Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at:

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

1 August 1536 A.D. John Calvin's Letter to Francis 1, King of the French

1 August 1536 A.D.  John Calvin's Letter to Francis 1, King of the French















   Sire,--When I first engaged in this work, nothing was farther from my

   thoughts than to write what should afterwards be presented to your

   Majesty. My intention was only to furnish a kind of rudiments, by which

   those who feel some interest in religion might be trained to true

   godliness. And I toiled at the task chiefly for the sake of my

   countrymen the French, multitudes of whom I perceived to be hungering

   and thirsting after Christ, while very few seemed to have been duly

   imbued with even a slender knowledge of him. That this was the object

   which I had in view is apparent from the work itself, which is written

   in a simple and elementary form adapted for instruction.


   But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such

   a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound

   doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the same work

   both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your

   Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the doctrine is

   that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this day, with fire

   and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to declare, that what

   I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine

   which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile,

   imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea.


   I am aware, indeed, how, in order to render our cause as hateful to

   your Majesty as possible, they have filled your ears and mind with

   atrocious insinuations; but you will be pleased, of your clemency, to

   reflect, that neither in word nor deed could there be any innocence,

   were it sufficient merely to accuse. When any one, with the view of

   exciting prejudice, observes that this doctrine, of which I am

   endeavouring to give your Majesty an account, has been condemned by the

   suffrages of all the estates, and was long ago stabbed again and again

   by partial sentences of courts of law, he undoubtedly says nothing more

   than that it has sometimes been violently oppressed by the power and

   faction of adversaries, and sometimes fraudulently and insidiously

   overwhelmed by lies, cavils, and calumny. While a cause is unheard, it

   is violence to pass sanguinary sentences against it; it is fraud to

   charge it, contrary to its deserts, with sedition and mischief.


   That no one may suppose we are unjust in thus complaining, you

   yourself, most illustrious Sovereign, can bear us witness with what

   lying calumnies it is daily traduced in your presence, as aiming at

   nothing else than to wrest the sceptres of kings out of their hands, to

   overturn all tribunals and seats of justice, to subvert all order and

   government, to disturb the peace and quiet of society, to abolish all

   laws, destroy the distinctions of rank and property, and, in short,

   turn all things upside down. And yet, that which you hear is but the

   smallest portion of what is said; for among the common people are

   disseminated certain horrible insinuations--insinuations which, if well

   founded, would justify the whole world in condemning the doctrine with

   its authors to a thousand fires and gibbets. Who can wonder that the

   popular hatred is inflamed against it, when credit is given to those

   most iniquitous accusations? See, why all ranks unite with one accord

   in condemning our persons and our doctrine!


   Carried away by this feeling, those who sit in judgment merely give

   utterance to the prejudices which they have imbibed at home, and think

   they have duly performed their part if they do not order punishment to

   be inflicted on any one until convicted, either on his own confession,

   or on legal evidence. But of what crime convicted? "Of that condemned

   doctrine," is the answer. But with what justice condemned? The very

   essence of the defence was, not to abjure the doctrine itself, but to

   maintain its truth. On this subject, however, not a whisper is allowed!


   Justice, then, most invincible Sovereign, entitles me to demand that

   you will undertake a thorough investigation of this cause, which has

   hitherto been tossed about in any kind of way, and handled in the most

   irregular manner, without any order of law, and with passionate heat

   rather than judicial gravity.


   Let it not be imagined that I am here framing my own private defence,

   with the view of obtaining a safe return to my native land. Though I

   cherish towards it the feelings which become me as a man, still, as

   matters now are, I can be absent from it without regret. The cause

   which I plead is the common cause of all the godly, and therefore the

   very cause of Christ--a cause which, throughout your realm, now lies,

   as it were, in despair, torn and trampled upon in all kinds of ways,

   and that more through the tyranny of certain Pharisees than any

   sanction from yourself. But it matters not to inquire how the thing is

   done; the fact that it is done cannot be denied. For so far have the

   wicked prevailed, that the truth of Christ, if not utterly routed and

   dispersed, lurks as if it were ignobly buried; while the poor Church,

   either wasted by cruel slaughter or driven into exile, or intimidated

   and terror--struck, scarcely ventures to breathe. Still her enemies

   press on with their wonted rage and fury over the ruins which they have

   made, strenuously assaulting the wall, which is already giving way.

   Meanwhile, no man comes forth to offer his protection against such

   furies. Any who would be thought most favourable to the truth, merely

   talk of pardoning the error and imprudence of ignorant men For so those

   modest personages [3] speak; giving the name of error and imprudence to

   that which they know to be [4] the infallible truth of God, and of

   ignorant men to those whose intellect they see that Christ has not

   despised, seeing he has deigned to intrust them with the mysteries of

   his heavenly wisdom. [5] Thus all are ashamed of the Gospel.


   Your duty, most serene Prince, is, not to shut either your ears or mind

   against a cause involving such mighty interests as these: how the glory

   of God is to be maintained on the earth inviolate, how the truth of God

   is to preserve its dignity, how the kingdom of Christ is to continue

   amongst us compact and secure. The cause is worthy of your ear, worthy

   of your investigation, worthy of your throne.


   The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the

   administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not

   make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a

   king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long

   prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the sceptre of God,

   that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible

   which has declared, that "where there is no vision the people perish"

   (Prov. 29:18).


