D10[3] D103 Here Calvin provides
a basis for the concept, “the invisible Church.” The term
“invisible” refers to the fact that a knowledge of those who are
truly members of Christís body is known to God alone and cannot with
certainty be ascertained by men (except for themselves, through their effectual
calling). (see also section 7)
D10[4]
D104 Here Calvin employs the term, “the visible Church.” (He
also calls it “the external Church” in the first sentence of section
3). The expression, “visible Church” refers to the Church as it is
seen by the eyes of fallible men. From this standpoint, since only the Lord
“knows them that are His,” it is possible to have (and sometimes
discover) deceived persons and hypocrites in the church-those who are not truly
members of Christís body. This mixed state of affairs forms part of the
warrant for Church discipline. (see also section
7)
D10[5] D105 In this section (7),
Calvin specifically distinguishes between the invisible and the visible Church
(note first line for term “visible”). The invisible Church is the
Church as it really is before God; the visible Church is the Church as it
appears to man.
D10[6] D106 Here
Calvin enumerates the criteria by which we are to judge who are to be
acknowledged as members of the visible Church. The presence of these criteria
does not, of course, give us full certainty as to who are members of
Christís body, the invisible church (such certainty rests with God
alone); but the absence of them leaves us with no bases upon which to judge who
are to be regarded as members of the visible
Church.
D10[7] D107 Here Calvin
distinguishes between the Church universal (the visible church throughout the
world), and local churches and individuals (the visible Church manifested in
particular places).
51[6] 516
French, “Pour donner exemple, síil advenoit quíune
Eglise tint que les ames etant separÈes des corps fussent
transferÈs au ciel incontinent: une autre, sans oser determiner du lieu
pens’t semplement quíelles vivent en Dieu: et que telle
diversitÈ fut sans contention et sans opiniatretÈ pourquoy se
diviseroient elles díensemble?”-To give an example, should one
church happen to hold that the soul when separated from the body is forthwith
transported to heaven, and should another, without venturing to determine the
place, simply think that it lives in God, and should such diversity be without
contention and obstinacy, why should they be
divided?
51[7] 517 French,
“La doctrine principale de nostre salut;”-the fundamental doctrine
of our salvation.
51[8] 518
French, “Et aussi que demeurant en icelle nous ne troublions point
la police ni la discipline;”-and also that, remaining in it, we disturb
not its order and discipline.
51[9] 519
French. “Comme síils eussent ete quelques anges de
Paradis;”-as if they had bean some angels of Paradise.
52[0] 520 l Cor. 1:11; 3:3; 5:l;
6:7; 9:l; 15:12.
52[1] 521
French, “Toutesfois Sainct Paul recognoissoit entre eux quelque
Eglise;”-yet St Paul recognised some church among them.
5[2]2 522 See Calvin, Lib. de
Cúna Domini; item, Instructio adv. Anabapt.
D10[8] D108 Calvin here asserts
that, in all ages, there has been a Church, and that this Church will continue
until the final consummation of all things. This emphasis, of course, does not
agree with the view that God dealt with the nation of Israel in the Old
Testament, but now deals with the Church; nor does it comport with the view that
Old Testament believers cannot be said to have been in the Church, since the
Church began at Pentecost. Calvin views believers of all ages and dispensations
as members of Christís
Church.
52[3] 523 Latin,
“Jactant.”-French, “Ces grands correcteurs leur
reprochent;”-those great reformers upbraid them.
52[4] 524 French, “Ce
nía pas etÈ seulement afin quíils deliassent ceux qui si
convertiroient alla foy Christienne, et quíils fissent cela pour une
fois.”-It was not only that they might loose those who should be converted
to the Christian faith, and that they should do so once for all
[5]25 525 Gen. 37:18, 28; 34:25;
35:22; 38:16; 2 Sam 11:4, 15; xii 13.
52[6] 526 French, “Ils
usoient de cette maniere de parler afin de mettre difference autre les fautes
privees, et les crimes publiques qui emportoient grands scandales en
líEglise.”-They used this manner of speech, in order to make a
difference between private faults and the public crimes which brought great
scandals into the Church.
52[7] 527
French, “Secondement, quíencore il y ait quelques petites
fautes, ou en la doctrine ou aux sacremens quíicelui no laisse point
díavoir sa vigeur.”-Secondly, that though there may be some little
faults either in doctrine or in the sacraments, the Church ceases not to be in
vigour.
D10[9] D109 Calvin here
answers the question, “How far into error can the (visible) Church go
before it ceases to deserve the name?” Minor defects or trivial errors,
whether in doctrine or in conduct, do not bring the Church to that point. But if
the fundamental articles of religion are injured or suppressed, and the
essential elements of the sacraments are destroyed, then the Church dies, and
ceases to exist.
52[8] 528 See
chap. 1 sec. 10; 2 sec. 10; 8 sec. 12.
52[9] 529 French, “Je say
bien que les flatteurs du Pape magnifient grandement leur Eglise.” -I know
that the flatterers of the Pope greatly extol their Church.
53[0] 530 French, “Or tent
síen faut que cela ait lieu, que mesmes aux gouvernemens terrestres il ne
seroit point supportable. Comme il níy a nul propos de dire que la
tyrannie de Caligula, Neron, Heliogabale, et leurs semblables soit le vrai etat
de la citÈ de Rome, pourcequíils ont succedÈ aux bons
governeurs qui etoient establis par la peuple.”-Now, so far is this from
being the case, that even in earthly governments it would not be supportable. As
there is no ground for saying that the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus,
and the like, is the true state of the city of Rome, because they succeeded the
good governors who were established by the
people.
53[1] 531 French,
“Ils savoient que les pretres Levitiques, combien quíils fussent
indignes díun tel office, neantmoins pourcequíils avoient
etÈ ordonnez de Dieu, et níetoient point encore deposÈs,
devoient etre recognus pour ministres legitimes, ayant le degrÈ de
pretrise.”-They knew that the Levitical priests, although they were
unworthy of such an office, nevertheless, because they had been ordained of God,
and were not yet deposed, were to be recognised as lawful ministers, having the
rank of priesthood.
53[2] 532
French, “Mais nous contendons seulement du vrai etat de
líEglise, qui emporte communion, tant en doctrine, quíen tout qui
appartient ý la profession de notre ChretientÈ;”-but we
contend only for the true state of the Church, implying communion, as well as
everything which pertains to the profession of our
Christianity.
5[3]3 533 The
French adds, “pour le moins en líEglise Occidentale;”-at
least in the Western Church.
53[4] 534
Latin, “quasi vicariam operam.”-French, “les faisans
comme ses lieutenans;”-making them as it were his substitutes.
[5]35 535 See on this subject
August. de Doctrina Christiana, Lib. 1
53[6] 536 Latin,
“senatum.”-French, “conseil ou consistoire;”-council or
consistory.
53[7] 537 Luke
21:15; 24:49; Mark 6:15; Acts 1 8; 1 Tim. 5:22.
53[8] 538 See chap. 4 sec. 10,
11; chap. 5 sec. 2, 3. Also Calv. in Acts 6:3, and Luther, tom. 2 p 374.
