can no longer refrain from openly taking the field against these men’s perversity. I wished also to remind the grave and learned men, whose names have been used as a mask by these scoundrels, that it was their duty to see that this insolence do not gain ground. For not to mention that it becomes all pious men to bestir themselves to prevent the conflagration, which Satan is lighting, by means of these firebrands, from spreading wider, it certainly more peculiarly concerns the men I mention, than it does us, that the foolish ferment should be assuaged, which may boil over to the common disgrace of many churches. Ignorant and besotted men, while they are rekindling the Sacramentarian war, audaciously boast, in the very first pages of their books, that they are entering the lists for the whole of Saxony and the neighboring countries. While many lend credit to that assertion, some are drawn in by the pious respect which they
entertain for the Saxon churches; others ridicule these churches for
employing such illiterate and paltry advocates; others are surprised at the excessive forbearance of the saner party. But the impious and avowed enemies of Christ derive as much pleasure from our mutual bickerings, as prize-fighters do from the skirmishes of the fencing school. Since then all dissimulation is base, which leaves a free and unrestrained passage for so many evils, let learned and prudent men look to it, whether it be not incumbent on them to moderate those headstrong attacks, whence they see so much detriment accruing to the church. And since I desire that all who are not utterly intractable, or have not yet compromised themselves by too extravagant a conduct, should return quietly to their sober senses; nay, that no one should complain that the door is dosed against his repentance, I shall allude at some length but to one individual, and that too without naming him. He then, whoever he is, after having, in braggadocio style, professed himself the most valorous champion of the orthodox faith, avows for his teachers, great and distinguished men whom I love and venerate, and calls them in to his aid as auxiliaries. Lo, under what auspices he would engage the leading doctors of the church in a contest with us, that like bad scholars these should follow the rashness of their master, as soldiers placed behind the ranks for a body of reserve. But what kind of
enemies does he assign them to combat? Those to whom he gives indeed the name of Sacramentarians, but as he defines the word, it is evident that his attacks are directed against those who, in the bread of the Eucharist and the blood of Jesus Christ, recognize nothing but empty signs. If so it is, let this irregular and self-chosen warrior lay down his arms, and leave the field to legitimate and capable leaders. There are renowned churches among the Swiss, and the Grisons, among which ours also is reckoned. From among these at least some skillful chiefs will come forth, to lead the van, and will draw along with them a vast body of troops to support, not less valiantly than faithfully, in the defense of their just opinions, the brunt of this war.
For which of us does not maintain that there is something real, figured under the sacred symbols? But having thus preluded, while, enumerating one by one men against whom it is quite ridiculous to bring forward the accusations which he lays to their charge, he publicly produces the formulary of our agreement, in which the error he mentions is distinctly repudiated, can any thing be conceived more impudent or more
preposterous, than this man’s conduct? Nor need we rest the defense of our cause on any thing else, since he himself indeed quotes our own words in which we confess that in the Lord’s Supper the body of Christ is truly imparted to believers. What! When it is asserted that there is a true
imparting, is there nothing left but the bare and empty sign? There remains to him the pitiful subterfuge of a vain quibble: viz., that it is of a spiritual eating that we speak. Would he then have it to be a carnal one? But he does not think that we discern a real body; as if, forsooth, like him, and fellows of his sort, we conjured up a phantom instead of a body. We, on the contrary, when we know that there was but one sole body of Christ, which was offered up as a victim to reconcile us to God, assent at the same time that that very body is offered to us in the Lord’s Supper, because, in order that Christ may communicate to us the grace of the salvation which he has procured, it behooves that body first to be appropriated by us and the flesh of Christ to be made vivifying in us, since from it we derive spiritual life. For these very words we have employed in the summary of our consensus, of which he himself, citing certain passages, dishonestly and perfidiously dissembles this capital point. What! When he had premised that he would quote to the letter the things which had been published by us, by what right did he allow himself to detach violently the connected members of a sentence, for fear the full
signs which he mendaciously asserts to be denied by us. And this knave reproaches us with double dealing, asserting we delude the simple by our prolix disquisitions on spiritual manducation. As if in truth it were
possible for any one to manducate Christ spiritually, without having at the same time Christ abiding in him, without coalescing with Christ’s body, and living in it, which result again cannot take place, unless Christ himself, as he was once offered up as a sacrifice for us, do not exhibit himself to be enjoyed by us. Whence it follows, that his flesh is also vivifying. Having preluded thus pompously about the appearance of an error which he combats, he then strives to create hatred against us, for the discrepancies of our opinions. It is the property of heretics, he says, to differ from each other. Should I grant this, In what, I ask, does it apply to us? He answers, because according to some the bread signifies the body — to others it is a symbol, to a third party, a memorial, to another, a representation — some deem it a testimony or seal of communion, some a commemoration of his flesh delivered up for us, some an attestation which typifies spiritual grace, and others in fine hold it for a participation in his body. Who can fail to see that he is prevaricating? For these forms of expression, so aptly agreeing, form the highest eulogium that could be bestowed on our