   Let not a contemptuous idea of our insignificance dissuade you from the

   investigation of this cause. We, indeed, are perfectly conscious how

   poor and abject we are: in the presence of God we are miserable

   sinners, and in the sight of men most despised--we are (if you will)

   the mere dregs and off--scourings of the world, or worse, if worse can

   be named: so that before God there remains nothing of which we can

   glory save only his mercy, by which, without any merit of our own, we

   are admitted to the hope of eternal salvation: [6] and before men not

   even this much remains, [7] since we can glory only in our infirmity, a

   thing which, in the estimation of men, it is the greatest ignominy even

   tacitly [8] to confess. But our doctrine must stand sublime above all

   the glory of the world, and invincible by all its power, because it is

   not ours, but that of the living God and his Anointed, whom the Father

   has appointed King, that he may rule from sea to sea, and from the

   rivers even to the ends of the earth; and so rule as to smite the whole

   earth and its strength of iron and brass, its splendour of gold and

   silver, with the mere rod of his mouth, and break them in pieces like a

   potter's vessel; according to the magnificent predictions of the

   prophets respecting his kingdom (Dan. 2:34; Isaiah 11:4; Psalm 2:9).


   Our adversaries, indeed, clamorously maintain that our appeal to the

   word of God is a mere pretext,--that we are, in fact, its worst

   corrupters. How far this is not only malicious calumny, but also

   shameless effrontery, you will be able to decide, of your own

   knowledge, by reading our Confession. Here, however, it may be

   necessary to make some observations which may dispose, or at least

   assist, you to read and study it with attention.


   When Paul declared that all prophecy ought to be according to the

   analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6), he laid down the surest rule for

   determining the meaning of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by

   this rule and our victory is secure. For what accords better and more

   aptly with faith than to acknowledge ourselves divested of all virtue

   that we may be clothed by God, devoid of all goodness that we may be

   filled by Him, the slaves of sin that he may give us freedom, blind

   that he may enlighten, lame that he may cure, and feeble that he may

   sustain us; to strip ourselves of all ground of glorying that he alone

   may shine forth glorious, and we be glorified in him? When these

   things, and others to the same effect, are said by us, they interpose,

   and querulously complain, that in this way we overturn some blind light

   of nature, fancied preparatives, free will, and works meritorious of

   eternal salvation, with their own supererogations also; [9] because

   they cannot bear that the entire praise and glory of all goodness,

   virtue, justice, and wisdom, should remain with God. But we read not of

   any having been blamed for drinking too much of the fountain of living

   water; on the contrary, those are severely reprimanded who "have hewed

   them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Jer.

   2:13). Again, what more agreeable to faith than to feel assured that

   God is a propitious Father when Christ is acknowledged as a brother and

   propitiator, than confidently to expect all prosperity and gladness

   from Him, whose ineffable love towards us was such that He "spared not

   his own Son, but delivered him up for us all" (Rom. 8:32), than to rest

   in the sure hope of salvation and eternal life whenever Christ, in whom

   such treasures are hid, is conceived to have been given by the Father?

   Here they attack us, and loudly maintain that this sure confidence is

   not free from arrogance and presumption. But as nothing is to be

   presumed of ourselves, so all things are to be presumed of God; nor are

   we stript of vainglory for any other reason than that we may learn to

   glory in the Lord. Why go farther? Take but a cursory view, most

   valiant King, of all the parts of our cause, and count us of all wicked

   men the most iniquitous, if you do not discover plainly, that

   "therefore we both labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the

   living God" (1 Tim. 4:10); because we believe it to be "life eternal"

   to know "the only true God, and Jesus Christ," whom he has sent (John

   17:3). For this hope some of us are in bonds, some beaten with rods,

   some made a gazing--stock, some proscribed, some most cruelly tortured,

   some obliged to flee; we are all pressed with straits, loaded with dire

   execrations, lacerated by slanders, and treated with the greatest



   Look now to our adversaries (I mean the priesthood, at whose beck and

   pleasure others ply their enmity against us), and consider with me for

   a little by what zeal they are actuated. The true religion which is

   delivered in the Scriptures, and which all ought to hold, they readily

   permit both themselves and others to be ignorant of, to neglect and

   despise; and they deem it of little moment what each man believes

   concerning God and Christ, or disbelieves, provided he submits to the

   judgment of the Church with what they call [10] implicit faith; nor are

   they greatly concerned though they should see the glow of God

   dishonoured by open blasphemies, provided not a finger is raised

   against the primacy of the Apostolic See and the authority of holy

   mother Church. [11] Why, then, do they war for the mass, purgatory,

   pilgrimage, and similar follies, with such fierceness and acerbity,

   that though they cannot prove one of them from the word of God, they

   deny godliness can be safe without faith in these things--faith drawn

   out, if I may so express it, to its utmost stretch? Why? just because

   their belly is their God, and their kitchen their religion; and they

   believe, that if these were away they would not only not be Christians,

   but not even men. For although some wallow in luxury, and others feed

   on slender crusts, still they all live by the same pot, which without

   that fuel might not only cool, but altogether freeze. He, accordingly,

   who is most anxious about his stomach, proves the fiercest champion of

   his faith. In short, the object on which all to a man are bent, is to

   keep their kingdom safe or their belly filled; not one gives even the

   smallest sign of sincere zeal.


   Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and

   defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or

   suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as

   doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracles it has been

   confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of

   so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to

   confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church,

   or that the Church must have been without life during the many

   centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. Lastly, they say

   there is little need of argument, for its quality may be known by its

   fruits, namely, the large number of sects, the many seditious

   disturbances, and the great licentiousness which it has produced. No

   doubt, it is a very easy matter for them, in presence of an ignorant

   and credulous multitude, to insult over an undefended cause; but were

   an opportunity of mutual discussion afforded, that acrimony which they

   now pour out upon us in frothy torrents, with as much license as

   impunity, [12] would assuredly boil dry.