53[9] 539 “Pourtant Sainct
Hierome apres avoir divisÈ líEglise en cinq ordres, nomme les
Eveques, secondement, les Pretres, tiercement, les Diacres, puis les fideles en
commun, finalement, ceux qui níetoient pas baptisÈs encore, mais
qui síetoient presentÈs pour etre instruits en la foy Chretienne;
et puis recevoient le baptÈme. Ainsi il níattribue point de
certain lieu au reste du ClergÈ ni aux Moines.”-However, St Jerome,
after dividing the Church into five orders, names the Bishops, secondly, the
Priests, thirdly the Deacons, then the faithful in common, lastly, those who
were not yet baptised but had presented themselves to be instructed in the
Christian faith, and thereafter received baptism. Thus he attributes no certain
place to the remainder of the Clergy or to the Monks.
54[0] 540 French, “La
cognoissance venoit aux patriarches, qui assemblerent le concile do tous les
eveques respondant a leur primautÈ;”-the cognisance fell to the
patriarchs, who assembled a council of all the bishops corresponding to their
precedence.
54[1] 541
Hieronymus, Epist. ad Nepotianum. It is mentioned also by Chrysostom,
Epist. ad Innocent.
54[2] 542 In
the Amsterdam edition the words are only “quartam vero advenis
pauperibus.” The Geneva edition of 1559, the last published under
Calvinís own eye, has “quartam vero tam advenis quam indigenis
pauperibus.” With this Tholuck agrees.
54[3] 543 The French adds,
“Afin quíil níall’ nulle part sans compagnie et sans
temoin;”- in order that he might not go anywhere without company and
without witness.
5[4]4 544
French, “On leur ordonnoit de faire la lecture des Pseaumes au
pulpitre;”-they ordered them to read the Psalms in the
desk.
[5]45 545 The French adds,
“Comme de Lecteurs et Acolytes;”-as Readers and Acolytes.
54[6] 546 The whole narrative in
Theodoret is most deserving of notice. Theodoret. Lib. 4 cap. 20.
54[7] 547 “Cíest un
acte semblable, que quand ceux quíon doit promouvoir se presentent
ý líautel, on demande par trois fois en Latin, síil
Èst digne; et quelcun qui ne lía jamais vue, ou quelque valet de
chambre que níentend point Latin, repond en Latin quíil est digne:
tout ainsi quíun personnage joueroit son rolle en une farce.”-In
like manner, when those whom they are to promote present themselves at the
altar, they ask, three times in Latin, if he is worthy; and some one who has
never seen him, or some valet who does not understand Latin, replies, in Latin,
that he is worthy: just as a person would play his part in a farce.
54[8] 548 French. “Ies
vices des personnes:”-the faults of individuals.
54[9] 549 See Calv. Adversus
Concilium Tridentinum. Also Adversus Theologos
Parisienses.
55[0] 550 French,
“Pour ce faire, ils alleguent la pretrise souveraine qui etoit en la loy,
et la jurisdiction souveraine du grand sacrificateur, que Dieu avoit establie en
Jerusalem.”-For this purpose, they allege the sovereign priesthood which
was under the law, and the sovereign jurisdiction of the high priest which God
had established at Jerusalem.
55[1]
551 “Car cíest tout ainsi comme si quelcun debattoit que le
monde doit etre gouvernÈ par un baillie ou seneschal parce que chacune
province a le sien.”-For it is just as if one were to maintain that the
whole world ought to be governed by a bailie or seneschal, because each province
has its own.
55[2] 552 French,
“Ils ont Four leur bouelier, quíaucuns des Peres les ont ainsi
exposees.”-They regard it as their buckler, that some of the Fathers have
so expounded them.
55[9] 559 The
French adds, “Vision receue du Seigneur; Le Seigneur des armees lía
dit,”-A vision received from the Lord; The Lord of hosts hath spoken it.
55[4] 554 Eph. 4:10, 7, 11.
D11[0] D110 Calvin apparently
believed that Paulís conversion occurred about three years after the
death of Christ; that Paul visited Peter in Jerusalem three years later (Gal.
1:18; Acts 9:26); that Paul saw Peter again at the Jerusalem Council fourteen
years later (Gal. 2:1, 2:9; Acts 15:1ñ11); and that these three numbers
were meant to be added together. He therefore locates Peter at Jerusalem about
twenty years after the death of
Christ.
D[1]11 D111 Nero
committed suicide in A.D. 68. A subtraction of thirty-seven years brings us back
to A.D. 31 for the date of Christís death. An addition of twenty years
would place Peter in Jerusalem until A.D. 51. And following this date, Peter
went to Antioch.
D11[2] D112
Paulís arrival in Rome as a prisoner is put at A.D. 60. If his
epistle to the Romans was written four years before, then that book should be
dated A.D. 56. In this letter, there is no salutation of Peter (as would be
expected if Peter had been bishop of Rome). In fact, there is not even so much
as a mention of him! (although many other names, some of them obscure, appear in
the closing chapter). The implication that Peter was not in Rome at this time
(A.D. 56) seems difficult to
avoid.
D11[3] D113 During his
first imprisonment in Rome (from A.D. 60 to 62), Paul wrote his epistle to the
Philippians. No mention is made of Peter, but there is a strong commendation of
Timothy, who not only was with Paul in Rome, but also sought for the things
which are Christís (Phil. 2:19ñ21). In addition to Paulís
own epistle, Lukeís account of Paulís two-year imprisonment in
Rome (in Acts 28) says nothing whatever concerning Peter. It would appear that
Peter was not in Rome from A.D. 60 to
62.
D11[4] D114 In Paulís
second epistle to Timothy (the last of the Pauline epistles, dated A.D. 67), he
states that at his first defense no man stood with him, but that all forsook him
(2 Tim. 4:17). Where then was Peter? A number of theories might be advanced in
reply to this question. Let us examine for: (1) Peter was in Rome, but in
hiding. This theory is not very complimentary to Peter, who must in such a case
have been among those who forsook Paul, for whom Paul prayed that it might not
be imputed to them (implying wrongdoing on their part). (2) Peter, at the time
of writing of 2 Timothy (in A.D. 67), had not as yet arrived in Rome. This
theory would hold that Peter arrived later in A.D. 67, and was martyred a short
time after, perhaps in the spring of A.D. 68, with Paul. This view suffers from
the fact that 2 Peter, believed to have been written by Peter at Rome, is dated
A.D.66. (3) Peter had already been martyred, and thus obviously could not stand
with Paul at his first defense. This theory would date Peterís death in
Rome at A.D. 64, during Neroís persecution of the Christians following
the great fire in Rome. Once again, this view conflicts with the date of the
writing of 2 Peter, in A.D. 66. Peterís second epistle, obviously written
by Peter, just as obviously could not have been written by someone who had died
two years before he wrote it! (4) Peter was imprisoned in Rome at this time,
expecting shortly to be executed (note 2 Peter 1:14), and thus was simply unable
to stand with Paul. This theory, although it has certain problems, nevertheless
has one important feature in its favor. It can take into account a two-year
period of imprisonment (A.D. 66ñ68) ending in Peterís execution
(during which period, in A.D. 67, he was unable to stand with Paul); and include
within that period Peterís second epistle (dated A.D.