consensus. And lest the bare enumeration of the words should appear rather obscure, this ingenious man has delineated in a chart this
discrepancy. But while he sees that in words Matthew differs still more from Paul, and Mark from Luke, of whom some call it the cup, others the blood of the testament, others a testament through blood; to solve this knotty point, he opposes to their differences our contradictions, not in words alone, but also in the sense. What then! Do the terms — sign, signification, figure, symbol, representation, convey a contradictory sense
— words that have so close an affinity, that by any one of them all the others are immediately suggested? And it is for reasons like these, that turbulent men, from the shores of the frozen ocean, cast about their
firebrands to involve all Europe in a conflagration. But what answer will he make respecting himself and his associates? Now he declares the words of Christ: that the bread is his body, to be clear of themselves and to stand in
need of no interpretation, and a moment after, he does not deny that in them there lurks a trope. Need I inquire with whom this madman is engaged in conflict who so directly crushes himself? But let him name at least the trope, which does not dispense us, he says, from taking the bread to mean the body in a proper sense. Assuredly every trope implies a departure from the literal meaning. Now, indeed, he is fairly caught, for, when laying down his own opinion, he dissents from many whom he calls heretics, it will be found that he himself is one of these heretics. Unless perhaps, that he alone should be exempted from this unlucky term of reproach, he will shew that the interpretation which he gives to this trope has been implicitly sanctioned by public and unanimous consent. But on this point he maintains a cautious silence, lest he should be found
pronouncing a judgment on a matter which is unknown. Add that in other passages he confesses that some of us make use of expressions equivalent to those employed by persons of unquestioned orthodoxy, but attach to them a different signification. Where then will be found that discrepancy in words, which alone makes heretics even of those, whose only reason for dissenting from others, is that they may not subscribe to errors? Stupid ass! what man does not see that the oxen of your country bellow more rationally than you speak? And yet I do not dissemble, that he afterwards collects divers opinions, which, though they are not in reality
irreconcilable, do nevertheless present a greater appearance of contradiction. But first, if an expression has dropt from any one
incidentally, he maliciously lays hold of it, as if it were a full definition;
next, when every man has, and should be allowed to have, his own way of expressing himself, he unfairly, not to say barbarously, imposes on all the necessity, not only of saying the same thing, but also in the same manner.
Does not St. Augustin, nay, does not St. Paul express the same idea, when he declares that we are all one bread? Another has said, that the memory of our redemption is celebrated in it, exactly indeed as we learn from St. Paul, and from the Son of God, the common Master of us all, that the intention of the Lord’s Supper is, that we should have a solemn announcement of his death. From this no one but some tragical Orestes would ever raise a tragedy. But granting that dissensions existed for some time, because the matter could not be sufficiently cleared up immediately in the beginning, was it pious or humane to tear up afresh a wound that was cicatrized?
Lest any variety should trouble pious readers, lo, our consensus is
that man of glorious memory, Martin Bucer, when he had read it, congratulated according to his piety, in a letter written to me, the whole church — and how much spite this knave according to his rancorous spirit bore to Bucer, is abundantly proved by his abuse of him. And indeed, not that I might retaliate his calumnies, but that instead of his foolish reproach I might re-establish the true argument, do I thus handle him. It is the property of the Devil to calumniate, whence also he derives his name; it is the property of the same to spread darkness over the light; it is the
property of the same, in fine, because he is the father of discord, to disturb the peace and violate the unity of the faith. When all these properties are openly recognized in that censor of ours, in what light he is to be viewed can be doubtful to no one. But, because it becomes us to labor to defend the cause of truth, and to cherish peace, with no less zeal than Satan plots for the overthrow of both, I have thought that something should be attempted in this affair, my very excellent, and truly to be honored brethren, that those who have hitherto been rather unmanageable might become perhaps more pliable, or, at least, that pious, grave, and moderate teachers should be directed to bring to reason hot-headed fellows of this sort. And, because the extreme conciseness of our former writing lays it open to the cavils of certain persons, nor does it entirely extirpate the doubts too deeply implanted in the minds of many, that no scruple should remain in them, the best method appeared to me to be, to explain our mind more fully, that the confession might be the same, but rendered clearer by greater copiousness of expression. The individual to whom I have but too often alluded, reproaches us with such a chaos of opinions, that no one understands another. But I believe that I am too well acquainted with the sentiments of you all, not to be confident that I have set down nothing here, but what every one of you would have written. For I do not arrogate to myself the privilege of dictating to you, or of taking the lead, but I profess to you my entire submission, on this condition, that according to your own judgment you shall decide whatever may be most expedient.