   1. First, in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God,

   whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. To them,

   indeed, I very little doubt it is new, as Christ is new, and the Gospel

   new; but those who are acquainted with the old saying of Paul, that

   Christ Jesus "died for our sins, and rose again for our justification"

   (Rom. 4:25), will not detect any novelty in us. That it long lay buried

   and unknown is the guilty consequence of man's impiety; but now when,

   by the kindness of God, it is restored to us, it ought to resume its

   antiquity just as the returning citizen resumes his rights.


   2. It is owing to the same ignorance that they hold it to be doubtful

   and uncertain; for this is the very thing of which the Lord complains

   by his prophet, "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's

   crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider" (Isaiah

   1:3). But however they may sport with its uncertainty, had they to seal

   their own doctrine with their blood, and at the expense of life, it

   would be seen what value they put upon it. Very different is our

   confidence--a confidence which is not appalled by the terrors of death,

   and therefore not even by the judgment--seat of God.


   3. In demanding miracles from us, they act dishonestly; for we have not

   coined some new gospel, but retain the very one the truth of which is

   confirmed by all the miracles which Christ and the apostles ever

   wrought. But they have a peculiarity which we have not--they can

   confirm their faith by constant miracles down to the present day! Way

   rather, they allege miracles which might produce wavering in minds

   otherwise well disposed; they are so frivolous and ridiculous, so vain

   and false. But were they even exceedingly wonderful, they could have no

   effect against the truth of God, whose name ought to be hallowed

   always, and everywhere, whether by miracles, or by the natural course

   of events. The deception would perhaps be more specious if Scripture

   did not admonish us of the legitimate end and use of miracles. Mark

   tells us (Mark 16:20) that the signs which followed the preaching of

   the apostles were wrought in confirmation of it; so Luke also relates

   that the Lord "gave testimony to the word of his grace, and granted

   signs and wonders to be done" by the hands of the apostles (Acts 14:3).

   Very much to the same effect are those words of the apostle, that

   salvation by a preached gospel was confirmed, "The Lord bearing witness

   with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles" (Heb. 2:4). Those

   things which we are told are seals of the gospel, shall we pervert to

   the subversion of the gospel? What was destined only to confirm the

   truth, shall we misapply to the confirmation of lies? The proper

   course, therefore, is, in the first instance, to ascertain and examine

   the doctrine which is said by the Evangelist to precede; then after it

   has been proved, but not till then, it may receive confirmation from

   miracles. But the mark of sound doctrine given by our Saviour himself

   is its tendency to promote the glory not of men, but of God (John 7:18;

   8:50). Our Saviour having declared this to be test of doctrine, we are

   in error if we regard as miraculous, works which are used for any other

   purpose than to magnify the name of God. [13] And it becomes us to

   remember that Satan has his miracles, which, although they are tricks

   rather than true wonders, are still such as to delude the ignorant and

   unwary. Magicians and enchanters have always been famous for miracles,

   and miracles of an astonishing description have given support to

   idolatry: these, however, do not make us converts to the superstitions

   either of magicians or idolaters. In old times, too, the Donatists used

   their power of working miracles as a battering-ram, with which they

   shook the simplicity of the common people. We now give to our opponents

   the answer which Augustine then gave to the Donatists (in Joan. Tract.

   23), "The Lord put us on our guard against those wonder--workers, when

   he foretold that false prophets would arise, who, by lying signs and

   divers wonders, would, if it were possible, deceive the very elect"

   (Mt. 24:24). Paul, too, gave warning that the reign of antichrist would

   be "withall power, and signs, and lying wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9).


   But our opponents tell us that their miracles are wrought not by idols,

   not by sorcerers, not by false prophets, but by saints: as if we did

   not know it to be one of Satan's wiles to transform himself "into an

   angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14). The Egyptians, in whose neighbourhood

   Jeremiah was buried, anciently sacrificed and paid other divine honours

   to him (Hieron. in Praef. Jerem). Did they not make an idolatrous abuse

   of the holy prophet of God? and yet, in recompense for so venerating

   his tomb, they thought [14] that they were cured of the bite of

   serpents. What, then, shall we say but that it has been, and always

   will be, a most just punishment of God, to send on those who do not

   receive the truth in the love of it, "strong delusion, that they should

   believe a lie"? (2 Thess. 2:11). We, then, have no lack of miracles,

   sure miracles, that cannot be gainsaid; but those to which our

   opponents lay claim are mere delusions of Satan, inasmuch as they draw

   off the people from the true worship of God to vanity.


   4. It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean

   the ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters

   of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to

   speak in the most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would

   be ours. [15] While there is much that is admirable and wise in the

   writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with

   them as with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the

   peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs

   to them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which

   are well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt; so that it

   may be truly said their only care has been to gather dross among gold.

   Then, with dishonest clamour, they assail us as enemies and despisers

   of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if this were

   the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater

   part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages. Still, in

   studying their writings, we have endeavoured to remember (1 Cor.

   3:21-23; see also Augustin. Ep. 28), that all things are ours, to

   serve, not lord it over us, but that we axe Christ's only, and must

   obey him in all things without exception. He who does not draw this

   distinction will not have any fixed principles in religion; for those

   holy men were ignorant of many things, are often opposed to each other,

   and are sometimes at variance with themselves.