66).
D11[5] D115 Calvin in this
one sentence states his conclusions on three distinct questions: (a) Did Peter
die in Rome? (b) Was Peter bishop of Rome? (c) If Peter was bishop of Rome, did
he hold this office for a long period of time? With regard to the first
question, Calvin does not dispute the contention that Peter died in Rome.
Although there is no specific statement to this effect in Scripture, yet
Peterís presence and martyrdom is attested by so many early writers,
including Clement of Rome, Ignatus, Papias, and Irenaeus, that there appears to
be no sound reason to reject a tradition about which so many authors agree.
However, in relation to the second and third questions, Calvin does not feel
that he can answer affirmatively. His reasons are found in the argument which he
has developed in this section and the previous one. If Calvinís
development in these sections, and the appended annotations are substantially
correct, then it would appear that at least three conclusions follow: (1) There
is no evidence that Peter founded the church at Rome. (2) There is no evidence
that Peter was in Rome for any considerable length of time. He may have been
there, at the most, for six years (if he came in A.D. 62 and died in A.D. 68).
He may have been there for five years (if he arrived in A.D. 66 and was executed
in A.D. 68). (3) There is no evidence that Peter was the (first) bishop of Rome;
or that such an office, distinct from that of elder, even existed at this early
date. Such an office, clearly extra-Biblical, appeared only later in the history
of the Church.
[5]55 555 French,
“Voila líArcheveque díArles assis pour retracter; si bon lui
semble la sentence de líEveque Romain. au moins pour juger par dessus
lui.”-Here is the Archbishop of Arles seated to recall, if he thinks fit,
the sentence of the Bishop of Rome, or at least to judge as his superior.
55[6] 556 Nicolas, whose view is
given in Decretis 17, QuÊst. 3, cap. Nemini; Innocent IX. QuÊst. 3,
cap. Nemo. Symmachi 9. QuÊst. 3, cap. Aliorum. Antherius, ibidem, cap.
Facta.
55[7] 557 Erasmus, in a
letter to Steuchus, says, “It may be that in Germany there are persons who
do not refrain from blasphemy against God, but the severest punishment is
inflicted on them. But at Rome, I have with my own ears heard men belching out
horrid blasphemies against Christ and his apostles, in the presence of many
besides myself, and doing it with
impunity!”
55[8] 558 John
Gerson, who lived at the time, attests that John XXII. openly denied the
immortality of the soul.
55[9] 559
The French adds, “Vision receue du Seigneur; Le Seigneur des armees
lía dit,”-A vision received from the Lord; The Lord of hosts hath
spoken it.
D11[6] D116 This
section admirably expresses Calvinís view concerning the centrality of
Christ in divine revelation. From Creation to Consummation, Christ is
Godís only wisdom, light, and truth, the only mirror in which God has
Himself as Redeemer, the only fountain of heavenly doctrine, and the only way by
which man can come to know God. Here there is no room for the concept that
Christ was completely concealed in the Old Testament, whereas He is completely
revealed in the New; nor for the idea that Old Testament saints trusted in God,
whereas New Testament saints trust in
Christ.
D11[7] D117 Although
Calvin uses the term “dictated” in connection with this explanation
of the manner in which the body of Old Testament Scripture was formed, this
should not be taken to express the mode of Inspiration, but rather to call
attention to the result of Inspiration. That this is his intention may be seen
in the previous assertion that historical details “are also the
composition of prophets,” which assertion takes into account the human
factor in the process of the inscripturation of
revelation.
D11[8] D118 This
assertion that the Spirit of Christ “in a manner dictated words to
them” implies at least three ideas: (1) The guidance of the Spirit in the
inspiration of Scripture extends to the very words which the apostles and
prophets employed; (2) The words of Scripture express the very thoughts which
God wished expressed, so that the result of the Spiritís inspiration is,
in regard to truth, the same as if the words had been dictated; (3) Yet the
words of Scripture were only “in a manner” dictated, since the
Spirit used the faculties peculiar to the human instruments, thereby ensuring a
Scripture characterized by differences of vocabulary, syntax, grammar, literary
style, historical setting, and theological
approach.
D11[9] D119 The
expression, “sure and authentic amanuenses,” would at first glance,
seem to imply that the apostles were mere scribes and copyists, and that
Inspiration should be defined as “infallible supernatural superintendence
of mechanical human reproduction of divinely communicated words.” But
Calvin would have subscribed to such a “dictation theory” of
Inspiration is abundantly clear from the many relevant portions of the
Institutes. (See also notes on sections 6 and 8 of this
chapter.)
56[0] 560 The French
adds, “Or, nos adversaires mesmes tiennent tous ceux-la pour
heretiques.”-Now, our opponents themselves regard all those as heretics.
56[1] 561
See Calvinís Antidote to the Articles of Sorbonne; Letter to
Sadolet; Necessity of Reforming the Church; Antidote to the Council of Trent;
Remarks on the Paternal Admonition of the Pope.
56[2] 562 French , “Si je
tien ici la bride roide pour ne lascher rien facilement ý nos
adversaires, ce níest pas a dire pourtant que je prise les conciles
anciens moins que je ne doy. Car je les honore de bonne affection, et desire que
chacun les estime, et les ait en reverence.”-If I here keep the reins
tight, and do not easily yield anything to our opponents, it is not because I
prize ancient councils less than I ought. For I honour them sincerely and desire
that every man esteem them, and hold them in reverence.
56[3] 563 French,
“Toutesfois je ne veux point que ces propos soyent entendus comme si je
vouloye amoindrir líauthoritÈ des pasteurs, et induire le peuple
ý la mepriser legerement.”-However, I would not have these
statements to be understood as if I wished to lessen the authority of pastors,
and induce the people lightly to despise it.
56[4] 564 French, “entre
le siege judicial de Dieu, qui est spirituel, et la justice terrestre des
hommes;”-between the judgment-seat of God and the terrestrial justice of
men.
[5]65 565 French, “Et
de fait, tel a etÈ le sens de cette distinction vulgaire quíon a
tenue par toutes les ecoles; que cíest autre choses des jurisdictions
humaines et politiques, que de celles qui touchent ý la
conscience;”-And in fact, such is the import of the common distinction
which has been held by all the schools, that human and civil jurisdictions are
quite different from those which touch the
conscience.
5[6]6 566 Calvin on
the Necessity of Reforming the Church.
56[7] 567 French, “Mais
depuis sont survenus díautres singes, qui ont eu une folle affectation de
coudre piece sur piece, et ainsi ont composÈ tant les accoustremens du
prestre, que les paremens de líautel, et le badinage et jeu de farce que
nous voyons ý present ý la Messe, avec tout le reste du
borgage.”-But other apes have since appeared, who have had a foolish
affectation of sewing piece to piece, and thus have formed all the furnishings
of the priests, as well as altar ornaments, the trifling and farce play which we
now see in the Mass, with all the other garniture.
