flee, and went a second time to
Geneva. He arrived there a day after the burning of Servetus (Oct. 28, 1553),
which he disapproved, but he did not lose his respect for Calvin, whom he
called, in a letter of Dec. 4, 1555, the first divine and the ornament of the
century.945
He
accepted a call as pastor of the Italian congregation at Zürich. Here he
associated freely with Peter Martyr, but more, it would seem, with Laelius
Socinus, who was also a native of Siena, and who by his sceptical opinions
exerted an unsettling influence on his mind.
He
wrote a catechism for his congregation (published at Basel, 1561) in the form
of a dialogue between "Illuminato" (the catechumen) and
"Ministro." He explains
the usual five parts—the Decalogue (which fills one-half of the book), the
Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, with an
appendix of prayers.
His last works were his "Labyrinths" (1561) and "Thirty Dialogues" (1563), translated by Castellio into Latin, and published by an Italian printer at Basel. In these books Ochino discusses the