   It is not without cause (remark our opponents) we are thus warned by

   Solomon, "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set"

   (Prov. 22:28). But the same rule applies not to the measuring of fields

   and the obedience of faith. The rule applicable to the latter is,

   "Forget also thine own people, and thy father's house" (Ps. 45:10). But

   if they are so fond of allegory, why do they not understand the

   apostles, rather than any other class of Fathers, to be meant by those

   whose landmarks it is unlawful to remove? This is the interpretation of

   Jerome, whose words they have quoted in their canons. But as regards

   those to whom they apply the passage, if they wish the landmarks to be

   fixed, why do they, whenever it suits their purpose, so freely overleap



   Among the Fathers there were two, the one of whom said, [16] "Our God

   neither eats nor drinks, and therefore has no need of chalices and

   salvers;" and the other [17] "Sacred rites do not require gold, and

   things which are not bought with gold, please not by gold." They step

   beyond the boundary, therefore, when in sacred matters they are so much

   delighted with gold, driver, ivory, marble, gems, and silks, that

   unless everything is overlaid with costly show, or rather insane luxury

   [18] , they think God is not duly worshipped.


   It was a Father who said, [19] "He ate flesh freely on the day on which

   others abstained from it, because he was a Christian." They overleap

   the boundaries, therefore, when they doom to perdition every soul that,

   during Lent, shall have tasted flesh.


   There were two Fathers, the one of whom said, [20] "A monk not

   labouring with his own hands is no better than a violent man and a

   robber;" and the other, [21] "Monks, however assiduous they may be in

   study, meditation, and prayer, must not live by others." This boundary,

   too, they transgressed, when they placed lazy gormandising monks in

   dens and stews, to gorge themselves on other men's substance.


   It was a Father who said, [22] "It is a horrid abomination to see in

   Christian temples a painted image either of Christ or of any saint."

   Nor was this pronounced by the voice era single individual; but an

   Ecclesiastical Council also decreed, [23] "Let nought that is

   worshipped be depicted on walls." [24] Very far are they from keeping

   within these boundaries when they leave not a corner without images.


   Another Father counselled, [25] "That after performing the office of

   humanity to the dead in their burial, we should leave them at rest."

   These limits they burst through when they keep up a perpetual anxiety

   about the dead.


   It is a Father who testifies, [26] "That the substance of bread and

   wine in the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature

   and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus

   Christ." This boundary they pass in pretending that, as soon as the

   words of our Lord are pronounced, the substance of bread and wine

   ceases, and is transubstantiated into body and blood.


   They were Fathers, who, as they exhibited only one Eucharist to the

   whole Church, [27] and kept back from it the profane and flagitious; so

   they, in the severest terms, censured all those [28] who, being

   present, did not communicate How far have they removed these landmarks,

   in filling not churches only, but also private houses, with their

   masses, admitting all and sundry to be present, each the more willingly

   the more largely he pays, however wicked and impure he may be,--not

   inviting any one to faith in Christ and faithful communion in the

   sacraments, but rather vending their own work for the grace and merits

   of Christ! [29]


   There were two Fathers, the one of whom decided that those were to be

   excluded altogether from partaking of Christ's sacred supper, [30] who,

   contented with communion in one kind, abstained from the other; while

   the other Father strongly contends [31] that the blood of the Lord

   ought not to be denied to the Christian people, who, in confessing him,

   are enjoined to shed their own blood. These landmarks, also, they

   removed, when, by an unalterable law, they ordered the very thing which

   the former Father punished with excommunication, and the latter

   condemned for a valid reason.


   It was a Father who pronounced it rashness, [32] in an obscure

   question, to decide in either way without clear and evident authority

   from Scripture. They forgot this landmark when they enacted so many

   constitutions, so many canons, and so many dogmatical decisions,

   without sanction from the word of God.


   It was a Father who reproved Montanus, among other heresies, [33] for

   being the first who imposed laws of fasting. They have gone far beyond

   this landmark also in enjoining fasting under the strictest laws.


   It was a Father who denied [34] that the ministers of the Church should

   be interdicted from marrying, and pronounced married life to be a state

   of chastity; and there were other Fathers who assented to his decision.

   These boundaries they overstepped in rigidly binding their priests to



   It was a Father who thought [35] that Christ only should be listened

   to, from its being said, "hear him;" and that regard is due not to what

   others before us have said or done, but only to what Christ, the head

   of all, has commanded. This landmark they neither observe themselves

   nor allow to be observed by others, while they subject themselves and

   others to any master whatever, rather than Christ.


   There is a Father who contends [36] that the Church ought not to prefer

   herself to Christ, who always judges truly, whereas ecclesiastical

   judges, who are but men, are generally deceived. Having burst through

   this barrier also, they hesitate not to suspend the whole authority of

   Scripture on the judgment of the Church. [37]


   All the Fathers with one heart execrated, and with one mouth protested

   [38] against, contaminating the word of God with the subtleties

   sophists, and involving it in the brawls of dialecticians. Do they keep

   within these limits when the sole occupation of their lives is to

   entwine and entangle the simplicity of Scripture with endless disputes,

   and worse than sophistical jargon? So much so, that were the Fathers to

   rise from their graves, and listen to the brawling art which bears the

   name of speculative theology, there is nothing they would suppose it

   less to be than a discussion of a religious nature.