56[8] 568 There is nothing
repugnant to this in the statement of Augustine (Ep. 119), that as the teachers
of liberal arts and pursuits, so bishops also were often accustomed, in their
judicial proceedings, to chastise with the
rod.
D12[0] D120 It is truly
unfortunate that these sound sentiments were not heeded by Calvin himself, when,
exactly six years before this definitive edition of 1559 was published, he asked
the councils of Geneva to arrest the heretic Michael Servetus, brought charges
against him, carried on the debate to prove that his heresy was threatening the
Church of Christ, and approved of the verdict to put him to death (although he
urged beheading instead of burning at the stake). Calvin even wrote a small book
defending the death sentence upon Servetus. Today there is a monument on
Champel, the hill upon which Servetus perished in the flames. It was erected on
the 350th anniversary of the execution, by followers of Calvin. The inscription
reads: As reverent and grateful sons of Calvin, our great Reformer, repudiating
his mistake, which was the mistake of his age, and according to the true
principles of the Reformation and the Gospel, holding fast to freedom of
conscience, we erect this monument of reconciliation on this 27th of October
1903.
56[9] 569 This is stated by
Ambrose, Hom. de Basilic. Tradend. See also August. De Fide et Operibus, cap. 4.
57[0] 570 Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 5;
Lib. 3 Ep. 20; Lib. 2 Ep. 61; Lib. 4 Ep. 31, 34.
57[1] 571 Lib. 1 Ep. 43; Lib. 4
Ep. 32, 34; Lib. 7 Ep. 39.
57[2] 572
French, “Jíuse de ce mot de Cleres pource quíil est
commun, combien quíil soit impropre; par lequel jíentens ceux qui
ont office et ministere en líEglise.”-I use this word Clergy
because it is common, though it is improper; by it I mean those who have an
office and ministry in the Church.
57[3] 573 Vide Cyril in Joann.
cap. 50, et Luther, de Commun. Populi, tom. 2
57[4] 574 Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 2;
Lib. 3 Ep. 14, 26.
[5]75 575
Ambros. Lib. 1 Ep. 3; et Oratio habita in Funere Theodosii.
57[6] 576 French, “Il y a
danger, que de discipline nous ne tombions en une maniere de gehene, et que de
correcteurs nous ne devenions bourreaux.”-There is a danger, lest instead
of discipline we fall into a kind of gehenna, and instead of correctors become
executioners.
5[7]7 577 See a
lengthened refutation in Calv. Instructio adv. Anabap. Art. 2. See also Calv. de
Cúna Domini.
57[8] 578
See a striking instance in Ezra 8:21, on the appointment of a fast at the
river Ahava, on the return of the people from the Babylonish captivity.
57[9] 579 French “Quand il
advient quelque different en ChretientÈ, qui tire grande
consequence.”-When some difference on a matter of great consequence takes
place in Christendom.
58[0] 580
1 Sam. 7:6; 31:13; 2 Kings 1:12; Jonah 3:5.
58[1] 581 August de Morib.
Manich. Lib. 2 c. 13; et cont. Faustum, Lib. 30
58[2] 582 See Chrysostom. Homil.
sub. initium QuadragesimÊ, where he terms fasting a cure of souls and
ablution for sins.
58[3] 583
Bernard in Serm. 1 in die PaschÊ, censures, among others, princes
also, for longing, during the season of Lent, for the approaching festival of
our Lordís resurrection, that they might indulge more freely.
D[1]21 D121 Bernard censures,
among others, princes also, for longing, during the season of Lent, for the
approaching festival of our Lordís resurrection, that they might indulge
more freely.
58[4] 584 See Ps.
119:106. “I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy
righteous judgments.” Calvin observes on these words, that the vow and
oath to keep the law cannot be charged with rashness, because it trusted to the
promises of God concerning the forgiveness of sins, and to the spirit of
regeneration.
[5]85 585 On the
vow of celibacy. see Calv. de Fugiend. Micit. sacris, Adv. Theolog. Paris. De
Necessit. Reform. Eccl.; PrÊfat. Antidoti ad Concil. Trident.; Vera
Eccles. Reform. Ratio; De Scandalis.
58[6] 586 Bernard, de Convers.
ad Clericos, cap. 29, inveighing against the crimes of the clergy, says,
“Would that those who cannot contain would fear to take the vow of
celibacy! For it is a weighty saying, that all cannot receive it. Many are
either unable to conceal from the multitude, or seek not to do it. They abstain
from the remedy of marriage, and thereafter give themselves up to all
wickedness.”
58[7] 587
Latin, “Catechism.”-French, “En faisant protestation de
notre foy;”-in making profession of our faith.
5[8]8 588 At the same place, he
admirably says, “Dearly beloved, love ease, but with the view of
restraining from all worldly delight, and remember that there is no place where
he who dreads our return to God is not able to lay his
snares.”
58[9] 589
Laurentius, defending his written assertion, that the monks falsely
imagined that by means of their profession they merited more than others,
admirably concludes, “There is no safer, no better way than that taught by
Christ, and in it no profession is
enjoined.”
59[0] 590
French, “,Par ce moyen ils attirent farine au moulin et vendent leur
saintetÈ tres cherement; cependant cette glose est cachee et comme
ensevelie en peu de livres;”-by this means they bring grist to their mill,
and sell their holiness very dear; meanwhile, the gloss is concealed, and is, as
it were, buried in a few books.
59[1]
591 Chrysostom, in his Homily on the words of Paul, “Salute
Prisca,” &c., says, “All who retire to monasteries separate
themselves from the Church, seeing they plainly assert that their monasticism is
the form of a second baptism.”
59[2] 592 See Bernard. ad
Guliel. Abbat.. “I wonder why there is so much intemperance among monks. O
vanity of vanities! but not more vain than insane.” See also August. de
Opere Monach. in fin
D1[2]2 D122
That is, the sacrament cannot make the promise of God objectively more
certain, but it can make our faith in Godís promise subjectively more
certain. Godís Word is always absolute, strong, unchangeable, and
“settled in heaven”; but our faith, throughout this life is always
relative, weak, changeable, and frequently in need of confirmation and
assurance. Thus we properly distinguish between the objective certainty of
Godís Word, and the subjective certainty of our
faith.
D12[3] D123 Sometimes this
distinction is expressed in terms of the form of administration of the
sacraments (the words of institution, the consecration of the element(s), and
their application or distribution), on the one hand, and their spiritual
significance and value, on the other. The grace of the sacraments does not lie
in their fact or form, but in the Word received by
faith.
59[3] 593 Heb.
9:1ñ14; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; Heb. 4:14; 5:5; 9:11.
59[4] 594 Rom. 2:25ñ29;
1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 6:15; 1 Cor. 10:5; 1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:11.
[5]95 595 French, “Mais
on fera encore un autre argument.”-But there is still another argument
which they will employ.