And this task I have undertaken with the greater confidence, that I had already experienced, and you had testified by an evident proof, that a
similar labor which with pious assiduity I had freely undertaken, received your approbation. Farewell, my best, and ever to be respected brethren.
May the Lord stand by you, govern you by his Spirit, and bless your labors. My colleagues respectfully salute you. f58 — Yours,
John Calvin.
[Lat. orig. autogr. — Arch. of Zurich. Gest. 6, 105, p. 601.]
TO JOHN PAULE.
f59INSTRUCTION RELATING TO THE MANNER OF CONFERRING BAPTISM.
11th October 1554.
Respecting the counsel which our well beloved brother John Paule has asked of us, we have judged it most proper to give an answer in writing, in order that all whom it may concern, may be more fully instructed
thereupon.
If there is a man living under the tyranny of the Pope, who, abstaining from the idolatries and pollution’s which there abound, desires at the same time to offer his children purely unto God, and have them baptized
according to the right rule of the gospel, his zeal is holy and praise-
worthy. For in reality it is great baseness when a treasure, such as children are, is granted by God, so soon as it has been bestowed to pollute it with the superstitions which men have mixed up with the holy ordinance of baptism. But since this sacrament is a solemn reception into the church of God, or rather a testimony of burghership in the heavenly city into which are enrolled all those whom God adopts for his children, above all things it is to be observed that it is not lawful to administer it except in the society of professed believers. Not that it is necessary to have a public temple, but assuredly it is indispensable that there should be a certain flock assembled, forming a body constituted as a church, and recognizing for its pastor, the person appointed to baptize. For should a child be baptized in private and without witnesses, the ceremony would in no wise correspond to the ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ, nor to the practice of the Apostles. It is then requisite that the child should be baptized in a society that keeps itself separate from the pollution’s of Popery.
When then the persons of whom we have heard shall have at their disposal such means, and shall be disposed to assemble in the name of God, though
they should form but a small flock, we pray God that he would fortify them in that virtuous zeal which he has bestowed on them to dedicate their offspring to God our Father, and to our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. When it shall be notified to us that such is the case, we shall take care, as in duty bound, to furnish them with a fit and proper person to discharge this office.
John Calvin.
In the name of all his brethren.
[Fr. copy. — Library of Geneva. Vol. 145.]
TO FAREL.
OPINION OF THE SWISS CHURCHES WITH REGARD TO THE CONSENSUS — SAD NEWS FROM FERRARA — ARRIVAL OF A
NEW MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF BUDE AT GENEVA.
GENEVA, 1st November 1554.
I am greatly delighted that you approve so heartily of the defense of our consensus. f60 I wish the inhabitants of Zurich may share your opinion.
But as I see that they are mollified, I am pretty nearly confident, that they will neither delay nor demur to subscribe. I shrewdly suspect the Bernese in their usual way will excuse themselves by alleging that they did not receive the permission of their senate; nor will timidity alone prevent them, but they will also abstain because they had rather foster in silence an obscure dissent, than communicate frankly to one another what they think. If we obtain however at Zurich what I expect, they will have to be urged even with importunity to give their adherence. It will then be your business to be instant with Bullinger, that he may extort something. I doubt not but we shall have the worthy Blaurer with us, and not only from his piety and learning be will subscribe to us, but from his singular courtesy, and excessive affection for me, he will also extol with eulogiums the feeble tract which you too have praised too liberally. Nothing will retard the inhabitants of Basle, except the bland temper of Sulzer, who takes a pleasure in caressing and coaxing everybody. But God will direct all these things. I do not know whether I wrote to you about the rumors with which the whole neighborhood resounded, of my being condemned for heresy; how, having dispatched John Fayre, we laid a sharp complaint before the Senate of Berne, and that then, indeed, the senate promised that they would take the matter into consideration. As yet however no answer has been sent back.
Of the Duchess of Ferrara we have sad tidings, and more certain than I could have wished. Overcome by threats and outrages she has fallen off.
What can I say, except that an example of constancy is rare among princes? A brother of our friend Bude, who was a groom of the
bedchamber to the King, has arrived here. Though he is a valetudinarian, he wishes nevertheless to pay you a visit ere long. In the mean time he
salutes you and his other friends very affectionately. About the trouble in the church of Strasbourg, we could not but be very anxious. To interfere with them, would not only be useless but hurtful, so I shall remain quiet.
Our colleague has not prefixed to an edition of the Catechism, the names of the brethren. He gives out that their number is so inconsiderable. I
intended to write by him respecting our affairs. Our enemies, unless we make head against them, are plotting — what I do not clearly foresee. The sluggishness of our own party, it is impossible to rouse.
Farewell, my most worthy brother, may the Lord always stand by you, sustain you by his strength, and govern you by his Spirit. — Yours,
John Calvin.
[Lat. orig. autogr. — Library of Geneva. Vol. 107 a.]