   But my discourse would far exceed its just limits were I to show, in

   detail, how petulantly those men shake off the yoke of the Fathers,

   while they wish to be thought their most obedient sons. Months, nay,

   years would fail me; and yet so deplorable and desperate is their

   effrontery, that they presume to chastise us for overstepping the

   ancient landmarks!


   5. Then, again, it is to no purpose they call us to the bar of custom.

   To make everything yield to custom would be to do the greatest

   injustice. Were the judgments of mankind correct, custom would be

   regulated by the good. But it is often far otherwise in point of fact;

   for, whatever the many are seen to do, forthwith obtains the force of

   custom. But human affairs have scarcely ever been so happily

   constituted as that the better course pleased the greater number. Hence

   the private vices of the multitude have generally resulted in public

   error, or rather that common consent in vice which these worthy men

   would have to be law. Any one with eyes may perceive that it is not one

   flood of evils which has deluged us; that many fatal plagues have

   invaded the globe; that all things rush headlong; so that either the

   affairs of men must be altogether despaired of, or we must not only

   resist, but boldly attack prevailing evils. The cure is prevented by no

   other cause than the length of time during which we have been

   accustomed to the disease. But be it so that public error must have a

   place in human society, still, in the kingdom of God, we must look and

   listen only to his eternal truth, against which no series of years, no

   custom, no conspiracy, can plead prescription. Thus Isaiah formerly

   taught the people of God, "Say ye not, A confederacy, to all to whom

   this people shall say, A confederacy;" i.e. do not unite with the

   people in an impious consent; "neither fear ye their fear, nor be

   afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear,

   and let him be your dread" (Is. 8:12). Now, therefore, let them, if

   they will, object to us both past ages and present examples; if we

   sanctify the Lord of hosts, we shall not be greatly afraid. Though many

   ages should have consented to like ungodliness, He is strong who taketh

   vengeance to the third and fourth generation; or the whole world should

   league together in the same iniquity. He taught experimentally what the

   end is of those who sin with the multitude, when He destroyed the whole

   human race with a flood, saving Noah with his little family, who, by

   putting his faith in Him alone, "condemned the world" (Heb. 11:7). In

   short, depraved custom is just a kind of general pestilence in which

   men perish not the less that they fall in a crowd. It were well,

   moreover, to ponder the observation of Cyprian, [39] that those who sin

   in ignorance, though they cannot be entirely exculpated, seem, however,

   to be, in some sense, excusable; whereas those who obstinately reject

   the truth, when presented to them by the kindness of God, have no

   defence to offer. [40]


   6. Their dilemma does not push us so violently as to oblige us to

   confess, either that the Church was a considerable time without life,

   or that we have now a quarrel with the Church. The Church of Christ

   assuredly has lived, and will live, as long as Christ shall reign at

   the right hand of the Father. By his hand it is sustained, by his

   protection defended, by his mighty power preserved in safety. For what

   he once undertook he will undoubtedly perform, he will be with his

   people always, "even to the end of the world" (Mt. 28:20). With the

   Church we wage no war, since, with one consent, in common with the

   whole body of the faithful, we worship and adore one God, and Christ

   Jesus the Lord, as all the pious have always adored him. But they

   themselves err not a little from the truth in not recognising any

   church but that which they behold with the bodily eye, and in

   endeavouring to circumscribe it by limits, within which it cannot be



   The hinges on which the controversy turns are these: first, in their

   contending that the form of the Church is always visible and apparent;

   and, secondly, in their placing this form in the see of the Church of

   Rome and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, maintain, both that the

   Church may exist without any apparent form, and, moreover, that the

   form is not ascertained by that external splendour which they foolishly

   admire, but by a very different mark, namely, by the pure preaching of

   the word of God, and the due administration of the sacraments. They

   make an outcry whenever the Church cannot be pointed to with the

   finger. But how oft was it the fate of the Church among the Jews to be

   so defaced that no comeliness appeared? What do we suppose to have been

   the splendid form when Elijah complained that he was left alone? (1

   Kings 19:14). How long after the advent of Christ did it lie hid

   without form? How often since has it been so oppressed by wars,

   seditions, and heresies, that it was nowhere seen in splendour? Had

   they lived at that time, would they have believed there was any Church?

   But Elijah learned that there remained seven thousand men who had not

   bowed the knee to Baal; nor ought we to doubt that Christ has always

   reigned on earth ever since he ascended to heaven. Had the faithful at

   that time required some discernible form, must they not have forthwith

   given way to despondency? And, indeed, Hilary accounted it a very great

   fault in his day, that men were so possessed with a foolish admiration

   of Episcopal dignity as not to perceive the deadly hydra lurking under

   that mask. His words are (Cont. Auxentium), "One advice I give: Beware

   of Antichrist; for, unhappily, a love of walls has seized you;

   unhappily, the Church of God which you venerate exists in houses and

   buildings; unhappily, under these you find the name of peace. Is it

   doubtful that in these Antichrist will have his seat? Safer to me are

   mountains, and woods, and lakes, and dungeons, and whirlpools; since in

   these prophets, dwelling or immersed, did prophesy."