D12[4] D124
Perhaps an expansion of Calvinís thrust will help to illumine this
“difficult point.” In Hebrews 9 and 10 it may, at first glance,
appear that the writer intends to draw a contrast between those sacrifices
offered under the law which were never able to take away so much as a single
sin, and the one sacrifice offered by Christ which is able to take away all
sins. Such a contrast, however, poses certain questions. For example, what would
have been the value of the atonement which the high priest was to make each
year, when, in the holy of holies, he offered blood for his own sins and for the
sins of the people? Again, why did Moses sprinkle blood upon the book, the
people, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the tabernacle, in order (as
Hebrews 9:19ñ23states) to purge and purify them, if the blood of calves
and lambs and goats cannot take away a single sin? And how could David have
written, “Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven” (a blessedness
applicable, according to Paul in Romans 4:6ñ8, not only to David, but
also to New Testament believers), if by the shedding of blood during the Old
Testament economy, there was no remission (forgiveness) of sins? The objection
may be raised, but then what does the writer of Hebrews mean when he says (in
10:4) that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should
take away sins”? And how are we to understand the assertion (in 10:11)
that “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the
same sacrifices, which can never take away sins”? Two things appear clear:
(1) That the writer of Hebrews does not mean that the Old Testament sacrifices
commanded by God were valueless or worthless (2) that our interpretation must be
compared to, be in proportion to, and be related to, the analogy of faith (the
teaching of Scripture as a whole). Perhaps a viable solution to this problem can
be found in two important distinctions; that between temporary and permanent
value, and that between extrinsic efficacy. As we attempt to compare and
contrast the sacrifices of the Old Testament with the sacrifice by Christ of
Himself, we discover that the emphasis in Hebrews 9 and 10, with respect to the
Old Testament sacrifices, is upon their temporary value (because they were
repeated again and again), and their extrinsic efficacy (because they were not
intended to point to themselves, but to the atoning sacrifice of Christ which
gave efficacy to them); and we discover that the emphasis in those chapters,
with respect to the sacrifice of Christ, is upon its permanent value (because it
was completed once and for all by the eternal Word made flesh), and its
intrinsic efficacy (because it was and is a perfect and complete satisfaction).
The temporary value and extrinsic efficacy of the sacrifices of the Old
Testament is borne out by the terms used to express them in these two chapters
of Hebrews. They are called signs, or significations (9:8), figures, or types
(9:9, 24), patterns (9:23) and shadows (10:1). They could make the believing
worshipper perfect “in the sense of final completeness”, since He
offered one sacrifice and then sat down, never needing to offer again. But this
should not be understood to mean that the sacrifices of the Old Testament had no
value and no efficacy with respect to forgiveness of sins. If they were signs,
they pointed to that which they signified; if they were figures or types, they
anticipated their antitype; if they were patterns, they were patterns of the
true reality; and if they were shadows, they silhouetted the substance. These,
then, would appear to be the contrasts drawn in Hebrews 9 and 10. Impermanency
and non-self-sufficiency characterize the sacrifices of the Old Testament;
permanency and self-sufficiency characterize the Sacrifice of the New. The Old
Testament sacrifices of lambs were efficacious, but not of themselves, and not
without repetition; the New Testament sacrifice of the Lamb of God was
efficacious of itself, gave value and efficacy to the Old Testament sacrifices,
and is perfect and complete for
ever.
59[6] 596 The French
adds, “Quíils appellent en leur gergon.”-So called in their
jargon.
D12[5] D125 This
expression, opus operatum, in connection with the sacraments, has been defined
in the following ways: (a) that the sacraments themselves are causes of the
operations of Godís grace (b) that the sacraments effect the grace they
signify by the inherent power of the sacramental action itself (c) that in the
sacraments we find materials and actions which are of themselves efficacious to
give grace (d) that the sacraments not only signify inward grace, but have the
power of producing it in the soul. In addition to these meanings (which are very
similar in content and thrust), Calvin appears to understand the expression,
opus operatum, as implying yet another dimension. He seems to define it as
“an action which works,” or “an active work,” thereby
implying, on the part of the recipient, some active participation which merits
the grace of the sacrament. Both the abovementioned definitions of the
expression and the implication suggested by it, Calvin strongly repudiates. The
sacraments do not have inherent power to produce grace in the soul, nor are they
made efficacious by any admixture of human merit which is brought to them by
sinful men.
59[7] 597 The
French adds, “Jíappel le acte passif, pourceque Dieu fait le tout,
et seulement nous recevons.”-I call the act passive, because God does the
whole, and we only receive.
59[8]
598 French, “Nous suivons donc de mot ý mot la doctrine de
Sainct Paul, en ce que nous disons que le pechÈ est remis au Baptesme,
quant ý la coulpe, mais quíil demeure toujours quant ý la
matiËre, en tous Chretiens jusques ý la mort.”-We therefore
follow the doctrine of St Paul, word for word, when we say that in Baptism, sin
is forgiven as to the guilt, but that it always remains as to the matter in all
Christians until death.
5[9]9 599
Latin, “Exsufflatio.”-French, “Le souffle pour conjurer
le diable.”
6[0]0 600
Vid. Calv. in Epist. de Fugiendis illicitis sacris. Item, Vera Ecclesia
ReformandÊ Ratio. See also infra, chap. 17 sec. 43. As to the form of
baptism, see Cyprian, Lib. 4 Ep. 7.
60[1] 601 French, “Au
reste, cíest une chose de nulle importance, si on baptise en plongeant du
tout dans líeau celui qui est baptisÈ, ou en repandant seulement
de líeau sur lui: mais selon la diversitÈ des regions cela doit
demeura en la libertÈ des Eglises. Car le signe est representÈ en
líun et en líautre. Combien que le mot mesme de Baptiser signifie
du tout plonger et quíil soit certain que la coustume díainsi
totalement plonger ait etÈ anciennement observÈe en
1íEglise.”-Moreover, it is a matter of no importance whether we
baptise by entirely immersing the person baptised in the water, or only by
sprinkling water upon him, but, according to the diversity of countries, this
should remain free to the churches. For the sign is represented in either.
Although the mere term Baptise means to immerse entirely, and it is certain that
the custom of thus entirely immersing was anciently observed in the Church.