   And what is it at the present day that the world venerates in its

   horned bishops, unless that it imagines those who are seen presiding

   over celebrated cities to be holy prelates of religion? Away, then,

   with this absurd mode of judging! [41] Let us rather reverently admit,

   that as God alone knows who are his, so he may sometimes withdraw the

   external manifestation of his Church from the view of men. This, I

   allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the

   wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just

   vengeance of God? [42] It was thus that God, in past ages, punished the

   ingratitude of men; for after they had refused to obey his truth, and

   had extinguished his light, he allowed them, when blinded by sense,

   both to be deluded by lying vanities and plunged in thick darkness, so

   that no face of a true Church appeared. Meanwhile, however, though his

   own people were dispersed and concealed amidst errors and darkness, he

   saved them from destruction. No wonder; for he knew how to preserve

   them even in the confusion of Babylon and the flame of the fiery



   But as to the wish that the form of the Church should be ascertained by

   some kind of vain pomp, how perilous it is I will briefly indicate,

   rather than explain, that I may not exceed all bounds. What they say

   is, that the Pontiff, [43] who holds the apostolic see, and the priests

   who are anointed and consecrated by him, [44] provided they have the

   insignia of fillets and mitres, represent the Church, and ought to be

   considered as in the place of the Church, and therefore cannot err. Why

   so? because they are pastors of the Church, and consecrated to the

   Lord. And were not Aaron and other prefects of Israel pastors? But

   Aaron and his sons, though already set apart to the priesthood, erred

   notwithstanding when they made the calf (Exod. 32:4). Why, according to

   this view, should not the four hundred prophets who lied to Ahab

   represent the Church? (1 Kings 22:11, &c.). The Church, however, stood

   on the side of Micaiah. He was alone, indeed, and despised, but from

   his mouth the truth proceeded. Did not the prophets also exhibit both

   the name and face of the Church, when, with one accord, they rose up

   against Jeremiah, and with menaces boasted of it as a thing impossible

   that the law should perish from the priest, or counsel from the wise,

   or the word from the prophet? (Jer. 18:18). In opposition to the whole

   body of the prophets, Jeremiah is sent alone to declare from the Lord

   (Jer. 4:9), that a time would come when the law would perish from the

   priest, counsel from the wise, and the word from the prophet. Was not

   like splendour displayed in that council when the chief priests,

   scribes, and Pharisees assembled to consult how they might put Jesus to

   death? Let them go, then, and cling to the external mask, while they

   make Christ and all the prophets of God schismatics, and, on the other

   hand, make Satan's ministers the organs of the Holy Spirit!


   But if they are sincere, let them answer me in good faith,--in what

   place, and among whom, do they think the Church resided, after the

   Council of Basle degraded and deposed Eugenius from the popedom, and

   substituted Amadeus in his place? Do their utmost, they cannot deny

   that that Council was legitimate as far as regards external forms, and

   was summoned not only by one Pontiff, but by two. Eugenius, with the

   whole herd of cardinals and bishops who had joined him in plotting the

   dissolution of the Council, was there condemned of contumacy,

   rebellion, and schism. Afterwards, however, aided by the favour of

   princes, he got back his popedom safe. The election of Amadeus, duly

   made by the authority of a general holy synod, went to smoke; only he

   himself was appeased with a cardinal's cap, like a piece of offal

   thrown to a barking dog. Out of the lap of these rebellious and

   contumacious schismatics proceeded all future popes, cardinals,

   bishops, abbots, and presbyters. Here they are caught, and cannot

   escape. For, on which party will they bestow the name of Church? Will

   they deny it to have been a general Council, though it lacked nothing

   as regards external majesty, having been solemnly called by two bulls,

   consecrated by the legate of the Roman See as its president,

   constituted regularly in all respects, and continuing in possession of

   all its honours to the last? Will they admit that Eugenius, and his

   whole train, through whom they have all been consecrated, were

   schismatical? Let them, then, either define the form of the Church

   differently, or, however numerous they are, we will hold them all to be

   schismatics in having knowingly and willingly received ordination from

   heretics. But had it never been discovered before that the Church is

   not tied to external pomp, we are furnished with a lengthened proof in

   their own conduct, in proudly vending themselves to the world under the

   specious title of Church, notwithstanding that they are the deadly

   pests of the Church. I speak not of their manners and of those tragical

   atrocities with which their whole life teems, since it is said that

   they are Pharisees who should be heard, not imitated. By devoting some

   portion of your leisure to our writings, you will see, not obscurely,

   that their doctrine--the very doctrine to which they say it is owing

   that they are the Church--is a deadly murderer of souls, the firebrand,

   ruin, and destruction of the Church.


   7. Lastly, they are far from candid when they invidiously number up the

   disturbances, tumults, and disputes, which the preaching of our

   doctrine has brought in its train, and the fruits which, in many

   instances, it now produces; for the doctrine itself is undeservedly

   charged with evils which ought to be ascribed to the malice of Satan.

   It is one of the characteristics of the divine word, that whenever it

   appears, Satan ceases to slumber and sleep. This is the surest and most

   unerring test for distinguishing it from false doctrines which readily

   betray themselves, while they are received by all with willing ears,

   and welcomed by an applauding world. Accordingly, for several ages,

   during which all things were immersed in profound darkness, almost all

   mankind [45] were mere jest and sport to the god of this world, who,

   like any Sardanapalus, idled and luxuriated undisturbed. For what else

   could he do but laugh and sport while in tranquil and undisputed

   possession of his kingdom? But when light beaming from above somewhat

   dissipated the darkness--when the strong man arose and aimed a blow at

   his kingdom--then, indeed, he began to shake off his wonted torpor, and

   rush to arms. And first he stirred up the hands of men, that by them he

   might violently suppress the dawning truth; but when this availed him

   not, he turned to snares, exciting dissensions and disputes about

   doctrine by means of his Catabaptists, and other portentous miscreants,

   that he might thus obscure, and, at length, extinguish the truth. And

   now he persists in assailing it with both engines, endeavouring to

   pluck up the true seed by the violent hand of man, and striving, as

   much as in him lies, to choke it with his tares, that it may not grow

   and bear knit. But it will be in vain, if we listen to the admonition

   of the Lord, who long ago disclosed his wiles, that we might not be

   taken unawares, and armed us with full protection against all his

   machinations. But how malignant to throw upon the word of God itself

   the blame either of the seditions which wicked men and rebels, or of

   the sects which impostors stir up against it! The example, however, is

   not new. Elijah was interrogated whether it were not he that troubled

   Israel. Christ was seditious, according to the Jews; and the apostles

   were charged with the crime of popular commotion. What else do those

   who, in the present day, impute to us all the disturbances, tumults,

   and contentions which break out against us? Elijah, however, has taught

   us our answer (1 Kings 18:17, 18). It is not we who disseminate errors

   or stir up tumults, but they who resist the mighty power of God.


   But while this single answer is sufficient to rebut the rash charges of

   these men, it is necessary, on the other hand, to consult for the

   weakness of those who take the alarm at such scandals, and not

   unfrequently waver in perplexity. But that they may not fall away in

   this perplexity, and forfeit their good degree, let them know that the

   apostles in their day experienced the very things which now befall us.

   There were then unlearned and unstable men who, as Peter tells us (2

   Pet. 3:16), wrested the inspired writings of Paul to their own

   destruction. There were despisers of God, who, when they heard that sin

   abounded in order that grace might more abound, immediately inferred,

   "We will continue in sin that grace may abound" (Rom. 6:1); when they

   heard that believers were not under the law, but under grace, forthwith

   sung out, "We will sin because we are not under the law, but under

   grace" (Rom. 6:15). There were some who charged the apostle with being

   the minister of sin. Many false prophets entered in privily to pull

   down the churches which he had reared. Some preached the gospel through

   envy and strife, not sincerely (Phil. 1:15)--maliciously even--thinking

   to add affliction to his bonds. Elsewhere the gospel made little

   progress. All sought their own, not the things which were Jesus

   Christ's. Others went back like the dog to his vomit, or the sow that

   was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Great numbers perverted their

   spiritual freedom to carnal licentiousness. False brethren crept in to

   the imminent danger of the faithful. Among the brethren themselves

   various quarrels arose. What, then, were the apostles to do? Were they

   either to dissemble for the time, or rather lay aside and abandon that

   gospel which they saw to be the seed--bed of so many strifes, the

   source of so many perils, the occasion of so many scandals? In straits

   of this kind, they remembered that "Christ was a stone of stumbling,

   and a rock of offence," "set up for the fall and rising again of many,"

   and "for a sign to be spoken against" (Luke 2:34); and, armed with this

   assurance, they proceeded boldly through all perils from tumults and

   scandals. It becomes us to be supported by the same consideration,

   since Paul declares that it is a neverfailing characteristic of the

   gospel to be a "savour of death unto death in them that perish" (2 Cor.

   2:16), although rather destined to us for the purpose of being a savour

   of life unto life, and the power of God for the salvation of believers.

   This we should certainly experience it to be, did we not by our

   ingratitude corrupt this unspeakable gift of God, and turn to our

   destruction what ought to be our only saving defence. [46]


   But to return, Sire. [47] Be not moved by the absurd insinuations with

   which our adversaries are striving to frighten you into the belief that

   nothing else is wished and aimed at by this new gospel (for so they

   term it), than opportunity for sedition and impunity for all kinds of

   vice. Our God [48] is not the author of division, but of peace; and the

   Son of God, who came to destroy the works of the devil, is not the

   minister of sin. We, too, are undeservedly charged with desires of a

   kind for which we have never given even the smallest suspicion. We,

   forsooth, meditate the subversion of kingdoms; we, whose voice was

   never heard in faction, and whose life, while passed under you, is

   known to have been always quiet and simple; even now, when exiled from

   our home, we nevertheless cease not to pray for all prosperity to your

   person and your kingdom. We, forsooth, are aiming after an unchecked

   indulgence in vice, in whose manners, though there is much to be

   blamed, there is nothing which deserves such an imputation; nor (thank

   God) have we profited so little in the gospel that our life may not be

   to these slanderers an example of chastity, kindness, pity, temperance,

   patience, moderation, or any other virtue. It is plain, indeed, that we

   fear God sincerely, and worship him in truth, since, whether by life or

   by death, we desire his name to be hallowed; and hatred herself has

   been forced to bear testimony to the innocence and civil integrity of

   some of our people on whom death was inflicted for the very thing which

   deserved the highest praise. But if any, under pretext of the gospel,

   excite tumults (none such have as yet been detected in your realm), if

   any use the liberty of the grace of God as a cloak for licentiousness

   (I know of numbers who do), there are laws and legal punishments by

   which they may be punished up to the measure of their deserts--only, in

   the mean time, let not the gospel of God be evil spoken of because of

   the iniquities of evil men.