D12[6] D126 In this sentence
Calvin makes three assertions: (1) that the mode of baptism is a matter of
complete indifference (“not of the least consequence”). (2) that it
is evident that the term “baptize” means to immerse. (3) that
immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church. These assertions deserve
thoughtful consideration. Perhaps the following observations will be helpful:
(1) Behind Calvinís complete infifference to mode lies an important
distinction - the distinction between the substance or matter of the sacraments,
and the mode or form of the sacraments; or to put it another way, the
distinction between the essentials and the accidentals of the sacraments. For
Calvin, the essential elements of the proper administration of baptism include:
(a) a proper consecration, which includes the words of institution, the promises
and obligations connected with the sacrament, and prayer; (b) a proper
distribution, which involves the application of water in the name of the
Trinity; and (c) a proper reception, which consists of faith, repentance, and an
obedient spirit on the part of the recipient (or , in the case of infants, on
the part of the parents). Beyond these, other aspects of the sacrament are
“not of the least consequence,” but are purely matters of expediency
(such as differences of national or local custom, or diversity or climate). (2)
The contention that the word translate “baptize” means to immerse is
true in many instances of its usage in the Greek classics, so many of which had
been rediscovered in the Renaissance which preceded the Reformation period. It
was no doubt in these works that Calvin found the word “baptize” to
mean “immerse”. However, from a study of its usage in the
Septuagient (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made about
250ñ200 B.C.); and from a careful examination of its usage in the New
Testament; we discover that this word, during the history of its usage, enlarged
its scope of meaning to include, along with its classical definition of
“to submerge, to immerse, and to dip,” the further meanings of
“to bathe in or with water, to wash.” It should be noted that two of
the most highly regarded Greek lexicons-Thayerís and Arndt and
Gingrichís-bear witness to this enlarged scope of meaning. As far as the
New Testament meaning of the word “baptize” is concerned, it must be
decided by a study, in each instance, of its usage in context. Such a study
reveals that the word “baptize” does not mean immersion (although
immersion could have been used in a number of cases). On the other hand, the
same study reveals that “baptize” does not mean pouring or
sprinkling either! The word, as used in the New Testament, does not mean a
particular mode. Whenever it is used to refer to Christian water baptism, it
means “to perform the Christian ceremony of initiation, with its essential
elements of consecration, distribution, and reception.” (3) The contention
that immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church has more recently been
questioned, in the light of a comparison between the writings of the Church
Fathers and the archaeological evidence that in any way relates to mode. Such a
comparison appears to favor pouring the prevailing mode, with other modes also
in use. Excellent studies of this question can be found in Clement F.
Rogersí work, Baptism and Christian Archaeology (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1903), and J.G. Daviesí work, The Architectural Setting of Baptism
(London, Barrie and Rockliff,
1962).
60[2] 602 French,
“Car par une mesme raison il faudroit dire, le service meslÈ que
dresserent en Samarie ceux qui etoient la envoyÈs díOrient, eut
etÈ agreable a Dieu, veu que depuis ils ne furent plus molestes des betes
sauvages.”-For the same reason it would be necessary to say, that the
mongrel worship set up in Samaria by those who came from the East was agreeable
to God, seeing that thereafter they were not molested by wild
beasts.
60[3] 603 The French
from the beginning of the chapter is as follows:-”Or díautant que
nous voyons líobservation que nous tenons de baptiser les petits enfans
etre impugnÈe et debatue par aucuns esprits malins, comme si elle
níavoit point etÈ institutÈe de Dieu mais inventÈe
nouvellement des hommes, ou pour le moins quelques annÈes apres le tems
des Apostres, jíestime quíil viendra bien ý propos, de
confermer en cest endroit les consciences imbecilles, et refuter les objections
mensonges qui pouroient faire teis seducteurs, pour renverser le veritÈ
de Dieu aux cúur des simples, qui ne seraient pas exercitÈs pour
repondre a leur cauteles et cavillations.”-Now, inasmuch as we see that
the practice which we have of baptising little children is impugned and assailed
by some malignant spirits, as if it had not been appointed by God, but newly
invented by men, or at least some years after the days of the Apostles, I think
it will be very seasonable to confirm weak consciences in this matter, and
refute the lying objections which such seducers might make, in order to
overthrow the truth of God in the hearts of the simple, who might not be skilled
in answering their cavils and objections.
D12[7] D127 The “analogy
of faith,” to which we are to “bring every interpretation of
Scripture,” refers to the ultimate rule or standard of interpretation, the
final test of all doctrine; namely, the teaching of Scripture as a whole.
Analogy suggests comparison; thus we are to compare a proposed interpretation of
a specific portion of Scripture with the interpretation which Scripture as a
whole; either explicitly or generally, gives to itself. Analogy suggests
proportion or measure; thus we are to ascertain the intention and importance of
a single text of Scripture in proportion to its place and distribution in the
whole body of revealed truth. Analogy also suggests relationship; thus we are to
study the particular doctrines of Scriptures in relation to the system of
doctrine revealed therein.
D12[8]
D128 This strong assertion must be seen in its relationship to the
question of the salvation of elect infants dying in infancy. If they are to have
remission of sins, a new nature, and the blessing of eternal life, it is clear
that they must be regenerated.
D12[9]
D129 It is instructive to take not of Calvinís careful restraint
and sense of proportion in the previous few sentences. With respect to the
question of the manner in which elect infants dying in infancy are saved,
Calvin, while presupposing their need and the Spiritís supply of
regeneration (see note on section 18), makes no definite assertion concerning
the presence or absence of faith in them. This position of indecision (as Calvin
terms it) is commendable, precisely because it does not presume beyond the
teaching of Scripture.
D13[0] D130
In connection with the sacraments, there are three aspects which must be
carefully distinguished: 1. the spiritual reality which is signified (what
Calvin calls “the thing”) 2. the external sacrament itself (what
Calvin calls “the sign”) 3. our understanding of the spiritual
significance of the sacrament (as mediated to us by the Word and Spirit). Calvin
has called our attention to the very important fact that a particular time order
of these aspects is not crucial to the proper use of the sacraments. He asserts
that the spiritual reality itself (e.g., regeneration) may either precede or
follow the external sacrament (i.e., 1 may precede 2, or 2 may precede 1). The
order then, of the three aspects enumerated above could be 1, 2, 3, or 1, 3, 2,
or 2, 1, 3. (The reason why the order could not be 2, 3, 1, or 3, 1, 2, or 3, 2,
1, is that, because of that depravity which fills our minds with ignorance and
spiritual darkness, our understanding of the sacramentís spiritual
significance [3] must always follow the spiritual reality which is signified
[1]). Calvinís specific interest in this section is, of course, to point
out that the third possible order (2, 1, 3) is a live option. That is, the time
order (in addition to the other possible orders) could be as follows: 2. the
external sacrament itself (e.g., baptism) 1. the spiritual reality which is
signified (e.g., regeneration) 3. our understanding of the spiritual
significance of the sacrament. And the time lapse between number 2 and numbers 1
and 3 could amount to an indefinite number of years, just as it ordinarily did
in the case of circumcised infants in Old Testament
times.
60[4] 604 See Calv.
Cont. Articulos Theologorum Paris. Art 4. Item, Ad. Concil. Trident. Item, Vera
Eccles. Reformand. Ratio, et in Append. NÊvus in August. Lib. 1 ad
Bonifac. et Epist. 28. Ambros. de Vocat. Gentium, Lib. 2 cap. 8, de Abraham.
Lib. 2 cap. 11.
60[5] 605
French, “Combien quíil me fasche díamasser tant de
reveries frivoles que pourront ennuyer les lecteurs, toutesfeis pource que
Servet, se meslant aussi de mesdire du baptesme des petis enfans, a cuide amener
de fort belles raisons, il sera raison de les rabattre
brievement.”-Although I am sorry to amass so many frivolous reveries which
may annoy the reader, yet as Servetus, taking it upon him to calumniate baptism
also, has seemed to adduce very fine arguments, it will be right briefly to
dispose of them.
[6]06 606 See
August. Hom. in Joann. 31 et 40, &c., Chrysost. Hom. ad Popul. Antioch., 60,
61; et Hom. in Marc. 89.
D[1]31 D131
The degree to which Calvinís words concerning the Roman Catholic
dogma of transubstantiation have become obsolete, during the 390 years following
this definitive edition of the Institutes (Geneva, 1559), may be ascertained by
comparing his discussion with the answers to questions 347ñ50 of the
official Baltimore Catechism, No. 3, issued in 1449 under the auspices of the
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. We here quote both questions and answers
verbatim: 347. What happened when our Lord said: “This is My body...This
is My blood”? When Our Lord said, “This is My body,” the
entire substance of the bread was changed into His body; and when He said,
“This is My blood,” the entire substance of the wine changed into
His blood. 348. Did anything of the bread and wine remain after their substance
had been changed into Our Lordís body and blood? After the substance of
the bread and wine had been changed into Our Lordís body and blood, there
remained only the appearances of bread and wine. 349. What do we mean by the
appearances of bread and wine? By the appearances of bread and wine we mean
their color, taste, weight, shape, and whatever else appears to the senses. 350.
What is the change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body
and blood of Christ called? The change of the entire substance of the bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ is called
Transubstantiation.
60[7] 607
Compare together Ambrose on those who are initiated in the sacraments
(cap. 9) and Augustine, De Trinitate, Lib. 3 cap. 10, and it will be seen that
both are opposed to transubstantiation.
D13[2] D132 Calvin, though
tactfully refraining from any mention of Luther (whom he held in high regard),
obviously has reference to that view of the presence of Christ in the
Lordís Supper historically associated with the Lutheran tradition-a view
which has often been called (in contradistinction to transubstantiation)
“consubstantiation.” Whereas “transubstantiation” means
a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of
Christís body and blood, “consubstantiation” means that the
substance of the bread and wine is accompanied by the substance of
Christís body and blood. Perhaps three references from Lutheran tradition
will suffice to support the contention that this view has been held by that
tradition. In his Large Catechism, Martin Luther asserted: The Sacrament of the
Alter is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under bread
and wine, instituted and commanded by the Word of Christ to be eaten and drank
by us Christians. In the negative division of Article 7 of the Formula of
Concord (1584), two sections are particularly relevant: Section 5. (We reject
and condemn the erroneous article) That the body of Christ in the Holy Supper is
not received by the mouth together with the bread, but that only bread and wine
are received by the mouth, while the body of Christ is taken only spiritually,
to wit, by faith. Section 11. (We reject and condemn the erroneous article) That
Christís body is so confined in heaven that it can in no mode whatever be
likewise at one and the same time in many places, or in all the places where the
Lordís Supper is celebrated. Those theologians who followed in the
Lutheran tradition (e.g., David Hollaz and Heinrich Schmid) frequently expressed
this view in the following manner: In with, and under the bread and wine, Christ
presents His true body and blood to be truly and substantially eaten and drank
by us.
60[8] 608 Gen. 17:10;
Exod. 12:11; 17:6; 1 Cor. 10:4.
60[9]
609 Exod. 3:2; Psalm 84:8; 42:3; Mt 3:16.
61[0] 610 French,
“Certes si on ne veut abolir toute raison, on ne peut dire que ce qui est
commun ý tous sacremens níappartienne aussi ý la
Cene.”-Certainly if we would not abolish reason altogether, we cannot say
that that which is common to all the sacraments belongs not also to the Supper.
6[1]1 611 The French adds,
“Je di si Jesus Christ est enclos sous chacun des deux signes.”-I
mean, if Jesus Christ is included under each of the two signs.
61[2] 612 The French adds,
“En lisant nos ecrits, on verra incontinent combien ces calomnies sont
vilaines et puantes.”-In reading our writings, it will at once be seen how
vile and foul these calumnies
are.
61[3] 613 Thus Augustine,
speaking of certain persons, says: “It is strange, when they are confined
in their straits, over what precipices they plunge themselves, fearing the nets
of truth” (Aug. Ep. 105).
61[4] 614 That the dogma of
those who place the body of Christ in the bread is not aided by passages from
Augustine, or the authority of Scripture, is proved here and sec. 29ñ31.
There is no ambiguity in what he says, De Civit. Dei, 16, cap. 27. In Psal. 26
et 46. In Joann. Tract. 13, 102, 106, 107, &c.
61[5] 615 The French adds,
“Car la figure seroit fausse, si ce quíelle represente
níestoit vray.”-For the figure would be false, if the thing which
it represents were not real.
[6]16
616 The French adds, “veu quíils confessent que nous
líavons aussi bien sans la Cene;”-seeing they acknowledge that we
have him as well without the Supper.
61[7] 617 French, “Il
faisoit Jesus Christ homme en tant quíil est Dieu, et Dieu en tant
quíil est homme.”-He made Jesus Christ man, in so far as he is God,
and God in so far as he is man.
61[8] 618 See Bernard in Cant.
Serm. 74, 75; et Trad. de Gratia et Liber. Arbit.
61[9] 619 See August. Cont.
Liter. Petiliani, Lib. 2 c. 47, et Tract. in Joann.
62[0] 620 See Calvin de
Cúna Domini. Item, Adv. Theol. Paris. Item, Vera Eceles. Reform. Ratio.
D1[3]3 D133 The reference is
to Gregory I (frequently referred to as Gregory the Great), bishop of Rome from
590 to
604.
62[1]
621 Vid. Calv. Ep. de Fugiend. Illic. Sacris. Item, De Sacerdotiis
Eccles. Papal. Item, De Necessitate Reform. Eccles. Item, Epist. ad Sadoletum.
6[2]2 622 The French adds,
“qui ont parlÈ un petit plus passablement que leur successeurs qui
sont venus depuis;”-who have spoken somewhat more tolerably than their
successors who have come since.
62[3] 623 Heb. 5:5ñ10;
7:17; 21; 9:11; 10:21; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18.
62[4] 624 Heb. 9:11, 12, 26;
10:10, 14, 16.
62[5] 625 The
French of this sentence is, “Car combien que ceux qui sont les plus
effrontÈes entre les Papistes fassent un bouclier des anciens docteurs,
abusant faussement de leurs tesmoignages, toutesfois cíest une chose
claire comme le soleil en plein midi, que ce quíils font est tout
contraire a líusage ancien: et que cíest un abus qui est venu en
avant du temps que tout etoit depravÈ et corrompu en
líEglise.”-For although those who have the most effrontery among
the Papists make a shield of the ancient doctors, falsely abusing their
testimony, it is clear as the sun at noon-day, that what they do is quite
contrary to ancient practice, and that is an abuse which immediately preceded
the time when everything was depraved and corrupted in the Church.
[6]26 626 This last sentence
forms, in the French, the first of sec. 11.
62[7] 627 French,
“níancun authorite humaine, ne longeur de temps, ne toutes autres
apparences;”-no human authority, no length of time, nor any other
appearances.
62[8] 628 The
French explains, “cíest ý dire, sous le nom de la parole de
Dieu;”-that is to say, under the name of the word of God.
62[9] 629 Exod.
16:13ñ15; 17:6; Num. 20:8., 21:9; 1 Cor. 10:4; John 3:14.
63[0] 630 1 John 2:18; 1 Pet.
1:20; Luke 10:22, Heb. 1:1; 1 Cor. 13:12.
63[1] 631 French,
“deschiree, decouppee, departie, brisee, divisee, et toute
difformee.”
63[2] 632
Ambros. de iis qui init. Mysteriis et de Sacrament.
6[3]3 633 Calv. adv. Concil.
Trident. PrÊfat. in Catechis. Latinum. Viret. de Adulter. Sacrament. cap.
2ñ5.
63[4] 634 French,
“en laquelle toutesfois ils níont rien semblable a eux, sinon une
folle et perverse singerie”;-in which, however, they have nothing like
them but a foolish and perverse aping.
63[5] 635 The French adds,
“du ternps de Sainct Augustin;” -of the time of St Augustine.
[6]36 636 De Consecr. Dist. 5,
Concil. Aurel. cap. Ut Jejuni de Consecr. Dist. 5.
63[7] 637 French,
“Auquel ils font semblant de porter une reverence inviolable;”-for
whom they pretend to have an inviolable respect.
63[8] 638 August. QuÊst.
Vet. Test. Lib. 3 De Bapt. Parvul. De Bapt. Cont. Donat. Lib.
5
63[9] 639 The French adds,
“Car, comme nous avoos assez declairÈ ci dessus, la promesse des
clefs níappartient nullement a faire quelque estat particulier
díabsolution, mais seulement ý la predication de líEvangile
soit quíelle soit faite ou a plusieurs, ou a un seul, sans y mettre
difference; cíest a dire, que par icelle promesse notre Seigneur ne fonde
point une absolution speciale qui soit faite distinctement ý un chacun
mais celle qui se fait indifferement a tous pecheurs, sans addresse
particuliere.”-For, as we have sufficiently shown above, the promise of
the keys pertains not to the making of any particular state of absolution, but
only to the preaching of the Gospel, whether it is made to several or to one
only, without making any difference; that is to say, that by this promise our
Lord does not found a special absolution which is given separately to each, but
one which is given indifferently to all sinners, without particular application.
64[0] 640 Sent. Lib. 4 Dist.
14, cap. 1. De Púnit. Dist. 1, cap. 2. August. Dictum in Decret. 15.
QuÊst. 1, Cap. Fermissime.
64[1] 641 John 9:6; Mt. 9:29;
Luke 18:42; Acts 3:6; 5:16;
19:12.
D13[4] D134 This
distinction in no way calls into question the value of the various sacraments
which, in distinct ages, God has been pleased to appoint. To the contrary, it
affirms their integrity and value as signs and seals of Godís covenant of
grace, while emphasizing the fact that they are specifically designed for,
applicable within, and valid for particular historical contexts. Calvin draws
the obvious inference: some sacraments are not intended for the present
age.
64[2] 642 The French adds,
“Comment accorderont ils cela avec ce quíils veulent faire
accroire”?-How will they reconcile this with what they wish to be
believed?
64[3] 643 Isa. 11:2;
Ezek. 1:20; Rom. 1:4, 8:15.
6[4]4
644 Isidor. Lib. 7, Etymolog, allegatim, cap. Cleros. Dist. 21, 33, cap.
Lector, et cap. Ostier.
64[5] 645
John 2:15; 10:7; Luke 4:17; Mt. 7:33; John 8:12; 13:5; Mt. 26:26; 27:50.
[6]46 646 The French adds,
“Voila comment la tonsure níestoit point une chose speciale aux
clercs, mais estoit en usance quasi ý tous.”-See how the tonsure
was not a thing peculiar to the clergy, but was used, as it were, by all.
64[7] 647 French, “Ills
ont eto trompÈ du mot de Sacrement qui est en la translation
commune.”-They have been misled by the word Sacrament, which is in the
common translation.
64[8] 648
Lat. Lib. 4 Dist. 26, cap. 6, et in Decret 27, QuÊst. 2, cap.
QuÊ Societas, etc. Gloss. eod. c. Lex Divina. Ibid. Lib. 4 Dist. 33, cap.
2. et in Decret. 33, QuÊst. 2. cap. Quicquid, &c.
64[9] 649 Exod. 22:8, 9; Ps.
82:1, 6; John 10:34, 35; Deut. 1:16, 17; 2 Chron. 19:6, 7; Prov.
8:15.
65[0] 650 French,
“Ceux qui voudroyent que les hommes vesquissent pesle mesle comme rats en
paille;”-Those who would have men to live pell-mell like rats among straw.
65[1] 651 French “On
conte trois especes de regime civil: cíest assavoir Monarchie, qui est la
domination díun seul, soit quíon le nomme Roy ou Due, ou
autrement: Aristoeratie qui est une domination gouvernee par les principaux et
gens díapparence: et Democratie, qui est une domination populaire, en
laquelle chacun du peuple a puissance.”- There are three kinds of civil
government; namely, Monarchy, which is the domination of one only, whether he be
called King or Duke, or otherwise; Aristocracy, which is a government composed
of the chiefs and people of note; and Democracy, which is a popular government,
in which each of the people has power.
65[2] 652 Exod. 20:13; Deut.
5:17; Mt. 5:21; Isa. 11:9; 65:25.
65[3] 653 The French adds,
“Pourtant il est facile de conclure, quíen cette partie il ne sont
sujets a la loy commune; par laquelle combien que le Seigneur lie les mains de
tous les hommes, toutes fois il ne lie pas sa justice laquelle il exerce par les
mains des magistrats. Tout ainsi que quand un prince defend ý tou sses
sujets de porter baston ou blesser aucun, il níempeehe pas neantmoins ses
officiers díexecuter la justice, laquelie il leur a specialement
commise.”-Therefore, it is easy to conclude, that in this respect they are
not subject to the common law, by which, although the Lord ties the hands of all
men, still he ties not his justice which he exercises by the hands of
magistrates. Just as when a prince forbids all his subjects to beat or hurt any
one, he nevertheless prohibits not his officers from executing the justice which
he has specially committed to them.
65[4] 654 Exod 2:12; Acts
7:21; Exod. 32:26; 1 Kings 2:5; Ps 101:8; 45:8.
6[5]5 655 Prov 16:12; 20:26;
25:4, 5; 17:15; 17:14; 24:24.
[6]56
656 Acts 22, 24:12; 16:37; 22:25; 25:10; Lev. 19:18; Mt. 5:39; Deut.
32:35; Rom. 12:19.
65[7] 657
Job 34:30; Hos. 13:11; Isa. 3:4; 10:5: Deut. 28:29.
65[8] 658 Dan. 9:7; Prov.
21:1; Psalm 82:1; 2:10; Isaiah 10:1.
65[9] 659 The French adds,
“Car les uns les faisoyent estans asseurez quíils faisoyent bien,
et les autres par autre zele (comme nous avons dit).”-For the former acted
under the full conviction, that they were doing right, and the latter, from a
different feeling, as we have said.
[*] *
THE ONE HUNDRED APHORISMS, with the various TABLES and INDICES, which must
greatly facilitate reference, and enhance the utility and value of the present
translation of THE INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, have been kindly
furnished by the Rev. WILLIAM PRINGLE of
Auchterarder.
[i]