   Sire, [49] That you may not lend too credulous an ear to the

   accusations of our enemies, their virulent injustice has been set

   before you at sufficient length; I fear even more than sufficient,

   since this preface has grown almost to the bulk of a full apology. My

   object, however, was not to frame a defence, but only with a view to

   the hearing of our cause, to mollify your mind, now indeed turned away

   and estranged from us--I add, even inflamed against us--but whose good

   will, we are confident, we should regain, would you but once, with

   calmness and composure, read this our Confession, which we desire your

   Majesty to accept instead of a defence. But if the whispers of the

   malevolent so possess your ear, that the accused are to have no

   opportunity of pleading their cause; if those vindictive furies, with

   your connivance, are always to rage with bonds, scourgings, tortures,

   maimings, and burnings, we, indeed, like sheep doomed to slaughter,

   shall be reduced to every extremity; yet so that, in our patience, we

   will possess our souls, and wait for the strong hand of the Lord,

   which, doubtless, will appear in its own time, and show itself armed,

   both to rescue the poor from affliction, and also take vengeance on the

   despisers, who are now exulting so securely. [50]


   Most illustrious King, may the Lord, the King of kings, establish your

   throne in righteousness, and your sceptre in equity.


   Basle, 1st August 1536.



   [1] In the last edition by Calvin, the words are, as here translated,

   simply, "Principi suo." In the edition published at Basle in 1536, the

   words are, "Principi ac Domino suo sibiobservando."


   [2] Ed. 1536. "In Domino."


   [3] "Modesti homines," not in Ed. 1536.


   [4] "Quam norunt," not in Ed. 1536.


   [5] The words, "Quorum ingenium non adeo despicabile Christi fuisse

   vident," not in Ed. 1536.


   [6] The words stand thus in the Ed. 1536: "Qua salvi nullo nostro

   merito facti sumus."


   [7] "Non ita multum," not in Ed. 1536.


   [8] "Cum nutu," not in Ed. 1536.


   [9] The only word in the Ed. 1536 after "free will," is "merita."


   [10] "Ut aiunt," not in Ed. 1536.


   [11] No part of this sentence from "provided" is in the Ed. 1536.


   [12] "Tam licenter quam impune," not in Ed. 1536.


   [13] No part of the passage, beginning above, "The deception," &c., is

   in Ed. 1536.


   [14] Instead of "thought they were cured," the Ed. 1536 says simply,

   "they were cured" (curarentur).


   [15] "Ut modestissime etiam loquar," not in the Ed. 1536.


   [16] i. Acatius in lib. 11 cap 16, F. Triport. Hist.


   [17] ii. Ambr. lib. 2. De Officiis, cap. 28.


   [18] Instead of the words here translated--viz. "exquisito splendore

   vel potius insanc luxu," the Ed. 1536 has only the word "luxu."


   [19] iii. Spiridion. Trip. Hist. lib. 1 cap. 10.


   [20] iv. Trip. Hist. lib. 8 cap 1


   [21] August. De Opere Monach cap 7


   [22] vi. Epiph. Epist. ab Hieron. versa


   [23] vii. Conc. Elibert. can. 36.


   [24] No part of this sentence is in Ed. 1536.


   [25] viii. Ambr de Abraha. lib. i c. 7


   [26] ix. Gelasius Papa in Conc. Rom.


   [27] x. Chrys. in 1. cap. Ephes.


   [28] xi. Calixt. Papa, De Consecrat. dist. 2


   [29] Instead of the whole passage, beginning at bottom of p. 11, "It is

   a Father who testifies," &c., the Ed. 1536 has the following sentence:

   "Ex patribus erat qui negavit in sacramento coenae esse verum corpus

   sed mysterium duntaxat corporis; sic enim ad verbum loquitur." On the

   margin, reference is made to the author of an unfinished Tract on

   Matthew, forming the 11th Homil. among the works of Chrysostom.


   [30] xii. Gelas. can. Comperimus, De Consec. dist. 2.


   [31] xiii. Cypr. Epist. 2, lib. 1. De Lapsis.


   [32] xiv. August. lib. 2 De Peccat. Mer. cap. uit.


   [33] xv. Apollon. De quo Eccles. Hist. lib 5 cap. 12.


   [34] xvi. Paphnut. Tripart. Hist. lib. 2 cap. 14.


   [35] xvii. Cypr. Epist. 2, lib. 2


   [36] xviii. Aug. cap. 2, Cont. Cresconium Grammat.


   [37] No part of this passage is in Ed. 1536.


   [38] xix. Calv. De Scholast. Doctor. Judicium. Vid. Book II. cap. 2

   sec. 6; Book III. cap. 4 sec. 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 26-29; Book III. cap. 11

   sec. 14, 15; Book IV. cap. 18 sec. 1; and cap. 19 sec. 10, 11, 22, 23.


   [39] Epist. 3, lib. 2; et in Epist ad Julian. De Haeret. Baptiz.


   [40] No part of this sentence is in ed. 1536.


   [41] No part of the passage beginning above is in the Ed. 1536.


   [42] In the last Ed., "justae Dei ultionis:" in Ed. 1536, "divinae



   [43] "Papa Romanus," in the Ed. 1536.


   [44] Instead of the words, "qui ab eo instites inuncti et consecrati,

   infulis modo et lituis insigniti sunt," the Ed. 1536 has only "episcopi



   [45] For "cuncti fere mortales" the Ed. 1536 has only "homines."


   [46] Instead of the concluding part of the sentence beginning "though

   rather," &c., and stopping at the reference, the Ed. 1536 simply

   continues the quotation "odor vitae in vitam iis qui salvi sunt."


   [47] Instead of "Rex" simply, the E. 1536 has "magnanime Rex."


   [48] Instead of "Deus noster," the Ed. 1536 has only "Deus."


   [49] In Ed. 1536, "Rex magnificentissime"


   [50] The words, "qui tanta securitate nunc exsultant," not in Ed. 1536.

No comments: